Originally posted by NargagunaThat was mentioned in the Metaphysics of Morals (not the Groundwork), I believe. Along with masturbation (which is worse than suicide, according to Kant).
Yes, do you know I was actually aware of that. However, what has that to do with shirt-lifting?
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerbecause there would be no actors to execute the action
Well, 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 simila ...[text shortened]... renders property meaningless. Now, I could be wrong here - and I'm open to counter-argument.
But this is clearly false. Even if adopted universally, there would still be actors and they would be executing. If you are basing your 'self-defeat' on what happens next (ie., the human race then dies out), it is a consequentialist argument.
Under your argument, it would also be morally wrong ('self-defeating' and constituting the violation of a 'perfect duty'😉 for one (gay, straight, makes no difference) to abstain fully from engaging in the act of procreation. One who lives his entire life without engaging in sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreating would be violating his perfect duty. After all, for one to willfully abstain in such a way, he needs to exist; and if such abstinence is adopted universally, the race clearly dies out. Do you really believe that? Since deontology is fundamentally concerned with duties and obligations, is it your position that one has a moral obligation to engage in sexual intercourse aimed at the purpose of procreation?
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs interpretation of Kant, I agree; he certainly did not consider homosexual acts some sort of violation of perfect duty.
[b]because there would be no actors to execute the action
But this is clearly false. Even if adopted universally, there would still be actors and they would be executing. If you are basing your 'self-defeat' on what happens next (ie., the human race then dies out), it is a consequentialist argument.
Under your argument, it would also be morall ...[text shortened]... as a moral obligation to engage in sexual intercourse aimed at the purpose of procreation?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTreating people as an end? (How ironic that sounds...)
He did consider it unethical under the second formulation of the CI.
Could you post a reference/quote?
Anyway, the (correct) point LJ is making is that Kant did not consider it a violation of perfect duty, since universalising the maxim does not create a logical contradiction.
EDIT: I seem to recall where he mentioned homosexuality (along with masturbation, "fun sex", etc.) in the MofM, he was concerned about it being anti-natural because it did not lead to the preservation of the species. But a cursory internet search reveals nothing and I don't have the collected works of Kant in the office...
Originally posted by dottewellGoogle "Kant homosexuality".
Treating people as an end? (How ironic that sounds...)
Could you post a reference/quote?
Anyway, the (correct) point LJ is making is that Kant did not consider it a violation of perfect duty, since universalising the maxim does not create a logical contradiction.
EDIT: I seem to recall where he mentioned homosexuality (along with masturbation, "fu ...[text shortened]... internet search reveals nothing and I don't have the collected works of Kant in the office...
