Ethics: Arguments Against Homosexuality & Moral Philosophy - PDF

Cultural Relativism- there's no such thing as universal truth i ethics (i e objective truth) there & are only various cultural codes and nothing more.....

Cultural Relativism- there's no such thing as universal truth i ethics (i e objective truth) there & are only various cultural codes and nothing more.. , , Morality and how Socrates defined it Socrates morality is about “no small matter, but how we ought to live.” Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action. Burton Leiser & his arguments against homosexuality's unnaturalness Burton M. Leiser, in his essay "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?", critically examines and refutes the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, immoral. His approach is methodical, analyzing different meanings of "unnatural" and demonstrating why none of them provide a strong basis for condemning homosexuality. Below are the key arguments he presents: 1. The Laws of Nature Argument Some argue that homosexuality violates the "laws of nature," but Leiser points out that these laws are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, natural laws describe how things happen in the physical world, not how they ought to happen. Since homosexuality does occur in nature (including among humans and animals), it cannot be said to violate natural laws. 2. The Artificiality Argument Another meaning of "unnatural" refers to things that are artificial or man-made. However, Leiser argues that artificiality is not inherently bad. Many beneficial human inventions, such as medicine, clothing, and technology, are artificial, yet they improve lives. Even if homosexuality were "artificial" (which it is not), this alone would not make it immoral. 3. The Statistical Rarity Argument Some claim that homosexuality is unnatural because it is uncommon. Leiser refutes this by pointing out that many rare behaviors—such as being a great artist or musician—are praised rather than condemned. Statistical rarity does not equate to immorality. 4. The "Proper Function" Argument One of the most common arguments against homosexuality is that the sexual organs have a "natural" function—procreation— and any use of them outside of this function is unnatural and wrong. Leiser dismantles this argument by noting: Many body parts have multiple functions (e.g., the mouth is for eating but also for speaking and kissing). Even within heterosexual relationships, sexual activity is often not for reproduction (e.g., sex between infertile couples, pregnant women, or during menopause). If pleasure and emotional bonding are accepted functions of sex, then homosexuality cannot be condemned on this basis. 5. The Natural = Good, Unnatural = Bad Argument Some argue that whatever is "natural" is good and whatever is "unnatural" is bad. Leiser challenges this by pointing out that nature can be harmful (e.g., diseases, natural disasters), while many "unnatural" things improve human well-being (e.g., medicine, technology). Thus, labeling homosexuality as unnatural does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is immoral. Leiser’s Conclusion After dismantling these arguments, Leiser concludes that homosexuality cannot be condemned as unnatural in any meaningful sense. The arguments against it rely on misunderstandings of nature, function, and morality. He suggests that opposition to homosexuality is more about societal prejudice and tradition than rational argumentation.  Discrimination is always a serious matter, because it involves treating some people worse than others, for no good reason. Alfred Kinsey (see PowerPoints for the Leiser article) Slippery Slope Argument Slippery Slope Argument T Reason and impartiality (the components of Rachels"minimum Conception of Mortality Y 1 Moral Judgements must be backed by good reasons facts straught Getapply sound moral principles · II. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individuals interest Rachels overarching point Morality is the effort to guide one's conduct by reason Theologians and natural law argument 1. The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular view of the world. On this view, the world has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature. This idea comes from the Greeks, whose worldview dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. The Greeks believed that everything in nature has a purpose. Aristotle said, four questions must be asked: What is it? What is it made of? How did it come to be? And what is it for? 2. A corollary to this way of thinking is that the “laws of nature” describe not only how things are but also how things o to be. The world is in harmony when things serve their natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, things have go wrong. Eyes that cannot see are defective, and drought is a natural evil; the badness of both is explained by reference natural law. But there are also implications for human conduct. Moral rules are now viewed as deriving from the laws o nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be “natural” for human beings while others are regarded as “unnatural”; an “unnatural” acts are seen as morally wrong The third part concerns moral knowledge. How can we tell right from wrong? On the Divine Command Theory, we must consult God’s commandments. On the Theory of Natural Law, however, the “natural laws” of morality are just laws of reason; so, what’s right is what’s supported by the strongest arguments. On this view, we can figure out what’s right because God has given us the ability to reason. Moreover, God has given this ability to everyone, putting the believer and nonbeliever in the same position.  King Darius Darius, a king of ancient Persia (present-day Iran), was intrigued by the variety of cultures he met in his travels. In India, for example, he had encountered a group of people known as the Callatians who cooked and ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—they practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the proper way to dispose of the dead. Darius thought that an enlightened outlook should appreciate such differences. