Citation

Jones RP. J. Soc. Christ. Ethics 2002; 22(2): 229-263.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, Society of Christian Ethics, Publisher Georgetown University Press)

DOI

10.5840/jsce20022212

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Liberals often view religion chiefly as "a problem" for democratic discourse in modern pluralistic societies and propose an allegedly neutral solution in the form of philosophical distinctions between "the right" and "the good" or populist invocations of a "right to choose." Drawing on cultural theory and ethnographic research among activists in the Oregon debates over the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, I demonstrate that liberal "neutrality" harbors its own cultural bias, flattens the complexity of public debates, and undermines liberalism's own commitments to equality. I conclude that the praiseworthy liberal goal of impartiality in policy decisions would best be met not by the inaccessible norm of neutrality but by a norm of inclusivity, which intentionally solicits multiple cultural perspectives.

Language: en

Keywords

Analytical Approach; Anthropology, Cultural; article; assisted suicide; cultural anthropology; Culture; Death and Euthanasia; Death with Dignity Act (Oregon); Democracy; human; Humans; Legal Approach; legal aspect; Legislation, Medical; management; medicolegal aspect; Oregon; philosophy; Philosophy; Policy Making; political system; politics; Politics; religion; Religion; Religious Approach; right to die; Right to Die; Suicide, Assisted; United States