O'Connor's case is as follows: For something to fall within the sphere of morality, it must (a) be a conscious choice and (b) have some effect on human well-being. Homosexuality -- which he implicitly defines narrowly as a pattern of sexual attraction, not including any of the behaviors that attraction tends to motivate -- is not consciously chosen and does not affect well-being. Therefore, it is neither moral nor immoral but rather has nothing to do with morality, and in conclusion, "you should still vote yes on marriage equality, and you should still celebrate the invaluable freedom that it represents." Yes, that's his whole argument. Keep in mind that he was only 18 when he made this video, so we should cut him some slack, but still.
Hilariously, the top-rated comment on the video is this:
Homophobia on the other hand IS immoral because it's a conscious choice that hurts people.
No. By O'Connor's criteria, homophobia has nothing to do with morality, and we should therefore support homophobia and celebrate the invaluable freedom it represents. Finding homosexuality repulsive is not a conscious choice but an involuntary emotional and physiological response ("Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots"), a fact which is underscored by the popular terminology equating it to a phobia. Furthermore, homophobia -- narrowly defined as an attitude, not including any behaviors that attitude may tend motivate -- doesn't actually hurt anyone.
Of course, homophobia predisposes one to make certain conscious choices which do affect human well-being -- it may lead one to be unkind to homosexuals, for example. But the same is true of homosexuality, which predisposes one to make choices which are at least as harmful as smoking.
I think we need to recognize a category of moral weaknesses -- such as being lazy or cowardly or short-tempered or insensitive or stupid -- which while not technically "immoral" because they are not consciously chosen, are nevertheless morally relevant and should not be celebrated.
1 comment:
"I think we need to recognize a category of moral weaknesses -- such as being lazy or cowardly or short-tempered or insensitive or stupid -- which while not technically 'immoral' because they are not consciously chosen, are nevertheless morally relevant and should not be celebrated."
That's a good way to look at it. And moral strengths, too for that matter, but in the opposite way.
Then there's also the category of moral luck. That can get fairly tricky, but I think the main thing to recognize is that at the most fundamental level bad is bad and good is good; bad should be avoided and good should be sought.
Post a Comment