'via Blog this'
Interesting article. But ultimately, I think this is wrong. You can make an argument from evidence that a certain result will follow from certain policies, but you cannot make an argument that those outcomes are right or wrong without a philosophical prism to interpret them.
If we share the same premises, we can debate what that philosophy should be. But we can only reason together if we share the same premises. And ultimately, premises cannot be derived, they just have to be believed in. There's no reason to believe that one premise is right and another wrong unless there is a divine authority to reveal the truth of the matter. Otherwise it's just a contest between likes. It's like debating whether chocolate is better than vanilla