There are a lot of strong feelings about this topic, so I'm sure I don't need to remind you:
please be nice to each other in the comments.
[electronic intro music]
[music fades to background]
I thought it would be nice this week if we put aside the more technical philosophy
we've been doing recently and did some practical ethical discussion that we can all get stuck in.
I'm sure you're already the kind of person who can get on with people of all colors, creeds and nations,
so you don't need convincing on this issue,
but it's always good to review the arguments and go over why you think what you think.
So, with that in mind, let's review some of the practical ethical arguments against homosexuality.
Number one: "Homosexuality is unnatural."
This is a fairly common argument that you've probably heard before,
and, it's also not a true statement.
All five great ape species practice homosexuality.
Bonobos are practically a bisexual species.
And, that's just apes.
But even if it was true, what then?
This argument relies on the rather ancient principle of "natura nos docet:"
"nature teaches us,"
which says that whatever is natural must be right.
But, is this the case? Clothes are unnatural. Flying is unnatural, medicine is unnatural.
Even if it was the case that homosexuality is unnatural, which it isn't,
it wouldn't follow that it was, therefore, bad.
Argument number two: homosexuality is risky.
The idea behind this one is that it is wrong to engage in any risky acts,
and, unsurprisingly, this argument has it's roots in the fear of the AIDS outbreak of the 80's.
Joe Miller: "We're talking about AIDS, we're talking about lesions. . ."
But lots of things are risky. Crossing the street is risky, smoking is risky, heterosexual sex is risky.
Doesn't mean they're wrong.
In addition to which, lesbian sex is actually the safest kind of sex there is.
Anchorman: "It's science."
Number three: Homosexuality is against God.
Now, this is a can of worms that I really do not want to open here,
But, all I'm going to say is, if you do believe that,
Maybe you could at least acknowledge that people who don't believe in God
aren't going to be convinced by that argument.
Neither will people who don't agree with you that that's what God would think.
And, that's all I'm going to say.
Number four: "Homosexuality is immoral."
And this is the one that requires the most ethical analysis, which is why I've saved it for last.
In the episode about moral luck that we did a while ago, I mentioned an aphorism of Kant's:
"ought implies can."
If you need a refresher, this is the principle that if you /ought/ to do something,
it must be the case that you /can/ do it.
So, if there's a house fire in Japan and I can't be blamed for not running into the house and saving people.
I wasn't there. There's nothing I could have done. It's not really within my control.
If something isn't within your control, it can't be a subject of moral responsibility for you.
Similarly, if you can't help but do something, then you can't really be blamed for it.
It would be irrational of anyone to say to me, "You are a bad person because you have green eyes."
I can't help but have green eyes. That's just the way I am.
Although, there are people who do maintain that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice,
given that most other things about a person are a combination of genetic factors and environmental factors,
it seems much more likely that it isn't.
And fair's fair: the science isn't all done yet, but
Do any of you remember choosing who to be attracted to?
Scientists won't ever discover a "gay gene," because that idea is ridiculously over-simplifies the genetics involved,
but, if homosexuality does have a genetic basis, then obviously you can't choose that.
And if it's got a partial basis in your environment, then obviously, you don't choose that either.
Interestingly, some people think that the intrauterine  -- that is "in the womb" -- environment
has more to do with it than anything else that comes afterwards.
And, again, you don't choose the wallpaper in your womb.
So, although there are people who think that being homosexual is a choice,
I would put a lot of money on it that they're wrong.
And I think a lot of scientists and psychologists would agree with me.
Examples in the description.
So remember: ought implies can, if you don't choose it, it can't be immoral.
So, there we are.
Our practical, ethical conclusion is that homophobia is irrational.
But what do you guys think? Are there any arguments that we've missed out?
Don't be afraid to play devil's advocate in the comments if you think there's something wrong with the way we've argued something.
Though, maybe point that out, just in case you upset someone.
Don't forget to favorite, share, and tell your friends all about PhilosophyTube.
You can also follow us on Twitter, and if you were to hit that "Like" button,
That would make me really really gay.
["Where is My Mind?" by the Pixies begins in background]
Lots of people applied their minds to the puzzle of telepathy last time.
Let's see what you guys had to say about logic and mind reading.
Jaydoggg7 said that the apparent logical contradiction inherent in reading people's thoughts is a very dualistic outlook.
It regards "minds" and "brains" as very, very separate things.
If minds are brains, then just reading neural activity would be mind reading.
I haven't even considered how dualistic that approach is. Thank you for pointing that out.
It's not /entirely/ without problems to say that minds are brains,
and maybe that's another discussion for another time, but yeah! Thank you for pointing that out.
RoyalGiraffe asked, "Couldn't mind reading come in the form of reading the subject of someone's thoughts,
rather than the actual content?" So it would be like, "Hmmm . . . Jeff is thinking about potatoes,"
rather than, "Huh, what's that Jeff? Potatoes?"
That seems, a little bit, to me like reading the body language, but really really advanced,
like we discussed, rather than the full-on Professor X "I can hear your thoughts" type deal,
but as Michael Ruigrok pointed out, maybe it would have been helpful to have defined mind reading exactly before we started.
DarkRenegadei and asswaxer100 came back with really clever replies,
saying that, just because somebody owns a thought, that isn't a predicate or property of that thought,
so we can't use it to distinguish between different thoughts.
That's a really good point, I didn't even consider that at all.
I'm kind of torn. One on hand, I agree: the fact that somebody possesses a thought isn't a property of it,
But on the other hand, if you were to completely describe someone's thoughts,
you'd be missing something if you didn't say that they were being "had" by somebody.
But, yeah, that's a really good point.
I think that if Kant and Leibniz were alive, they would give you guys a big high-five for that comment.
Background music: "Where is my mind?"
