Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Religion and Ethics
Assignment
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapters 3, 4
Lesson
Minimum of 2 scholarly sources (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
Review the following ethical dilemmas:
John Doe has decided to clone himself. He is sterile. He cannot find anyone to marry him. He wishes to have children. He knows that he will not be able to love a child that is adopted or not connected directly to him biologically. He will be making use of a new procedure that involves taking his skin cells to produce a twin. The twin starts out as an embryo and grows into a child. The child in this case will have the same genetic information as John Doe. John Doe and his child will be twins.
Jane Doe is eighteen. For as long as she can remember she has been sexually attracted to other females. Her parents belong to a religion that has a religious text stating that God forbids one to be a lesbian. This religion goes on further to say that lesbians will be punished in the afterlife. Jane Doe is debating whether she should tell her parents about her sexual attraction. She has not yet decided if she should come out to her parents and live as a lesbian now that she is a legal adult.
Joe and Mary are a couple. Before becoming sterile, they had a child. This child died of a rare disease. Joe and Mary miss their child terribly. They have heard that there is a new IVF procedure that can ensure that they can have another child. However, their religion forbids using IVF.
Use the resources assigned for this week and additional research,
Select two of the situations above and then address 2 of the following:
What is the relation between ethics and religion? Formulate and investigate the relation.
For each case, determine the ethical path of conduct. Then, determine what paths of conduct would be unethical
For each case, what would an emotivism say to appraise what you determine is the ethical form of conduct?
For each case, would a natural law ethicist agree with what you say is the ethical form of conduct? Why or why not?
Articulate, explain, and evaluate in each case an approach that makes use of divine command ethics.
Requirements
Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)
Grading
This activity will be graded based on the rubric provided.
Outcomes
CO 2: Examine the relation between ethics and religion via a valuation of divine command and natural law ethics as ways of determining the morality of actions
CO 3: Argue the importance of subjectivity in ethics and interpret the significance of emotivism as an explanation of moral propositions.
Due Date
By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Rubric
ETHC445 Week 2 Assignment Rubric – 100 pts
ETHC445 Week 2 Assignment Rubric – 100 pts
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSituation/Question Selection
20 pts
Selects two of the situations and thoroughly answers two of the questions.
17 pts
Selects two of the situations and answers two of the questions.
15 pts
Selects either two of the situations and answers only one of the questions or selects only one situation but answers both questions.
12 pts
Selects only one scenario and one question.
0 pts
The student does not identify any policy areas.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssignment Content
40 pts
Addresses all aspects of the questions, applying professional knowledge, and research regarding weekly concepts.
34 pts
Addresses most aspects of the questions, applying professional knowledge, , and research regarding weekly concepts.
30 pts
Addresses some aspects of the questions, applying professional knowledge, and research regarding weekly concepts.
24 pts
Minimally addresses the questions, applying professional knowledge, and research regarding weekly concepts.
0 pts
No effort
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Communication
20 pts
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
17 pts
Presents information in an organized manner (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
15 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
12 pts
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message (numerous errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
0 pts
No effort
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource Integration
10 pts
Paper includes reference to 2 scholarly sources and properly integrates the sources.
7 pts
Paper includes reference to 2 scholarly sources but does not properly integrate the sources.
0 pts
Paper does not make reference to a scholarly source.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format
10 pts
Paper meets all source requirements, and is properly formatted in APA style throughout (i.e. title page, spacing, font, in-text citations and references.)
8.5 pts
Paper meets all source requirements, and is mostly properly formatted in APA style (i.e. title page, spacing, font, in-text citations and references.)
7.5 pts
Paper meets all source requirements, and is somewhat properly formatted in APA style (i.e. title page, spacing, font, in-text citations and references.)
6 pts
Paper fails to meet source requirements and/or is improperly formatted in APA style throughout
0 pts
No effort
10 pts
Total Points: 100
PreviousNext
CHAPTER 3
Subjectivism in Ethics
Take any [vicious] action. . . . Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. . . . You can never find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of [disapproval], which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not reason.
