From: Vunch-AT-aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:18:55 EST Subject: Foucault and Sex (Was Foucault and Queer-bashing) --part1_ac.10692c13.27ab028f_boundary In a message dated 1/31/01 11:47:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, ahaig-AT-warped-reality.com writes: > Taylor also takes up a Kantian position about Foucault: what if everyone > > believed the same thing? > > Then homosexuality would be immoral. Perhaps one of the reasons that the > categorical imperative is a weak standard? Everyone does not believe the > It is a logical conclusion that if everyone rejects heterosexuality that the species will die. So, Foucault's position position might seem to be impractical (take that in the sense of self-defeating and not in the ethical sense, please). I find your conclusion from my claim that "then homosexuality would be immoral," an incorrect usage of terms. Homosexuality is immoral when it violates the law as in cases involving underage or nonconsenting individuals. Homosexuality is nowadays not considered an immoral situation if it does not violate the law, which is some places it might! Homosexuality is today considered to be an ethical disposition, that is, an individual acts on his/her essential disposition in a spirit of consensual and aggreeable communication, otherwise, the acts in question may be considered unethical. Clinton's situation, for example was considered by some to be unethical, his lying was considered by most to be immoral. However, you could argue it the other way if you argued from a position of prudence and care for the protection of others within a policitally inflamed context! Kant's ethics are not entirely based on the unreasonable standard of the categorical imperative. He also felt that obeying the law was relevant to being moral, so much so that few today dispute that being moral means to follow the law! But he also felt that human being, in the historical and ontological context, develops autonomy in which following the law can mean following one's own chosen law; a position that it seems to me transcends without violating the statutory law and predisposes an individual to act on behalf of causes which the law does not address, e.g. social justice claims! Fwelfare Vunch-AT-aol.com --part1_ac.10692c13.27ab028f_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Taylor also takes up a Kantian position about Foucault: what if everyone
> believed the same thing?
Then homosexuality would be immoral. Perhaps one of the reasons that the
categorical imperative is a weak standard? Everyone does not believe the
same thing
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005