One right that I believe sometimes get neglected is the right to disapprove of someone's conduct. I'm not particularly hostile to homosexuality but I fear that people in the LGBT community equate disapproval with some sort of assault or endangerment. (Microaggression?) Does my love life need everyone's approval?
26 comments:
Words are violence these days.
I'm not particularly hostile to homosexuality but I fear that people in the LGBT community equate disapproval with some sort of assault or endangerment.
Possibly the association was built by decades of vocal disapproval being followed by assault and endangerment.
I think it's a "fertile soil" type of situation. Even relatively innocuous words can create fertile soil for the hostility of others.
Homosexuality is widespread in the animal world, so I don't see why we couldn't make a natural law argument. If it's that widespread, it must serve some function. And going against that function is bad.
Martin,
Are you homosexual?
Nope.
OK.
You've said a lot of things on this topic that don't seem to make sense to me unless one has a personal stake in the issue.
I don't think disapproval amounts to endangerment, even less assault, but I hope it would provoke some degree of discomfort. Otherwise disapproval would lack any force as a moral corrective. Disapproval is an important part of the continual negotiation and propagation of moral value within a society. Trying to persuade us that disapproval is worse than it is is itself a meta-move within that negotiation and should be resisted. Better to persuade that there is nothing to disapprove of.
Martin, Theft serves a function, namely getting something for nothing, and it's widespread in the animal world. Should we then not disapprove of theft?
I don't see how it matters whether I do or do not have a personal stake in the matter. It seems clear to me that homosexuality is a "normal" thing in that it happens in any large group of social animals. Some have theorized that it's function is to keep a percentage of the population free of children in order to allow them to assist in the raising of the children of others. If we follow natural law morality, why would it only apply to what we pick and choose?
David,
But disapproval should not come for something that is natural. For example, should we disapprove of heterosexual sex? Natural law would say that heterosexual sex is good for us.
As for theft, how does natural law morality work, then? Heterosexual sex is widespread in the animal world and natural law morality says this is why it's good for us. What makes homosexual sex not good for us, even though it's also widespread? What makes theft bad for us, on a natural law theory, even though it too is widespread in the natural world?
Martin, my point is a narrowly logical one: theft is a counter-example to the claim that widespread and natural implies good. Can I ask what you mean by a 'natural law argument' or 'natural law morality'?
On Professor Reppert's blog I assumed most people would be familiar with influential philosophical positions. The Wikipedia article seems to have a good brief definition:
Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to natural law theory (called jusnaturalism), all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3]
Another way to word it is that something is "good" if it entails using something according to its function and "bad" if using something in a way contrary to its function. So homosexuality is "bad" since it misuses reproductive organs.
Thank you Martin. Forgive me, I was a little surprised at the suggestion of a natural law argument pro homosexuality.
I think he was actually making a natural law argument for homosexuality originally.
Not sure what his argument is now.
David Brightly,
I don't think disapproval amounts to endangerment, even less assault, but I hope it would provoke some degree of discomfort.
That's an easy assessment to make in the rarified and sterile environment of the philosopher's chair, where actions so rarely follow up words.
Forgive me, I was a little surprised at the suggestion of a natural law argument pro homosexuality.
Natural law arguments depend upon the determination of a primary purpose. Theft subverts ownership, for example. A determination that the primary purpose of sex is bonding with the other individuals leads to different natural law constructions than the determination that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction.
bmiller,
You've said a lot of things on this topic that don't seem to make sense to me unless one has a personal stake in the issue.
Some people find a personal stake in injustice even when they are not the group being treated unjustly.
Those who treat words as violence are 'closet fascists'. When I can claim that your words are an attack on me, I can justify silencing you by force. Which is exactly what fascists do.
That would be a very misleading association. Disapproval of the LGBTQ lifestyle has traditionally been all but universal. Very few people followed it up with violence.
Well... homosexuality is seen. I'm not at all sure it's widespread. Very few animals turn down opposite-sex opportunities in favor of homosexual intercourse. But more importantly, are we really prepared to derive our moral standards from subhuman animal conduct. Homosexuality occurs among animals? So does cannibalism. Dogs eat their own excrement. Humans are distinguished from animals by our ability to control our behavior in submission to higher standards. Copying the beasts is the opposite of that.
Precisely. We do NOT find animal conduct 'good'. Rather, we excuse them, because we don't think they grasp the concept of 'abstract morality'. If they did... much of their conduct is absolutely reprehensible.
Almost everybody would censure a disapproval becoming violent. But disapproval is generally a mild sentiment which we find easy to control. If an expression of disapproval is followed by violence then something else is going on, less easy to control, which leads to the violence.
BC Commentary,
That would be a very misleading association. Disapproval of the LGBTQ lifestyle has traditionally been all but universal. Very few people followed it up with violence.
Enough people followed it up with violence that violence became a frequent part of the lives of open homosexuals, until recently.
David Brightly,
But disapproval is generally a mild sentiment which we find easy to control.
I appreciate that's been your experience when you have been disapproved of. Not everyone has that same experience.
It's also been my experience when disapproving of others. I am trying to think of circumstances in which disapproval can appear to overflow into violence. Sex, especially wrt children, and race come to mind. There have probably been studies on this so if anyone has any suggestions I'd be interested to hear.
David Brightly,
It's also been my experience when disapproving of others
If everyone expressed disapproval as mildly as you, the world would be a safer place.
Sexual orientation should also come to mind.
This may be of use. It's the 12 page paper from 2004 that Jonathan Haidt later developed into The Righteous Mind. Also this from WP.
Hey Wimps! Get real. Even leftist Camille Paglia is telling you that the barbarians are at the gate. You've 7 minutes don't you?
Post a Comment