Democratic debate has become a �lost art.

� Underlying America�s heated, often

shouted disputes about health care, income inequality, executive bonuses and Wall
Street bailouts are questions about what is good or right, and what is just. The
Greek philosopher Aristotle described justice as �giving people what they deserve.�
But deciding �who deserves what, and why� can divide opinions. Say you are
distributing flutes among a group. Who deserves the best instruments? Should you
decide by lottery or on a first-come-first-served basis? Or should you give the
best flutes to the finest musicians, as Aristotle believed? Some people reason that
this would provide �the greatest benefit to all�: Everyone would get to enjoy
superior music. Aristotle believed that the most talented flutists should receive
the first pick because flutes exist �to be played well�; that is, in determining
just distribution of something, people must first reason about its essence and
purpose.

It�s �very hard to argue about justice without first arguing about the purpose of
social institutions and about what qualities are worthy of honor and
recognition.��There is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with
moral questions in politics, that�s a recipe for disagreement, and for that matter,
a recipe for intolerance and coercion.�
Consider this case from the world of golf: Pro golfer Casey Martin had a disability
that made walking painful, so he requested the use of a golf cart during
tournaments. The Professional Golfers� Association deemed this an �unfair
advantage� and denied him permission. Martin sued, and the case reached the US
Supreme Court. The law requires accommodating those with disabilities so long as
�the accommodation does not change the essential nature of the activity.� Thus, the
nine justices had to reason about the essence of golf. Many pros, such as Arnold
Palmer, testified in the lower court that walking was essential to the sport�s
�fatigue factor.� But the Supreme Court disagreed. Deciding that the �essential
point of the game� was getting a ball into a hole using the fewest strokes, the
court ruled that Martin should have a golf cart. On the surface, this case revolved
around the cart, but it extended deeper. If the fairness of using a cart were the
only issue, the court could have granted use to all competitors. However, the
question was not only, �What is golf, essentially?� but, �What abilities are worthy
of honor and recognition as athletic talents?�

�A better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions
citizens bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their
deepest moral convictions outside politics.�
Similar questions feed the debate about whether states should recognize same-sex
marriage: What is the purpose of marriage? Which of its qualities deserve honoring?
Opponents believe that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and that laws
should honor this. Advocates believe that marriage is essentially a �lifelong,
mutual, loving commitment.� Though Americans tend to omit religious and moral
beliefs from political debates, these in fact belong in the foreground. Candidly
discussing these views builds �mutual respect,� not intolerance.

It�s �very hard to argue about justice without first arguing about the purpose of
social institutions and about what qualities are worthy of honor and recognition.�
�There is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with moral questions
in politics, that�s a recipe for disagreement, and for that matter, a recipe for
intolerance and coercion.�
�A better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions
citizens bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their
deepest moral convictions outside politics.