Response to Tollefsen and Cameron
Response to Tollefsen and Cameron
This chapter responds to the chapters by Christopher Tollefsen and Edwin Cameron. Although both authors argue from an understanding of human dignity in which the obligation to respect dignity is an obligation to favour the integral flourishing of the human person, the chapters are seen as offering deeply opposed and irreconcilable positions on central issues pertaining to sexual morality and marriage. The authors differ so fundamentally precisely because they have such profound differences about what constitutes and promotes the flourishing of human persons when it comes to sexuality and the choices people face and make in which sexual desire and judgements about what is intrinsically good and bad and right and wrong crucially figure. These differences reflect competing conceptions of the nature of the human person—that being whose integral good should be respected and favoured in all of our choosing and acting if, as both Professor Tollefsen and Justice Cameron believe, we have an obligation to honour human dignity.
Keywords: human flourishing, John Rawls, marriage, sexual morality, nature of the human person
British Academy Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
