No Labels<\/a> of moral philosophy. The way those guys roll is basically the same: they start from some first principles that they don\u2019t feel like defending on philosophical grounds (like say the notion that a large federal deficit is worse for voters than the fact that many of them live in areas so impoverished they resemble third-world countries) and duck the issue entirely but just declaring their claims non-ideological and highly scientific.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nI\u2019m frustrated with this kind of behavior (particularly from No Labels and other similar political groups), but I\u2019ve been guilty of it in my own way. \u00a0I tend to defend absolute morality without much reference to what that morality entails, in part because I do think large swathes of it are accessible and universal. \u00a0Nonetheless, it\u2019s hard, as a friend recently pointed out to me, to have a clear idea of what I am defending.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not going to launch into an explanation\/defence of my complete and coherent moral theory, since I haven\u2019t got one, but I hope some case examples can help illuminate my philosophy. \u00a0Starting with a post this evening, I\u2019m returning to my promised series on marriage, particularly my partiality to covenant marriage<\/a>. \u00a0Hopefully, this will be a decent lens on my idea of moral choices.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-6638516929752006024?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"