MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL ETHICS

                                                                                  VIRTUE AND RESPONSIBILITY

If there is no freedom there is no real responsibility,no virtue,no merit,no moral obligation and no duty.the sense of duty and the belief in morality come natural to man for  example the good must be done the evil must be denied.this fundamental dictate of conscience,this moral ought is virtually inborn in every human mind.it is the basis of all obligations and it implies the freedom of the will since obligation is nothing but the necessity of doing something freely.

PH 111: MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Purpose of the Course

Knowledge and understanding of the scope, meaning, and fundamentals of ethics

Objectives of the Course

By the end of the semester the student will be able to:

1.    Define different basic ethical terms, concepts, principles, and theories

2.    Understand and articulate ethical issues

3.    Apply basic ethical terms, concepts, principles, and theories to everyday life

Course Contents

The course covers three major areas of moral philosophy. The first, meta-ethics is research concerning the nature of morality. The second, normative ethics deals with how we decide if something is right or wrong. And the third, applied ethics is “Is x right or wrong?

Course Methods of Delivery

The course will follow and interactive method introduced by lectures.

Student Course Assessment

Students will do one CAT  and an end of Semester Examination.

Lecturer Course Assessment

Students will evaluate the Lecturer at the end of the Semester.

Course Texts

Anscombe, Elizabeth “Modern Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy, Vol. 33, 1958.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, in Barnes, Jonathan, ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle.Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Baier, Kurt, The Moral Point of View: A Rational Basis of Ethics. Cornell Universit Press, 1958.

Bentham, Jeremy, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, edited by John Bowring, London: 1838 – 1843.

Fred Feldman. Introductory Ethics. 1978. Prentice-Hall.

Hare, R. M., Moral Thinking.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed., E. Curley. Chicago, IL: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.

Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), eds. David Fate Norton, Mary J. Norton. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy.1999 McGraw-Hill.

Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, tr, James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985.

Lawrence M. Himnan.Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 1998. Harcourt Brace College Pulblishers.

MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue, second edition, (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1984).

Mackie, John L., Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.

Mill, John Stuart, “Utilitarianism,” in CollectedWorksofJohnStuartMill, ed., J.M. Robson. London: Routledge and Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Texts for Further Reading

Moore, G.E., Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903.

Noddings, Nel, “Ethics from the Stand Point Of Women,” in Deborah L. Rhode, ed., Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

Ockham, William of, Fourth Book of the Sentences, tr. Lucan Freppert, The Basis of Morality According to William Ockham. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1988.

Plato, Republic, 6:510-511, in Cooper, John M., ed., Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Stevenson, Charles L., The Ethics of Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944.

I.                   Introduction

a)     What is Morality?

b)    Debate on Moral Realism

c)     Met-ethics

d)    Uncontroversial Moral Beliefs

e)     Myths about morality

f)      Morality, God, Relativism, and Nihilism

g)     Moral Absolutism, Relativism and the Situation

h)    Does Evolution Adequately Explain Morality?

i)       How to Become Moral

II.                Moral Reasoning

a)     Can we reason about Morality?

b)    Moral Reason

c)     Normative Moral Theories

III.             Applied Ethics

a)     Reckless Driving

b)    Is Atheism Immoral?

c)     Is Homosexuality Immoral?

d)    Are Muslims Immoral?

e)     Is Fantasy Immoral?

a)     First we formulate the “maxim” of motivational principle that guides our action. For example, I might plan on eating food because I’m hungry or decide to break a promise to pay a friend back because I would rather keep the money.

b)    Second, let’s transform the action into a universal law of nature. Everyone must act for the same reason that I will act on. Everyone will eat food when they’re hungry and break their promises to friends when they would rather keep their money.

c)     Third, let’s consider if such a maxim could even be a universal law of nature. Could everyone eat food when they are hungry? Yes. Could everyone refuse to pay their debts when they’d rather keep their money? No, because that would undermine the whole point of having debts to be paid. No one would lend money in that world. At this point we can already rule out the maxim of refusing to pay our debts out of convenience, so it is an irrational and an impermissible maxim, and we have a duty not to act from the motive.

d)    Fourth, if the maxim passes the third step, could we rationally will the maxim to be followed by everyone in our circumstances? Perhaps I can will that people eat when they are hungry, but not necessarily in every circumstance, such as when there is limited food that needs to be shared with others who are also hungry.

Johnson adds that we have a “perfect duty” to refrain from doing something that violates the third step in the sense that there are no exceptions. Whenever we are in the relevant situation, we must refrain from doing the act as much as possible. Since refusing to pay one's debts when we prefer to keep our money doesn't pass the third step,we have a perfect duty not to refuse to pay our debts for that reason.Kant also thinks we have a prefect duty not to commit suicide whenwe want to avoid suffering.

If we have a maxim that doesn’t pass the fourth step, then it’s an imperfect duty to refrain fro doing it, which means we must refrain from doing it at least some of the time. Kant thinks we can’t always refrain from helping others, so we have a duty to help others at least some of the time.

I suspect that the categorical imperative is compatible with all other moral theories. For example, a utilitarian will have to believe that it is only rational to behave in a way likely to promote positive values, and such moral rationality applies to everyone.

Of course, the categorical imperative doesn’t require us to be utilitarians. There might be some actions that are right for reasons other than the likelihood of producing positive results.

The categorical imperative is often related to hypocrisy, the golden rule, and the question, “What if everyone did that?” First, our morality must not be hypocritical  - what is right for me  is right for everyone.

Second, we can demand that someone treat others how she wants to be treated as long as she “wants” to be treated in a way that rationality permits. Third, we can demand that people don’t behave in a way that is wrong for others. If “everyone defended themselves from attack,” then people would be behaving appropriately. However, “if everyone steals to benefit themselves,” then they will be doing something wrong. When we ask, “What if everyone did that?” we are not asking, “Would there be bad consequences if everyone did X?” The categorical imperative  doesn’t claim that something is wrong just because too many people doing something could become destructive.

In order to know if an action is morally acceptable based on the categorical imperative we must ask, “Is the action rationally appropriate for everyone else in the same situation?” If the answer is, Yes, then the action is morally acceptable.

Applying the Categorical Imperative

Killing people – Killing people is wrong whenever it would be inappropriate for someone to kill us. It would be wrong for people to kill us just to take our money, so it is wrong for everyone to kill to take people's money. However, it would be right for someone to kill us if necessary to defend themselves from attack, so it is right for everyone else as well.

Stealing – Stealing is wrong whenever it would be inappropriate for someone to steal from us, such as when they want something without paying for it. However, if stealing is necessary to survive because no one is willing to share food, then it might be necessary to steal.

Courage – Courage is rationally necessary for us to be willing to do the  right thing when the right thing is done at personal risk to oneself.

Education – Education is a rational requirement insofar as ignorance puts others at risk. If we can rationally demand others to become educated because of the dangers of ignorance, then we are also rationally required to become educated.

Promising – Keeping a promise is a rational requirement insofar as we can rationally demand that other people keep their promises. It might be that breaking a promise is necessary from time to time, but only when it would be wrong for anyone in that situation to break the promise. For example, a enraged friend who asks for his gun you are borrowing should be denied the weapon. It is perfectly respectful to deny someone out of their mind a weapon because they will appreciate it later once they regain their reason.

Polluting – Although “everyone polluting by driving cars” causes harm, it isn't clear that polluting is always wrong just like “everyone committing their life to medicine” would end up causing harm. However, it might be wrong to cause pollution whenever we know that it will cause harm. If we can rationally demand a business to pollute less, then others can make the same demand on us.

Homosexual behavior – If having sex for pleasure can be rational for heterosexuals, then having sex for pleasure can be rational for homosexuals. We can't argue that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural any more than we can argue that driving a car or walking on our hands are immoral because they are unnatural.

