Originally posted by Bosse de NageI meant you missed the point of universalisation. It's a hypothetical consideration, not one used for explaining historical events (or non-events).
So far you're failing to make any point at all. You haven't defined the maxim according to which homosexual people act.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy comment was directed at pawnokeyhole, and I was being flippant. "Practise safe sex" is hardly the "maxim" on which you ground your existence as a gay person. Even if it were, I find the idea that practising safe sex somehow entails universal human extinction ridiculous. People practise safe sex when they don't want children, and stop doing it when they do. It's a matter of common sense.
I have. Or rather, you have, and I've said let's see how it goes.
Anyhow--I'm hardly the philosophy master around here--so why don't you provide this maxim by which homosexual people live? It's ok to admit that you can't, by the way.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually, "practise safe sex" was close enough to the maxim I originally had in mind:
My comment was directed at pawnokeyhole, and I was being flippant. "Practise safe sex" is hardly the "maxim" on which you ground your existence as a gay person. Even if it were, I find the idea that practising safe sex somehow entails universal human extinction ridiculous. People practise safe sex when they don't want children, and stop doing it when t is maxim by which homosexual people live? It's ok to admit that you can't, by the way.
"It is permissible never to engage in procreative sex."
But, even if one considers a variant of the alternative maxim that has been posted here earlier ("It is permissible to have sex with someone that one is attracted to." ), a homosexual may not want such a maxim to be universalised as it permits incest and bestiality*.
---
* IIRC, only rational thinking beings have rights (not to be treated as means) in the Kantian view and, therefore, the "will" of the beast does is not a consideration; therefore bestiality cannot be considered a form of rape.
Originally posted by dottewellBased on the information given on the Wikipedia article in the link origionaly posted (I know nothing else about Kant):
Well let's, for the sake of argument, accept that Kant was right to say that homosexuality is contrary to his categorical imperative.
Now what?
Is someone going to defend Kantian ethics? If not, what is the point of the debate?
The reason why lucifershamers argument is falling down is because Kants arguements were equally flawed. There is no reason based on the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that stealing could be wrong or illogical. If a statement is made that only poor people may steal, where stealing is defined as taking of anothers property without thier permission or knowledge a universalization of that law will not in any way negate the existence of property. Similarly there is a difference between the statement "It is permisible to" and "Everyone must always do" and thus even his conclusions on lying are logically flawed.
Originally posted by dottewellThere needn't be one. Not all debates are action-oriented; some are meant just for thought.
Well let's, for the sake of argument, accept that Kant was right to say that homosexuality is contrary to his categorical imperative.
Now what?
Is someone going to defend Kantian ethics? If not, what is the point of the debate?
I think Kantian ethics is interesting because there certainly seem to be political philosophers who base their views on it. And, even for the common person, many tend to use the Categorical Imperative (in a fashion) at times. For instance, a person who duly pays his taxes even when the chances of being punished for not paying are slight usually argues that the consequences would be undesirable if everyone did it. Indeed, whenever the issue of duty or obligation comes up (if it comes up) in a secular context, the reasoning behind it is often Kantian.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat, in part, is what I am arguing. Kant's idea of 'perfect duty' seems to be grounded not so much in logical contradiction (although that is what he says) as in the idea of self-defeating maxims.
Based on the information given on the Wikipedia article in the link origionaly posted (I know nothing else about Kant):
The reason why lucifershamers argument is falling down is because Kants arguements were equally flawed. There is no reason based on the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that stealing could be wrong or illogical. If a sta ...[text shortened]... " and "Everyone must always do" and thus even his conclusions on lying are logically flawed.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer...actually the reason I would pay my taxes in such a case is nothing like that abstract.
...even for the common person, many tend to use the Categorical Imperative (in a fashion) at times. For instance, a person who duly pays his taxes even when the chances of being punished for not paying are slight usually argues that the consequences would be undesirable if everyone did it. Indeed, whenever the issue of duty or obligation comes up (if it comes up) in a secular context, the reasoning behind it is often Kantian.
