As I have argued here and here, übervalues (Bakernition: meta-ideals disconnected from rational scrutiny and grounding in the natural realm) are having their way with what we value.
Take this for instance. Although Vermont made the news today, less publicized was the uninamous vote by the Washington D.C. city council to recognize gay marriages solemnized elswhere. The vote has two additional hurdles to clear including approval by the US Congress.
Applauding the council’s move are the editors of the Washingon Post. In tomorrow’s editorial, Post editors trot out some powerful words like equality, common decency, rule of law, respect, and recognition to to show their support of same-sex marriage and by extension the DC council’s decision.
Take a moment to read the article. . . Did you notice, apart from that “rule of law” bit, that all of those warm and tingly nouns were. . . values? Since when is the “rule of law” or, heck, marriage, established on values?
One might be able to create and administer laws in order to foster equality, and that in itself may be a value. One may successfully restrain bigots, but one cannot force them to amend their interior life. Didn’t the sixties do away with decency? How does one legislate respect? And is recognition even an ideal?
What the editorial is suggesting, and apparently what many gullible people have swallowed, is that we need to create and administer laws that resist rational scrutiny and militate against the physical order of things.
In order to be nice.
I don’t get it. Do you?
