The first formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative goes:
""Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."*
Homosexual activity violates the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and is, therefore, unethical in [Kantian] deontological ethics theory. Debate.
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_first_formulation
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what about eating chocolate?
The first formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative goes:
""Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."*
Homosexual activity violates the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and is, therefore, unethical in [Kantian] deontological ethics theory. Debate.
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_first_formulation
That might seem also to be unethical using Kant's formulation.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTo answer that question, I would need your definition of 'eroticism' (it is quite a vague term!) first. You'd also need to show me how homosexual activity is related to 'eroticism' (how you define it).
Please elaborate on how eroticism violates the first formulation of the categorical imperative.
Originally posted by lucifershammerEroticism is sexual excitement. Let's just call it love-making.
To answer that question, I would need your definition of 'eroticism' (it is quite a vague term!) first. You'd also need to show me how homosexual activity is related to 'eroticism' (how you define it).
What is "homosexual activity"?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNope. I disagree. Two of the same sex come together; they enter into a relationship of love, happiness, and mutual benefit. By the first formulation, these two may conclude exactly the opposite of your claim: namely, that they have an imperfect duty not to deny themselves these basic commodities that are generally in universally high demand.
The first formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative goes:
""Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."*
Homosexual activity violates the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and is, therefore, unethical in [Kantian] deontological ethics theory. Debate.
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_first_formulation
I think you may find imperfect duties here either way, but no perfect duty.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell put. The substance of my incoherent thoughts.
Nope. I disagree. Two of the same sex come together; they enter into a relationship of love, happiness, and mutual benefit. By the first formulation, these two may conclude exactly the opposite of your claim: namely, that they have an imperfect duty not to deny themselves these basic commodities that are generally in universally high demand.
I think you may find imperfect duties here either way, but no perfect duty.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhy not?
I think you may find imperfect duties here either way, but no perfect duty.
If for instance, one has a perfect duty not to steal because the maxim "It is permissible to steal" cannot be universalised (because it would destroy the concept of property), then it would seem to follow that one has a perfect duty not to engage in homosexual activity because the universalisation of homosexual activity would make the human race extinct.
My point above might not be phrased precisely. If the above formulation doesn't work, then one might consider the case (at the very least) of whether it is permissible for a person not to engage in procreative sex.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer...but it is not logically contradictory.
If for instance, one has a perfect duty not to steal because the maxim "It is permissible to steal" cannot be universalised (because it would destroy the concept of property), then it would seem to follow that one has a perfect duty not to engage in homosexual activity because the universalisation of homosexual activity would make the human race extinct.
You should post the description of perfect and imperfect duty so people have a better idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by dottewellIt's in the link from the first post.
...but it is not logically contradictory.
You should post the description of perfect and imperfect duty so people have a better idea what you're talking about.
I'm not sure how universal stealing causes a logical contradiction - property can still have a nominal meaning in such a universe. What seems to me to be more relevant is that it is self-defeating.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou have completely mixed up "It is permissible to" with "everyone has to".
Why not?
If for instance, one has a perfect duty not to steal because the maxim "It is permissible to steal" cannot be universalised (because it would destroy the concept of property), then it would seem to follow that one has a perfect duty not to engage in homosexual activity because the universalisation of homosexual activity would make the huma ery least) of whether it is permissible for a person not to engage in procreative sex.
If I wish to go sky diving, should I not do it unless everyone is required to do the same ? Or are you saying that one must only do things which everyone else must do which will eventually lead to the conclusion that everyone must lead a perfect life with everyone following an exact path throughout thier lives. Eg only eat at 12:00 if you will that it becomes a universal law that all people must eat at 12:00 ?
[edit]
Surely homosexual activity is only a violation of the Imperative if you will that some people must not be allowed by law to take part in such activity.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo; for Kant it has to be a logical contradiction to result in a perfect duty. If we universalise the proposition "it is permissable to steal" then there could be no meaningful concept of private property, ergo no stealing. The proposition is self-annihilating.
It's in the link from the first post.
I'm not sure how universal stealing causes a logical contradiction - property can still have a nominal meaning in such a universe. What seems to me to be more relevant is that it is self-defeating.