by Michael De Dora
* The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Corporations have no right to personal privacy when it comes to government records requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
* Robert Gagnon, responding to Jennifer Wright Knust, says the Bible really does condemn homosexuality.
* Eugenie Scott, Lawrence Krauss, Frans de Waal and more answer the question, “What should Obama and Congress do for science?”
* Why are humans so interested in watching video footage of horrific natural disasters?
* Another classic from The Onion: local skeptic pitied for his “tragic reluctance to embrace the unverifiable.”
* An absolutely incredible video constructed from photographs taken by the Cassini spacecraft as it approached Saturn.
* Joshua Knobe argues that evidence suggests humans practice morality in a relative way. Which, of course, doesn’t suggest it ought to be that way.
* Farhad Manjoo reviews a couple of smartphone applications that could help you speak better in public.
I've always thought it was quite clear that the Bible condemned homosexuality, although I really don't see any profit in arguing that most of the time. It's not discussed that often because it wasn't really on most people's radar, but it's obviously seen as a sort of perverted fringe practice.
ReplyDeleteThis is really one of the major reasons why the promotion of atheism is important to me. If it's really true that the Bible condemns certain people, the only intellectually honest way to fight religiously based prejudice is to point out that the Bible isn't that good of a moral guide.
Homosexuality is inherently difficult for heterosexuals to understand. One cognitive experiment a man can conduct in order to understand the impulse of homosexuality, is to imagine that they were to wake up and find that they were in the body of a woman. Even though the "telos" of their sexual organ would be clear, sex with a man would still be repugnant, and they would be naturally drawn toward lesbianism.
ReplyDeleteIt is not far fetched to assert that the purpose of life is to evolve. Because evolution requires the the propagation of various species over vast amounts of time, the teleological argument would be that, since homosexuality does not propagate the species, it stifles evolution and therefore must be immoral.
Then there is the categorical approach to defining morality. What would happen if everybody were a homosexual? The human race would die off and homosexuality would cease to exist. Conversely if everybody were a heterosexual the fertility rate would go up and the human race (as well as heterosexuality) would flourish. Therefore heterosexuality must be moral and homosexuality must be immoral.
There is also the view of Shopenhauer that the purpose of life is suffering and death and that [heterosexual] sex only results in more people being born and subsequently an increase in suffering and death. He asserts that this is the reason there is shame associated with [heterosexual] sex. From this viewpoint heterosexuality is immoral and homosexuality is moral because it does not create more life (suffering and death).
There is also moral relativism…
My point is, that it is not difficult to build a case for or against the morality of this issue. The first article presents a far fetched interpretation that is not persuasive because it never touches on the morality of the topic. Likewise the refutation of the article does not touch the moral merit of the topic. If the purpose is to sway people toward or away from accepting homosexuality, both articles fail because simply asserting that the Bible, a collage professor, or an intuition says that something is right or wrong, without being able to clearly articulate the critical logic behind the assertion, makes a person seem dogmatic instead of reasonable.
"If the purpose is to sway people toward or away from accepting homosexuality, both articles fail because simply asserting that the Bible, a collage professor, or an intuition says that something is right or wrong, without being able to clearly articulate the critical logic behind the assertion, makes a person seem dogmatic instead of reasonable."
ReplyDeleteThey would only fail if their audience did not recognize these as legitimate authorities. I believe that they are both trying to reach mainstream Christians, however, who almost definitionally consider the Bible to be a legitimate moral authority. Within that context (and only within that context), both approaches are perfectly rational attempts at persuasion.
Furthermore, even if we (prudently) reject the moral aspect of these arguments entirely, there's still a historical question with a real answer (Did the people who wrote various books of the Bible consider homosexuality to be immoral?) and a hypothetical question which might be answerable in a probabilistic sense (If the authors of the Bible were exposed to homosexuality and gender roles as they exist in the 21st century, would they change their minds?).