Atheism – Someone can rationally believe in atheism if it is found to be a sufficiently reasonable belief just like all other beliefs. If it is rational to believe in theism if it is found to be sufficiently reasonable, and it can be rational to believe in atheism for the same reason.

Objections

1. The categorical imperative isn't meant to be a complete decision procedure. – Kant discusses the categorical imperative in the context of moral concepts rather than moral reality. Even if the categorical imperative exists, it's not always clear how to use it to decide what we ought to do in each unique situation we find ourselves in. Many people disagree about how the categorical imperative applies in each situation.

2. We don't know that categorical imperatives can help us. – Kant thinks if we can have moral worth, then we can be motivated by categorical imperatives, but it's not clear that we can have moral worth or be motivated by categorical imperatives. The problem is that we don't know how we are motivated in each situation and we often deceive ourselves. If we can't be motivated by categorical imperatives, then we need to know how practical they are. Will they help us be moral in any important sense?

3.    Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Aristotelian virtue ethics has two parts. First, Aristotle argues that our personal happiness (flourishing) is the ultimate goal that we should promote. Second, he argues that we should learn to have habits and behave in ways that lead to our personal happiness. (To have the right habits and feelings is to be virtuous.) We can learn what behaviours cause happiness through our past behaviour and we can learn to be sensitive to particularities in each situation. For example, we know not to attack people in most situations, but it might be necessary to attack people in self defense.

In order to know if something is morally acceptable for an Aristotelian we must ask, “Is the action based on a sensitivity to the situation? And does the action lead to personal happiness?” If the answer to these questions is, Yes, then the action is morally virtuous.

NB: a) First, Aristotle’s idea of “happiness” is distinct from pleasure and means something more like “good life” or “flourishing”. b) Second, some of our goals could be morally justified for Aristotle as long as they don’t conflict with happiness. Pleasure, knowledge, and virtue in particular seem like worthwhile goals in general, even if they don’t cause happiness. Additionally, Aristotle argues that virtue is the greatest form of happiness. Happiness is the ultimate goal or “ultimate and most final end”, but there can be other worthy or “final ends”. (Final ends are goals that are worth pursuing and desiring for their own sake.)

Aristotle, like most virtue ethicists, is skeptical about using rules to make moral decisions. It seems impractical to use rules and philosophical arguments to make decisions every second of the day, even if morality is ultimately grounded in rules. Instead of having rules, we need to learn to have an intuitive understanding of morality and develop “virtuous” character traits that cause appropriate behaviour without a great deal of thought usually being required. A person who has an intuitive understanding of morality and has virtuous traits has practical wisdom (the ability to know about the world through generalization and deduction.)

Although Aristotle doesn't think ethics is best understood in terms of rules, he finds that wisdom tends to be based on avoiding extremes and finding a moderate middle ground—the golden mean. A person with cowardice is afraid, even when she should not be afraid. A person with foolhardiness isn't afraid, even when she should be. A virtuous person with courage will only be afraid when it's appropriate to be.

Some people define courage as an ability to act despite fear. Perhaps there are times when we should endanger ourselves, even when it's appropriate to feel fear. For example, it could be courageous to jump in a burning building to save a child, even though it might make sense to feel fear insofar as our own wellbeing would be threatened. Aristotle argues that even the ultimate self-sacrifice isn't necessarily incompatible with our personal happiness, but that is a very controversial point. However, even if it can be appropriate to feel fear and act despite our fear, courage is merely more complex than Aristotle stated because the fact that we feel fear doesn't guaranteeinaction.

Aristotle's idea of finding the golden mean is a general rule, and we can use it make many other general rules. Virtues like courage, moderation, justice, and wisdom could be taken to imply various general rules of avoiding certain extremes. We shouldn't eat too much food, we should eat, desire, and enjoy food when it's appropriate, but not when it's inappropriate, and so on.

Applying Aristotle's virtue ethics

Killing people – It might be necessary to kill people in self defense  because living is necessary to be happy (and we must promote goods that are necessary for our personal happiness), but killing people makes us unhappy because we are social animals and we care about people. We don't like horrible things to happen to others.

Stealing – Stealing is necessary if it is necessary for our personal happiness, but stealing makes us unhappy insofar as we care about people.

Courage – Courage is necessary for us to take the risks needed to live a fully happy life. Courage is our habit to be afraid when it is necessary for our happiness and not afraid when it is necessary for our happiness.

Education – Education is necessary for our personal happiness not only to know how to best be happy, but also because the most intellectual forms of contemplation are the most positive experiences we can have. A “contemplative life” is the happiest sort of life we can live.

Promising – Keeping a promise is virtuous as long as we consider the situation at hand and keep the promise because it is likely to promote our happiness. In other words, keeping the promise might not be personally beneficial because we can also keep a promise out of respect (care) for the other person. We can't be happy while hurting others.

Polluting – Polluting is wrong insofar as it hurts people and we care about people.

Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior is wrong when done immoderately (in an overly-dangerous way likely to lead to unhappiness), but it is right when done in a way that leads to one's personal fulfilment.

Atheism – Atheism is right as long as the belief is not under our control or as long as the belief does not lead to our unhappiness. Atheists often can't control their atheism just like they can't believe in many other things that they find implausible (ghosts, ESP, big foot, etc.).

Objections

1. It's not just our personal happiness that matters. – First, it's not obvious that happiness is the ultimate good. Perhaps our existence is more important. Second, it's not obvious that we should only be concerned with our personal good or happiness. It seems plausible to think that everyone's happiness should be taken into consideration.

2. Caring for others isn't always good for our happiness. – Aristotle thinks we care for others by our very nature, so we should take other people's good into consideration. However, we don't always care about strangers and it's not obvious that we should nurture our empathy for strangers given Aristotle's assumption that our personal happiness is the ultimate good. It can be painful to care for others because their suffering can cause suffering for us, and we might have some control of how much we care for others and strangers in particular.

Stoic Virtue Ethics

Simply put, Stoic virtue ethics is a theory that true moral beliefs and thoughts tend to lead to appropriate emotions and actions. However, Stoic virtue ethics traditionally has five parts:

1. It argues that virtue is the ultimate value that overrides all other values.

2. It defines virtue in terms of having true evaluative beliefs, emotions based on those evaluative beliefs, and behaving according to those evaluative beliefs. (Evaluative beliefs are value judgments, such as “pleasure is preferable.”)

3. It states that true (or well reasoned) evaluative beliefs and thoughts tend to give us appropriate emotions and actions. Positive evaluative beliefs lead to positive emotional responses and negative evaluative beliefs lead to negative emotional responses.

4. It states that we can know what is “preferable” from our instincts, which was given to us from God (Universal Reason). In particular, we have an impulse to care for others both emotionally and through action, which indicates the fact that “caring for bothers is preferable.”

5. It states that everything that happens is for the best because it was preordained by God (Universal Reason) and therefore there is no reason for us to have a negative emotional response.

The first three of these parts sounds reasonable, but the last two require us to accept the existence of the Stoic divinity, which is something contemporary philosophers find to be much too ambitious. What we need is a way to determine is truths about preferences. I have two different suggestions for finding them without referring to a divinity:

1. We can prefer whatever is necessary to be virtuous. No matter what we value, we can't promote the value unless we value life, consciousness, and freedom from pain.

2. We can experience some values for ourselves, such as the value of pleasure and disvalue of pain.

I discuss these solutions in much more detail in my Master's Thesis, Two New Kinds of Stoicism. My theories are known as “Neo-Aristonianism” and “Common Sense Stoicism.” In order to determine if something is morally acceptable for a Stoic philosopher we need to ask, “What emotions are being felt and what beliefs are held?” If an emotion is caused by rational beliefs, then it ismorally acceptable.

