Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
you know what? its not someone's choice to be born gay, and i for one is completely open to gay marriage. so saying it is immoral is not faire to gay people. In canada pep's are smart and gay marriage is legal...
its not someone's choice to be born gay, and i for one is completely open to gay marriage.
Mmm, reading is hard, huh? My argument has nothing to do with gay marriage. And even the Bible-thumpers wouldn't argue that a man being attracted to men is immoral. I mean, unless they're stupid and don't understand the tenets of their own religion. On second thought, I imagine lots of people are like that. But more to the point. An immoral act is just that - an act. You can be born with an attraction to people of the same sex. That's fine. The argument is that when you act upon that urge, that act is immoral. This is the standard for the Christian-esque argument, as it is for the Kantian argument I gave.
Wait, well then wouldn't we be able to argue that being gay is not immoral. It is just immoral to not have children. A lesbian can go to a sperm bank for children, so I wouldn't think its immoral.
Wait, well then wouldn't we be able to argue that being gay is not immoral. It is just immoral to not have children. A lesbian can go to a sperm bank for children, so I wouldn't think its immoral.
Doing things to circumvent the outcome of an immoral act doesn't affect the ethical value of the act itself. Lets say I put poison in my wife's coffee but change my mind and knock it from her hands just before she drinks it. The original act of trying to poison my wife is still immoral, even if that wasn't the eventual outcome.
But being gay isn't immoral because it doesn't stop you from keeping the species alive. In fact, not having kids isn't even something immoral. Because while it is bad universally, some people just aren't into sex. And its not their fault, so how are they immoral?
If there was no fault here, you'd be absolutely right - the action wouldn't be immoral. We don't hold someone accountable for events they have no control over. But there's a difference between what you desire and the actions you actually take. I may desire to steal a candy bar, but only if I act on that desire does ethics enter in. In the same way, a person may desire to have relationship with the person of the same sex. But it is only when they act on that impulse that it become immoral.
Because while it is bad universally, some people just aren't into sex
Very true. But the Kantian argument I gave works on this very premise. You'd have to argue that this is just the wrong way of thinking about moral issues. This is a point many people have tried to make.
How is it immoral? It's being done consensually and isn't doing harm. It seems the act is being called immoral on account of virtue alone.
Yeah, for sure. The Kantian approach is virtue theoretic in nature. It is the nature of the action, rather than the circumstances that decide its moral value. So, for Kant, an action is either always immoral or it never is. Do you see this as a strike against the theory?
Yeah, for sure. The Kantian approach is virtue theoretic in nature. It is the nature of the action, rather than the circumstances that decide its moral value. So, for Kant, an action is either always immoral or it never is. Do you see this as a strike against the theory?
Yeah,(had to do a quick read on this philosophy) by the looks of it he is applying the circumstance universally when such a thing in practice is conditional. But even under the universal conditions of Kant's views I don't see how the act of homosexuality could be regarded as immoral.
If everyone in the world were a homosexual, our species would die out in a single generation. Whenever an action, applied universally, has a negative consequence, then it is immoral. Homosexuality is an action that, applied universally, has a negative consequence. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
I haven't read much Kant, but I see where this argument is coming from. I'm not quite sure these actions meet the standard of the categorical imperative, though. I thought it was that a principle applied universally that had negative consequences was wrong. Kant was a crazy mother ****er, but universally applying principles as a yardstick for their morality is more in line with most people's moral reckoning, I'd think. Of course, I don't know stuff and this is like your Ph.D., so take that for what it's worth.
But it raises an interesting question. How the heck do you apply an action universally? Everyone does it? Everyone does it as often as possible? Let X equal number of times said action is performed. If X is less than the most efficient number for global actions performed, everyone has a moral duty to increase X. Are deliberate inactions actions? Pacifism and celibacy are both atypical choices of inaction that often enter into ethical discussions.
On an esoterically related note, try not to allow your intellect to overshadow your... wisdom. A slavish devotion to critical analysis clouds the mind.
It's funny, I actually had a Kantian-esque ideology without knowing of its name beforehand.
Alas, it's changed mostly being as individuals are incapable of providing entirely for themselves if challenged with different things. Especially in society where our knowledge exceeds anything considered "natural" and learning all of it, and then putting it in practical use, whilst gathering sustanance, is outright impossible by one self.
On an esoterically related note, try not to allow your intellect to overshadow your... wisdom. A slavish devotion to critical analysis clouds the mind.
Not sure where you're going with this. I view wisdom as the ability to interpret correctly and make viable judgements as a result. Intellect is the ability to understand what is seen. As a result wisdom cannot be used to its maximum efficiency without knowing what you're discussing properly.
A lot of this is mathematical, not necessarily in the case of homosexuality where it's... quite simply nature and peoples' will. No harm is done by homosexuals in terms of that specific trait, and the Kantian method of looking at it is not viable as "our intellect" has shown a likeliness for otherwise.
