Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Kant's Categorical Imperative; Homosexuality

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 4:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the aforementioned is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.
Correction.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:04:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

The Categorical Imperative is interesting and I think it follows that homosexuality, according to Kant in this matter, would indeed be immoral.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:10:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

Conceptually, the Categorical Imperative is appealing. That said, a problem with it is that a lot of things are a matter of perspective.

Yes, if you define the question as "Should everybody be gay", then your reasoning has a degree of validity.

But if you define the question as "Should everybody be allowed to be with who they love who consents to being with them", the results change rather dramatically.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This represents a misunderstanding of the logic behind the CI. The CI is designed to expose selfishness by multiplying your deeds throughout the world, showing how we would all be worse off. If I steal something it's easy to say "so what," but if everybody was stealing, those effects are more easily discernible.

What you are doing is using an example which is more of an opinion than a question of selfishness. By switching examples, your logic is easily exposed as terrible. I like to walk in the Sherwood Forest by my house (it's a rather small trail in my neighborhood that I bring my dog on). Does the CI insist that this action is immoral, since if all 7 billion people on Earth decided to walk on that trail everybody would not fit and be trampled to death? What you're doing is cutting out common sense from theory to twist it into your particular ideological taste. By your usage, just about anything becomes immoral.

How I would apply the CI to homosexuality would be to ask "what would happen if everybody got to choose which gender they chose to make love to?" To take it further and say that everybody is necessarily going to choose a particular gender is just as senseless as saying that everybody would choose a particular person to love.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:24:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

The Categorical Imperative is literally nonsensical because it's so easy to narrow and qualify terms to pass the test.

For example, instead of saying that "homosexual behaviour" shouldn't be done universally, one can simply say "homosexual behaviour in all situations wherein there is no risk to the continuation of the human race" does hold universally. You can make the strictest and narrowest of statements "universal" by Kant's terms, which makes the entire exercise worthless.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Categorical Imperative is, at the very least, incomplete. For example, say someone wants to become a doctor. If everyone became a doctor, there would be no food to eat, no housing, etc. which is bad. Does that mean becoming a doctor is immoral? You could also use this argument to say "It's immoral not to have children", which is absurd.

Furthermore, homosexuality is not a choice, so you can't say "Well what if everyone became gay!" since that's nonsense.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:24:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

The Categorical Imperative is literally nonsensical because it's so easy to narrow and qualify terms to pass the test.

For example, instead of saying that "homosexual behaviour" shouldn't be done universally, one can simply say "homosexual behaviour in all situations wherein there is no risk to the continuation of the human race" does hold universally. You can make the strictest and narrowest of statements "universal" by Kant's terms, which makes the entire exercise worthless.

I think there's value in the exercise inasmuch as you use it to prevent hypocrisy, which I think is the real goal of it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ironslippers
Posts: 513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:40:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

I encourage homosexualty.
Leaves more for me.
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:45:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:39:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:24:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

The Categorical Imperative is literally nonsensical because it's so easy to narrow and qualify terms to pass the test.

For example, instead of saying that "homosexual behaviour" shouldn't be done universally, one can simply say "homosexual behaviour in all situations wherein there is no risk to the continuation of the human race" does hold universally. You can make the strictest and narrowest of statements "universal" by Kant's terms, which makes the entire exercise worthless.

I think there's value in the exercise inasmuch as you use it to prevent hypocrisy, which I think is the real goal of it.

Sure, but there's nothing unique about the "universal" aspect of the moral rules it produces if they can be incredibly focused and contextual. Thou shalt not kill is, prima facie, much different than thou shalt not kill except under circumstances x, y, z, etc. If pretty much every action can be made universal, then the CI gives no way to actually find out which are good *if* they're universal beyond the self-evidently immoral ones.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:02:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:22:35 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
This represents a misunderstanding of the logic behind the CI. The CI is designed to expose selfishness by multiplying your deeds throughout the world, showing how we would all be worse off. If I steal something it's easy to say "so what," but if everybody was stealing, those effects are more easily discernible.

What you are doing is using an example which is more of an opinion than a question of selfishness. By switching examples, your logic is easily exposed as terrible. I like to walk in the Sherwood Forest by my house (it's a rather small trail in my neighborhood that I bring my dog on). Does the CI insist that this action is immoral, since if all 7 billion people on Earth decided to walk on that trail everybody would not fit and be trampled to death? What you're doing is cutting out common sense from theory to twist it into your particular ideological taste. By your usage, just about anything becomes immoral.