DAVID HUME, A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE (1739–1740)
3.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
In 2001 there was a mayoral election in New York, and when it came time for the city’s Gay Pride Day parade, every single Democratic and Republican candidate showed up to march. Matt Foreman, the director of a gay rights organization, described all the candidates as “good on our issues.” He said, “In other parts of the country, the positions taken here would be extremely unpopular, if not deadly, at the polls.” The national Republican Party apparently agrees; for decades, it has opposed the gay rights movement.
What do people around the country actually think? Since the year of that parade, 2001, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans their personal opinions about gay and lesbian relations. In 2001, only 40% of Americans considered gay relations to be “morally acceptable,” while 53% viewed them as “morally wrong.” Twenty years later, these numbers were dramatically different; in 2021, 69% saw gay relations as “morally acceptable,” whereas only 30% deemed them “morally wrong.”
People on both sides have strong feelings. As a member of Congress, Mike Pence spoke out against gay marriage on the floor of the House of Representatives. Calling traditional marriage “the backbone of our society,” he warned America that “societal collapse” always follows “the deterioration of marriage and family.”
Page 34
Pence is an evangelical Christian. The Catholic view may be more nuanced, but it agrees that gay sex is wrong. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, gay people “do not choose their homosexual condition” and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Nonetheless, the Catholic Church does not allow openly gay men to serve as priests. This, the Church believes, is not unjust because “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” So, gay people must conceal and resist their desires if they want to be virtuous.
What attitude should we take? We might think that gay relations are immoral, or we might find them acceptable. But there is a third alternative. We might believe:
People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no “facts,” and no one is “right.” People just feel differently about things, and that’s all there is to it.
This is the basic idea behind Ethical Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism is the theory that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. As David Hume (1711–1776) put it, morality is a matter of “sentiment” rather than “reason.” According to this theory, there is no such thing as right or wrong. It is a fact that some people are gay and that some people are straight, but it is not a fact that being gay is morally better or morally worse than being straight.
Of course, Ethical Subjectivism is not merely an idea about same-sex relations. It applies to all moral matters. To take a different example, it is a fact that over half a million abortions are performed in the United States each year. However, according to Ethical Subjectivism, it is not a fact that this is morally acceptable or morally wrong. When pro-life activists call abortion “murder,” they are merely expressing their outrage. And when pro-choice activists say that a woman should have the right to choose, they are merely letting us know how they feel.
Page 35
3.2. The Linguistic Turn
What’s startling about Ethical Subjectivism is its view of moral value. If ethics has no objective basis, then morality is all just opinion, and our sense that some things are “really” right or “really” wrong is just an illusion. However, most of the philosophers who developed this theory did not focus on its implications for value. Toward the end of the 19th century, professional philosophy took a “linguistic turn,” as philosophers began to work almost exclusively on questions of language and meaning. This trend lasted until around 1970. During that time-period, Ethical Subjectivism was developed by philosophers who asked such questions as: What exactly do people mean when they use words like “good” and “bad”? What is the purpose of moral language? What are moral debates about, if they’re not about whose opinion is (really) correct? With questions like those in mind, philosophers proposed various versions of the theory.
Simple Subjectivism. The simplest version is this: When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more. In other words:
And similarly:
Let’s call this version of the theory Simple Subjectivism. It expresses the basic idea of Ethical Subjectivism in a plain, uncomplicated form.
However, Simple Subjectivism is open to a serious objection: that it cannot account for moral disagreement. Consider our previous example. Gay rights advocate Matt Foreman believes that being gay is morally acceptable. Mike Pence believes that it is not. So, Foreman and Pence disagree. But consider what Simple Subjectivism implies about this situation. When Foreman says that being gay is morally acceptable, the theory holds that he is merely saying something about his attitudes—he is saying, “I, Matt Foreman, do not disapprove of being gay.” Would Pence disagree with that? No, he would agree that Foreman does not disapprove of being gay. At the same time, when Pence says that being gay is immoral, he is only saying, “I, Mike Pence, disapprove of being gay.” And how could anyone doubt that? Thus, according to Simple Subjectivism, there is no disagreement between them; each should acknowledge the truth of what the other is saying. Surely, though, this is incorrect, because Pence and Foreman do disagree.
