PHI 3250 Practical Ethics: Is homosexuality abnormal? What implications does your view have on public policies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rainbow_flag_and_blue_skies.jpg

Is homosexuality abnormal? It seems that it is quite difficult for all philosophers to have an agreement upon this issue since everyone has his own view. In this paper, I will try to express my view of homosexuality. In Part I, I will show the ambiguous of the word “abnormal” and to justify whether homosexuality is abnormal. In Part II, I will question whether the government ought to have public policies to homosexuality.

PART I

What is the meaning of abnormal? The question is actually asking: under what condition(s), the claim “X is abnormal” is reasonable? First, the standard of normal must be known. i.e. we must know when it is fulfill certain conditions, then it would be called “normal”, otherwise, would be called “abnormal” . Second, X can be judged by the standard of normal. That means, if we set the standard of normal that “having two tails is normal and having three tails is abnormal”, then, the claim “John is abnormal” is not valid if he haven’t got any tail.

What is the standard of normal? As Michael Levin mentioned in “Why Homosexuality is Abnormal”, although he claim that homosexuality is abnormal, he did not clarify what meaning of the word “abnormal” really is. He explained again and again that homosexuality is a misuse of bodily parts, this cause unhappiness because it leaves an innate and innately rewarding desire. Does misuse the bodily parts to be called abnormal? Or due to the cause of unhappiness, we called it abnormal? However, he is stressed that homosexuality is abnormal is not due to hampering evolutionary. Thus, I would like to reconstruct Levin’s meaning of “abnormal” and have some comments, then try to find what is the suitable standard of normal for the case of homosexuality.

At least, Levin uses three different meanings of abnormal to claim homosexuality is abnormal. First of all, without doubt, Michael Levin thinks that when we misuse our bodily parts, it is called “abnormal”. However, as I asked before, does misuse something , then it would be called “abnormal”? As Burton M. Leiser mentioned in “Homosexuality, Morals, and the Law of Nature”, the case is claims unnatural does not mean misuse something, but I just use the explanation example, not the argument, to comment Levin’s meaning of abnormal. Screwdrivers admirably suited for their intended functions: driving screws; hammers for pounding nails, however, we didn’t said that “to use screwdriver to pounding nails is abnormal.” We only said that “to use screwdriver to pounding nails is misuse of it.”. Also we only said that “the user is ignorance.”, but not “the user is abnormal.” Thus, abnormal cannot be describe as something is misuse. Similarly, the cause of unhappiness does not be the meaning of abnormal. We didn’t said that “to be jilted is abnormal.” or “the person to be jilted is abnormal.”

Levin may disagree this argument because he thought homosexuality are bound to be unhappiness is for evolutionary reason. However, my argument that we didn’t said to be jilted is abnormal is still valid. In Levin’s speaking, being of love affair also for the evolutionary reason, to be jilted also leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire and causes unhappiness, but no one would be claim “to be jilted is abnormal, because it is bounded to be unhappy.” In fact, Levin is using the second meaning of abnormal in his paper. It is unnatural. When he defend against the utilitarian argument, it is very clearly that his uses abnormal in unnatural ways. And, when he explains in the Part 4. of his paper, he said “ In Kantian terms, I have explain how it is possible for homosexuality to be unnatural.” Does abnormal mean unnatural?

What is the meaning of unnatural? Unnatural have many different meaning, as Burton states, except abnormal and misuse of something, it have three more senses. I didn’t want to discuss all of them, due to some sense is irrelevant to this topic. I just only discuss unnatural means artificial. Actually, it also have two more different sense when unnatural means artificial. i.e. (1)when it is caused by nature but not by intention, it is natural, and vice versa. (2) when it is caused by human actions it is unnatural, and vice versa. If you drink coke when you are thirst, this event is natural in (1), but unnatural in (2). Because thirst is not a intention, you drink coke is natural, however, whatever you do, your actions are unnatural in (2), if you are a human. Of course, only a few number of people claim “it is unnatural” in the (2) sense, I just remember myself don’t make the following discussion in this sense. Also, Michael Levin use unnatural in the (1) sense. Thus, in the “Postscript Added 1995” he adjusts the argument towards homosexuality is abnormal when the new evidence show that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors not some controllable intention. However, unnatural cannot be abnormal. One of summer day in Hong Kong, it is snowing, it is reasonable to claim “today, weather is abnormal.” but if abnormal mean unnatural is true, whatever sense of unnatural is used, the claim is never reasonable. Thus, abnormal may not be unnatural.