Applying Stoic virtue ethics

Killing people – It is wrong to kill people insofar as killing people is motivated by inappropriate beliefs and thoughts, such as, “This person stole my wallet and deserves to die.” Such a belief could motivate rage and we could lose rational control of ourselves. Instead, we should dispassionately consider why killing could be appropriate based on rational preferences. For example, it might be appropriate to kill in self defense if necessary for our preference for survival despite the fact that we ought to care about all people and prefer for good things to happen to others.

Stealing – It is wrong to steal insofar as it is motivated by inappropriate beliefs and thoughts, such as, “I need to have more money.” It might be necessary to steal to act on sufficiently important rational preference, such as a preference to survive when stealing is needed to survive; but pleasure would not be an important enough preference worth promoting to warrant theft. For one thing we care for others and don't like others to suffer theft, and the expectation of pleasure would not override the importance of helping rather than harming others.

Courage – The ancient Stoics believed that courage was a lack of fear. We can be cautious and prefer to live well without fearing death or losing our external goods. The Stoics believed that the fear of death was based on an inappropriate belief that death is an evil (despite the fact that it is dis-preferable).

Education – First, education can help us attain good reasoning, which helps us form better (well justified and accurate) beliefs. Second, well justified and accurate beliefs help lead to appropriate emotions and actions.

Promising – Keeping a promise is virtuous as long as we do so based upon justified preferences. We should not break a promise just because we are compelled to do something more pleasurable because that would overemphasize the importance of pleasure and deemphasize the value of the person that would be disrespected or harmed.

Polluting – To pollute to the extent of harming others is often based on inappropriate selfishness, greed, and an inappropriate lack of care for others. The virtuous person will care for others and won't want to harm them for money. It might be worth driving a car in a society where cars help live a better life despite the fact that the pollution ends up harming some people.

Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior insofar as it is based on

a preference for pleasure is appropriate as long as it is compatible with our care for others. An inappropriate love of pleasure could cause inappropriate lust that would cloud our judgment whether we are talking about homosexual or heterosexual sex.

Atheism – Atheism is appropriate insofar as the belief is probably true based on the information available to us. For the Stoic philosopher, true beliefs are of primary importance. We should have a belief because it is true, not because it is pleasurable or because of our emotions.

Objections

1. Does Universal Reason exist? – The Stoics require us to believe in Universal Reason, but not everyone believes in universal reason and it's not obvious that Universal Reason really exists.

2. The Stoic virtue ethics can dull our emotions. – It's not entirely clear what emotions are appropriate for the Stoics, but some people think they would dismiss many appropriate emotions that enrich our lives. Grief, passionate love, and anger were often said to be inappropriate emotions by the Stoics, but many people aren't convinced that they are inappropriate.

Ross's Intuitionism

W. D. Ross's theoretical understanding of morality explained in The Right and the Good was not meant to be comprehensive and determine right and wrong in every situation, but he doesn't think it is ever going to be possible to do so. He denies that there is one single -verarching moral principle or rule. Instead, he thinks we can make moral progress one step at a time by learning more and more about our moral duties, and do our best at balancing conflicting obligations and values.

Ross proposes that (a) we have self-evident prima facie moral duties, and (b) some things have intrinsic value.

Prima facie duties

We have various prima facie duties, such as the duty of non-injury (the duty to not harm people) and the duty of beneficence (to help people). These duties are “prima facie” because they can be overridden. Duties can determine what we ought to do “nothing else considered” but they don't determine what we ought to do all things considered. Whatever we ought to do all things considered will override any other conflicting duties. For example, the promise to kill someone would give us a prima facie duty to fulfil our promise, but it would be overridden by our duty not to injure others.

Ross argues that we have (at the very least) the following duties:

1. Duty of fidelity – The duty to keep our promises.

2. Duty of reparation – The duty to try to pay for the harm we do to others.

3. Duty of gratitude – The duty to return favours and services given to us by others.

4. Duty of beneficence – The duty to maximize the good (things ofintrinsic value).

5. Duty of noninjury – The duty to refuse to harm others. Is this list complete? That is not obvious. We might have a duty to respect people beyond these duties, and we might have a duty to justice, equality, and/or fairness to praise, blame, reward, punish, and distribute goods according to merit. For example, it's unfair and disrespectful to blame innocent people because they don't merit blame —they weren't responsible for the immoral act.

Self-evidence and intuition

Ross thinks we can know moral facts through intuition. What does it mean for these duties to be self-evident? It means that we can contemplate the duties and know they are true based on that contemplation—but only if we contemplate them in the right way.

Ross compares moral self-evidence to the self-evidence of mathematical axioms. A mathematical axiom that seems to fit the bill is the law of non-contradiction—We know that something can't be true and false at the same time.

Intuition is the way contemplation can lead to knowledge of self-evidence.We often use the word “intuition” to refer to things we consider “common sense” or things we know that are difficult to prove using argumentation. Ross thinks we can know things without arguing for them, and he thinks that anything “truly intuitive” is self-evident. Keep in mind that intuition doesn't necessarily let us know that something is self-evident immediately nor that intuitive contemplation is infallible. Consider that “123+321=444” could be self-evident. We might need to reach a certain maturity to know that this mathematical statement is true, and recognition of its truth is not necessarily immediate. It requires familiarity with addition and some people will need to spend more time contemplating than others.

Intrinsic value

Many utilitarians agree with Ross that pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically bad. Pleasure is “good just for existing” and is worthy of being a goal. The decision to eat candy to attain pleasure “makes sense” if it has intrinsic value, and we all seem to think that eating candy to attain pleasure is at least sometimes a good enough reason to justify such an act. We have prima facie duties not to harm people at least to the extent that it causes something intrinsically bad(pain) and to help people at least to the extent that it producessomething intrinsically good, like pleasure. What's intrinsically good? Ross suggests that justice, knowledge, virtue, and “innocent pleasure” are all intrinsically good. However, minds, human life, and certain animal life could also have intrinsic value.

How do we use Ross's intuitionism?

First, we need to determine our duties and what has intrinsic value. Second, we need to determine if any of these duties or values conflict in our current situation. If so, we need to find a way to decide which duty is overriding. For example, I can decide to go to the dentist and get a cavity removed and this will cause me pain, but it is likely that it will help me avoid even more pain in the future. Therefore, it seems clear that I ought to get the cavity removed. However, if I have two friends who both want to borrow my car at the same time and I won't be needing it for a while, I might have to choose between them and decide which friend needs the car the most or randomly decide between them if that's impossible.

Applying Ross's Intuitionism

Killing people – It is generally wrong to kill people because it (a) causes people pain, (b) prevents them from feeling future pleasure, and (c) destroys their knowledge. If and when killing people isn't wrong, we will need an overriding reason to do it. Perhaps it can be right to kill someone if it's necessary to save many other lives.

Stealing – It is wrong to steal insofar as it causes people pain, but it might be morally preferable to steal than to die. Our duties to our children could also justify stealing when it's the only option to feed them.

Courage – Virtue has intrinsic value, and courage is one specific kind of virtue. Courage is our ability to be motivated to do whatever it is we ought to do all things considered, even when we might risk our own well-being in the process.

Education – Knowledge has intrinsic value, so we have a prima facie duty to educate people and seek education for ourselves. Promising – Keeping a promise is already a prima facie duty, but it can be easily over-ridden when more important duties conflict with it. For example, you could promise to meet a friend for lunch, but your prima facie duty to help others might override your promise when a stranger is injured and you can help out.

