OPINION:
There is a fundamental flaw in Everett Piper’s argument in “The heart of Donald Trump and the immutable truth” (web, April 13).
While there is and always has been an ongoing struggle between moral relativism and objective moral truth, the question is not which should prevail, but rather, what role should government play in legislating morality in a free and democratic society.
The guiding principle should be that government restrictions and prohibitions regarding human behavior should be limited in all things, including questions of morality. The Founders understood that. It’s why they also implored the people to have a religious foundation to their lives.
Where morality and law coincide is not the result of encoding a moral stance for the purpose of instantiating that morality. It is for the purpose of deterring and providing reparations for actions that cause harm to others. We legally punish murder, theft, defamation and libel, property damage and injury.
Where there is no clear or universally accepted harm, there should be no law. In those cases, our moral consciences should guide us. This should be derived from a solid moral and ethical underpinning, hopefully from a spiritual system that defines good and evil and provides a code of conduct.
Abortion falls in this category, and Donald Trump’s stance is correct. Giving the choice to the states has the benefit of providing the opportunity to try different approaches to see what works best. And from that social laboratory hopefully — hopefully — emerges a common philosophy of governance that should, eventually, become the law of the land.
We aren’t there yet. Roe prevented this, and 50 years of chaos ensued. The clock has been rightfully reset. We need to move forward in search of a workable governance on abortion.
LOU BEFANO
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Please read our comment policy before commenting.