Homosexuality Is Not Moral And Here's Why
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alex (the speaker) makes the point that it makes no sense to consider sexual orientation in terms of morality. One's sexual orientation is not moral or immoral ... it just is an un-chosen characteristic of their person. Similarly, it is not moral or immoral to be of a given skin color, height, ethnicity, etc.
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video is not anti-homosexuality. The video title probably doesn't mean what you think it means I'm only making this disclaimer because I know that YouTube is just full of people who love to judge videos without actually watching them. So before you, all run to the dislike bar bear in mind that this video is a bit closer to being pro-homosexuality, but isn't really that either. It's more just like I don't care about anybody's homosexuality and neither should you and so none of us should be passing judgment. Okay so please actually watch the video thanking you kindly.
Good morning everybody! My name is Alex and seeing as Australia is currently in the midst of a voluntary survey to find out if the public think that loving the wrong person is a crime unworthy of state recognition. I can't think of a better time to be discussing the topic I'd like to address today.
I want to consider the following question is homosexuality moral the answer no wait let me clarify that when I say no that homosexuality is not moral. I don't at all mean to say that it's immoral. Rather what I want to imply is that the question as a whole is erroneous as soon as this so-called debate is brought up as soon as somebody poses the question about homosexuality in this manner of morality they've already committed a grave fallacy. The mistake being made here is an ungrounded assumption that homosexuality as a topic or an act on an orientation falls within what I call the moral sphere. That is things that can be viewed and judged in the context of morality everything we ever do falls within one of two categories. It either falls within the moral sphere or it falls within a moral sphere that is not in the moral sphere. My goal here is to describe the difference between these two spheres and explain which one is home to homosexuality. My aim is to show you that no homosexuality is not inherently moral but it isn't immoral either. it's got absolutely nothing to do with morality and you, therefore, have no right to morally judge people for it.
In other words, I want to show you why even considering whether someone is being moral or not by simply being a homosexual is a ridiculous idea. I'm proposing a simple criteria by which you can judge whether or not in action falls within this moral sphere and can be judged in a moral context if something doesn't fall within this category. Then we can't view it in terms of morality and we can't judge people for it. Now there are two boxes that must be checked in order to say that something does fall within the moral sphere. The first of these is that there must be a conscious agent committing the action and the second is that the action must have some effect on human well-being. Now as a quick aside as I'll need to mention this briefly I've said before that I disagree with Sam Harris about morality. I don't believe that morality is objective or can be objective because to believe this is to assume that well-being is intrinsically a good thing.
However, this doesn't matter in this instance because there is something that we can all agree on here. That our sense of morality is based upon well-being the only difference is that I think this is a subjective assumption we make because of our evolutionary tendencies, whereas dr. Harris thinks that morality is by definition based on well-being. I've discussed this at length before with rationality rules. A link is in the description. Still, we can see that whether we believe in God or not and whether we believe morality is objective or not we can all agree that morality is based upon the well-being of living creatures. Again, if you need convincing of this watch the video in the description.
Having said all this, we can now take some examples and determine whether or not they fall within the moral sphere. Now in order to help us with this, I've drawn a very high-quality table which has four sections. I don't know how well you can see this but I've split it between conscious acts, unconscious acts, things that affect well-being and things that don't affect well-being. As you can see an action has to be both conscious and affect well-being to fall within the moral sphere and I'll explain why and I'm sorry that I have to spell this out, but there is a reason for it so just bear with me. If an action does not affect well-being then as we've already determined that morality is based upon well-being, it doesn't fall within the moral sphere and can't be judged accordingly. For example, if I decide to lift my hand that's a conscious act but it doesn't have any effect on well-being and therefore doesn't fall within the moral sphere you can't judge me for doing it.
Likewise, if I were to roll over in my sleep that's an unconscious act but it also doesn't have any effect on well-being and so it definitely can't be morally judged for it. So now we can consider acts that do affect well-being. So take the following example. If I were to sleepwalk one night and knock over a glass of water in the kitchen before returning to bed and do so completely unconsciously, and next day somebody slipped on the water and died I've committed an act that affects well-being. However, I wouldn't be held morally accountable because I didn't consciously do it and you can see that that means it doesn't fall within the moral sphere.