Polluting – Polluting violates people's prima facie duty to non-injury, but polluting might be necessary for people to attain certain goods they need to live. In that case pollution could be appropriate. Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior can be justified because it can help people attain pleasure, but we also have a prima facie duty to try not to endanger our own life or the life of others, so it's better to take certain precautions rather than have homosexual sex

Atheism – Being an atheist doesn't violate any of our prima facie duties, so it's not wrong. Telling one's parents that one is an atheist could cause momentary pain, but one's prima facie duties to be open and honest seems to override that concern in most situations. Additionally, being open and honest in public about one's atheism could risk one's own wellbeing, but it could also help create acceptance for atheists in general and help other atheists as a consequence.

Objections

1. It's not clear that intuitions are reliable. – I've mentioned before that both intuition and self-evidence has been questioned by philosophers. Many people have differing intuitions and argue different beliefs qualify as being “self-evident.”

2. It's not clear how we resolve conflicts in duties. – Many philosophers don't think we can have duties that conflict. For example, utilitarians think we should maximize the good and no moral consideration that conflicts with that principle will count  for anything. If our duties can conflict, then it's not obvious how we can decide which duty is overridden by the other.

Conclusion

Philosophers have found ethical theories useful because they help us decide why various actions are right and wrong. If it is generally wrong to punch someone then it is wrong to kick them for the same reason. We can then generalize that it is wrong to “harm” people to help understand why punching and kicking tend to both be wrong, which helps us decide whether or not various other actions and institutions are wrong, such as capital punishment, abortion, homosexuality, atheism, and so forth.

All of the ethical theories above have various strengths and it is possible that more than one of them is true (or at least accurate). Not all moral theories are necessarily incompatible. Imagine that utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, and Stoic virtue ethics are all true. In that case true evaluative beliefs (e.g. human life is preferable) would tell us which values to promote (e.g. human life), and we would be more likely to have an emotional response that would motivate us to actually promote the value. We would feel more satisfied about human life being promoted (e.g. through a cure to cancer) and dissatisfied about human life being destroyed (e.g. through war).

Finally, what is right for one person would be right for everyone else in a sufficiently similar situation because the same reasons will justify the same actions.

III.           APPLIED ETHICS

Reckless Driving

We can use philosophy to correct our own behavior, but some sort of change in culture may be required to correct the behavior of others. There are three forms of reckless driving that I have noticed to be on the rise, and I will consider why they happen:

1. Tailgating

2. Blocking paths

3. Lane sharing

If the Stoic philosophers are correct, then each of these forms of reckless driving are based on our evaluative assumptions and emotions, which tend to be based on the fact that we are in a hurry to get somewhere.

Tailgating

Tailgating is driving too close to the car in front of you. A common group of assumptions by people who tailgate are the following:

1.     I need to get somewhere as fast as possible

2.     Someone is driving too slow

3.     Tailgating will speed them up

4.     The benefit involved out weight the risks

5.     The other people’s lives involved don’t count.

If these assumptions were correct, then tailgating would be perfectly rational. I think it’s pretty obvious that tailgating is too dangerous to allow and some of these assumptions are wrong.

One, the benefit does not outweigh the risks. Getting somewhere a bit faster could be necessary in a life or death situation (e.g. someone needs to get to the hospital before bleeding to death), but this is not why most people are tailgating. The risks to tailgating involve car accidents and offending other drivers. Tailgating is disrespectful to others and does not treat them as human beings.

The benefit of tailgating does not outweigh the risk, so tailgating will no longer be a rational activity. People need to stop doing it.

Two, it is false that other people’s lives don’t count. Other human beings are real and their lives have a great deal of value. The fact that we feel disconnected from others (or don’t feel like they are real) could be some sort of cultural phenomenon.

“Tailgating should be illegal” is something just about everyone agrees with. They don’t want other people to tailgate them. The assumption that “I count, but you don’t” is required for anyone to decide to tailgate, but couldn’t possibly be a true assumption. Even if I really was the only person of value in the world, I couldn’t expect anyone else to know that.

Blocking Paths

When someone needs to merge lanes, you are supposed to let them get in front of you. You aren’t supposed to try to “block their path” by speeding up to make sure they have no room. You might not block their path fast enough. Even if you did block their path fast enough, they might still not notice and merge into your car. You are supposed to keep your distance to cars, even if they are in the lane next to you because you never know when someone will want to merge into your lane without warning.

|Common assumptions people have when they want to block your path are the following:

1.     I need to get somewhere as fast as possible

2.     A car wants to merge in front of me, but that would slow me down

3.     If I speed up and block their path, then they will merge in front of someone else behind me

4.     The benefit involved with blocking a path outweighs the risks

5.     The other person (who wants to change lanes) doesn’t count.

6.     The other person doesn’t deserve to get to change lanes

Blocking the path of others who need to merge lanes is obviously wrong and some of the common assumptions are false. Some of these false assumptions are the same as those tailgaters have (The benefit attained does not outweigh the risks, and the other person does count.) Moreover, the other person does deserve to get to change lanes. People need to change lanes to get out of an "exit lane" on the freeway, to get to turn left onto a street, and so forth.

If any of these assumptions are false, then blocking the path of cars that need to merge lanes is no longer rational. People should stop doing it.

Additionally, almost everyone would agree that there should be a rule against blocking paths. We don't want anyone to be allowed to bock our path, so we shouldn't be allowed to block the path of others.

I have read that some people want you to thank them when you allow them to merge lanes. This is ridiculous. It isn't "good of you" to allow someone to merge lanes, it's required. It shouldn't be allowed to disallow them from merging lanes. Moreover, it could be dangerous to expect someone to wave at you while driving, which is just one more distraction.

Lane sharing

One of the most common problems I have encountered when driving is another car driving in the same lane I am in. This is especially common after two lanes become one. The other person either miscalculates the fact that one lane will become two, or they just don't want you to be in front of them, so they drive around you while in the same lane as you. I have even seen cars drive off-road to drive around me, and I don't even drive slowly. Lane sharing is so outrageous that I couldn't find any information about it online. It is pretty obvious that there is a law against driving side-by-side with another car on the same lane. Each lane is meant to only have one car on it at a time.

Common assumptions of people who share lanes are the following:

1. I need to get somewhere as fast as possible.

2.A car in front of me will slow me down.

3. I can drive around the car in front of me while sharing the same

lane in order to have one less car in front of me.

4.The benefit involved with sharing lanes outweighs the risks.

5.The person in front of me doesn't count.

6.The person in front of me doesn't deserve to be in front of me.

These assumptions parallel those of people who block paths and some of them are false for the same reasons. The benefit does not outweigh the risks, the person in front of you does count, and the person in front of you does deserve to be in front of you. All three assumptions are required to justify lane sharing. If the benefit doesn't outweigh the risk, then we shouldn't share lanes. If the person in front of you counts, then we shouldn't risk their life or show disrespect towards him or her. If the people in front of you deserves to be there just as much as you do, then there is no reason to take that way from them.

Additionally, everyone would agree that sharing lanes should be illegal. If it shouldn't be allowed for others, then it shouldn't be allowed for ourselves. Even if we are personally more important than anyone else, we couldn't expect anyone else on the road to know that.

Conclusion

There are many forms of reckless driving and they all have similar assumptions. It is very common to disregard the interest of others and to disregard the risks involved with our actions. If we can change our assumptions, then we can change how we think and feel while driving, which will modify our actions for the better.

Although it might be occasionally difficult to change our personal behavior, it is even harder to change the behavior of anyone else. The stupidity of people at large could be caused by our culture, poor education, and alienation.

Is Atheism Immoral?

