Originally posted by LemonJelloBut 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.
[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]
If one considers the perfect duty not to lie, for instance, one could argue that it depends on the same sort of consequentialism. Lying (whether permissible or not) assumes that a statement has a fixed, linguistic meaning. The act of lying does not, in itself, provide a logical contradiction - all it does is affect the correspondence between a particular statement and reality. Rather, for language to become "meaningless" (as Kant seems to argue), one would have to consider the "What if everyone lied" question. And that, according to you, is consequentialist. Whether it is or isn't, it seems to me to be the same sort of argument I'm making.
As to it being consequentialist, I would argue that consequentialist ethics is based on the question "What will/is likely to happen if I do this". That's a different question from "What if everyone does this".
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.
Yes, under the current formulation of the maxim it would. I never said otherwise.
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?
Whether you or I really believe that or not is irrelevant to this debate (or any debate, for that matter). What matters is the argument itself, not the person putting it forward.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLet me be more clear why I think the consequentalist thing is an important issue here. Consequentialist argument is inextricably linked to the hypothetical and basically holds that the moral rightness/wrongness of an act is contingent upon the act's bringing about certain consequences (whether actual or expected). The criterial basis for your 'self-defeat' is likewise hypothetical: an act is 'self-defeating' based on whether or not universalization of the act brings about a certain set of consequences -- in this case, the extinction of the human race. You cannot generate a 'perfect duty' from hypothetical considerations. You just can't. A perfect duty requires a categorical foundation. If it were the case that one had a perfect duty to not engage in homosexual activity, would it not also necessarily be the case that one ought not engage in homosexual activity regardless of the consequences of such activity? Since that is clearly not the case with your 'self-defeating' criterion, I fail to see how it could produce a 'perfect duty'.
[b]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.
If one considers the perfect duty not to lie, for instance, one could argue that it depends on the ...[text shortened]... atter). What matters is the argument itself, not the person putting it forward.[/b]
I don't put much stock in Kant's take on perfect duties, either. But his approach seems different from yours. His criteria for a perfect duty does not rely on consequential arguments, but merely whether or not the mere act of mentally entertaining the idea of universalization is contradictory in the framework of any rational noetic structure. In other words, my take is that Kant is not saying that if we universalize the act X, then it will lead to consequences Y (which is how yours is structured); rather, Kant is saying that merely the idea of universalizing X is incorrigible to any rational will (would a rational person entertain the proposition that property both exists and does not exist simultaneously?).
Whether you or I really believe that or not is irrelevant to this debate (or any debate, for that matter).
Well I disagree. If an ethical theory does not align even remotely with our intuitions, then what the hell good is it? If an ethical theory produces absurd results, then that may be good reason to think twice about it. Under your 'self-defeat' criterion, a person has a 'perfect duty' not to willfully engage in natural-life-long abstinence from sexual intercourse. Sounds pretty absurd if you ask me. What would that say about the man Jesus of Nazareth?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't blame me. I've tried to make it about the argument rather than the person who supposedly made the argument.
Fascinating. Almost as good as reading the debate about when DrScribbles and rwingett would have a debate. When are you going to get to the point? Oh, I forgot. There isn't one. 🙄
Originally posted by lucifershammerDoes masturbating count?
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
1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforangeThat's 'Mr. LemonJello' to you, poo. Maybe I wasn't clear. My observation was merely meant to show that if one is basing a duty here (whether perfect or imperfect) on the claim that it is logically incompatible for homosexual activity to be universalized while simultaneously also perpetuating the human race, then he better go hunting for new material. If he is basing it on practical incompatibility, as LH does, then he has a better point.
So when lemonjelly stipulated that if homosexuality was universal, human life could still be continued, he was wrong. Funny, I had that suspicion.
Originally posted by princeoforangeDepends on whether you are of the moment or in the moment. If, as Cant postulated, you are able to separate your mind from the hand that is derricking (a type of uncaused sensory illusion of post-hermenutic eunoching), and merely enjoy the derricking as if it were unattached to a free will agency, then said enjoyment is akin to unisexual activity.
Does masturbating count?
However, if the hand is as enamored of the act as is the appendage, then you are homosexual, and therefore, immoral.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease tell me that this as an attempt at humor. Let me off the hook.
Depends on whether you are of the moment or in the moment. If, as Cant postulated, you are able to separate your mind from the hand that is derricking (a type of uncaused sensory illusion of post-hermenutic eunoching), and merely enjoy the derricking as if it were unattached to a free will agency, then said enjoyment is akin to unisexual activity. ...[text shortened]... enamored of the act as is the appendage, then you are homosexual, and therefore, immoral.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRobert Silverberg wrote a book in which having sex with all comers is a social duty.
Does refusing to have sex with a man or woman who wants to have heterosexual sex with you violate the first formulation of the categorical imperitive?
Wouldn't priestly celibacy also violate said imperative (according to LH's reasoning)?