International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):241-251 (2007)
AbstractSome recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as religious morality. I consider the appeals to morality in the dissent and the ensuing confusion among commentators about the significance ofthis opinion. I review alternate readings of the Lawrence majority opinion, including proposals that it be considered from the perspectives of the ethicalframeworks of Locke, Mill, or Kant
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Religion and Business Ethics: The Lessons From Political Morality. [REVIEW]Timothy L. Fort - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (3):263-273.
The Figuring of Morality in Adjudication: Not so Special?Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov - 2011 - Ratio Juris 24 (3):284-303.
Morality, Religion, Spirituality—the Value of Saintliness.Lawrence J. Walker - 2003 - Journal of Moral Education 32 (4):373-384.
Adjudication in Action: An Ethnomethodology of Law, Morality and Justice.Baudouin Dupret - 2006 - Ashgate.
Genealogy of Morality and Law.José Antonio Marina - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (3):303-325.
The Biological Base of Morality?Paul R. Lawrence - 2004 - The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2004:59-79.
A Bedroom of One's Own: Law and Sexual Morality After Lawrence V. Texas.Marybeth Herald - manuscript