--part1_ac.10692c13.27ab028f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/31/01 11:47:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxx
--part1_ac.10692c13.27ab028f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/31/01 11:47:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR>ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Taylor also takes up a Kantian position about Foucault: what if everyone
<BR>> believed the same thing?
<BR>
<BR>Then homosexuality would be immoral. Perhaps one of the reasons that the
<BR>categorical imperative is a weak standard? Everyone does not believe the
<BR>same thing</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>It is a logical conclusion that if everyone rejects heterosexuality that the
<BR>species will die. So, Foucault's position position might seem to be
<BR>impractical (take that in the sense of self-defeating and not in the ethical
<BR>sense, please). I find your conclusion from my claim that "then
<BR>homosexuality would be immoral," an incorrect usage of terms. Homosexuality
<BR>is immoral when it violates the law as in cases involving underage or
<BR>nonconsenting individuals. Homosexuality is nowadays not considered an
<BR>immoral situation if it does not violate the law, which is some places it
<BR>might! Homosexuality is today considered to be an ethical disposition, that
<BR>is, an individual acts on his/her essential disposition in a spirit of
<BR>consensual and aggreeable communication, otherwise, the acts in question may
<BR>be considered unethical. Clinton's situation, for example was considered by
<BR>some to be unethical, his lying was considered by most to be immoral.
<BR>However, you could argue it the other way if you argued from a position of
<BR>prudence and care for the protection of others within a policitally inflamed
<BR>context!
<BR>
<BR>Kant's ethics are not entirely based on the unreasonable standard of the
<BR>categorical imperative. He also felt that obeying the law was relevant to
<BR>being moral, so much so that few today dispute that being moral means to
<BR>follow the law! But he also felt that human being, in the historical and
<BR>ontological context, develops autonomy in which following the law can mean
<BR>following one's own chosen law; a position that it seems to me transcends
<BR>without violating the statutory law and predisposes an individual to act on
<BR>behalf of causes which the law does not address, e.g. social justice claims!
<BR>
<BR>Fwelfare
<BR>Vunch@xxxxxxx
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_ac.10692c13.27ab028f_boundary--