Atheists are one of the most hated groups in the United States. Many religious people openly admit they think that atheism is immoral. I will argue that atheism is not immoral. First, I will give some evidence that atheists are despised. Second, I will describe two ways people think atheism is immoral. Third, I will provide arguments that atheism is not immoral. Fourth, I will take a look at arguments people use to conclude that atheism is immoral. If we have good reason to believe that atheism can be morally permissible (rational from an individual's standpoint) and we have no reason to think atheism is immoral, thenwe should agree that atheism is not immoral.

Atheists are despised.

The fact that atheists are commonly despised is well supported by polls and scientific research. A study by the University of Minnesotafound that 47.6% of Americans disapprove of a marriage between their child and an atheist.13 (This can be compared to 33.5% of Americans who disapprove of their child marrying a Muslim.) We should approve of our children marrying a person who identifies with any racial or religious group as long as the individual is a good person. I suppose being an atheist or Muslim is believed to automatically disqualify you from being a good person.

A gallop poll conducted in 2007also found out that only 45% of Americans would vote for a well qualified atheist for president.14 (This can be compared to 55% of Americans would would vote for a well qualified homosexual for president.) Again, we should vote for the most qualified candidate. I suppose atheism and homosexuality are taken to automatically disqualify you from being qualified. Not only is atheism despised by many people, but it is often openly despised. The Catholic Church officially states that atheism is a violation of the first commandment—Do not have any Gods before me. This is taken to mean, “Worship me, and no other Gods.” There are also websites that also provide arguments (or assertions) that atheism is immoral. For example, DailyMorality.comandKreitsauce’s Musings

Finally, the hatred against atheists havelead to intolerant behavior. Many personal accounts of discrimination can be found at Secularhumanism.org.17 For example, many atheists experience harassment. Some public intolerance towards atheism has also been documented on the Atheist Ethicist.For example, Representative

Monique Davis condemned atheism during a testimony before the

House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield

Illinois.

Two ways people think atheism is immoral. When people think that atheism is immoral, it isn't always clear what that means. There are at least two different things it can mean:

1. It is immoral to disbelieve in God.

2. Atheists are immoral.

It is immoral to disbelieve in God. – To think it is immoral to

disbelieve in God can mean the following:

1. Lacking a belief in God is morally wrong.

2. Believing that God doesn't exist is morally wrong.

Atheists are immoral – To think that atheists are immoral can mean the following:

1. All atheists are immoral.

2. Atheists tend to be less moral than theists.

3. Atheism causes people to do immoral things.

Arguments that atheism is not immoral.

Why is atheism not immoral? Consider the following:

1. It is morally right to believe whatever is sufficiently justified.

2. Atheists are individuals and shouldn't be judged as a group.

3. We have no reason to think that atheism makes people immoral.

I will discuss each argument in detail:

1. It is morally right to believe whatever is sufficiently justified.

First, it might be true that many atheists have their beliefs for irrational reasons, but that is also true of theists.

Second, if anyone has beliefs for the right reasons, it would be peoplewho study rationality, such as philosophers; and if anyone knows whatreligious beliefs are most justified, it is also philosophers. The fact is that philosophers have generally not been persuaded by arguments for God's existence. The Philpapers surveyfound that 72.8% of philosophers “accept or lean towards atheism” and only 14.6% of philosophers “accept or lean towards theism. No argument for God's existence is infallible. Arguments for God's existence and objections to those arguments are available on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

• The Cosmological Argument

• The Teleological Argument

• The Moral Argument

• Pascal's Wager

Third, we realize that the best beliefs are the “best justified.” To have unjustified beliefs, such as the belief that “torturing people willy nilly is right” is morally wrong, but to have justified beliefs, such as “torturing people willy nilly is wrong” is morally right. The proper function of our reasoning capacity is to produce well justified beliefs.

Fourth, is is not morally right to hold insufficiently justified beliefs. The idea that we should believe in God even if it is insufficiently justified is just as wrong as believing anything else without a good reason. Such insufficiently justified beliefs are dangerous. I discuss this issue in more detail in Intellectual Virtues, Dogmatism, Fanaticism, and Terrorism. I am not suggesting that believing in God can't besufficiently justified, but there are theists who think we can merely have faith that God exists.

Fifth, morality doesn't determine what is true. Even if believing that gravity exists made us behave immorally, it would not be immoral to believe that gravity exists because it is obviously true.

Sixth, morality is a matter of choice, but we can't always choose what we believe. We shouldn't try to do things we can't do. If someone can't believe in God, then that person shouldn't believe in God; and not everyone can believe in God.

I can't believe in unicorns even if it made me feel great to have such a belief. I can't help but believe in gravity even when I am falling out ofan airplane to my death despite the fact that such a belief would bequite comforting. Many atheists report their belief that God doesn't exist to be like this. They would prefer that God exists because it is an exciting and comforting thought, but they have little choice but to

disbelieve.

To conclude, well justified beliefs are morally superior than ones thataren't well reasoned, but many atheists have provided a great deal of justification for their disbelief in God. We have no overriding reason to favor insufficiently justified beliefs over beliefs that are better justified.

2. Atheists are individuals and shouldn't be judged as a group.

It is almost always wrong to judge a person merely on the basis of what group we associate that person with. More men go to prison than women, but that doesn't mean you should dislike men in general. More ethnic minorities go to prison than Caucasians, but that doesn't mean we should dislike ethnic minorities in general. To decide that someone is bad just because of the group they are part of is “prejudiced” because you are illegitimately prejudging what the person is like. It might be that some groups primarily exist in the name of immorality, such as criminals or the Ku Klux Klan, but this is not the case for atheists.

3. We have no reason to think that atheism makes people immoral.

First, even though more men and minorities go to prison than women and Caucasians, that doesn't mean that being a man or a minority makes you immoral. There can be something else causing men and minorities to become criminals. Some men are good people and some minorities are good people, and it isn't entirely clear why certain groups are being overrepresented in prisons. In the same way there are some good atheists and some criminal atheists and there is no reason to think that atheism itself could make a person immoral.

Second, it might be true that belief in God can help motivate some people to have moral behavior, but that's not true for everyone. Dogmatism and fanaticism are moral faults of some religious groups. Religion has often attempted to legitimize immoral behavior in the name of God, such as the inquisition and Al-Qaeda.

Third, it has been suggested that morality requires God, but atheists can have justified beliefs about moral facts just like everyone else. I discussed the fact that we can reason about morality and justify our beliefs in moral facts in Can We Reason About Morality? and such reasoning has nothing to do with God. In fact, most philosophers are (a) atheists and (b) moral realists. That means that most philosophersthink that there are moral facts beyond our beliefs and feelings. The Philpapers surveyfound that 56.3% of philosophers “accept or lean

toward moral realism” and only 27.7% “accept or lean towards antirealism”despite the fact that only 14.6% identified with theism.

It should be noted that moral anti-realist philosophers attempt to justify the fact that we should try to be moral, and some moral beliefsare better than others despite the fact that they don't believe morality is grounded in anything other than psychology and anthropology.

Arguments people use to conclude that atheism is immoral.

Many anti-atheists merely assert that atheism is immoral or leads to immoral behavior. I have already argued that such assertions are groundless. Now I will take a look at some actual arguments used by anti-atheists to prove that atheism is immoral:

1. Atheism violates the first commandment.

2. Statistics show atheists to be more immoral than usual.

3. Many evil people were atheists.

4. Atheist totalitarian regimes lead to more deaths than theist

dominated cultures.

5. Atheism is motivated by a desire to escape guilt.

6. Atheism is immoral because it's a lie.

7. Atheists are arrogant because they can't know God doesn't exist.

8. Atheists have no reason to be moral.

1. Atheism violates the first commandment.

The first commandment demands that we worship no god other than God. This can be taken to mean that we have to worship God, but we don't need to worship any other God. However, a literal interpretation doesn't imply that. The commandment doesn't actually demand that we worship God.