On the other hand, if I intentionally trip someone up causing them injury then I've done something that definitely affects well-being and I've done so consciously. That means it falls within the moral sphere. Ding, ding, ding! I can be held morally accountable so an act must be conscious, not by chance, not by accident, and must affect well-being be it a positive or a negative effect to be considered either moral or immoral. If these conditions are not met, the action is amoral and no rational person can judge a person for committing it. To do so is to fly in the face of rationality. it would be like holding a volcano morally accountable for erupting.
So now we can apply all of this to homosexuality. Firstly, does homosexuality affect well-being well, of course, we can talk all day about, the benefits and detriments of gay parentage, or the inclusion of homosexuality and sexual education. But these are separate issues from simply being a homosexual and gay marriage. For that matter, both of these things do not affect anybody else and therefore do not fall within the moral sphere. So in theory, we could conclude here, but for the benefit of those still unconvinced let's check homosexuality against our other moral criteria.
So secondly, is homosexuality a conscious choice. Now there is a debate about this. It's a fatuous debate however and we can largely dismiss it the problem with the debate is that it's usually framed in the following way; either homosexuality is natural and determined by birth or it's instilled in a person by their environment and upbringing. But think about it for a moment and you'll realize that even if being gay is determined by upbringing and environmental factors, it's still not a choice. Did you choose your music taste? Here's a trait that certainly doesn't come from your genes but rather from your environment and your upbringing. Still it's not a choice and if something is not a choice then you cannot be held morally accountable for it. But don't take my word for it, take Immanuel Kant.
You may have heard of his ethical idea or implies kin what he means by this, is that to suggest that somebody ought to do something or be a certain way there must necessarily be a possibility that they can do so. If they can't that is if it's impossible to do something then you can't say that they ought to do it. That would be like saying to a person of color that they ought to be white and furthermore, like telling a gay person that they ought to be straight. It just doesn't make logical sense.
But here's the key point and this is what explains my statement at the beginning of the video. Having proved that homosexuality does not fall within the moral sphere, there's another claim that we cannot make we can't say that homosexuality is moral. We can't say that it's a good thing. We can't say that it's beneficial for the exact same reasons that we can't say that it's immoral or detrimental. All we can say is that it's a moral, morality doesn't even come into it. Homosexuality has nothing to do with right and wrong and is simply an innocent sexual orientation that nobody decides upon. As soon as you start trying to make a link between homosexuality and morality you've already lost the debate.
So the next time that somebody tries to argue to you that homosexuality is immoral don't engage them by claiming that it's the opposite. Instead, explain to them that they're thinking about it in the wrong way and need to reframe the entire discussion. You could even show them this video. I promise I really wouldn't mind if somebody asks you about the morality of homosexuality, respond to them as if they've just asked about the morality of skin color. Say they were to ask you, but do you really think it's moral to be black? This is a palpably stupid question. Of course, it's not immoral to be black. It's not immoral to be black it's something that's out of your control and has absolutely nothing to do with morality. And so is homosexuality, and that means that you have no right to morally judge somebody for their sexual orientation, any more than you have the right to judge them for the color of their skin, or the shape of their ears. So no, homosexuality is not moral, but it's not immoral either, and you should still vote yes to marriage equality and you should still celebrate the invaluable freedom that it represents.
- Alex O'Connor or cosmic sceptic you can find me on social media here I want to thank you very much for watching don't forget to subscribe and I'll see you in the next one you
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
Another interesting perspective from a young bright rising web celebrity.
Wow, what an interesting perspective. I never thought of homosexuality or any other moral issue by this method. Totally remarkable young man.
He has been doing this while at Oxford (I think he recently graduated). He has been so successful he apparently is pursuing this (and public speaking and public debates) as his career.
Regardless, I like his clear and logical explanations of sometimes complex topics.
