An Inconsistent Attack

To the editors:

I wish to comment on several inconsistencies in Kenyon S.M. Weaver’s “The Salient’s True End” (Op-ed, May 21,).

First, Weaver claims that the use of philosophical methods to argue against homosexuality is foolish because philosophy can be used to justify just about anything.

By this reasoning, Weaver may as well dismiss any application of philosophy as worthless. Indeed, Weaver criticizes The Salient’s contributors for citing philosophy they may have picked up in a Moral Reasoning class.

Heaven forbid that we ever apply the ideas we learn in college to the real world!

Amusingly, Weaver claims that it would be a degradation for anyone to “sink to the challenge” of arguing against Gladden Pappin’s philosophical arguments, and then proceeds to argue against them himself. Perhaps Weaver feels justified in doing this because he believes himself, unlike Pappin, unbiased by any kind of “long-held personal views,” which he seems to think are wrong by virtue of their being long-held.

What I find most disturbing, however, is Weaver’s all-too-common conflation of a moral stance against homosexual acts with the “blind ignorance” of “knee-jerk” homophobia.

To believe that an action or belief is immoral does not immediately imply fear, anger or discrimination against those who believe otherwise, as those well acquainted with The Salient’s members are aware. In this case, the fear and anger seems to rest with those like Weaver, who jump to poorly-reasoned conclusions based on limited knowledge and an unwillingness to respect others’ agency to decide for themselves what is and is not moral.

Ashley E. Isaacson, ’04

May 21, 2003