Additionally, if we take the commandment to demand that we believe in God, then the commandment would violate our need to have beliefs based on reasons rather than authoritarian demands. I already argued the importance to have beliefs that are sufficiently justified and not all atheists have sufficient justification to believe in God.

There are some other passages of the Bible that might imply that atheism is immoral, and some people think that atheism must be immoral if the Bible says so. This is circular reasoning. No atheist is going to care what the Bible says about morality. You're going to have to prove that the Bible is reliable and that God exists before an atheist will have any reason to care about the Bible.

Finally, if the Bible requires you to believe something unjustified orallow immoral behavior, then that is a reason to doubt the infallibilityof the Bible. Christians aren't going to put up with Mulims using the Koran to justify illegitimate beliefs or behavior, and no one else should put up with anyone else using holy books being abused in that way either. If the Bible demands people to allow or endorse immoral forms of prejudice, then that is a reason to reject the infallibility of the Bible rather than a reason to allow or endorse immoral forms of prejudice.

2. Statistics show atheists to be more immoral than usual.

Some people argue that atheists are overrepresented within prison populations or show a tendency to commit various immoral acts. I have already explained why this is in itself not a good argument. The fact that a group has been found to have a statistically significant characteristic does not mean that the group itself is the cause of the characteristic. For example, more men are criminals than women, butmost men are not criminals, and we don't think that being a man causes men to become criminals.

3. Many evil people were atheists.

Some people argue that Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were atheists; but even if that was true, it wouldn't prove that atheism is immoral. There are immoral atheists and there are immoral theists. So what?

4. Atheist totalitarian regimes lead to more deaths than theist

dominated cultures.

Some people argue that the totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin killed more people than theist dominated cultures. Even if it were true that these regimes were dominated by atheists, it would not prove that atheists are more evil than theists. No causal connection is established.

It wasn't long ago that theists were merely competing with Buddhist (atheistic) countries to see which culture was more moral. That was a much longer time frame to compare atheistic and theistic cultures and the Buddhist cultures didn't seem particularly immoral.

Additionally, European countries tend to be much less religious than the USA, and they aren't having as much problems with criminality.“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator [within a country] correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”19 If religion is so important for morality, then we would expect Europe to have more social problems than the

USA.

5. Atheism is motivated by a desire to escape guilt.

It has been suggested that atheism is motivated by a desire to escape guilt rather than from rational justification, but this is pure speculation and it is certainly not true for everyone. I agree that some people probably believe in atheism from irrational emotional responses, but that can be true for everyone including theists. Additionally, there are at least two reasons to think such a response is false.

One, most people (including most atheists) would prefer that God exists because it is comforting to think that an all powerful and all good being is out to look out for us.

Two, Christianity can be used to escape guilt. Criminals have paid indulgences to clear away their crimes. Some Christians even suggest that immoral acts will all be forgiven for believers. That sounds like a license to be immoral if anything is.

Three, many atheists are very interested in morality and personal responsibility. Almost no atheist thinks that God must exist for morality to exist, and most atheists agree that they should be moral like everyone else. It is possible that guilt isn't necessary for morality, but most atheists agree that they should have a sense of shame and regret.

6. Atheism is immoral because it's a lie.

First, not all atheists claim to know the truth. Some merely say they “don't believe” in God. I don't believe that we can make a spaceship that can take us to far off galaxies, but maybe we can. In the same way some atheists don't believe in God.

Second, some atheists do claim that God doesn't exist, and it is possible that such a belief is false. However, a lie is an intentional attempt to deceive. Not all atheists attempt to spread their belief to others, and not all atheists intentionally try to deceive.

Third, if you believe something is true based on sufficient justification, then it is morally right to believe it.

Fourth, atheism is not always willfully negligent because even the most educated and informed people who spend a lot of time thinking about religion can come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Fifth, it is not immoral to believe something false as long as your beliefis sufficiently justified. Newton's theory of physics was very accurate,but the theory was actually false. Einstein's theory of physics wasfound to be superior. Still, it was not immoral for Newton to falsely believe in his theory. It would have been absurd to ask people to disbelieve in Newton's theory of physics because his theory was so incredibly justified, and it would be incredibly unjustified to ask people to disbelieve in Einstein's theory of physics for the same reason.

7. Atheists are arrogant because they can't know God doesn't exist.

First, it might be that some atheists are arrogant, but many theists arearrogant as well. Religious arrogance has lead to religious fanaticism and terrorism. The USA does not suffer from atheistic fanaticism and terrorism to the same extent, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out

that some atheists are fanatics.

Second, not all atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist. Third, a person isn't arrogant for believing something. We don't know lots of things but our beliefs can still be sufficiently justified. Newton's belief in his theory of physics was incredibly justified and he was not arrogant for holding such a belief. We don't have to know something for certain for our belief to be morally right and rational. In the same way atheists might have sufficient justification to have their belief.

Fourth, I have already mentioned that most philosophers are atheists. It is incredibly arrogant to tell philosophers who spent their entire lives studying rationality and who have spent a great deal of time studying the arguments for God, and to tell them that they are arrogant for believing something that is based on their expert opinion.

8. Atheists have no reason to be moral.

Some people think that the only reason to be moral is the existence of God. If this is true, then atheists will have no reason to be moral and we might expect them to be less moral. It is true that atheists don't believe in hell, but even many Christians admit that the threat of hell isn't a good reason to be moral. We should be moral because it really is better.

Some people argue that atheists can't possibly believe that being moral “really is better” than being immoral. That for atheists morality is just a social convention, instinctual response, or a result of empathy. This is false. I have already mentioned that most atheistic philosophers are moral realists, and no theory of moral realism I have ever read required us to believe in God. I find moral realism to be a common sense view with no need to speculate about a supernatural realm. This position is discussed in detail in my free ebook, Does Morality RequireGod?

Finally, even moral anti-realist philosophers who think that morality is merely a product of our psychology and/or is a human invention tend to think we have some reason to be moral. Social cooperation and solidarity has proved to be quite beneficial and it might be rational even from an egoistic standpoint.

Conclusion

People's discrimination against atheism is incoherent. The fact that atheists are so despised contradicts the fact that Buddhists, Taoists, and other atheistic religions are not so despised. If someone is a Buddhist and an atheist as many atheists are, then are they hated or not? Perhaps atheists who create their own religions are no longer immoral.

Although atheists are despised by about half the population, such an attitude is misinformed bigotry. It is wrong to judge people based on their nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. We should almost never judge anyone based on the group they are part of, and we have no good reason to do that to atheists. Atheism can be rational when it is based on sufficient justification and some people might have sufficient reason to endorse atheism. Finally, all the arguments that attempt to show that atheism is immoral are unsatisfactory and aren't really reasons against atheism after all.

IS HOMOSEXUALITY IMMORAL?

If we have no reason to think that an action is wrong (a sin), then we have a pretty good reason to think that the action isn't so wrong after all. Taking a shower could be wrong, but we don't have any strong reason to think it could be wrong, so we have good reason to think that taking a shower is okay (morally permissible). People who don't wear their seat belts could potentially cause significant harm to themselves through neglect, but it doesn't seem to be particularly “immoral” overall. If we falsely identify an action as wrong, then we could end up causing guilt, oppression, and animosity towards people who don't deserve it. I will argue that the major philosophical ethical theories would not find homosexuality wrong and arguments that people present against homosexuality are not persuasive.

1.     Utilitarianism

I understand utilitarianism as the following – Utilitarianism states that morality should be guided by the results of an action. If an action maximizes good results (such as happiness) and minimizes bad results (such as pain), then the action is right in the sense that we ought to do it. If an action causes needless suffering, then it would be wrong to do it. If an action would not have any bad results, then the action is not wrong.

