Homosexuality In Kant's Categorical Imperative

One of the mostly wildly disagreed upon moral topic of our time is that of Homosexuality. It can be interesting to discuss the different viewpoints, the first view point will be that of Kant and his Categorical Imperative. In Kantian metaphysics, it is stated that one can never know the thing as it truly is in itself, which was called the “noumena”, he also stated that one can only see events as they directly appear to humans, this then makes it impossible for man to make any metaphysical judgements. To build a basis for ethics Kant formed the “categorical imperative”. The categorical imperative is that one should never act in a way that could not be applied as a universal law, or more basically if one person wants to act in a way and consider …show more content…
Like Aristotle, Mill believes that the goal is to find happiness, unless these actions were to cause harm to another. Mill believes that people should be allowed to do as they wish if these choices make them happy. Once again when we look at the action of homosexuality, those that are choosing this lifestyle are doing so to make themselves happy. The choice to be homosexual does not have any effect on others as it is a personal choice, based on Mill’s teachings a person’s liberties should not restricted if a behavior is not putting others in our society at risk or in danger. As directly stated by Mill a person that, “refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, than, he should be allowed…to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost”. This is very simply stating that one should be able to make their own life decisions as long as they are not hurting …show more content…
Corvino. Corvino makes many arguments that help to refute the arguments against homosexuality. The first idea that he addresses is that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. This idea is interesting as the Bible says that man should not lay with man as they do with their wife. According to the Bible this would be an act that one would be condemned for. This in itself is not a strong argument that the Bible is wrong, it is when you look at other contexts in the Bible that also condemn people that we see the flaw in the biblical argument. The Bible also states that you can’t eat shellfish, or adultery is the same sin. Under this idea these are all sins that one would be condemned for. Even more disturbing is looking at what is found to be moral in the Bible can be very different from what any reasonable person might find to be moral in our society. The Bible states that one may own slaves. I believe that it would be difficult to find many people that still believe owning another person could be considered a moral