Natural Law Theory and Homosexuality. NLT and Homosexuality  As Catholic social teaching exemplifies, homosexuality is frequently condemned by adherents.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A2 Religious Ethics Revision The Ethics of Sex & Ethical Theories.
Advertisements

Holmstrom, “Do Women Have a Distinct Nature?”
Is Same-Sex Marriage Wrong?
Evaluating Thinking Through Intellectual Standards
OCTOBER 25, 2010 PLEASE TAKE YOUR PAPERS FROM THE FOLDERS. (DO NOT LEAVE THEM, TAKE THEM WITH YOU.) YOUR MIDTERM WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU ON WEDNESDAY.
Application of Ethical Reasoning
Homosexuality. the question Yesterday we discussed whether homosexual marriage is acceptable.  We were not focusing exclusively on moral acceptability,
Same-sex Marriage. pop quiz 1. Does Wedgewood argue for or against the acceptability of same-sex marriage? 2. Summarize Wedgewood’s argument. 3. Does.
Philosophy 220 The Death Penalty: Theories of Punishment, Nathanson.
The Death Penalty: Theories of Punishment; Kant
A Student’s Guide to Methodology Justifying Enquiry 3 rd edition P ETER C LOUGH AND C ATHY N UTBROWN.
Philosophy 220 Kantian Moral Theory and the Liberal View of Sexual Morality.
Moral Relativism, Cultural Differences and Bioethics Prof. Eric Barnes.
Philosophy 223 Relativism and Egoism. Remember This Slide? Ethical reflection on the dictates of morality can address these sorts of issues in at least.
The Moral Status of the Non- Human World: Singer and Cohen.
Philosophy 220 The Moral Status of the Non-Human World: Cohen and Warren.
Testing Hypotheses About Proportions Chapter 20. Hypotheses Hypotheses are working models that we adopt temporarily. Our starting hypothesis is called.
Marquis on the Immorality of Abortion. Getting Right to It.  Marquis's purpose is to provide a defensible anti-abortion position which is free from "irrational.
Hume on Taste Hume's account of judgments of taste parallels his discussion of judgments or moral right and wrong.  Both accounts use the internal/external.
Philosophy 220 Rights-Based Moral Theories and Pornography.
Boaz and Wilson on the Moral Status of Non-Medical Psychotropic Drug Use.
Philosophy 220 Boaz and De Marneffe on the Moral and Legal Status of Non- Medical Psychotropic Drug Use.
Sexual Perversion. in-class activity 1. What sorts of sexual activities do you think are clearly perverse? 2. What do you think might make them perverse.
Philosophy 220 Corvino on the ‘Naturalness’ of Homosexuality.
World Hunger and Poverty: Sen and O’Neill
Definitions – John Dewey
1 Module 5 How to identify essay Matakuliah: G1222, Writing IV Tahun: 2006 Versi: v 1.0 rev 1.
UTILITARIANISM: A comparison of Bentham and Mill’s versions
Divine Omnipotence.  Why would people be concerned to specify the nature of the divine?  What are they relating it to?  What does it have to do with.
Writing a Thesis Statement
1 Morality, Ethics and Philosophy. 2Definitions Morality: set of beliefs and practices about how to lead a good life Ethics : A rational reflection on.
Philosophy 220 Moral Status of Non-Human Animals: Curnutt.
Is Same-Sex Marriage Wrong?
Philosophy 220 Focusing on Addiction Through a Haze of Cigarette Smoke: Goodin and Shapiro.
©2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to analyze and evaluate arguments involving.
Philosophy 220 Introducing Moral Theory (and the Topic of Sexual Morality)
Environmental Science
Gay couple takes Christian B and B owners to court for discrimination.
Interpreting the play Man and nature Man and society
LEVEL 3 I can identify differences and similarities or changes in different scientific ideas. I can suggest solutions to problems and build models to.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND VIRTUE ETHICS.  There is no single view on homosexuality among Virtue ethicists.  Disagreements exist between those who follow the.
Philosophy 2803 – Health Ethics Andrew Latus. Introduction Ethics Study of right and wrong/good and bad A Branch of Philosophy Central Question = “How.
The Problem of Evil: McCabe, “The Statement of the Problem”
Welcome to Ethics Ethics and citizens rights DR. BURTON A. AGGABAO Professorial lecturer
Philosophy 224 Responding to the Challenge. Taylor, “The Concept of a Person” Taylor begins by noting something that is going to become thematic for us.
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons Pt. 2. Legenhausen, “Is God a Person?” Legenhausen uses the little observed fact that Islam is a religion in which the majority.
Virtue Theories and Adultery. Character vs. Acts  Though historically speaking, Virtue Ethics is the first systematic, philosophical ethical position,
Philosophy 220 Rights-Based Moral Theories and Pornography.
PHIL/RS 335 God’s Existence Pt. 1: The Ontological Argument.
Natural Law Theory and Human Sexuality
Academic Reading ENG 115.
John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener AS Philosophy God and the World – Seeing as hns adapted from richmond.
Goldman’s Plain Sex argument
Miracles: Hume and Howard-Snyder. * For purposes of initial clarity, let's define a miracle as a worldly event that is not explicable by natural causes.
DANIEL: ABIDING UNDER PAGANISM. Modern Expressions of Paganism A. Relativism B. Secular Humanism C. Postmodernism D. Moral Equivalence.
Fundamental of International Business Negotiation
Chapter 3: Sexual Morality and Marriage
AS Ethics Utilitarianism Title: - Preference Utilitarianism To begin… What is meant by preference? L/O: To understand Preference Utilitarianism.
Relativism, Divine Command Theory, and Particularism A closer look at some prominent views of ethical theory.
Chapter 3: Sexual Morality and Marriage
Introduction to Moral Theory
Holmstrom, “Do Women Have a Distinct Nature?”
Introduction to Moral Theory
Elements of Reasoning:
On Whiteboards: Do animals have any moral status (should they be considered when making moral decisions)? Whether you answered yes or no, say why. On what.
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons: Pt. 1.
Holmstrom, “Do Women Have a Distinct Nature?”
Positive Relationships
Presentation transcript:

Natural Law Theory and Homosexuality

NLT and Homosexuality  As Catholic social teaching exemplifies, homosexuality is frequently condemned by adherents of NLT.  In addition to the question of finality or ordination that we observed animates the Catholic position on the issue, these condemnations typically address either the status of homosexuality as a natural kind or raise concerns about the consequences of homosexuality for the nature of our sociality.

