Posted on February 23, by Scott Alexander [Content warning: Discussion of social justice, discussion of violence, spoilers for Jacqueline Carey books. This post was inspired by a debate with a friend of a friend on Facebook who has since become somewhat famous.
Understanding the teleological argument and the is-ought fallacy helps us to answer an important question about what the Bible says regarding Homosexuality. The caller made the teleological argument, that looking at what the natural functions of the male and female reproductive organs are for, we can draw certain conclusions about how they should properly be used.
The caller asked if the challenge was incorrect and how to respond to it. On the principle the challenger is correct in describing the is-ought fallacy.
But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. That is an example of an is-ought fallacy. To be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises.
Hume identified this particular fallacy in arguments that were based on mere descriptive elements but had a conclusion with moral terms in it. That is the is-ought fallacy.
If that is their argument they are guilty of is-ought. Even concrete is natural because it occurs in nature. So a clarification needs to be made on that particular point.
Blindness occurs in nature. This is the way it is; therefore it is okay, in the moral sense of the word. It would involve introducing a moral term that can be substantiated into the premise to arrive at a conclusion with a moral term.
My pen functions a certain way. It was intended by someone to function with a purpose. So if I intend to go from Los Angeles to Napa which is north of Los Angeles but I get in my car and head south on the to the 5, and then head down towards the Mexican border, you can see that I am going the wrong direction.
I am not accomplishing the goal that I intended to accomplish. It will get bent or can slip out and scratch the refrigerator. One way of arguing against homosexuality is to say that males were not intended to have sex with other males, and we can tell that by the way sexual organs appear to be intended to function.
Because men were not intended to have sex with other males, and they do so, then they are violating their natural teleology, their natural function. But notice that in the nature of the argument we are making a moral claim implicitly up front.
The teleology is the moral term in the premises.
Incidentally, this is the very argument that is being used in the Bible in both the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding homosexuality. In the book of Leviticus, it talks about homosexuality being a capital crime, and an abomination.
They are violating this functional relationship by instead sexually desiring one that was not intended. Of course, this trades on the notion that human beings, in this case, were made for certain ends.
So does this argument work for people who are not theists? The appearance of teleology suggests genuine teleology, and so examples of teleology in the natural realm point to the existence of God. So the teleology, to me, is evidence for God, and that entails certain moral obligations to the God that created with purpose.
Now, that would be consistent - the relativistic view of a materialistic universe. Rights are part of teleology, endowed with creation.Here is nice little android app application that helps you explore the age-old question, "Does God Exist?" (Google play store link, or apk download link).It starts by asking you to consider what you mean by God, then presents a series of observations.
It is increasingly lopsided because public opinion has moved dramatically in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriages in recent history. It is increasingly narrow because, at least in the case of Christian discourse, opposition to same-sex marriage has abandoned Biblical argumentation and relied more exclusively on natural law arguments.
“[A] disinterested examination of our system of sexual relationship must point out that the situation between the sexes now, and throughout history, is a relationship of dominance and subordinance. [This is a repost of the Non-Libertarian FAQ (aka “Why I Hate Your Freedom”), which I wrote about five years ago and which used to be hosted on my website.
Westboro Baptist Church originated as a branch of the East Side Baptist Church, established in on the east side of Topeka. In , East Side hired Fred Phelps as an associate pastor, and then promoted him to pastor of their new church plant, Westboro Baptist, which opened in on the west side of Topeka.
Soon after Westboro was established, Phelps broke ties with East Side Baptist. Natural ends argument/Natural law theory Actions are morally appropriate insofar as they are in accord with our nature and end as human beings.
Procreation is the natural purpose or end of sexual activity, therefore any sexual activity that is not for the purpose of procreation is considered immoral.