Page 36
There is a kind of eternal frustration implied by Simple Subjectivism: Pence and Foreman have deeply opposing points of view, yet they cannot state their beliefs in a way that manifests their disagreement. Foreman may try to deny what Pence says, but, according to Simple Subjectivism, he succeeds only in talking about himself.
The argument may be summarized like this: When one person says, “X is morally acceptable,” and someone else says, “X is morally unacceptable,” they are disagreeing. Yet Simple Subjectivism implies otherwise. Therefore, Simple Subjectivism cannot be correct.
Emotivism. The next version of Ethical Subjectivism came to be known as Emotivism. Emotivism was popular during the mid-20th century, largely due to the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson (1908–1979).
Language, Stevenson observed, is used in many ways. Sometimes we use it to make statements—that is, to state facts. Thus we may say,
“Gas prices are rising.”
“Quarterback Peyton Manning underwent multiple neck surgeries, was sidelined for a year, and then broke the record for most touchdown passes in a season.”
“Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.”
In each case, we are saying something that is either true or false, and the purpose of our utterance is, typically, to convey information to our audience.
Page 37
Yet we also use language for other purposes. Suppose I say, “Close the door!” This utterance is neither true nor false. It is not a statement, intended to convey information; it is a command. Its purpose is to get someone to do something.
Or consider utterances such as these, which are neither statements nor commands:
“Aaargh!”
“Way to go, Peyton!”
“Alas, poor Yorick!”
We understand these sentences easily enough. But none of them can be true or false. (It makes no sense to say, “It is true that ‘way to go, Peyton’” or “It is false that ‘aaargh.’”) These sentences are not used to state facts or to influence behavior. Their purpose is to express the speaker’s attitudes—attitudes about gas prices, or Peyton Manning, or Yorick.
Now consider moral language. According to Simple Subjectivism, moral language is about stating facts—facts about the speaker’s attitudes. According to that theory, when Pence says, “Being gay is immoral,” his utterance means “I (Pence) disapprove of being gay”—a statement of fact about Pence’s attitudes. Emotivism, however, believes that moral language is not used to state facts or convey information. It is used, first, as a means of influencing people’s behavior. If someone says, “You shouldn’t do that,” he is trying to persuade you not to do it; his utterance is more like a command than a statement of fact. “You shouldn’t do that” is a gentler way of saying, “Don’t do that!” Second, moral language is used to express attitudes. Calling Peyton Manning “a morally good man” is like saying, “Way to go, Peyton!” And so, when Pence says, “Being gay is immoral,” emotivists interpret his utterance as meaning something like “Homosexuality—gross!” or “Don’t be gay!”
Earlier we saw that Simple Subjectivism cannot account for moral disagreement. Can Emotivism?
According to Emotivism, disagreement comes in different forms. Compare these two ways in which people can clash:
I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy, and you believe that Oswald was part of a conspiracy. This is a factual disagreement—I believe something to be true which you believe to be false.
I am rooting for the Atlanta Braves baseball team to win, and you are rooting for them to lose. Our beliefs are not in conflict, but our desires are—I want something to happen which you want not to happen.
Page 38
In the first case, we believe different things, both of which cannot be true. Stevenson calls this disagreement in belief. In the second case, we want different outcomes, both of which cannot occur. Stevenson calls this disagreement in attitude. Our attitudes may be different even when our beliefs aren’t. For example, you and I may have all the same beliefs regarding the Atlanta Braves: We both believe that Braves players are overpaid; we both believe that I am rooting for the Braves just because I am from the South; and we both believe that Atlanta is not a great baseball town. Yet despite all this common ground—despite all this agreement in belief—we may still disagree in attitude: I may still root for the Braves, and you may still root against them.
According to Stevenson, moral disagreement is disagreement in attitude. Matt Foreman and Mike Pence may (or may not) have clashing beliefs about the facts regarding same-sex attraction. Yet it is clear that they disagree in attitude. For example, Foreman wants same-sex marriage to remain legal in the United States, whereas Pence does not. For Emotivism, then, moral conflict is real.