How I would apply the CI to homosexuality would be to ask "what would happen if everybody got to choose which gender they chose to make love to?" To take it further and say that everybody is necessarily going to choose a particular gender is just as senseless as saying that everybody would choose a particular person to love.
Are you addressing Kant or me? Since I didn't defend his theory of morality, I assume it's him. Sorry to say though, it's unlikely that he'll read your comment.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:09:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:10:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Conceptually, the Categorical Imperative is appealing. That said, a problem with it is that a lot of things are a matter of perspective.

Yes, if you define the question as "Should everybody be gay", then your reasoning has a degree of validity.

But if you define the question as "Should everybody be allowed to be with who they love who consents to being with them", the results change rather dramatically.
Good to see you, Blade!

I agree with you; I think that the system is flawed. I'm keen on exploring it more, though; a paper on it may one day be due!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 11:47:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

CI is an impossible moral thought to follow. Not to say I have read up on CI, but from what I know it certainly seems to be very impractical.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 11:48:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:22:35 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
This represents a misunderstanding of the logic behind the CI. The CI is designed to expose selfishness by multiplying your deeds throughout the world, showing how we would all be worse off. If I steal something it's easy to say "so what," but if everybody was stealing, those effects are more easily discernible.

What you are doing is using an example which is more of an opinion than a question of selfishness. By switching examples, your logic is easily exposed as terrible. I like to walk in the Sherwood Forest by my house (it's a rather small trail in my neighborhood that I bring my dog on). Does the CI insist that this action is immoral, since if all 7 billion people on Earth decided to walk on that trail everybody would not fit and be trampled to death? What you're doing is cutting out common sense from theory to twist it into your particular ideological taste. By your usage, just about anything becomes immoral.

How I would apply the CI to homosexuality would be to ask "what would happen if everybody got to choose which gender they chose to make love to?" To take it further and say that everybody is necessarily going to choose a particular gender is just as senseless as saying that everybody would choose a particular person to love.

This was a good post.
Nolite Timere
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 9:36:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 11:48:57 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/26/2015 7:22:35 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
This represents a misunderstanding of the logic behind the CI. The CI is designed to expose selfishness by multiplying your deeds throughout the world, showing how we would all be worse off. If I steal something it's easy to say "so what," but if everybody was stealing, those effects are more easily discernible.

What you are doing is using an example which is more of an opinion than a question of selfishness. By switching examples, your logic is easily exposed as terrible. I like to walk in the Sherwood Forest by my house (it's a rather small trail in my neighborhood that I bring my dog on). Does the CI insist that this action is immoral, since if all 7 billion people on Earth decided to walk on that trail everybody would not fit and be trampled to death? What you're doing is cutting out common sense from theory to twist it into your particular ideological taste. By your usage, just about anything becomes immoral.

How I would apply the CI to homosexuality would be to ask "what would happen if everybody got to choose which gender they chose to make love to?" To take it further and say that everybody is necessarily going to choose a particular gender is just as senseless as saying that everybody would choose a particular person to love.

This was a good post.

Thank you! Could you explain it to Mirza? He doesn't seem to get it :P
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 4:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

It depends on how you frame the maxim. If you state it as something like: "Everyone should love whomever they're attracted to", then homosexuality/bisexuality is no longer immoral, nor does it violate the CI. Since homosexuality is not a majority or even a large sector of the population, it doesn't make the maxim self defeating. That is one of the problems with the CI. The way you phrase the maxim can greatly change the outcome.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 5:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 9:36:48 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Thank you! Could you explain it to Mirza? He doesn't seem to get it :P
I love how oddly stupid you are so that even after I made it clear I never advanced the CI and its application to homosexuality, you nevertheless sneak in here with a little insult. Remember that as enjoyable as your daily intake of weed is, it isn't that benign for the brain in physical terms.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:30:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 4:59:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

It depends on how you frame the maxim. If you state it as something like: "Everyone should love whomever they're attracted to", then homosexuality/bisexuality is no longer immoral, nor does it violate the CI. Since homosexuality is not a majority or even a large sector of the population, it doesn't make the maxim self defeating. That is one of the problems with the CI. The way you phrase the maxim can greatly change the outcome.

