CA Proposition 8: Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments
Reason number 1 for teaching basic philosophy and ethics in high school (yes, just replace a phys ed or home ec credit or something it can be done). Proposition 8 passed in CA. This officially writes discrimination into their state constitution. If it nullifies 10,000 marriages, it could have extremely detrimental affects to 20,000 people.
None of these things are acceptable. The fact that adults can make it to adulthood and not realize how unethical this voting choice was is astounding. We must immediately mandate a course in ethics to all high school students to prevent things like this from happening. How this could have helped:
Let’s look at what all the main ethical theories say about this.
Absolutism: I certainly hope that even if you subscribe to moral absolutism, that one of your “moral absolutes” is non-discrimination.
Relativism: Even if you hate homosexuals, you should realize that their are spheres of people who don’t. You should respect that and put your bias aside. Namely, if you don’t like gay marriages, then don’t have one. To write your opinion into the constitution is to break with the whole concept of relativism.
Egoism: Well, the egoist should probably just abstain from voting on this issue if he/she is not a homosexual, since it doesn’t affect them. Obviously, the homosexual egoist should vote agaisnt it.
Utilitarianism: As stated before, we look at the consequences of nullifying 10,000 marriages, and it is awful. I can’t see any effect on non-homosexuals, so these are the only consequences we need to consider.
Kant: Only act on a maxim you can wish to universalize. Hmmm…would I want to universalize non-discrimination. Uh, yes!
I’m tired of this, but I’m pretty certain that under NO ethical theory can writing discrimination into a constitution can be seen as ethical or moral behavior.
I like Melissa Ethridge’s response: she says she’s not going to pay her taxes since she no longer counts as a “full” citizen.
By: Perpetua on November 7, 2008
at 6:29 pm
Although I think Proposition 8 is childish politics, I think this specific post is a bit shallow.
One: How ‘potential’ of revenue loss? How much loss? Loss to whom? Does this outweigh or factor into outweighing other variables?
Two: Ethics taught in classrooms will inevitably result in abuse and bias. Will this be negligible? Is it provided for by the Constitution and other American values? What are some potential far-reaching consequences of teaching ethics in classrooms?
Three (Absolutism): I don’t ascribe to simple “non-discrimination” because it’s blind. How about avoid arbitrary and unfair discrimination? (Then again, I might be being anal about semantics here. I can never tell.)
Four (Relativism): Relativism does not mean anything goes – let others have their way. It’s more meta-ethical than ethical. Relativism, in and of itself, wouldn’t have anything to say on the matter.
Five (Egoism): I bet some left-leaning heterosexual politicians should vote against P8, and maybe some closet homosexual right-leaning politicians should vote for P8. There are extra shades involved…
Six (Utilitarianism): Of course there will be effects on non-homosexuals. That’s what just about every single anti-gay religious-apologetic blog on the web has been whining about: religious people and organizations will be discriminated against if gay marriage becomes acceptable and the “dissenters” are looked down upon.
Seven: “NO ethical theory”? Is that a sincere claim or rhetoric? (Again, I have trouble distinguishing.)
By: Brad on April 16, 2009
at 6:09 pm