Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy have you picked on homosexuality in particular. If you are correct then surely having sex with women would similarly violate the same law as it would result in homosexual behaviour amongst women?
Homosexual activity violates the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and is, therefore, unethical in [Kantian] deontological ethics theory. Debate.
For clarity, I think Kant did mention same-sex sex. And I think he saw it as wrong, for roughly the reasons LH said; but not because the idea was _logically_ contradictory. Rather that it was (roughly) against our nature.
Someone can look this up or we can wait for BBarr, but my first point remains: who really cares what Kant says about ethics?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe universalization of homosexual activity merely means that everyone is free to participate in such activity should they so choose. It does not mean that they are obligated to do so, wether exclusively or at all. As most people will continue to decline the opportunity, the human race is in no great peril.
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 ...[text shortened]... ery least) of whether it is permissible for a person not to engage in procreative sex.
Originally posted by dottewell"Waiting for BBarr"--coming soon to a cinema near you.
Someone can look this up or we can wait for BBarr, but my first point remains: who really cares what Kant says about ethics?
You're right, I don't really care about Kant's views on ethics. He's no fun to read at all.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDid you know a fair few German philosophy students read Kant in translated English?
"Waiting for BBarr"--coming soon to a cinema near you.
You're right, I don't really care about Kant's views on ethics. He's no fun to read at all.
Apparantly the original German is even harder to read.
(I'd be quite surprised, and scared, if someone said: "I think the Holocaust was wrong because when we try to frame it as a universal law, it proves contradictory".)