Is Emotivism correct? It has the virtue of identifying some of the main functions of moral language. Certainly, moral language is used to persuade as well as to express our attitudes. However, in denying that moral language is fact-stating, Emotivism seems to be denying an obvious truth. For example, when I say, “Long-term solitary confinement is a cruel punishment,” it is true that I disapprove of such punishment, and it may also be true that I am trying to persuade others to oppose it. However, I am also trying to say something true; I am making a statement that I believe to be correct. Like most people, I do not see my own moral convictions as “mere opinions” that are no more justified than the beliefs of bigots, bullies, and bumbling fools. The fact that I see things in this way, whether rightly or wrongly, is relevant to interpreting what I mean when I use words like “ought,” “good,” and “wrong.”
Page 39
The Error Theory. The last version of Ethical Subjectivism acknowledges that people are at least trying to say true things when they talk about ethics. This is the Error Theory of John L. Mackie (1917–1981). Mackie was a subjectivist; he believed that there are no “facts” in ethics, and that no one is ever “right” or “wrong.” However, he also saw that people believe they are right, and so we should interpret them as trying to state objective truths. Thus, instead of saying that Pence and Foreman are merely reporting their own attitudes (Simple Subjectivism) or expressing those attitudes, perhaps for persuasive purposes (Emotivism), the Error Theory holds that Pence and Foreman are in error: they are each making a positive claim about value—claiming that the moral truth is on their side—even though no such truth exists. Moral discussions, Mackie thought, are teeming with error.
3.3. The Rejection of Value
Moral theories are primarily about value, not language. Hence, our discussion of Ethical Subjectivism might seem to have gone off track. At the heart of Ethical Subjectivism is a theory of value called Nihilism. Nihilists believe that values are not real. People might have various moral beliefs, but, really, nothing is good or bad, or right or wrong. Earlier we applied Nihilism to the issues of abortion and same-sex relations. According to a nihilist, neither side is right in those debates, because there is no “right.”
So long as we consider only difficult or controversial moral issues, Nihilism might seem plausible. After all, we may ourselves be unsure what to think about such issues; perhaps we’re unsure because there’s no right answer? Yet Nihilism and Ethical Subjectivism seem much less plausible when applied to simpler matters. To take a new example: It is a fact that the Nazis killed millions of people based on their racial backgrounds, but, according to Nihilism, it is not a fact that the Nazis acted badly. Instead, the nihilist would say that different people have different opinions, and no one is right. You may believe one thing, but Adolph Hitler believed something else, and Hitler’s opinion was just as good as yours.
Viewed in this light, Nihilism seems absurd. Indeed, it is hard to believe that anyone has ever believed Nihilism, or at least believed it consistently. After all, every human being has moral beliefs in addition to having “subjective feelings.” Even racists believe that it would be wrong to kill them or to exterminate their race; yet those judgments also conflict with Subjectivism.
Page 40
Nihilism might be compared to another theory, which has nothing to do with ethics. According to this theory, the universe is only five minutes old. This theory denies the existence of the past—or, at least, of a past that stretches back more than five minutes. Although the theory is ridiculous, it is hard to refute. If you try to refute it by describing events that you recall happening yesterday, the reply will be that your “memories” of those events were put in your brain five minutes ago, when the universe came into being. Or, if you point to a book with a copyright date of 1740, the reply will be that this book came into existence—along with its misleading copyright page—five minutes ago. Despite these clever replies, none of us are tempted to believe such a theory.
Much the same can be said about Nihilism and Ethical Subjectivism. Those theories deny the existence of right and wrong. So, for example, they deny that it is wrong to intentionally cause severe pain to a human baby for no reason. A nihilist would simply say that the baby-torturer has his beliefs on the matter, and you and I have ours. Such a position may be hard to refute, but perhaps a refutation isn’t necessary.
