Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociological perspectives on homosexuality
Strengths and weaknesses of natural law
Strengths and weaknesses of natural law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sociological perspectives on homosexuality
Albert Einstein one said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."(Quotations,162) There is some truth to what he said in relation to Natural Law Theory. It would seem that Natural Law is based at least in part on common sense. This essay will attempt to discredit the Theory of Natural Law on these grounds, as well as proving that it is inapplicable when judging the ethical value of homosexuality, and discrediting homosexuality as a "perversion." Act utilitarianism depicts the argument more clearly, because there are certain semantic inconsistencies with Kantian ethical Theory that will be discussed further on.
Let us first consider the premise that homosexuality is contrary to Natural Law, because the Natural Law dictates that sexual relationships must be heterosexual and have as a (perhaps eventual) goal of reproduction. According to an Australian newspaper, there are 450 species of animals on the Earth that practice homosexuality. Although asexual worms may come to mind at first, the article clearly states that the most frequent occurrences are by pygmy chimpanzees (50% of all sexual activity), and that "wild bottlenose dolphins can form long-lasting male-male pair bonds." The behaviors of only these two species can begin to show us the flaws with human Natural Law Theory. Even if we do not believe in evolution, chimpanzees still share 98% of human DNA, and dolphins are humanity's acknowledged "intellectual cousins." If one is inclined to discredit this comparison on grounds that humans are the only rational species, then consider this quote. "[Homosexuality]...could be linked to a genetic tendency for heightened sexual activity, giving the animals a reproductive advantage, or it could have s...
... middle of paper ...
...rounds that all of life is a democracy. Outside of Natural Law Theory we must still ask the significance of sex. Is it something we were given naturally and then turned into something artificial? Bette Milder once said, "If sex is such a natural phenomenon, how come there are so many books on how to?"(Quotations, 179) Or is there only one true type of sexual relationship and our duty to uphold it, in the way the State in George Orwell's "1984" portrays sex as the duty to populating the country to serve the state and nothing else?
Works Cited
Quotations for Speeches. Daintith, John. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 2000.
Smith. Deborah. "450 animal species gaily indulge in homosexual behaviour." Sydney Morning Herald (July 28, 2004)
MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. San Francisco: Thomson Wadsworth, 2004.
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
The first possible cause of homosexuality is genetic factors. Homosexuality is a trait from birth (Buchanan, 2000). Studies found that identical twins share many common traits. A study found that identical twins normally share homosexual behavior if one of them is homosexual. This proved that genes are likely to cause homosexuality. In addition, according to (Santinover, 2002), homosexuality is a heritable behavior. Based on heritability studies, almost any human trait is heritable including the homosexual behavior. He stated that behavioral genes are found in specific chromosome. Thus, the behavior is obviously heritable. Moreover, Italian University of Padova (2004) believes that homosexual trait is passed from mother to male offspring by natural ...
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
Aristotle’s psychological types, as described in “Nichomachean Ethics,” are a categorization of different internal moral characters. These categories are a comprehensive attempt - for ancient philosophy - at identifying which internal psychologies manifest virtuous or morally bad behaviour. His moral categories are somewhat obsolete in a post-modern world, where science and politics are far more developed than in Ancient Greece. However, moral psychological ethics and normative debate still holds a relevant position in the moral undercurrent of society – it is dispersed through legal, political, military and medical activity, in relationships and familial function. It is for this reason, that Immanuel Kant examined a similar issue in “Pure Practical Reason and the Moral Law,” and that it still makes for interesting philosophical discussion.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Natural law theorists claim that actions are deemed right just because they are looked at as natural and something that is unnatural is immoral. However, there are different understandings of what is natural and what is not, which can make support for this theory hard. Examples such as homosexuality, give a strong argument against the natural law theory. We will look at the work of John Corvino as he explains the arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, but also the reasons why these arguments are not strong evidence. With these examples in mind, the fact that something is unnatural is not a good enough reason to claim something immoral.
Fag. Poof. Fairy. Homo. Dyke. Those are all words that are used on a daily basis to put down those who do not fit into the Bible’s supposed cookie-cutter, straight sexual orientation label. Homophobia has been around since the eleven hundreds, but before then homosexuality was viewed as healthy, normal, and at times it was even worshipped. However, society’s view of homosexuality has somehow been warped into a violently negative opinion. How did this happen? The main perpetrators of homophobia are the Bible and those who preach its word, or at least their version of its word. Which brings up the translation issues scattered throughout the Bible. The New Testament was written in Greek and there are not always direct translations of each word in English. The messages in the Bible that are said to condemn homosexuality can be interpreted in a more accepting way than they are usually preached.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
“Those of us who trust sexuality must not allow ourselves to be controlled by those who fear it (Marty Klein).” In America censorship has affected various mediums: print, art, television, and internet, as it pertain to sexuality. However the first amendment “protects” the right to free speak, and press. Congress has tried to pass bills to outlaw pornography, (but have failed) ban books for sexual content, and dictate what can be said on TV and radio. If the government is allowed to censor these ways of communication then we, as citizens of a democracy, will be treated as citizens under a dictatorship. “Censorship may even suppress new and different ideas, keeping them from being made public. It may also set limitations, which stifle the creativity of authors and prevent them from thoroughly expressing their ideas (anonymous)”. The religious groups, parent groups and feminist, are the factor in pressuring governments to implement stricter moral codes. The problem is that these groups view sex as a means of procreation. Yes we are mammals, but we do not have sex just to mate like hors...
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and often avoided in conversation. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. Although disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. One supporter of this belief is Michael Levin, who strongly believes that homosexuality is highly abnormal and thus, undesirable. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in this essay.
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.
My arguments will be ignoring a major element in factoring the morality of homosexuality, the law. Yes, many people know that stealing and murder are both wrong, but this is based on socialization and learning passed down from previous generations. The aim isn’t to ignore the rules, but examples from history relating to homosexuality will not aid in proving ground for its ethics. A rational, autonomous decision making process must be used in order to decipher right from wrong, which can lead to solid, concrete answers.