Wilson on Homosexual Marriage  Wilson’s concerns are largely of this second sort.  In response to a book by Andrew Sullivan arguing in favor of marriage rights for homosexuals, Wilson adopts Sullivan’s argument typology, defending what Sullivan rejects and rejecting what he defends.  In the end, Wilson’s assumptions about our political situation underwrite his rejection of homosexual marriage.

Prohibitionist Arguments  As Sullivan and Wilson have it, the prohibitionist position is essentially biblical.  They both seem to acknowledge the force of the argument, though ultimately Sullivan chooses to undercut it by raising interpretive concerns.  Wilson responds with his own interpretive standards.  One questions is: is this the right ground to address this type of argument.

Conservative Arguments  This is the type of argument most closely associated with NLT, though Sullivan and Wilson focus not on finality but on the relation-building capacity of sexuality (64c2).  Wilson’s complaint in this connection is that Sullivan fails to acknowledge the absolutely fundamental importance of marriage, and the threat that homosexual marriage would pose to it (65c2).  Another question is why not focus on finality?

Liberal Arguments  The liberal viewpoint as defended by Sullivan and criticized by Wilson is that the question of homosexual marriage is ultimately a civil rights issue.  An analogy that Sullivan advances that Wilson denies is that of race.  More significant for Wilson is his invocation of a heretofore undiscussed natural function of families: childrearing.  While acknowledging there is little data to support any claim about this, Wilson insists that heterosexual couples do it best.

So what?  What conclusions should we draw from Wilson’s piece?  They are obviously limited by the context. Wilson may make reasonable criticism of Sullivan’s position, but Sullivan hardly exhausts the possible arguments in favor of homosexual marriage.  One interesting thing to observe is how strongly Wilson relies on public opinion or sentiment. What does that have to do with NLT?

Corvino ’ s Defense of Homosexuality  Corvino takes aim at those critics of homosexuality that decry it as unnatural or claim that there are special harms that accompany it.  His positive position is straightforward. Homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is both pleasurable and supportive of fundamental human relationships. Children are not a necessary product of either. There are no special harms resulting from homosexuality. Therefore, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

But it ’ s Unnatural!  Whereas Wilson wants to give a great deal of credence to what he claims is the majority opinion about homosexuality, without ever exploring its basis, Corvino confronts a common ground for the condemnation of homosexuality.  Ranging from mere revulsion to a consideration of the finality of sexual practices, many claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

Different Senses of Unnatural  One problem with this claim is that the term “unnatural” can and is used in a number of different ways.  An important step to untangling this charge is distinguishing the various senses.  With the help of Burton Leiser, Corvino does just this.

Unnatural as Unusual or Unique  Some people claim that homosexuality is unnatural because it is uncommon or because it is not part of the behavior of non-human animals.  With regard to the first of these two senses, Corvino notes that many types of behavior or uncommon, but we don’t for that reason label them as unnatural.  With regard to the second, Corvino merely notes that the claim is false.

What is not Innate is Unnatural  A more compelling claim is that behaviors that do not spring from natural human tendencies is unnatural.  One common (but mistaken) way to respond to this claim is to start arguing about whether homosexuality is in fact innate.  The real issue concerns the moral significance of the relation between behavior and tendency. All behavior, whether grounded in tendency or not is to some degree in our control. As such, the moral evaluation of the behavior is independent of the tendency.

That ’ s not what that ’ s for.  Another argument that is sometimes made is that homosexuality is unnatural because it makes use of human sexual organs in a way that is contrary to their natural function (this is an instance of the finality argument).  Of course, many of our organs admit of many possible uses. It would be arbitrary to acknowledge the appropriate use of sexual organs in a wide range of instances where procreation isn’t possible, but deny it in the context of same-sex relations.

Enough about Finality, Let ’ s Talk about Filth  Many people have objected to homosexuality on the basis of the claim that it is obscene. Corvino’s response to this claim is fairly typical.  Of note is his discussion of aesthetic revulsion that some people attest to in connection to homosexual practice.  Leaving aside the obvious psychological rejoinder (we are often strongly repulsed by that to which we feel an uncontrollable attraction), we should note that aesthetic concerns of this sort do not rise to the standard of moral condemnation.

What about the Harm Question?  Corvino considers both the possibility that homosexual behavior can harms its practitioners and that it can harm third parties.  With regard to the first, he just points out that there is no evidence to suggest any special harm from the behavior itself.  With regard to the latter, he considers the special cases of children and species existence, arguing that there are no special concerns in either case.

Question to Corvino  One thing we should note is that the conceptual analysis of “unnatural” does not directly refute the NLT position.  An evaluation of NLT based arguments against homosexuality must ultimately come down to a dispute about human nature and values and ends appropriate to it, and that’s not a discussion which Corvino joins.  A question we might have concerns the differences between Wilson and Corvino on the social consequences.