Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't think you get it. I'm sure lucifer was meaning that homosexuality violates the first formulation of the catagorical imperative as homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore homosexuality is not a feasible universal law.
Please elaborate on how eroticism violates the first formulation of the categorical imperative.
Originally posted by dottewellI'm not sure universalising stealing would lead to a logical contradiction. As I mentioned earlier, one can still retain the concept of property (in a legal sense) for taxation, inheritance purposes etc.
No; 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 wouldn't be fair, of course, but would it entail a logical contradiction?
Originally posted by princeoforangeTalk to dottewell. He da Kant man.
I don't think you get it. I'm sure lucifer was meaning that homosexuality violates the first formulation of the catagorical imperative as homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore homosexuality is not a feasible universal law.
LemonJello expressed my thoughts well: the basis of homosexual activity is love, which is surely fine with everyone.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, according to Kant, it would. That's why it's a "perfect" duty not to steal.
I'm not sure universalising stealing would lead to a logical contradiction. As I mentioned earlier, one can still retain the concept of property (in a legal sense) for taxation, inheritance purposes etc.
It wouldn't be fair, of course, but would it entail a logical contradiction?
I never said he was right!
Originally posted by dottewellIt seems to me, then, that he was more interested in the idea of loss of meaning or self-defeating nature of the argument than strict logical contradiction.
Yes, according to Kant, it would. That's why it's a "perfect" duty not to steal.
I never said he was right!
Which brings us back to where we were at the end of page 1...
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell it doesn't really matter anyway; there are "impefect" duties and other formulations of the CI.
It seems to me, then, that he was more interested in the idea of loss of meaning or self-defeating nature of the argument than strict logical contradiction.
Which brings us back to where we were at the end of page 1...
As I said, I think he explicitly said that same-sex sex was wrong, but I'm really no expert on Kant.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat precisely would be the maxim that homosexuals would be acting in accordance with?
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 Bosse de NageLet's start with that.
In the case of (homo)sexuality--"practise safe sex" could be a maxim. No?
If "practise safe sex" were a universal maxim the result on humanity would be disastrous. Therefore, it seems to me that a homosexual would not desire it to be universalised and, hence, would have at least an imperfect duty not to practise safe sex.
Originally posted by princeoforangeI'm sure I don't get it. But I really don't mind. 🙂
I don't think you get it. I'm sure lucifer was meaning that homosexuality violates the first formulation of the catagorical imperative as homosexuals cannot reproduce and therefore homosexuality is not a feasible universal law.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy not?
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.
Because you will find no logical contradictions that are requisite for a perfect duty.
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.
No. If total extinction of the human race is a matter of sufficient concern (not clear at all to me that it should be), this line of thought still constitutes only an imperfect duty.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere need not be any self-defeating here either. If homosexuality became universal, then, yes, it does seem that the human race would be wiped out. From a standpoint of the reasons why one may enter into the relationship in the first place: so what?
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.
There is no self-defeating here; there may, however, be a type of selfishness you are worried about in regards to the bringing about of new humans (or willful lack thereof). But, seriously, does one have a duty, or obligation, to reproduce? I think such an idea is rather silly; but if you don't, then it may constitute in your mind grounds for an imperfect duty within this context.