Nevertheless, the case at hand concerns homosexuality. And here a Kantian interpretation is completely counter-intuitive.
The question people who know nothing about Kant are probably asking themselves is - why should we assume this so-called "Categorical Imperative" is applicable here?
Let's strip this down to the bear bones.
If everyone were gay, the human race would die out. Therefore it is morally wrong to be gay.
Now is this correct?
Originally posted by dottewellThe topic of the debate is just a consideration of homosexual activity under Kantian ethics. So, in that sense, there is no existential import to the debate (unless there is a Kantian reading this).
...actually the reason I would pay my taxes in such a case is nothing like that abstract.
Nevertheless, the case at hand concerns homosexuality. And here a Kantian interpretation is completely counter-intuitive.
The question people who know nothing about Kant are probably asking themselves is - why should we assume this so-called "Categorical Impera ...[text shortened]... uman race would die out. Therefore it is morally wrong to be gay.[/i]
Now is this correct?
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs I said, I'm pretty sure Kant addressed the issue of same-sex relations. So you have your answer there.
The topic of the debate is just a consideration of homosexual activity under Kantian ethics. So, in that sense, there is no existential import to the debate (unless there is a Kantian reading this).
The more interesting question, surely, is whether the following is correct:
If everyone were gay, the human race would die out. Therefore it is morally wrong to be gay.
What do you think?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell let me first state that I think Kant's notion of perfect duties (e.g., not to steal, not to lie) is just plain wrong. If there are such things as moral duties and obligations, I think they are at best defeasible.
That, in part, is what I am arguing. Kant's idea of 'perfect duty' seems to be grounded not so much in logical contradiction (although that is what he says) as in the idea of self-defeating maxims.
Still, I think your argument against homosexuality bears little (no) resemblance to the deontology expressed in the categorical imperative (CI). The CI is categorical precisely because it applies unconditionally and irrespective of any possible 'ends' that we may antecedently will. Your imperative against homosexuality seems completely different, and I think it would be better categorized as a hypothetical imperative. Your imperative to not engage in homosexual activity is conditional on the antecedently willed end that we not bring about the extinction of the human race. In other words, your argument is consequentialist, which is essentially the polar opposite of deontology. In fact, it seems to me like your notion of 'self-defeat' relies completely on consequentialist notions.
This is certainly different from Kant's view of 'perfect duty'. Take stealing for instance: in Kant's view, if stealing is universalized, then a logical contradiction follows, which is incompatible with our will's being rational. This is not at all like the consequentialist argument you are putting forth.
Originally posted by lucifershammerKant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is certainly worthy of close study since it has influenced philosophical speculation ever since.
The topic of the debate is just a consideration of homosexual activity under Kantian ethics. So, in that sense, there is no existential import to the debate (unless there is a Kantian reading this).
I am not familiar with his ethical writings but doubt that he would have approved of buggers who used to be referred to in the Army either as 'shirt-lifters'(Officer's Mess), or 'bum-boys'(OR's canteen).
Originally posted by NargagunaYou could always read Kant's Groundwork. It has the virtue of being very short.
Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is certainly worthy of close study since it has influenced philosophical speculation ever since.
I am not familiar with his ethical writings but doubt that he would have approved of buggers who used to be referred to in the Army either as 'shirt-lifters'(Officer's Mess), or 'bum-boys'(OR's canteen).
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, no. My point is not that the extinction of the human race is something undesirable in itself (which might be a consideration for imperfect duty, I suppose), but that the extinction of the human race renders the maxim on which homosexual action is based 'meaningless' (because there would be no actors to execute the action). I think this is similar to the way in which stealing renders property meaningless. Now, I could be wrong here - and I'm open to counter-argument.
Well let me first state that I think Kant's notion of perfect duties (e.g., not to steal, not to lie) is just plain wrong. If there are such things as moral duties and obligations, I think they are at best defeasible.
Still, I think your argument against homosexuality bears little (no) resemblance to the deontology expressed in the categorical imper ...[text shortened]... ational. This is not at all like the consequentialist argument you are putting forth.