3.4. Ethics and Science
If Ethical Subjectivism is so implausible, then why are so many people attracted to it? Perhaps some people haven’t considered its implications very carefully. Yet there are deeper reasons for its appeal. Many thoughtful people believe that they must be skeptical about values, if they are to maintain a proper respect for science.
According to one line of thought, a belief in “objective values” in the 21st century is like a belief in ghosts or witches or mystics. If there are such things, then why hasn’t science discovered them? Even back in the 18th century, David Hume argued that if we examine wicked actions—“willful murder, for instance”—we will find no “real existence” corresponding to the wickedness. The universe contains no such thing as wickedness; our belief in it comes merely from our subjective responses. As Mackie put it, values are not “part of the fabric of the world.”
Page 41
What should we make of this? Admittedly, value is not a tangible thing like a planet or a spoon. Scientists will never “discover” wickedness, as they might discover a new type of electron. However, this does not mean that ethics has no objective basis. A common mistake is to assume that there are just two possibilities:
1. There are moral values, in the same way that there are planets and spoons.
2. Our values are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings.
This overlooks a third possibility. People have not only feelings but reason, and that makes a big difference. It may be that
3. Moral truths are matters of reason; a moral judgment is true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives.
On this view, moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true independently of what we might believe or want. If there are good reasons against inflicting severe pain on babies, and no good reasons on the other side, then it is objectively true—and not “mere opinion”—that causing such pain is wrong.
Another line of thought takes science as our model of objectivity. And when we compare ethics to science, ethics seems lacking. For example, there are proofs in science, but there are no proofs in ethics. We can prove that the earth is round, that dinosaurs lived before humans, and that bodies are made up of atoms. But we can’t prove whether abortion is acceptable or unacceptable.
The idea that moral judgments can’t be proved seems appealing. However, as we noted earlier, the subjectivist’s case seems strongest when we consider difficult issues like abortion. When we think about such matters, it is easy to believe that “proof” is impossible. Yet there are also complicated matters in science that scientists argue about. If we focused entirely on those issues, then we might conclude that there are no proofs in physics or chemistry or biology.
Page 42
Suppose we consider a simpler moral matter. A student says that a test was unfair. This is a moral judgment; fairness is a moral idea. Can this judgment be proved? The student might point out that the test covered a lot of trivial material while ignoring what the teacher had stressed. Moreover, some of the material on the test didn’t come up in the course at all, and the test was so long that nobody could finish it.
Suppose all this is true. Further suppose that the teacher has no defense to offer. In fact, the teacher seems generally confused. Hasn’t the student proved that the test was unfair? It is easy to think of other examples that make the same point:
Jones is a bad man: Jones is a habitual liar; he enjoys ridiculing children; he cheats at cards; he once killed a man in a dispute over 27 cents; and so on.
Dr. Smith is irresponsible: She bases her diagnoses on superficial considerations; she doesn’t listen to other doctors’ advice; she drinks cheap beer before performing delicate surgery; and so on.
Joe the used-car dealer is immoral: He conceals defects in his cars; he tries to pressure people into paying too much; he runs misleading ads on the Web; and so on.
The process of giving reasons can be taken further. If we criticize Jones for being a habitual liar, we can go on to explain why lying is bad. Lying is bad, first, because it harms people. If I give you false information, and you rely on it, things may go wrong for you in all sorts of ways. Second, lying is a violation of trust. Trusting another person means leaving yourself vulnerable and unprotected. When I trust you, I simply believe what you say, without taking precautions; and when you lie, you take advantage of my trust. Finally, the rule requiring truthfulness is necessary for society to exist. If we could not trust what other people said, then communication would be impossible. If communication were impossible, then society would fall apart.
So we can support our judgments with good reasons, and we can explain why those reasons matter. If we can do all this and, for an encore, show that no comparable case can be made on the other side, what more in the way of “proof” could anyone want? Perhaps people want ethical theories to be proved experimentally, the way scientific theories are. However, proving a hypothesis about ethics involves giving reasons, analyzing arguments, setting out and justifying principles, and so on. The fact that ethical reasoning differs from scientific reasoning does not mean that ethics is deficient.
