Moral values in the public arena

One of the most astutue and insightful pieces of political philosophy I have read recently is Michael Sandel's Justice. I highly recommend it to you. It is well written, in lay people's language, and argued with clarity and passion.
In it Sandel compares and contrasts three positions that are at work in contemporary political/social dialogue. The first two, utilitarianism and libertarianism, are driving the polarization in today's environment. Do not be turned off by big, philosophical labels if you are unfamiliar with them. Simply stated the former argues for the will of the majority (the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) and the latter argues for laissez faire, free market rules. Or in Sandel's terms, welfare and freedom of choice. He does a masterful job illustrating the positive (benefits) and negative (shortcomings) aspects of each. But then he reminds us of ancient, Aristotelian ethics and invites us to a restoration of virtue and honor as guiding values in today's contentious debates.
I have argued in earlier blogs against the first two positions, and honestly probably more strongly against libertarianism. But I have tried, then and now, to insist on a place for morality and virtue in guiding public policy making. I firmly agree with Sandel on the necessity of a moral basis for decision making, and with him, I do not claim to occupy the moral high ground in every instance. I believe there are good moral people on both sides of practically every debate. I do not think or expect that one side is always going to have the correct, moral answer. But there should be a respectful, vigorous moral debate in the public arena. I reject the "rights" claim of moral superiority. I reject the "lefts" abandoning of moral values and principles in public decision making.
I agree with the Danish Christian existentialist Soren Kiergegaard, "every decision is a moral decision." Join the debate. Silence is complicity.