But does the legitimate interest in knowing more about a politician extend to details about personal relations? It is hard to draw a line of principle around any area and determine if knowledge of it will provide relevant information about a politician's moral character. The problem is that the media have an interest in publishing information that increases their audience, and personal information, especially of a sexual nature, will often do just that.
Even so, whether people choose to marry or not, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, even whether they pay to fulfill their erotic fantasies or have fantasies they can fulfill at no cost, tells us little about whether they are good people who can be trusted with high office -- unless, of course, they say one thing while doing another.
If we can cultivate a wider tolerance of human diversity, politicians, business leaders, and administrators would be less fearful of "exposure," because they would realize that they have done nothing that they must hide.
Prostitution is illegal in most of the US, including Washington, and this could be one reason why Tobias had to resign. But when New Jersey Governor John Corzine was involved in a serious road accident last month, it became known that he violated his own state's law by not wearing his seat belt.
By any sensible measure, Corzine's violation of the law was more serious than that of Tobias. Laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts save many lives. Laws prohibiting prostitution do no evident good, and may well do harm. Yet no one suggested that Corzine should resign because of his illegal act. In the US, at least, breaching sexual norms still brings with it a moral opprobrium that is unrelated to any real harm it may do.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne. Copyright: Project Syndicate
RSS