What's The Right Thing To Do?

Moral disagreement elicits different debate on whether there is a need to openly discuss such disagreement on the basis of political and legal contexts. However, people have been accustomed to ignoring discussing such disagreement with the assumption that by doing so, people are respecting fellow citizens and their religious and moral stands. In fact, Sandel (214) believes that such a behavior not only avoid disagreement but also suppress it. Public engagement means that people have to disagree on different grounds for stronger mutual respect. A problem tends to escalate if it is discovered but no efforts are made to solve it. When solving problems, moral disagreements take center stage but can be used to elucidate problems affecting all citizens regardless of their moral stands. In this, regard, it can be argued that the author is on point on this matter.

Some people might decide not to vote because their moral beliefs constrain them to do so. However, if they are confronted by other people who believe it is important for one to vote, there is a chance of discussing important points that need to be addressed by voting. This can change their minds and reconsider changing their minds. Conversely, perhaps the people refusing to vote could be having some points that make sense when they decide not to vote. If they discuss such issues with their counterparts, maybe the counterparts might also see sense in the reasoning of the other party and decide not to vote if the outcome of their action yields positive results. However, it is also healthy if the moral disagreement can still be discussed even if no part gets to be influenced by the other in buying their moral grounds.

Public discussion of moral disagreement can also involve listening and learning the opposing view with the intent of addressing an issue of public concern and not necessarily influencing people’s moral beliefs. Moral engagement has been argued to build a just society as opposed to politics of avoidance (214). When people discuss issues affecting them, the outcomes of the discussion brings about a fair decision where all parties have participated in the discussion. This is different from when decisions are made based on the fact that only a few people participated because others failed to be included in the discussion citing their moral beliefs. Therefore, even when the political decisions are made on this count, all citizens are affected in the same way regardless of the moral stand. In this regard, it can be argued that failure to have a public discussion on matters affecting the citizens leads to an unjust society. Democracy is all about engaging everyone in the decision-making process while the majority carries the day.

Conclusion

Public engagement means that people have to disagree on different grounds for stronger mutual respect. A problem tends to escalate if it is discovered but no efforts are made to solve it. . Moral engagement has been argued to build a just society as opposed to politics of avoidance. When people discuss issues affecting them, the outcomes of the discussion brings about a fair decision where all parties have participated in the discussion.

 

 

Work cited:

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. Print.

 

Hire Professional Writers and professors to write your essays or do your research :

1-Write My Essay  

2-Proofread My Essay

3-Research My Topic