On a side note, I don't think that the argument from evolution is any less of a non-starter than the appeal to biblical authority. For one, you can assert that "It is not far fetched to assert that the purpose of life is to evolve", but it's not clear how or whether this has anything to do with what we usually think of as morality. For another, I don't know what it even means to say that "since homosexuality does not propagate the species, it stifles evolution". Evolution would be impossible if it were not the case that organisms are constantly dying childless. There is no intelligent teleology to the process; it can't be helped or hindered because it has no goals, except in the prosaic sense that destroying all life would stop evolution (that's unlikely to result from homosexuality). To me that makes the nonexistent purpose of evolution every bit as ridiculous of a moral authority as the nonexistent intelligent deity of the Bible.
I'll also point out that when gay or lesbian people have children, procreation arguments seem not to apply to them, and the same goes for straight people who don't. So while one can start an argument against homosexuality from procreation, one quickly finds that there are a great many details that have to be addressed. It also raises the question of why, out of all sexual activities, homosexuality should be of any particular or special moral import in the first place.
I don't think that it's difficult to build "a case" in a very primitive sense, but I also think that it is very difficult to build a strong case specifically against homosexuality (or specifically against heterosexuality).
Perhaps it was the practice that the Romans had of buggering the Hebrews after their enslavement that at least the Hebrews found somewhat detrimental to their flourishing. Since in the end morality is all about who properly does what to who.
ReplyDeleteWhat properly has evolved, if not with a proper purpose, has nevertheless done so to serve a naturally acquired purpose properly.
Reminds me of that old Roman proverb:
ReplyDeleteDonna, uomo, o di capra, a volte è difficile distinguere la differenza nel buio, ma è interessante esplorare le somiglianze
"What would happen if everybody were a homosexual? The human race would die off and homosexuality would cease to exist."
ReplyDeleteMy problem with this statement and statements like it is that you are equating homosexual solely with behavior. Just because I am gay does not mean I cannot procreate. If the world was full of only gay men and lesbians, that would not necessarily mean the end of the human race because we can still procreate (Sean pointed this out above too).
Further, to assume that gay men think having sex with a woman is "repugnant" really is just your own view and is not based on any sort of evidence. You shouldn't assume that because people have certain attractions that they feel other ways are repugnant. That's really kind of homophobic and heteronormative, actually.
@Sean (quantheory)
ReplyDelete>"Christians, however, who almost definitionally consider the Bible to be a legitimate moral authority."
Good point, it is difficult from a philosophical standpoint to accept an arbitrary assertion that something is moral or immoral from any "authority" without a subsequent explanation as to "why" something is moral or immoral. Thus, upon reading these articles, a certain bias was kindled that indeed was probably not indicative to the target audience of these two publications. The two examples provided "for" and the two provided "against" homosexuality in the preceding post were simplistic and undeveloped, but they demonstrated that it would have been theoretically possible to give a "why" in either article, but upon reflection it becomes obvious that this level of reasoning is reserved for philosophers and intellectuals, rather than the impressionable masses that they were likely targeting.
>"I don't think that it's difficult to build "a case" in a very primitive sense, but I also think that it is very difficult to build a strong case specifically against homosexuality (or specifically against heterosexuality)."
Perhaps a case strong enough to override the natural human inclination to justify their own behavior is "very difficult", but historically strong philosophical cases have been built [against homosexuality] and accepted by the [heterosexual] majority; typically in the service of "utilitarian" regimes and usually with horrifying results. The horrifying results, more than anything else, prove that human beings are capable of "rationalizing" anything.
@Justin Edwards
ReplyDeleteI agree, with one caveat. When I said "strong case" in that last sentence, I meant philosophically difficult to assail, rather than one that is popularly convincing. Most popular cases either a) fail to fill in some very important holes in reasoning, b) make some critically unjustified assumptions, and/or c) have broad (mostly unacknowledged) implications well beyond this one issue.
Having done a bit of political work recently, it appears that the most common arguments against homosexuality in the modern USA largely come from a) quoting the Bible, b) referencing the Catholic conception of natural law (and glossing over the fact that it also forbids oral sex and birth control and divorce and sundry others), or c) fairly amoral arguments about economic costs and disease management. I'm sure that these have been strong cases in this moment (though slowly losing ones), but I think that's because of the cultural background present, not because they are intrinsically strong philosophical arguments.
To be honest, I have yet to come across a "strong philosophical case" historically adopted by an anti-gay majority; at best, this prejudice appears to be based perennially on bastardizations of more elaborate arguments, without fully accepting the implications thereof (again, as with Catholics promoting a sexual code which most Catholics in the same country do not bother observing themselves).