Homosexual behavior does not lead to significant harm as far as I can tell. It is true that promiscuous unprotected sex could lead to STD's, but that is just a fact about promiscuous unprotected sex.

2.     Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperativewas originally stated to be, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” I take this to mean “act only in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations.” If you think that it is permissible to take a shower because it is neither disrespectful to others nor does it hurt anyone, then you have to accept that other actions that are neither disrespectful nor hurtful are also permissible, such as tying your shoes.

Homosexual behavior appears to fit this description (it can be respectful and harmless) in at least many cases. Consenting adults can decide to have sex for personal enjoyment without hurting anyone and without being disrespectful whether the sexual act is between people of the same sex or not. If we accept that sexual acts in some situations are permissible, then we have to accept that it will be permissible for the same reason in similar situations.

On the other hand an action such as stealing is disrespectful to people. If I think I am justified to steal a computer because I can make better use of it than someone else, then I will have to accept that other people will be justified to steal it from me for the same reason. It would be hypocritical to think I can steal from people for that reason and other people can't. Fortunately people don't agree that stealing is so easily justified. That doesn't mean that stealing is never justified. It might be that we can agree that life and death situations could justify stealing without being hypocritical.

3.     Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

I understand Aristotleas finding personal happiness and flourishing (a life well lived) to be the main goal of ethics, and people who know how to be happy well have a virtuous character. His main interest in ethics will be in terms of virtue and vice. He thinks that certain tendencies of character that lead to an extreme behavior will not lead to happiness.

Courage is to allow fear to moderate our behavior to risk our lives, reputation, comfort, and so on, only when doing so is necessary to have greater happiness. Foolhardiness is it keep fear from moderating our behavior and leads to unnecessary risk taking, and cowardice is to allow fear to moderate our behavior too much.

Aristotle would agree that certain sexual behavior is virtuous and some is not. If homosexuality is a defect in one's character (a detriment to one's happiness), then I would suspect that homosexuals would have more mental illness than others. However, homosexuality in and of itself has not been found to be relevant to mental illness:

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality.” (Homosexuality and Mental Health.)

4.     Stoic Virtue Ethics

The Stoics agreed that our character is relevant to ethics, but they thought that the most important element of our character was our reason and beliefs. Irrational beliefs lead to inappropriate emotions and behavior, and rational beliefs lead to appropriate emotions and character. The Stoics thought that all forms of suffering (such as fear and anger) were caused by irrational value judgments that somethingbad has happened. In the great scheme of things getting you wallet stolen is not a big deal, but stealing a wallet tends to be inappropriate (based on vicious character) because it tends to be caused by greed rather than a rational belief that stealing the wallet is somehow the right thing to do all things considered.

For a Stoic any sexual behavior could be caused by inappropriate beliefs insofar as we think sex is the best thing in the world and allow ourselves to lust after sex irrationally. However, a Stoic admits that pleasure can be a rational goal when we dispassionately realize the limited importance of pleasure. I believe homosexual behavior can be perfectly virtuous in that sense, and perhaps for other reasons as well.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY

1.     It is unnatural

Some people seem to think that there is an “essence” of what a properhuman being should be like as well as what our sexual organs shouldbe used for. They believe that sexual organs should only be used forprocreation.

First, it isn't clear why being unnatural is wrong. My hands weren'tmade for walking, so is it wrong for me to walk on my hands? No.

Second, I don't know why sexual organs should only be used forprocreation. Perhaps some people think that's why God created sexual organs, but so what?

Third, homosexuality is found in nature. It is something that couldfulfill a role, such as a homosexual who helps care for children of afamily member rather than producing new children. This could giveliving offspring a better chance at survival rather than produce moreoffspring that might not have enough resources to live.

Fourth, homosexuality isn't the only form of sexuality that doesn't lead to procreation. If having stimulating sexual organs for pleasure is wrong, then homosexuality is no more wrong than masturbation or the majority of sex everyone is having. It is hypocritical that people get so hyped up against homosexuals and not everyone else also engaging in sexual stimulation for pleasure to an equal degree. I suspect that most people know that sexual stimulation isn't that bad of a thing, and we can't condemn homosexuals for doing something we know isn't that bad for everyone else.

Fifth, it might be that something is wrong in an unnatural sense if it is unhealthy, but that is a separate issue that I will discuss later.

Sixth, I don't agree that human beings have an "essence." Such an idea was proposed by Aristotle before modern science and philosophers no longer take it to be a tenable position. ArashNaraghi presented a more in depth objection against the above argument against homosexuality here.

2.     Evolution demands that we procreate.

Jason Dulle, a theologian, argued that homosexuality is wrong from the perspective of evolution because evolution thinks that passing on one's genetic similarity is “the good.”

One, this is false. Evolution does not say what is right or wrong, or good or bad. Evolution is just about how the world works.

Second, evolution does not say that procreation is the best way to pass on genetic similarity. It is possible that when limited resources are available that one should not procreate and should instead help protect whatever family members are already alive.

3.     Homosexuality leads to health problems.

Jason Dulleargued that homosexuality leads to promiscuity and STDs.

First, It might be true that this is a problem that many homosexuals have, but homosexual behavior in and of itself does not cause the problem. A monogamous homosexual relationship might be a solution. Even so, Dulle is not considering the difference betweenvirtuous and vicious sexual behavior.

To be prejudice against homosexuals for statistical issues, such as higher promiscuity and STD rates, is nothing more than irrational discrimination against an entire group based on what some members of the group do. We might as well decide white people are a bunch of oppressive and greedy business owners, for example.

Second, even if homosexuality in and of itself was reckless similar to how refusing to wear a seat belt is reckless, it is not clear that homosexuality is immoral. We don't think of wearing a seat belt as some sort of moral command that people sin against.

Third, we might worry that homosexuals tend to be reckless, mentally ill, or often engage in criminal behavior, but even if such a link could be established, we could not conclude that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. If homosexuals are mentally ill or engage in criminal behavior more than other people, then it would still be illegitimately discriminatory to hold that against all homosexuals. Crimes are often linked to men as opposed to women, and minority racial groups as opposed to white people. It is irrational to think that men or racial minority groups are somehow inheritable evil, and it is irrational to think homosexuals are inherently evil or the same reason.

Dulle makes use of statistics to convince us about how reckless homosexuals are, but we can also use statistics to try to justify racism in a similar way. Many criminals are minorities. Consider the following:

General population

The racial composition of the US population as of 2008 was 79.79% White American (65.60% non-Hispanic and 14.19% Hispanic), 12.84% African American (12.22% non-Hispanic and 0.62% Hispanic), 4.45% Asian American (4.35% non- Hispanic and 0.10% Hispanic), 1.01% American Indian or Alaska Native (0.76% non-Hispanic and 0.25% Hispanic), 0.18% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander American (0.14% non-Hispanic and 0.04% Hispanic), and 1.69% Multiracial American (1.64% non-Hispanic and 0.05% Hispanic). 15.25% of the total US population identified their ethnicity as Hispanic.

Prison population

The racial composition of the US prison and jail population as of 2008 was 33.44% White American (non-Hispanic), 40.21% African American (non-Hispanic), 20.29% Hispanic, and 6.06% Other (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander American, and Multiracial American). (Wikipedia: Race and Crime in the United States.)

The problem with using statistics to try to prove something like homosexuals being reckless by nature is that there are many factors and we aren't really sure what the cause is. We should suspect that race is not the cause of crime and homosexuality is not the cause of recklessness.

