9 Moral Philosophers Weigh In

What if we got some of the most respected moral philosophers of our time and asked them a burning question: Are Log Cabin Republicans immoral?

That’s exactly what we did. 

In our imagination, anyway.

Who is sitting in our imaginary round-table? Derek Parfit, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, Christine Korsgaard, Susan Wolff, Samuel Scheffler, Allan Wood, Onora O'Neill, and Barbara Herman.

Are Log Cabin Republicans heroes or traitors? Let’s see what they have to say (well, what they would say if we could get them together). 

Derek Parfit breaks the silence by asserting, "The Log Cabin Republicans face a morally challenging situation. On the one hand, they fight for LGBTQ+ rights within a party that has often opposed them, seeking to create change from within. 

On the other hand, they support a party that has historically been hostile to their community. Their actions can be seen as either morally praiseworthy or blameworthy, depending on the consequences of their actions."

Thomas Nagel counters, "But Derek, you're focusing solely on the consequences. We must also consider the intentions and motives behind their actions. As we would for any LGBT who votes Republican, whether they belong to this group or not.

Are Republicans figuratively burning crosses on gay lawns?

Are they genuinely trying to create a more inclusive Republican Party, or are they merely pursuing personal political ambitions?"

T. M. Scanlon interjects, "I agree with Thomas. We should also examine the Log Cabin Republicans through the lens of contractualism. 

Are they acting in a way that could be justified to others, particularly the LGBTQ+ community? If their actions contribute to the harm of that community, then their behavior may not be morally justifiable."

 How to talk your conservative family out of voting Republican

Christine Korsgaard adds, "From a Kantian perspective, we must ask whether the Log Cabin Republicans are treating the LGBTQ+ community as an end in itself or merely as a means to an end. 

If they are using their community as a mere means to advance their own political careers or the interests of the Republican Party, then their actions are morally impermissible."

Susan Wolff, nodding in agreement, says, "We should also consider the role of integrity in this situation. Are the Log Cabin Republicans compromising their integrity by supporting a party that opposes LGBTQ+ rights? If so, can they still be considered morally praiseworthy for attempting to change the party from within?"

Samuel Scheffler interjects, "I think we should focus on the broader implications of the Log Cabin Republicans' actions. Do they contribute to a more inclusive and just society or perpetuate harmful divisions? If their actions ultimately result in more harm than good, then their moral status is indeed questionable."

Allan Wood leans forward, remarking, "From a Hegelian standpoint, we must consider the historical context and the dialectical process through which change occurs. 

The Log Cabin Republicans may represent a synthesis of opposing ideas—conservatism and LGBTQ+ rights—and their actions might contribute to the development of a new, more inclusive political landscape."

Onora O'Neill, pensively stroking her chin, suggests, "We might also evaluate the Log Cabin Republicans using the idea of public reason. Are they contributing to a reasoned, public debate about the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, or are they merely fueling polarization and animosity?"

Barbara Herman offers a final thought, "We must consider the question of responsibility. The Log Cabin Republicans, as a political organization, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the LGBTQ+ community. 

If they fail in this responsibility by supporting a party that opposes LGBTQ+ rights, then their moral standing is compromised."

As the conversation continues, the philosophers delve deeper into the moral complexities surrounding the Log Cabin Republicans. 

They consider the consequences, intentions, and motives of the organization, as well as the broader implications of their actions on society and the LGBTQ+ community. The debate touches on themes of integrity, responsibility, and public reason, with each philosopher offering their unique perspective on the issue.

As the round-table discussion draws to a close, the philosophers recognize that the morality of the Log Cabin Republicans cannot be easily reduced to a simple binary of right or wrong. 

Instead, the organization's actions must be evaluated within the broader context of the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, the evolving landscape of American politics, and the delicate balance between loyalty to one's political party and commitment to the well-being of one's community.

Still.

Gun to head, how would each of these philosophers judge the Log Cabin Republicans?