Now the trick is to get people to watch and seriously consider the videos.
The increasing use of YouTube without text script on this site is making it more and more difficult for me to take part in any meaningful discussions.
Not easily done, but I just now included a transcript of this video.
Thank you TiG. It was an interesting read, employs logic, and not necessary to convince me that homosexuality really has nothing to do with morality. I had nothing to do with the colour of my eyes as well - and that equally has nothing to do with morality.
Quit looking at me with those immoral eyes Buzz...
LOL. If you were a pretty woman, I might have done that....
I agree completely ... ... but...
Many homophobes simply contend that homosexuality is a choice. Can of worms...
And I see no reason for them to do that other than to justify bigotry. It would be different if homosexuals often described their orientation as a choice but they do not. What clinches it is that heterosexuals can test the 'choice' hypothesis themselves. I have yet to find a heterosexual who claims sexual orientation is a choice who was able to (temporarily, just as a test) choose to be homosexual. The obvious logic ensues ...
I always like Cobalt's take on that. If they can choose to be temporarily homosexual, then they are capable of being sexually attracted to members of both sexes, and are therefore bisexual. Oddly enough, those prejudiced against homosexuals don't really like it when their "logic" is carried to its conclusion.
I love Cobalt's take on things.
I loved how she said a man that is secure in his own sexuality is not bothered by what others do.
I agree.
Still, I have yet to find a single person to take this challenge. ( For years now ) I would have thought this would cause people to think, but apparently thinking is not part of the process which is why bigotry perpetuates.
Excellent !
For myself I would say no person chooses the manner in which they are wired, we are who we are.
I never had to think about it, just as an individual of a differing orientation than mine would not I would imagine, it is just one of those things that is.
The only choice involved is whether or not to accept it.
I agree nor do I find it either moral or immoral, it just is.
And they could argue that being left handed is a choice, and like some religious idiots of the past claim being left handed is immoral.
"As Christianity spread, traits given to the left side would change in correspondence with its own founding myths. As far back as the Zohar, a foundational text of Jewish mysticism, Judeo-Christian religions attributed the left with femininity and inferiority, as Eve appeared on and developed from Adam’s left side. Beyond weakness, Christianity also associated the left with immorality . When attempting to explain the genesis of the left’s association with evil, many historians point to a passage in the Book of Matthew. It writes that on the last Day of Judgment:
The fact that just a century ago there were people who still believed being left handed was immoral and evil does put it in perspective and shows that it's likely within the next hundred years humanity will completely dispense with the false idea that homosexuality is immoral. Progress is happening fast, and the more we educate people with facts and logic, of which this video is chock full, the sooner we'll get to a point where being born gay is treated the same as being born left handed.
Logic never applies to flat earthers, because logically, they wouldn't be flat earthers if they applied logic.
I'm tall by choice.
I'm sure there are plenty of religious conservatives who might argue that you could choose to saw off your feet and be "normal" height like they are. Maybe use a "reparative therapy" Makita Sawzall...
LMAO!
You've given me a better understanding of gays' loathing of "conversion therapy"...
I think one of the current Presidential candidates made the same point, "
“If you could have offered me a pill that could make me straight, I would have swallowed it before you could give me a swig of water, It’s a hard thing to think about now. If you had shown me exactly what it was that made me gay, I would have cut it out with a knife." “Thank God there was no pill. Thank God there was no knife.”
Thank God there was no Sawzall... (an expression, not an endorsement of an invisible spirit being).
I cannot empathize.
I'm a straight male WASP. I have never known discrimination. Never.
I try to imagine the doubt and anguish... but...
I am also a straight male White Anglo Saxon Pseudonym
But seriously, we have, actually, all experienced discrimination in some form because it doesn't always feel bad or "feel" at all, we are often oblivious to its effects on our lives. For me, those discriminating eyes have almost always welcomed me in and given me whatever opportunities I asked for or showed an interest in because I'm a tall straight white middle class male with decades of Christian indoctrination.
