Proponents of the use of disgust to
dictate legal or moral law, specifically Devlin and Kass, seem to take
particular issue with homosexuality. However, the basis of their arguments
against homosexuality leaves homosexuals with no alternatives as to how to
carry out their lives. I argue that by Devlin and Kass’s own arguments, any
other alternative lifestyle that homosexuals could possibly take is morally
objectionable, but homosexuality is not.
If homosexuals do not pursue sexual
relations or romantic relationships with others of the same sex, they have two
alternatives: (1) pursue sexual relations or romantic relationships with others
of the opposite sex, or (2) resist all biological urges for sex or romance and
remain completely abstinent for life.
It is obvious why alternative #1 is
not a morally feasible option for homosexuals: by pursuing heterosexual
relationships, they are lying about who they are and deceiving their partners
of the opposite sex. By leading these partners on, they are stringing them
along in a toxic relationship in which the partner is never truly desired. Thus,
their partners are being deprived of the opportunity to seek out other
relationships in which they can be genuinely loved romantically and sexually. These
heterosexuals may truly fall in love with their homosexual partners, and
forever feel pain stemming from doubts of reciprocation justified by subtle,
unconscious behavior. This is a harm that actually encroaches on other people’s
qualities of life. All 4 proponents of disgust agree that causing unjust harm
to others is inherently disgusting. Although Devlin and Kass’s usages of
disgust “sweep more broadly,” it seems like harmful actions and behaviors are
the most obviously disgusting to all.
Devlin and Kass would probably move
to alternative #2, but I think their own specific arguments bar homosexuals
from this option as well. On page 77, Devlin “paints a very particular picture
of the danger that might be caused to society by the spread of ‘vice’: namely,
one in which important activities cannot be carried out because people are too
distracted by their ‘vices’ to perform them.” It is pretty clear that
homosexuality is not an addiction like alcoholism or drug dependence, and in
terms of distracting a person from other responsibilities and aspects of life,
homosexual relationships are no more culpable than heterosexual relationships.
However, if homosexuals were to resist their biological urges for sex for their
entire lives, this would surely distract them from other responsibilities and
tasks. Depriving one’s self of sex, something almost all humans are
biologically wired to yearn for, would lead to an unquenchable craving that would
undoubtedly be distracting and mentally debilitating. Thus, if Devlin is
concerned about homosexuals being contributing members of society, he is better
off allowing them to be sexually satisfied rather than thirsting for it all the
time.
On page 79, Kass “worries that in a
more subtle way, core human values may be eroded by the increasing acceptance of
practices that treat human beings as means to the ends of others.” Attempting
to regulate people’s private behaviors by forcing them to resist harmless
biological urges simply because it makes some others uncomfortable certainly
seems like some human beings are being treated as a means to the ends of
others. If the discomfort of homophobes is regarded as greater suffering than
the unnatural restraint imposed on homosexuals, then an arbitrary hierarchy for
humans is clearly in place.
Devlin and Kass fail to cater their
arguments well enough towards the specific case of homosexuality to actually
express any logical disapproval of it; rather, their arguments are far more
against these few alternative options that homosexuals have.
I initially read your post and agreed with you, but I also think that there is another alternative that does not necessarily rely on the homosexual agent, but relies rather on a change in the mindset of the society in which the agent lives. So it seems that homosexuals only have two options on how to live their lives, but I think that it is feasible option for both Devlin and Kass that homosexual people should still be able to live their lives the way they choose, but the community needs to change.
ReplyDeleteFor Devlin, he could argue that homophobia is currently a changing cultural practice. As a society, our cultural values are shifting towards accepting homosexuals as people, rather than outsiders or abnormal, which gives gay people the ability to live their own life in a changing society.
For Kass, he could argue that homophobia is intrinsically immoral, and we have been wrong in the past to condone such behavior. Therefore, we must change as a society to allow homosexuals to live their life any way they choose, and work towards ridding ourselves of the immorality of homophobia.
I know that they are proponents of the pro-disgust argument, but I think that given the progressive work on homophobia in the past few decades, the disgust is weaning away from homosexuals, and that would give them another alternative in the situation you describe.