Here’s how it went (in our imagination of course!):

Derek Parfit, focusing on the consequences of the Log Cabin Republicans' actions, ultimately concludes that their morality is contingent upon their ability to effect meaningful change within the GOP. "If they can successfully create a more inclusive Republican Party and reduce harm to the LGBTQ+ community," he says, "then their actions can be considered morally praiseworthy. However, if their efforts merely serve to perpetuate the GOP's harmful policies, then they are acting immorally."

Thomas Nagel, emphasizing the importance of intentions and motives, argues that the morality of the Log Cabin Republicans depends on their genuine commitment to LGBTQ+ rights. "If they are truly striving to create a more inclusive GOP and their actions are motivated by a sincere desire to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals," he asserts, "then they are not being immoral. But if their actions are driven by personal ambition or a desire for political power, their morality is suspect."

T. M. Scanlon, applying the principles of contractualism, states, "The Log Cabin Republicans' actions are morally justifiable only if they can be justified to the LGBTQ+ community and other affected parties. If their actions lead to the further marginalization or harm of the LGBTQ+ community, then they cannot be justified and are therefore unethical."

Christine Korsgaard, using a Kantian approach, posits, "If the Log Cabin Republicans are treating the LGBTQ+ community as an end in itself and genuinely working to advance their rights, then their actions are morally permissible. However, if they are using the community as a mere means to achieve their own political goals or advance the interests of the GOP, then they are acting immorally."

Susan Wolff, considering the role of integrity, believes that the morality of the Log Cabin Republicans hinges on whether they are compromising their integrity by supporting a party that opposes LGBTQ+ rights. "If they are able to maintain their integrity and work for meaningful change within the GOP without betraying their community's interests," she says, "then their actions can be seen as ethical. If not, their actions are morally problematic."

Samuel Scheffler, taking a broader view of the situation, maintains that the Log Cabin Republicans' actions are moral only if they contribute to a more inclusive and just society. "If their efforts lead to greater divisions and harm to the LGBTQ+ community," he argues, "then their actions are immoral. The ultimate moral worth of their actions depends on the broader social consequences."

Allan Wood, adopting a Hegelian perspective, suggests that the Log Cabin Republicans may represent a synthesis of opposing ideas, leading to a more inclusive political landscape. "If their actions contribute to the dialectical process and result in a more progressive and accepting society," he says, "then their actions are morally commendable. However, if they only reinforce existing divisions and prejudice, their actions are morally blameworthy."

Onora O'Neill, invoking the concept of public reason, contends that the morality of the Log Cabin Republicans depends on whether they contribute to a reasoned, public debate about LGBTQ+ rights. "If their actions serve to advance rational discourse and promote understanding," she states, "then they are not acting immorally. But if they merely fuel polarization and animosity, their actions are unethical."

Barbara Herman, focusing on responsibility, asserts that the Log Cabin Republicans have a moral obligation to act in the best interests of the LGBTQ+ community. "If they fulfill this responsibility by advocating for LGBTQ+ rights and challenging the GOP's harmful policies," she says, "then their actions are morally sound. If they fail in this responsibility, their actions are morally compromised."

In summary, the philosophers each provide a different perspective on the morality of the Log Cabin Republicans, with their conclusions varying based on the ethical frameworks they employ. 

While some view the organization's actions as potentially moral if they lead to positive consequences, genuine intentions, or rational discourse, others emphasize the importance of integrity, responsibility, and the ability to justify their actions to the LGBTQ+ community.

Ultimately, the moral assessment of the Log Cabin Republicans hinges on the impact of their actions on the LGBTQ+ community and their own motives and intentions. 

If the organization can successfully navigate the complex moral terrain and act in the best interests of the LGBTQ+ community, they may be considered ethical. 

However, if they fail to meet these criteria and end up perpetuating harm or division, their actions may be seen as immoral.

As the round-table discussion comes to an end, it is clear that the question of the Log Cabin Republicans' morality is not easily resolved. 

The philosophers' varied answers underscore the complexity of the issue and the importance of considering multiple ethical perspectives when evaluating the actions of political organizations and individuals.