From the perspective of someone who has been in the trenches a bit, philosophical discussion of these issues can sometimes actually be a bit maddening. Often people try to make or refute these arguments without acknowledging certain insufficiencies in their terms, with respect to bisexuals, people who are intersex, and so forth. It strikes one as a way of engaging with the world as is convenient, rather than the world as it is.
@Will
ReplyDelete>"If the world was full of only gay men and lesbians, that would not necessarily mean the end of the human race because we can still procreate (Sean pointed this out above too)."
"When there's a will there's a way." This is a good argument.
>Further, to assume that gay men think having sex with a woman is "repugnant" really is just your own view and is not based on any sort of evidence.
It is easy to read it that way, but that is not how it is intended. The intent of the cognitive experiment is not to assert that "gay men think having sex with a woman is repugnant", but rather, to help heterosexual men better understand the attraction between same sex couples.
You shouldn't assume that because people have certain attractions that they feel other ways are repugnant.
Again, it is understandable that this can be read as my own assertion, but I do not make these assumptions.
>"That's really kind of homophobic and heteronormative, actually."
You're right, it is. It is a little uncouth, but ask a few heterosexual men if they find the idea of being penetrated and inseminated repugnant. The answers will be overwhelmingly yes. The problem [for homosexuals] is that this "inherent" or "inculcated" intuition leads many main stream heterosexuals to assume that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. People fear what they cannot understand, and the result is ballot initiatives that are oppressive toward homosexuality.
"You're right, it is. It is a little uncouth, but ask a few heterosexual men if they find the idea of being penetrated and inseminated repugnant. The answers will be overwhelmingly yes. The problem [for homosexuals] is that this "inherent" or "inculcated" intuition leads many main stream heterosexuals to assume that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. People fear what they cannot understand, and the result is ballot initiatives that are oppressive toward homosexuality."
ReplyDeleteBut do those men who find the idea of being "penetrated and inseminated" (assuming that's what *all* gay men do or have done to them...) repugnant because it's gay, or because that's what women should do and men should not? In other words, it's really because they devalue women as people and project that devaluation onto gay men because they perceive them as being feminine.
I know there are a lot of straight men who announce the ick factor when talking about gay sex, but could that not be them attempting to maintain a public identity as a macho man as opposed to (or in addition to?) them actually experiencing feelings of repugnance? I just think that thought experiment is a bit odd and assumes a lot about people's feelings. It also doesn't give straight women a way to participate in the thought experiment.
Perhaps something more along the lines of: "Imagine you wake up one day and being straight is the minority. Everything in life around you tells you that being straight is unnatural, is not acceptable. Loving people of the opposite sex is not okay. How would you feel about this?" I think a thought experiment along those lines is better because it is not gender specific and doesn't make assumptions about people's feelings about sexual activity. ;)
@Will
ReplyDelete>"Perhaps something more along the lines of: "Imagine you wake up one day and being straight is the minority. Everything in life around you tells you that being straight is unnatural, is not acceptable. Loving people of the opposite sex is not okay. How would you feel about this?" I think a thought experiment along those lines is better because it is not gender specific and doesn't make assumptions about people's feelings about sexual activity."
I'm feeling the synergy Will. Thank you for the refining the idea.
This paradigm shift approach to gaining acceptance, seems a little more logical than trying to discredit, disprove, or [as in the case of the article that sparked the discussion] transform religious beliefs.
Sex, as the parable infers, was the Devils pleasure, not God's, and if the Adams and the Eves were to do the act in future, it had to be for God's purposes alone. If man sought that mutuality of pleasure with other than a woman, God's purposes (procreation and the like) were clearly to be thwarted. (What he had expected Adam and Eve to do otherwise is anybody's guess.)
ReplyDeleteThe temptation for man to do other than his God given duty lay with the desire for the sex itself - the more mutual, as the saying goes, the better. If the sex itself was good, the choice of partner came second, especially when the sun went down.
But God of course can see in the dark, and it's been uphill for the indiscriminacy of the coupling process ever since.
In God's world anyhoo. Not in the bonobo's.