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks who were at his court and asked them what it would take for them to eat their dead fathers’ bodies. The Greeks were shocked, as Darius knew they would be. No amount of money, they said, could get them to do such a horrid thing. Then Darius called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks listened, asked if they would be willing to burn their dead fathers’ bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not to speak of such things. This story, recounted by Herodotus in his History, illustrates a recurring theme in the literature of social science: Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought to be right within one group may horrify another group, and vice versa. Should we eat the bodies of our dead or burn them? If you were Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were Callatian, then the other answer would seem equally certain. Page 15 There are many examples of this. Consider the Eskimos of the early and mid-20th century. The Eskimos are the native people of Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, and northeastern Siberia, in Asiatic Russia. Today, none of these groups call themselves “Eskimos,” but historically the term has referred to that scattered Arctic population. Prior to the 20th century, the outside world knew little about them. Then explorers began to bring back strange tales. The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality. Within a community, a dominant male might demand— and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives. The women, however, were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners—free, that is, insofar as their former husbands did not make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile practice, very unlike our own custom. But it was not only their marriages and sexual practices that were different. The Eskimos also seemed to care less about human life. Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer, reported meeting a woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were killed more often than males, and this was allowed at the parents’ discretion, with no social stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family members became too feeble, they were left out in the snow to die. Most of us would find these Eskimo customs completely unacceptable. Our own way of living seems so natural and right to us that we can hardly imagine living so differently. When we hear of people like the Eskimos, we might want to call them “primitive” or “backward.” But to anthropologists, the Eskimos did not seem unusual. Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have known that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If we assume that everyone shares our values, then we are merely being naïve. David Hume & his idea of subjectivism  Hume's Basic Question : con wetell what things are · How rightand wrong , good and bed , etc? - Humes considers two possible answers reason tells Our us Our feelings sentiments tell or us Hume : cannot be acting according to reason Acting morally heason alone cannot allow us to distinguish between moral goodand wil An argument Hume for. gives this is : 1) Morals excite passions and produce or 2) preventactionenable ofcausing actions Thus the principles of morality arenot conclusions of our reason , Is/Ought that distinction · Hame argues you derive what ought tobe what is right whatis good etc directly from what is , ,. "s" and "ought" statements aredifferent kindsof statements - in order to get an ethical statement intheconclusion you must · , Ex of islought problem I murderharms otherpeople 2) Thus oughtnot to murder you Additional premise required : Promise 2should read "You ought notto harm otherpeople , Hume concludes Morality is determined by sentiment Virtue is "Whatever mental action ar quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment - ; and vice the contrary approbation Cultural Differences Argument Cultural Relativists often argue in a certain way. They begin with facts about cultures and then draw a conclusion about morality. For example, they invite us to accept this reasoning: (1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Or: (1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with killing infants, whereas Americans believe that infanticide is immoral. Page 18 (2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. Clearly, these arguments are variants of one fundamental idea. The more general argument says: (1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. NotSound Arguement  Rachels's Minimum Conception of Morality Are there moral rules that all societies must embrace because those rules , are necessary forsocietytoaaves" exist 1 2.A 3 Asociety must care for its young. A society must value truth-telling. ↑ society must prohibit murder - have thefacts - be impartial Simple Subjectivism Simple Subjectivisen - ethical statement port ourfeeling visgood of X -approve = - ethical statements are the orfalse · Emotivism expressesapproval rather - than states it expressive language - ethical statementare not the false or ProblemssimpleSubjectivism · Hone of us is infallible about moral matters Butas long as Iam sincere in statement of my feelings cannot wrong I be It cannot account forthe factofmy - , · disagreementinethics whenIstate X and approval ofhave ofit you state your disapproval , we are not - my feelings , different disagreeing - aboutX wejust , about the expressive andcommand Crather thanthe discreteves Emotivism · focuses on of uses language Expressive · - [likeicecream reports an attitude -"Umm icecream' attitude · Command expresses ↓ an "You oughtnot todo that"seeksto influence yourattitude against sol  Is Emotivism thecorrectview · Rashel argues that, tisnot because to sbased , ona false dichotomy The false dichotomy that leads to emotivism · many people assume thatthereare only 2 possibility Thereare moral utsinthe same way thereare facts aboutstars and planets - 11 to 2) ourvalues" areno more than the expression ofoursubjectivefeelings But theres aSuelpossibility (3) moralfiths of reason thatis a moral judgementistheif itis backed better reasons thanthe alternative by Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage In Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (1995), Andrew Sullivan examines societal perspectives on homosexuality, categorizing them into four viewpoints: Prohibitionists: Rooted in strict religious beliefs, they view homosexuality as immoral and advocate for punitive measures. Sullivan critiques their inconsistency, noting that while they condemn homosexual acts based on procreation arguments, they don't oppose marriage for infertile heterosexual couples. Liberationists: Represented by groups like Queer Nation, they reject labels such as "homosexual," seeing them as societal constructs used for oppression. Sullivan argues that this perspective, by denying fixed sexual identities, fails to advance the rights and acceptance of the gay community. Conservatives: Acknowledging the existence of homosexuality, conservatives believe it should remain a private matter, opposing public acknowledgment or policy changes. Sullivan contends that as societal acceptance grows, conservatives face a choice: increased isolation or integrating homosexual acceptance into their views. Liberals: Advocating for equal rights, liberals support anti-discrimination laws and policies. Sullivan warns that a blanket application of liberal solutions might inadvertently perpetuate a victim mentality among gays, suggesting that overemphasis on rights can lead to increased isolation. Sullivan advocates for same-sex marriage, asserting it would humanize and integrate homosexuals into societal norms. He also calls for the repeal of policies like "don't ask, don't tell," which prohibit openly gay individuals from serving in the military. Overall, Sullivan's work challenges existing paradigms, promoting a nuanced understanding of homosexuality and its place in modern society.