At any rate, there seem to me to be some problems with Kant's notion of 'perfect duty'. Lying and stealing are paradigmatic here for Kant. But in both cases, we can come up with good examples that offer a very serious challenge. For lying, something like you are hiding a huddled family in your attic, and the Gestapos show up with guns; for stealing, perhaps your family is starving and someone else's bread is nearby.
Originally posted by LemonJellolucifershammer, surely you do realize that there are ways to sustain the human population even if homosexuality were to become universal. Artificial insemination is not exactly the 'natural' approach, but we certainly wouldn't want to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy at that juncture, would we?
If homosexuality became universal, then, yes, it does seem that the human race would be wiped out.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are many things other people do that I wouldn't want codified into law forcing everyone to do them to the exclusion of other activities. This "catergorical imperitive" is silly. Am I not allowed to drink milk because some people are lactose intolerant? I don't think I understand...
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI did think about artificial insemination, which is why in my last post I just wrote "disastrous consequences".
lucifershammer, surely you do realize that there are ways to sustain the human population even if homosexuality were to become universal. Artificial insemination is not exactly the 'natural' approach, but we certainly wouldn't want to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy at that juncture, would we?
However, I do think the net result would be the same. Universal artificial insemination is simply not an economically viable option. Ultimately, the human race would be wiped out, or close enough anyway.
EDIT: I should mention that I think the economy would collapse first.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo be perfectly honest, I don't understand what you're going on about. Practising safe sex includes the rhythm method, you know. Would you be happier if everyone practised unsafe sex? Your thinking is incredibly rigid.
Let's start with that.
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 twhitehead"Why have you picked on homosexuality in particular."
Why 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?
Because he is a brain-washed Catholic, mindlessly reiterating the odious, homophobic stance issued from the Vatican.
Originally posted by howardgeeNonsense, he's trying to save the human race from extinction. The danger is all too real. Hang on a minute, though--why didn't rampant homosexuality make the ancient Greek economy collapse? I'm confused...
"Why have you picked on homosexuality in particular."
Because he is a brain-washed Catholic, mindlessly reiterating the odious, homophobic stance issued from the Vatican.
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease direct your comments to the arguments I (and others) make, instead of at me personally. My "thinking" is not a consideration here. It's a purely philosophical ethics debate.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand what you're going on about. Practising safe sex includes the rhythm method, you know. Would you be happier if everyone practised unsafe sex? Your thinking is incredibly rigid.