Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key on your browser to go back to the page you were on.

The dominant American tradition in political philosophy is characterized as "liberal." In that tradition, the freedom of the individual to act is ordinarily given the benefit of the doubt. In theory the state is not to interfere unless there is good evidence that some right or an important, perhaps compelling, interest is at stake. What should the liberal state do if our experts disagree on such a basic issue as whether embryos have moral rights? Justice Blackmun seemed to feel that in the absence of an expert consensus the state should uphold individual liberty.

Yet the state routinely listens to experts who disagree among themselves and chooses one view as a basis for policy. (Economists are an obvious example.) Why should it not do so in the matter of rights and personhood? Is there a difference?