The third meaning of abnormal is unusual. We need not to prove whether Levin have this sense. Because it is the most popular explanation of abnormal. As Burton, he also use abnormal in this sense. However, it is not the exactly meaning of abnormal. Philosophers always asking questions and thinking the problem which a usual person never asks and thinks, we claim “ Philosophers are unusual.” But we feel that it is unreasonable to claim “Philosophers are abnormal.” It is also valid in most of successful businessmen, scientists, artists etc.                                                            

Then, what is the most suitable meaning of normal? I think the above analysis has already shown that, abnormal is not equal to unexpected used or unnatural or unusual,  but it is something right to use the above sense. It is impossible to imagine, when we claim “X is abnormal.”, it does not mean unusual, and unnatural, and unexpected. Thus, abnormal must at least fulfill one of the above sense. Let’s to justify this claim. Mr. Bean have a habit, he is likely to sting by a small pin, when he is very happy. Without doubt, I claim his habit is abnormal is reasonable. I think Mr. Bean’s habit is rare, nobody would like pain, so it also is unusual. Moreover, pin is used to sting oneself, this is unexpected use of pin or even misuse of pin. Furthermore, it is unnatural that he have used pin to express his happiness. However, if Mr. Bean’s habit is smile when he is very happy. Also, without doubt, the claim that his habit is abnormal is not reasonable. Happy and then smile is very usual and nature response. And when he is smiling, we do not said it is misuse his mouth part.

Till now, we can go one step further. Is homosexuality abnormal? If homosexuality is not unusual, not unnatural, not unexpected, then, it must not be abnormal. If homosexuality is unusual and unnatural and unexpected, then it is very high probabilities that it is abnormal.

Is homosexuality unusual? If homosexuality is genetic problem, natural selection will select out the creatures which didn’t reproduce, the number of gays would decrease with time. However, it seems to be increasing the number of gays. Thus, it show that homosexuality may be not just a genetic problem. I am here not refute homosexuality caused by biological factor, for example, as Levin mentioned in the last part of his paper that it have evidence to show the region of the hypothalamus which controls sexual arousal has been found to be twice as large in heterosexual as homosexual males. However, I just claim that if homosexuality just only is the genetic or biological matter, then how to explain the increasing of homosexuality?

Imagine that all people in this world is gay, then homosexuality must be usual, but what would happening after a hundred of years? Human is extinguished. No more human present. Thus, if homosexuality becomes usual, human will extinguish. If human not extinguish, homosexuality must be unusual. Whether it is a genetic problem and the number of gay is increasing, homosexuality is unusual.

Is homosexuality unnatural? If it is a genetic problem, we claim homosexuality is unnatural is not reasonable. However, homosexuality is not only a genetic problem.  Thus, homosexuality is not natural.

Is homosexuality unexpected? That means, is homosexuality misuse the bodily parts? What is misuse? If it either cannot be fulfilled the new goals, or it may be got harm to itself, it is called misuse of that feature. Although homosexuality can fulfill the new goal - only have sex pleasure, it is obvious that penis and anuses is getting harm. Thus,  homosexuality is said to be misuse the bodily part is also reasonable.

Homosexuality is unusual, unexpected and unnatural, it is claim to be “abnormal” is reasonable.                      
         

Part II

Should government have any policies to interfere homosexuality? If government have to interfere, what is the reason? Is it because homosexuality abnormal? Could abnormal be the one of the reason for government to have policies?

Let’s go back to the Mr. Bean case. If Mr. Bean’s habit is smiling, of course government do not punish him. Should government have any policies to interfere Mr. Bean’s habit which is sting himself? Of course, government have also have no right to punish him. It is because he didn’t harm others. That means, whether it is abnormal, if it is not hurt others, the government should have no right to punish him.

Then, could homosexuality hurt others? Is heterosexuality hurt others? Any different between heterosexuality and homosexuality? Although homosexuality is abnormal, however, abnormal is not a reason for government to punish. If something said, homosexuality causes crimes, but how does it cause? As Richard D. Mohr mentioned in “Gay Basics: Some Question, Facts and Values” said that “Empirical studies have shown that there is no increase in other crimes in states that have decriminalized [homosexual acts].” Moreover, some sexual crime, such as raping, not because the sexual acts, but because it is hurt somebody. Thus, if we haven’t the new evident that homosexuality causes crime, government should not have any punishment on them.    

1997/12/15