Would you also say that a hammer is not a good hitting tool only because the way you hold it can greatly change the quality of the impact?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:30:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:59:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

It depends on how you frame the maxim. If you state it as something like: "Everyone should love whomever they're attracted to", then homosexuality/bisexuality is no longer immoral, nor does it violate the CI. Since homosexuality is not a majority or even a large sector of the population, it doesn't make the maxim self defeating. That is one of the problems with the CI. The way you phrase the maxim can greatly change the outcome.

Would you also say that a hammer is not a good hitting tool only because the way you hold it can greatly change the quality of the impact?

That's a bit of fallacy of false analogy. A hammer isn't meant to give you a universal tool. I doubt you'd use a hammer to undo a bolt...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:09:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 5:15:16 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:30:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:59:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

It depends on how you frame the maxim. If you state it as something like: "Everyone should love whomever they're attracted to", then homosexuality/bisexuality is no longer immoral, nor does it violate the CI. Since homosexuality is not a majority or even a large sector of the population, it doesn't make the maxim self defeating. That is one of the problems with the CI. The way you phrase the maxim can greatly change the outcome.

Would you also say that a hammer is not a good hitting tool only because the way you hold it can greatly change the quality of the impact?

That's a bit of fallacy of false analogy. A hammer isn't meant to give you a universal tool. I doubt you'd use a hammer to undo a bolt...

And I wouldn't use the CI to figure out how to bake bread. "Universal" is relative, I could say the CI is a universal moral tool or I could say it is a very specific tool only to be used for ethical inquiries. The point remains that any tool, universal or not, has to be used properly for it to be effective. I can't hammer a nail very effectively if I use the wrong side of the hammer, and I can't derive a quality answer from the CI if I am sloppy with how I use it. I mean that's really not even up for debate, you have to use any tool properly or else it isn't going to work...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:10:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

Conceptually, the Categorical Imperative is appealing. That said, a problem with it is that a lot of things are a matter of perspective.

Yes, if you define the question as "Should everybody be gay", then your reasoning has a degree of validity.

But if you define the question as "Should everybody be allowed to be with who they love who consents to being with them", the results change rather dramatically.

Excellent position here. The Categorical Imperative can justify an extremist form of thinking, which is why, though it can be useful, we should also be cautious with it.

For example, one type of medicine might be very beneficial for people that suffer from a particular illness. Problem: a small percentage of people die when ingesting this medicine.

The problem with the categorical imperative is that NOT EVERYTHING IS UNIVERSAL. We have to be aware of exceptions and adjust our positions so that as many people can benefit from several courses of action as possible, understanding that sometimes different solutions will have to be administered for different people, etc.

In other words, we have to be aware that our knowledge is limited and we have to avoid well-reasoned ignorant views that perceive the world as exclusively black and white. The world isn't a simple place to live in.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:42:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:09:29 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:15:16 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:30:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:59:30 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 6/26/2015 4:55:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If all people were to practice homosexuality, it would not further the progress of humanity, and we would therefore cease to be. It thus follows, if the is true, that homosexuality, as a behaviour, not thought, is immoral. To argue against this view, it seems to be unwise to use internal critique. Arguing against the premises through external critique works better.

What's your view on the CI, and its application to homosexual behaviour? Let your minds speak on this issue, should you have thoughts to share, Sirs and Ma'ams.

It depends on how you frame the maxim. If you state it as something like: "Everyone should love whomever they're attracted to", then homosexuality/bisexuality is no longer immoral, nor does it violate the CI. Since homosexuality is not a majority or even a large sector of the population, it doesn't make the maxim self defeating. That is one of the problems with the CI. The way you phrase the maxim can greatly change the outcome.

Would you also say that a hammer is not a good hitting tool only because the way you hold it can greatly change the quality of the impact?

That's a bit of fallacy of false analogy. A hammer isn't meant to give you a universal tool. I doubt you'd use a hammer to undo a bolt...

And I wouldn't use the CI to figure out how to bake bread. "Universal" is relative, I could say the CI is a universal moral tool or I could say it is a very specific tool only to be used for ethical inquiries. The point remains that any tool, universal or not, has to be used properly for it to be effective. I can't hammer a nail very effectively if I use the wrong side of the hammer, and I can't derive a quality answer from the CI if I am sloppy with how I use it. I mean that's really not even up for debate, you have to use any tool properly or else it isn't going to work...

The problem with the ci is that you can word the maxim in a biased way in order to get the result that you wanted. That doesn't mean you're using the ci wrong, it simply means there is an inherent flaw with the tool.