It's easy to take the benefits of discrimination for granted because we usually don't even notice them. We don't notice how the security guards aren't following us around the department store. They saw us, but we didn't fit their mental description of a shoplifter. We don't notice the job we didn't get because of our sexual orientation, because we got the job, the owner loved the pictures of our wife and stories of our family and you didn't get the "Well, we'll be in touch..." after showing the interviewer a picture of your life partner. We never see that dubious glare from the loan officer when we ask to borrow some money, we get a smile and sparkle in the eye followed by "Well how much are you needing to borrow today?".
Because we don't see it, as you say, it's hard to imagine how someone else who does experience those things might feel which is why it's hard to comprehend the lengths they would go to, like barbaric conversion therapy, to be "normal", which really just means they wish everyone would treat them like they would any straight white male Anglo Saxon Protestant.
Sadly, because it is so exhausting for many lgtbq Americans to live amongst such constant hate and discrimination, they are twice as likely to commit suicide. The rate is four time higher among transgendered Americans. To me, the bullying and constant attacks coming from religious conservatives demanding their right to discriminate against lgtbq Americans is a major factor in those young peoples deaths. They literally have blood on their hands in my opinion. And these aren't just fertilized eggs but active children and young adults with names, hobbies, favorite songs, unfulfilled dreams, who have been out of the womb for dozens of years. But to many religious conservatives they're the kids they were taught to bully, hate and exclude from their straight-centric society which is why many have no problem turning their backs and cold hearts on the countless deaths and suffering they could be preventing by simply showing even a shred of compassion and decency.
Absolutely correct.
I should have said that I have never known negative discrimination.
I have benefited from positive discrimination - better known as "White Privilege" - constantly, throughout my life.
Logic doesn't apply to religion because of they were logical then they would not be religious due to the fact that there is no logical support for a religious deity. Religion is based entirely on the emotion of belief and faith.
This is why logical arguments to religious believers will always fail because they are not inherently logical people.
In fact, the people who most want to frame sexuality as a "moral choice" are often the most immoral actors we have in society.
IMO the only morality that comes into play is the morality of those passing judgement. As we have seen, allowing gay marriage has not hurt anyone. The sky has not fallen. It in no way had any impact on those not involved.
Chances are most people know a gay person, whether they realize it or not. Most don't go around advertising the fact that they are. Some are religious, some are not. They are just people that fall into all realms of society, IE just like everyone else.
Speaking of Youtube, I came across this guy. A likable fellow that most people would probably have never guessed his orientation. He went on to live his life and eventually got married.
One of my childhood friends son just came out. This kid seemed totally hetro..so it was a bit of a shock for my friends, but not a big deal. They love their son and that is all that matters.
Your story is so very important.
It is the ever-greater banality of homosexuality that has converted our country.
Ah morals. Such a debated and unsettled question. I am somewhat taken about by his briefness, but I suppose for those raised on soundbites, it is great stuff.
I was glad that he brought in Kant. If you have not read anything by Emmanuel Kant, he is dense reading at best. So let me attempt to integrate both Alex's chart and Kant.
Now Kant seemed to indicate that telling the truth at all times was what he referred to as a Categorical Imperative. In other words, it must be done.
So. an example then. The year is 1943 and you are in Europe. The Germans have invaded your country and are now in control. They are hunting for Jews. You know where a family of Jews is hiding.
The Germans come to you and ask if you know where there are any Jews hiding. The dilemma, do you tell them, or do you lie?
According to Kant, or so it seems, you would tell them the truth. Why. It satisfies both of Alex's criteria for being moral. It is a conscious decision and it affects well being, yours.
It is a conscious decision, so it satisfies Alex's rule one. Now you may ask, how does it affect my well being? It keeps you alive and able to perhaps in the future perform more moral acts, and you followed the Categorical Imperative of always telling the truth. The others are affected in an immoral way, but is that your concern?
Neither Kant nor Alex really seem to face that question. Alex at least, not in this video.
So the question of morality, at least in the above situation, comes down to this. Do I lie (immoral choice) or do I tell the truth (moral choice)?