Many who claim that homosexuality is morally benign claim that same-sex attraction is “in their genes.” Does this appeal to biological determinism help their case? No. No moral truth follows from biological truth. Even if it were true that same-sex attraction was biologically determined (something for which there is no solid evidence), it would no more follow that homosexuality is, therefore, morally benign, than it would follow that pedophilia is morally benign if a genetic link to pedophilia was discovered.
Furthermore, if biologically predisposed/determined behaviors are excused from moral condemnation, then on what basis could bigotry against homosexuals be condemned if the desire to discriminate against homosexuals is caused by one’s genes? If hatred of homosexuality is biologically determined, and thus it is morally benign. After all, such a person would be born that way! Surely no one would buy this argument, and yet it is logically equivalent to the argument that homosexuality is morally benign because it is biologically determined. If we have reason to reject one form of the argument, we have reason to reject the other. The fact of the matter is that biology tells us nothing about morality.
Thinking to Believe 
August 18, 2009 at 10:27 am
If hatred of homosexuality is biologically determined, and thus it is morally benign.
Most of people who say that they didn’t choose to be gay (myself included) do so to combat the all-too-common idea that being gay is some sort of lifestyle choice, not to claim that being gay is necessarily a good thing. That’s a separate argument.
LikeLike
August 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
gonovelgo,
One has to clarify what is being “chosen.” Sexual attraction is not chosen, but sexual behavior is. When I was single I was sexually attracted to women (not by choice), but did not have sex with any (by choice). While homosexuals did not choose to be sexually attracted to those of their same gender, they do choose whether or not they act out on those desires in the form of same-sex activity.
While you may recognize that no moral truths follow from biology, most fail to recognize this. They think that if one can demonstrate that same-sex attraction is biologically determined (rather than self-determined), that it makes such attractions normal and moral. That simply does not follow, and I am pointing that out via an argumentum ad absurdem type argument.
Jason
LikeLike
August 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Yes, I got that. But to illustrate what I’m talking about, here’s a recent exchange I came across, quoted from a well-known gay rights blog:
easilyamused123: “Regardless of what you think or what your book says, you can’t stop equality. It happened for women, it happened for African-Americans, and it will happen for homosexuals.”
HUGE difference, Skippy! Women and blacks were born as women and blacks. They didn’t choose that. Gays and Lesbians chose their sexual preference just as they choose whether to be hateful or nice, or whether they think purple is their favorite color. Women and blacks are equal because they WERE born as they are. NO ONE argues that. But MANY don’t believe Gays were born as they are. The fact that its even arguable, tells you there’s a HUGE difference between women/blacks and Homosexuals.
In this case it is perfectly legitimate to point out that gay people no more choose their sexuality than black people or women choose their race or their sex, and this is the context in which I see the ‘biological’ argument arise most frequently. Certainly some people do claim that ‘biological factors=good’, but it’s definitely not the only instance in which the question of biology is discussed.
LikeLike
August 19, 2009 at 12:34 am
While I agree with your post Jason, I do have a problem with arguing that paedophilia and hatred of homosexuals being morally benign since a homosexual would argue that their lifestyle only affects those that are mutually agreeing to be homosexual whereas paedophilia is arguing that the child cannot give consent and hatred of homosexual leads to violence upon them.
The over-riding problem is that the only way you can logically have morals is through scripture anyway otherwise what is moral for you might not be moral for me etc.
LikeLike
August 19, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Scott,
Yes, someone could respond that way, but they would be missing the point. The comparison is not intended to make a moral assessment of any particular behavior, but rather to show that moral assessments do not follow from biological dispositions. In the same way that finding a biological disposition for pedophilia would not make pedophilia morally benign, finding a biological disposition for same-sex attraction would not make homosexual behavior morally benign. Demonstrating either to be morally good, bad, or benign requires non-biological arguments. The pedophilia example is an argumentum ad absurdum kind of argument, showing why the “biology informs morality” argument cannot work.
As for your comments on morality, we need to distinguish moral epistemology (what/how we know morality) from moral ontology (the existence of a transcendent moral law). The objective nature of morality (ontology) is not dependent on our knowledge (epistemology) of the moral law. If knowledge of the moral law is dependent on one’s knowledge of Scripture, one’s ignorance of Scripture could not change the moral law.
But I don’t agree with the judgment that moral epistemology is dependent on Scripture anyway. The Bible teaches us that God has imbued all men with a moral sense (conscience), by which they recognize the difference between good and evil (Romans 2 et al). All men are aware of the moral law; some, however, choose to pretend they are not. I say “pretend” because moral relativists do not really believe what they confess. That they believe in an object moral law becomes evident the moment someone else’s moral values conflict with their moral values (such as stealing their property). Suddenly they start speaking strage things such as “that’s not right.”
Jason
LikeLike
August 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“But I don’t agree with the judgment that moral epistemology is dependent on Scripture anyway. The Bible teaches us that God has imbued all men with a moral sense (conscience), by which they recognize the difference between good and evil (Romans 2 et al). All men are aware of the moral law; some, however, choose to pretend they are not. I say “pretend” because moral relativists do not really believe what they confess. That they believe in an object moral law becomes evident the moment someone else’s moral values conflict with their moral values (such as stealing their property). Suddenly they start speaking strage things such as “that’s not right.””
Yup Jason, in a nutshell, its what i call “Convenient Morality” or the a more harsh term would be, “Hypocrisy”. Good remarks.