Homosexuality leads to mental health problems. Robert A. J. Gagnon, a theologian, argues the following: As regards lesbian relationships, the limited studies that we have to date suggest that homosexual females experience on average disproportionately high rates of measurable harm as regards shorter-term sexual relationships and higher instances of mental health problems, relative not only to heterosexual females but even to homosexual males. (Why Homosexual Behavior is MoreLike Incest and andPolyamory Than Race or Gender)

First, the statistics do not make it clear why homosexuals are mentally ill.

Second, many homosexuals have perfectly good mental health. It could be irrationally discriminatory against all homosexuals to condemn them based on the fact that some of them have mental illness.

Third, the view that homosexuality leads to mental health problems is just one more baseless accusation against it. This argument is refuted by a quick internet search, and Gagnon is either conveniently ignorantof what actual mental health research shows or he conveniently decides to keep such information from view. I already mentioned such research in the section on Aristotle that shows that homosexuality does not cause mental illness. There could be some sort of a controversyconcerning the effects homosexuality has on mental health, but Gagnon's claims are misleading at worst and uncertain at best. It is true that more homosexuals are attempting suicide than heterosexuals, Stress caused from a sexual stigma, manifested as prejudice and discrimination, is a major source of stress for people with a homosexual orientation. Sexual-minority affirming groups and gay peer groups help counteract and buffer minority stress. (Wikipedia: Homosexuality and Psychology)

Fourth, I already mentioned the if homosexuals have mental illness at a high rate, it would not prove that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.

5.     Homosexuality is dangerous to children.

Jason Dulleargued that homosexuals are dangerous to children because they tend to be child molesters, and other people worry about homosexuals raising children who might raise them wrong. Both of these concerns are misguided

First, it is not clear that homosexuality itself has anything to do with child abuse. Jason Dull misuses statistics once again to try to prove something that is false. A quick internet search would show that homosexuals have not been shown to have a tendency towards child molestation: The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.

This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. (Facts about Homosexuality and Child Molestation.)

Second, it is not clear that homosexuality has anything to do with raising children poorly. Research has shown homosexuals to be good at raising children. The consensus was that they were equally good, but a new study found the following:

The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. Writing in recent issue of the AmericanSociological Review, the authors say that the emotional health of the two sets of children is essentially the same. (Gay Marriage Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds.)

It is true that children were willing to explore homosexual behavior, but their emotional health was the same, and we so far have no reason to think that homosexual behavior is automatically wrong. Third, I already mentioned the if homosexuals are criminals at a high rate, it would not prove that homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.

6.     Homosexuality could lead to the extinction of the human race.

An anonymous author argued that homosexuality can destroy the entire human race: One of the criteria or litmus test of a behavior that is beneficial to humanity at large is, “what if the action that you are promoting is exercised by a majority of the people of the world? Will it advance humanity or will it retard it?” In this case human beings will cease to exist. (Homosexuality and Islam – AnIslamic Perspective.)

One, something is not wrong just because it would be bad if everyone did it. If everyone was a full time doctor, then our farms would be neglected because civilization requires specialists who each play a different role. Some people do argue that some behavior is immoral by asking, “What if everyone did that?” but this is a misguided way to reason. (Some people even seem to think that the categorical imperative is something like this, but I think it is a clearly mistaken way to understand it.20) This kind of question abstracts away all relevant information of the situation. You could ask a doctor performing a surgery and cutting someone open, “What if everyone did that?”

Obviously cutting people open is usually wrong and the situation at hand is relevant to our moral reasoning. I suppose someone could worry that everyone could become homosexuals because it's so exciting and enjoyable, but many people aren't attracted to people of the same sex. Two, even if everyone was a homosexual, they could still engage in occasional heterosexual sex to continue procreation, or they could use  other methods, such as in vitro fertilization.

Three, if being a homosexual is wrong insofar as they are abstinent from procreative behavior, then being celibate is also wrong for the same reason, but that is absurd.

7.     If homosexuality isn't wrong, then consensual incest isn't wrong.

There are at least three ways people try to relate homosexuality and consensual incest:

(a)Homosexuality is wrong because God says so, just like consensual incest.

(b) Homosexual sex is wrong because the people involved are too similar, just like consensual incest. It is the similarity between the two people having sex that makes each act wrong.21

 (c)If we agree that homosexual sex is not wrong, the next thing we know people will say that consensual sex is not wrong. Homosexuality is wrong because God says so, just like consensual incest – I will bring up God later.

Homosexual sex is wrong because the people involved are too similar, just like consensual incest – I disagree. Consensual incest isn't wrong because the people are too similar. It's wrong because it ruins relationships and destroys families. It is true that homosexuality can also ruin relationships and destroy families, but only to the extent that people condemn homosexual family members. Incest doesn't only ruin families because we condemn incest, but also for other reasons, such a:

(i) People usually can't comfortably spend time with family members who we fear will request sex (or have even requested sex in the past), so it can ruin family relationships, and such relationships are often something that should be improved rather than destroyed.

(ii) We want to know that family members love us for ourselves and not because they want us to give them sexual gratification.

(iii)If consensual incest is ever considered acceptable, then we might fear spending as much alone time with family members because they might want to make an unwanted sexual advance.

(iv) Incest between a parent and child has proven to be less than consensual due to the power differences.As far as I know consensual incest might not be immoral or destructive in all cases, but it is an incredibly dangerous sort of behavior that has the potential of having destructive effects.

6.     If homosexuality is found acceptable, then more people will become homosexual.

Robert A. J. Gagnonargued the following:

Cultural endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual behavior will likely lead to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the population, affecting young people at higher rates.This means that more people will develop a higher risk for the problems discussed in 2 above [promiscuity and STDs]. (How to Make a Valid Case Against Homosexual Practice)

This argument begs the question. Assuming that homosexuality is wrong, then making it acceptable and encouraging such behavior would be wrong. Assuming it is not wrong, then we have no reason to fear more people becoming a homosexual. That said, we don't know that more people will become homosexuals even if homosexuality is found to be acceptable.

7.     If homosexuality is found acceptable, then we will become prejudiced against people who think homosexuality is wrong.

If homosexuality is found acceptable, then we will become prejudiced against people who think homosexuality is wrong. Robert A. J. Gagnon presented this argument as the following:

Caving into the homosexual agenda will lead to the radical marginalization of those who oppose homosexual practice and, ultimately, the criminalization of opposition to homosexual behavior. (How to Make a Valid Case Against Homosexual Practice)

Again, this argument begs the question. Racism is illegal because prejudice against race is wrong. The same could be true about prejudice against homosexuality.

The Bible/Quran is against homosexuality. This argument begs the question. If we assume that the Bible is rightabout everything, then such an argument could succeed. However, ifthe Bible falsely says that homosexuality is wrong, then that just proves that the Bible says something false. Additionally, ArashNaraghi suggested that religious people don't have to condemn homosexuality:

"Is it possible to be a Muslim and at the same time consistently believe that homosexuality is morally permissible?" I believe the answer is yes. To my understanding, the Quranic verses concerning homosexuality are open to new interpretations. Even if for any reason, one does not find the new upcoming interpretations convincing, another option is still available: shemight claim that those verses belong to the shell of the text, i.e., they are not essential to the heart of the Quranic message, and being Muslim requires one's commitment only to the heart of the message, and not to the accidental elements of the holy text. (Islam and Moral Status of Homosexuality) His answer for Islam could be applied to Jews and Christians as well.Conclusion.So far I see no reason to think homosexuality is wrong. The four major ethical theories seem to give us reason to think homosexual behavior is permissible as opposed to immoral. I am disappointed with the arguments presented against homosexuality and the great deal of faulty reasoning, misinformation, ignorance, and/or suppressed evidence that many of the arguments require. Most of these arguments were presented by theologians with a PhD, which makes  me wonder if theology has strict requirements for qualification.

                                                         THE END

.