I'm Concerned About The Survival, Historically, Of

What's Important Is That People Give The Kinds Of Reasons That Can Be Understood And Appraised Apart From Their Particular Comprehensive Doctrines: For Example, That They Argue Against Physician-assisted Suicide Not Just By Speculating About God's Wrath Or The Afterlife, But By Talking About What They See As Assisted Suicide's Potential Injustices.

There Are Two Kinds Of Comprehensive Doctrines, Religious And Secular. Those Of Religious Faith Will Say I Give A Veiled Argument For Secularism, And The Latter Will Say I Give A Veiled Argument For Religion. I Deny Both. Each Side Presumes The Basic Ideas Of Constitutional Democracy, So My Suggestion Is That We Can Make Our Political Arguments In Terms Of Public Reason. Then We Stand On Common Ground. That's How We Can Understand Each Other And Cooperate.

The Intolerant Can Be Viewed As Free-riders, As Persons Who Seek The Advantages Of Just Institutions While Not Doing Their Share To Uphold Them.

A Comprehensive Doctrine, Either Religious Or Secular, Aspires To Cover All Of Life. I Mean, If It's A Religious Doctrine, It Talks About Our Relation To God And The Universe; It Has An Ordering Of All The Virtues, Not Only Political Virtues But Moral Virtues As Well, Including The Virtues Of Private Life, And The Rest. Now We May Feel Philosophically That It Doesn't Really Cover Everything, But It Aims To Cover Everything, And A Secular Doctrine Does Also.

Of Course, We Know That Not Everyone Agrees With Assisted Suicide, But People Might Agree That One Has The Right To It, Even If They're Not Themselves Going To Exercise It.