Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:14:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes:
> In response to Kevin Wilson...
> I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order.
> I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll express it as an
> argument rather than in a single sentence.
>
> (1) There is an archetypical human nature - a design, or
> 'ought-to-be-ness' - that we can discover and know and which sets the moral
> parameters of our lives.
> (2) In the case of human sexuality, which involves the interaction of our
> bodies as persons, there is a natural teleology to sex evident in the fact
> that one man and one woman - not more and not less - can act together to
> procreate a child.
> (3) Homosexuality, in this light, is like driving a car on the bottom of the
> ocean; it is a violation of the design implicit in our biology.
> (4) Human sexuality is morally significant, so behaviors inconsistent with
> that significance (as embodied in the natural teleology) are immoral.
> Another way to say this might be that (heterosexual monogamous) marriage -
> in the fullest sense - is an intrinsic good for human beings and that
> rejection of its defining principles (interpersonal unity) is therefore
> wrong.
> (5) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
>
> The problem with trying to put the position concisely is that, in forums
> like this, it raises a litany of objections, which I think can be answered,
> but which require a good bit of explanation when they are so foreign to
> people (even people in the church). Some folks - probably yourself
> included - will object to the first statement which is in contradiction to
> their worldview. I think this is really the root of the problems I've seen
> in responses so far, and it is what I was trying to get at in my discussion
> with Larry - and what I'll take up with you in some measure below. I hope
> he'll pick up the discussion and attempt to wrestle with my arguments in a
> subsequent post. So let me say that if (1) doesn't hold, then I agree with
> just about every objection that has been made thus far. If (1) is granted,
> and (2) seems pretty straightforward, then that goes a long way toward the
> conclusion, although there are other objections that could be raised here.
Jumping in here, I'm not sure I agree with (1) or (2). The human species can
be defined by both its shared characteristics (we're clever monkeys that
walk around and grab things) and the variety in our population (both genetic
and cultural). So while there is a large amount of commonality between all
humans, there is also enough variation to make it all but impossible to
define a unitary archetype. The best we can do is say "these are things that
most humans share, and here are some things that are different for different
people". Discrimination is largely a product of being blind to difference,
or worse, acknowledging it but being intolerant; when the dominant culture
describes the archetypal human as a powerful white male, everyone else is
denied full access to that culture. The "moral parameters of our lives"
should be defined by the widest possible understanding of what human nature
actually is.
On the second point, the teleology of sex. Or, to ask a question almost
noone asks, "What's the point of sex?". Biological history is almost defined
by structures and behaviours that evolved for one purpose and ended up
serving another. Tongues evolved for eating and tasting food, not speech and
song, but nobody (AFAIK) says that talking is an unnatural use of the
tongue. Similarly, while there is sufficient procreation taking place,
there's nothing wrong with healthy non-reproductive sex, especially when it
enriches your experience of the world.
Putting my versions of (1) and (2) together, homosexual sex, as part of the
wide range of natural human behaviours that are not socially harmful, can be
an interesting and fun thing that people do with their bodies.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com... Kevin, (...) I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order. I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
