This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

Levin Michael Why Homosexuality is Abnormal Levin's argument Evaluation of argument Legal implications Homosexuality, genetics, and freedom A final thought From Last Time Hardin's tragedy of the commons The ruin of the commons No food bank will help Eco-destruction Ratchet effect Immigration Levin's General Argument (1) Any person who does not use their organs for their function will be unhappy. (2) Homosexuals do not use their organs for their function. (3) Therefore, homosexuals will be unhappy. The fact is the universally acknowledge unhappiness of homosexuals (293). (4*) Being unhappy is prudentially bad/wrong. (5*) Therefore, homosexuality is prudentially bad/wrong. What is it to not use an organ for it's function? Mr. Jones' tooth necklace. Mr. Smith's Old McDonald teeth There is no question that they are not using their teeth for their function. They will be unhappy using them this way. Evolutionary yearning to chew (it is selected for). Function and Sex (1) Any person who does not use their organs for their function will be unhappy. one of the functions of the penis is to introduce semen into the vagina (p. 291). So, nature made this activity enjoyable. Those who did not find this enjoyable did not leave descendants Abnormality= being selected against by evolution NOT not being normal e.g., like most others So, those who are normal are those who use their sexual organs in a way that will engender the species. Those who are abnormal don't use organs this way. Homosexuality causes unhappiness (1) Any person who does not use their organs for their function will be unhappy. Mr. Jones & Mr. Smith. Homosexuals do not use their organs for their function (to introduce seamen into the vagina). They will have an evolutionarily instilled desire unsatisfied Unsatisfied desires leads to unhappiness. Homosexuality thereby causes unhappiness. This is an overall even tendency, if there are individual instances of a well adjusted homosexual (p. 291). Let's talk about the first subargument (1)-(3) (1) Any person who does not use their organs for their function will be unhappy. (2) Homosexuals do not use their organs for their function. (3) Therefore, homosexuals will be unhappy. Does this seem right? Remember, if you disagree with the conclusion, you must disagree with (1) or (2). Problems with (1): Function (1) Any person who does not use their organs for their function will be unhappy. Three ways to think of function here (a) Each organ has a UNIQUE function (b) Each organ has at least one function (c) Each organ has at least one function, and at least one of those functions, if not used, makes people unhappy. Do any of these ways to interpret function make the sub-argument sound (all true/plausible premises which support the conclusion?). Problems with (1): Function (a) Each organ has a UNIQUE function False Problems with (1): Function (b) Each organ has at least one function True. Makes argument invalid (premises don't support the conclusion) (1*) Any person who does not use their organs for some of their functions will be unhappy. (2) Homosexuals do not use their organs for their function. (3) Therefore, homosexuals will be unhappy. (X1) For any apple, some are red. (X2) This is an apple. (X2) The apple is red. Problems with (1): Function (c) Each organ has at least one function, and at least one of those functions, if not used, makes people unhappy. Then argument needs another premise: (1*) The happy function for reproductive equipment is heterosexual sex. Possible problembegging the question But this is false: Studies (e.g., Blanchflower & Oswald) suggest that: Heterosexuals not more or less happy than homosexuals. Sex does make people happier (either heterosexual or homosexual). Money doesn't buy you love. ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document