The Halo Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
Reply
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
Level 25
EyesOfTheDead's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 811
Subtract from EyesOfTheDead's ReputationAdd to EyesOfTheDead's Reputation EyesOfTheDead is a novice
#1
10-01-2009
Default Does Kantian Ethics condemn gay marriage?

I'm taking a class in contemporary ethics and had a thought. Doesn't one of Immanuel Kant's (a moral philosopher) categorical imperatives conclude that gay marriage is unethical? More specifically, the imperative that states:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

The example for this idea given by my book is about breaking promises. Say that you tell someone you'll pay back borrowed money in a week. If you should decide not to, then you must also agree that it is ok for everyone to make that same choice. If that were a universal truth, then the friend you borrowed money from would know that you were probably lying to begin with - that you weren't really going to pay him/her back. Therefore to say that you would is a contradiction between what was said and what is to be expected. For this contradiction to exist means that the choice you made to avoid reimbursing your friend was unethical.

If you apply this same idea to gay marriage, wouldn't you find it to be unethical? If two women decided to get married, then according to Kant, they will that all people do the same. But wouldn't this curb human reproduction? Thus their decision would serve as a contradiction of their very existence? (This is under the assumption that gay marriage is a comment on one's absolute sexual preference - which would validate this idea.)

I'm not trying to perverse Kantian ethics, nor am I expressing my personal opinion. In fact, the hypothetical circumstance above is not something that would ever been seen in practice, its just a theory that helps one to make a judgement.

So I'm curious to know if you think gay marriage is unethical according to Kant's theory? If not, then why?

I'd also like to know which ethical theory serves as the basis for your real opinion on gay marriage.

Last edited by EyesOfTheDead; 10-01-2009 at 04:30 PM.
VARYS IS A MERLING
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,712
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#2
10-01-2009
Default

Yes, but only if you assume that gay marriage = no heterosexual reproduction. However, the categorical imperative is severely flawed. System-builders like Kant died out with Hegel for a good reason.

I'm fine with gay marriage, based on an existentialist (and, recently, deconstructionist) ethical theory.
Varys is a merling

Bran kills Hodor by fucking up warging

Jon Snow becomes Lord of Winterfell backed by Stannis.

Spoiler!

Last edited by davobrosia; 10-01-2009 at 04:42 PM.
Level 35
Afraid's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: la, la la la, la la laa
Posts: 3,189
Subtract from Afraid's ReputationAdd to Afraid's Reputation Afraid is legendary Afraid is legendary Afraid is legendary
Send a message via AIM to Afraid Send a message via MSN to Afraid
#3
10-01-2009
Default

The problem with the gay marriage example is that the universal imperative doesn't require that all people engage in gay marriage, just that everyone should be able to engage in it.

In my opinion Kant would be for it, as he is more of an emotivist than any contemporary ethical theory-giver, and it doesn't violate any of his virtues.

I personally agree with Hegel more so than I do with someone like Griffiths.


Last edited by Afraid; 10-01-2009 at 04:42 PM.
NG
Level 11
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 71
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG is a novice
Send a message via AIM to NG
#4
10-01-2009
Default

Even though the categorical imperative is dogsh.t, you've made it worse and definitely perversed it. If you read all of The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals you'd read the second part of the categorical imperative -- respect for persons, which Kant fumbles around trying not to explicitly state the golden rule.

Even with the original moral maxism, you're wrong. The maxim would be "all people ought marry the person they love." That doesn't divert human reproduction at all.

edit:
(6:45:07 PM) I: it depends how you state what the action is. if you describe the action as "i am marrying the same sex" then yes it's wrong. if it's just "marry the person you want to marry" then no
(6:45:21 PM) davo: I state it as "marry the same sex"
(6:45:27 PM) davo: because that's what the categorical imperative is
(6:45:29 PM) davo: categorical = all
(6:45:34 PM) davo: all marriages must be same sex
(6:45:44 PM) I: hm. ur right
(6:45:57 PM) davo: u shur?
(6:46:34 PM) I: the fact that there is any discrepancy here is #1 reason kant fucking blows.
(6:46:41 PM) davo: yeah


/thread

Last edited by NG; 10-01-2009 at 04:47 PM.
VARYS IS A MERLING
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,712
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#5
10-01-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itz Afraid View Post
The problem with the gay marriage example is that the universal imperative doesn't require that all people engage in gay marriage
Well...not really.
Varys is a merling

Bran kills Hodor by fucking up warging

Jon Snow becomes Lord of Winterfell backed by Stannis.

Spoiler!
Level 35
Afraid's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: la, la la la, la la laa
Posts: 3,189
Subtract from Afraid's ReputationAdd to Afraid's Reputation Afraid is legendary Afraid is legendary Afraid is legendary
Send a message via AIM to Afraid Send a message via MSN to Afraid
#6
10-01-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
Well...not really.

I've honestly forgotten how to define a practice, but it makes sense that the "practice" involved in gay marriage makes exceptions for those who do not wish it.

NG
Level 11
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 71
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG is a novice
Send a message via AIM to NG
#7
10-01-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itz Afraid View Post
I've honestly forgotten how to define a practice, but it makes sense that the "practice" involved in gay marriage makes exceptions for those who do not wish it.
Kant doesn't make exceptions.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On