As the new Australian Federal Government, freshly painted in Labor colours, busily abolished a whole range of laws and practices deemed discriminatory to homosexuals, the issue of gay marriage was never on the table. High quality ethical argument may be rare amongst western journalists, but two of the worst responses I heard made me shake my head.
On the airwaves: “If people don’t agree with gay marriage, the solution is quite simple: don’t marry someone who is gay”.
In print amongst the dailies: “Wouldn’t it have been simpler to have changed the Marriage Act, thereby granting equal rights to gay couples across all areas? Or is that too much like common sense?”
The first evidently believes that a person’s ethics do not belong in the public domain, but what you believe is simply to be applied in your own backyard. Ethics (should you choose to adopt them) are personal and private. It is fine to have them for yourself, but why foist them upon another? This is classic individualistic relativism.
The second takes the high ground, claiming ‘common sense’ was on her (as it happens) side. On this view, ‘marriage’ is simply something that gets you things, and if the definition of marriage means that some people aren’t getting the same things, change the definition. This is classic unprincipled (or anti-principled) pragmatism—or even functionalism.
Neither opinion can even spare the time to enter into a discussion of any principled objection. In fact, principles are ruled out from the beginning by simply being ignored.
But is it even worse than that? To ignore something means that you are aware of it being there, but you choose not to take any notice of it. The real worry about these two representatives of our intrepid ‘talking class’ is that they don’t show any sign that they know that good, well-thought out, principled objections even exist.
If they are choosing to ignore ethical arguments that have been integral to Western (and other) society for centuries, then this is certainly irresponsible journalism. Surely debate should be stimulated, not just shut down. But, if they are just oblivious to ethical argument, as they appear to be, have they any ability to think ethically at all?
And if our journalists can’t, can anyone?