Page 43
Despite all this, anyone who has ever argued about something like abortion knows how frustrating it can be to try to “prove” one’s opinion. Yet we must not run together two things that are really very different:
1. Proving an opinion to be correct
2. Persuading someone to accept your proof
Constructing sound proofs is part of philosophy. However, philosophers leave persuasion to the pundits, politicians, and product advertisers. From a philosophical perspective, an argument may be good even if it fails as persuasion. After all, an argument may fail to persuade merely because those who hear it are stubborn or biased or not really listening.
3.5. Same-Sex Relations
Let’s return to the dispute about the gay community. If we consider the relevant reasons, what do we find? The most pertinent fact is that gay people are pursuing the life that can make them happy. Sex, after all, is a particularly strong urge, and few people can be happy without satisfying their sexual needs. But we should not focus solely on sex. Being gay is not merely about sex; it’s also about love. Gay people develop crushes and fall in love in the same way that straight people do. And, like straight people, gay people often want to live with, and be with, the person they love. To say that people shouldn’t act on their desires is thus to wish unhappiness on them. Nor can we pretend that people might avoid loneliness and frustration by choosing to become straight. People discover who they are, once they reach a certain age; nobody decides which sex to be attracted to.
Arguments against the Gay Community. Why do people oppose gay rights? Some think that gay people are “dangerous perverts.” The charge, often merely insinuated, is that gay men are especially likely to molest children. In the mid-to-late 20th century, there were several campaigns in America to get gay schoolteachers fired, and those campaigns always played on the fears of parents. Before serving in Congress, Michele Bachmann exploited this fear when she said that gay marriage “is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for [the gay] community—they are specifically targeting our children.” Such a fear, however, has never been reality-based. It is a mere stereotype, like the idea that Muslims are terrorists or that Black people are lazy. Gay people are not more likely to molest children than straight people.
Page 44
A different argument faults homosexuality for being “unnatural.” What should we make of this charge? To assess it, we must understand it. In particular, we need to understand what “unnatural” means. There seem to be three possibilities.
First, “unnatural” might merely be a statistical idea. A human quality is unnatural, in this sense, if few people possess it. Being gay would be unnatural—because most people aren’t gay—but so would being left-handed, being tall, and even being especially nice or smart or courageous. Clearly, the statistical notion gives us no reason to condemn homosexuality. Many rare qualities are good.
Second, “unnatural” might be connected to a thing’s purpose. Parts of the human body seem to serve specific purposes, and it seems wrong when they don’t or won’t. Fingers that cannot bend in order to grasp objects are arthritic; kidneys that cannot remove toxins are diseased. And so, the argument goes, the genitals serve the purpose of procreation; sex is for making babies. Thus, gay sex is unnatural because it involves using the genitals in ways that cannot produce children.
This idea seems to express what many people mean when they say that homosexuality is unnatural. Yet to condemn gay sex on these grounds would also condemn many widely accepted practices that heterosexuals engage in: masturbation, oral sex, sex using birth control, online sex, virtual sex, sex had by pregnant women, and sex involving someone who is sterile, including men who have had vasectomies and women who have gone through menopause. None of these sexual activities can result in pregnancy; thus, all might be condemned as “unnatural.” However, we needn’t do that, because this whole way of reasoning is faulty. It rests on the assumption that it is wrong to use one’s body parts for anything other than their natural purposes. And why should we believe that? The natural purpose of the eyes is to see; is it, therefore, wrong to use one’s eyes to flirt or to express surprise? The fingers are meant to grasp and poke; is it, therefore, wrong to snap one’s fingers in order to get someone’s attention? Why can’t we invent new purposes for things? The idea that things should be used only in “natural” ways cannot be maintained, and so the second version of the argument fails.
Page 45
Third, because the word “unnatural” has a sinister sound, it might be understood simply as a term of evaluation. Perhaps it means something like “contrary to how things ought to be.” But then to say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is to say that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to how things ought to be—which is a lot like saying that it’s wrong because it’s wrong. That sort of empty remark provides no reason to condemn anything.
Hence, no meaning for “unnatural” yields
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.