LikeLike
August 20, 2009 at 4:38 am
I say “pretend” because moral relativists do not really believe what they confess. That they believe in an object moral law becomes evident the moment someone else’s moral values conflict with their moral values (such as stealing their property). Suddenly they start speaking strage things such as “that’s not right.”
How do you know that moral relativists do this? Have you seen it happen or something?
LikeLike
August 20, 2009 at 11:48 am
gonovelgo,
Yes, I have. When I talk with moral relativists, they tell me that right and wrong is for the individual to decide, but then they proceed to tell me I have the moral obligation not to judge others, to be fair, etc. Who are they to say if morals are subjective?
And I have read other people’s reports in dealing with purported moral relativists. One of my favorites is the college student who wrote an eloquent paper on moral relativism (advancing it as his own views). When the professor gave him his paper back the student read the following on the cover: “F. Didn’t like your blue cover.” The student was outraged, and approached the professor, spouting out things such as “This isn’t fair.” The prof pointed out his inconsistency, and the student got it (both the problem with his view, as well as an A).
J.P. Moreland also tells of the time that he was discussing this issue with a college student. The student went on and on about how nothing is right and wrong in itself, but only for the person. After a long conversation with no headway being made, J.P. said goodbye, and proceeded to walk out of the student’s dorm with the student’s radio in hand. The student immediately objected. J.P. pointed out his inconsistencies.
Jason
LikeLike
August 20, 2009 at 12:12 pm
But moral relativism doesn’t necessarily mean that nobody is capable of evaluating another person’s actions. That’s a type of moral relativism, one of the more extreme types, but there are plenty of moral relativists who don’t hold to that strict a definition. Unless the student in your example (which, I have to say, sounds like it’s probably apocryphal) was advancing a view like that, he or she might have been perfectly consistent in saying that it’s nonsensical or unfair to judge a person’s written work on something as superficial as the color of their cover.
LikeLike
August 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm
gonovelgo,
No, it’s not apocryphal. It is actually reported in an apologetics book I read. The author was related to one of the individuals involved in the incident. I just can’t remember the details. The point of the episode, however, is that unless there are objective standards of morality, there is no such thing as justice and unfairness. People can make up any standards they want.
You are right to point out that this is only one type of moral relativism (subjectivism), but the same principle holds true for other types such as normative relativism (where society as a whole determines right and wrong). What happens when whole societies claim to determine their own morality? Nazi Germany did this during the trial at Nuremberg. They claimed that others had no authority to judge them because their society operated on a different moral playing field. Nobody bought that argument, and for good reason. They recognized that it is objectively wrong to kill innocent human beings, regardless of what the people in your society have agreed to do.
Jason
LikeLike
August 21, 2009 at 6:27 am
The same thing happens when supposedly objective moralities clash. Picture two wholly theocratic societies, both of whom have wildly diverging ideas about what constitutes a God-given moral law; how does the fact that they both hold to the existence of objective morality help either of them here?
LikeLike
August 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm
gonovelgo,
We have to distinguish moral epistemology from moral ontology. Moral ontology pertains to the content of the moral law, whereas moral epistemology pertains to our knowledge of that content. In the same way that people can get their sums wrong when it comes to math, people can get be mistaken when it comes to the moral law. But in neither case does the multiplicity of answers mean there is no single, objectively right answer.
But on a more fundamental level, this is not a question of how we know the objective moral law, or what we do when people disagree as to the content of that law. The issue here is whether there is such a law in the first place. While it may be difficult for those who believe in objective moral values to determine who is right when people hold to conflicting moral values, at least there is a rational basis for their objection. If there are no objective moral values, then the moral relativist has no rational basis on which to object to someone else’s (or some other society’s) behavior. When the Hindu wants to burn a dead man’s wife on his funeral pyre, the moral relativist has to shrug his shoulder’s and say, “Well, I can’t say I would do that, but they have their morality, and I have mine.” When the Nazi’s were killing innocent Jews, the moral relativist could not complain. He had no rational basis for doing so. The only basis on which to object is if one postulates a transcendent standard of goodness that all men are subject to, regardless of their time or place.
Jason
LikeLike
August 22, 2009 at 5:59 am
The only basis on which to object is if one postulates a transcendent standard of goodness that all men are subject to, regardless of their time or place.
Or if one holds that morality should be based on reason and human experience, in which case what the Nazis did was nonsensical, inexcusable, and very obviously based on faulty assumptions born of rampant prejudice. It’s not that hard to see.
You didn’t actually answer the question, though. In terms of the practical applications of morality, which is what you yourself brought up in your previous post, how does the fact that you hold to objective morality help in the slightest if you’re trying to convince a Nazi (for example) that what he or she is doing is wrong? How are you going to be any more successful then a moral relativist?
LikeLike
August 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The issue is not about being able to convince anyone of anything. If I have a quarter in my pocket right now, I may not be able to convince you about that, but it’s still true that I have a quarter in my pocket. What’s important is reality (whether there is a quarter in my pocket), not my ability to persuade you, or your willingness to be persuaded.
Besides, certain people are unreasonable, and they resist the moral law. In Hitler’s case, force was the only recourse.
Jason
LikeLike
August 24, 2009 at 5:02 pm
gonovelgo,
I should also point out that it is not enough to say morality is rational, because rationality only speaks to our ability to know the moral law (epistemology). It does not tell us how we can account for its existence (grounding, ontology) in reality.
Secondly, moral truths are known by intuition (a priori). They may be consistent with reason, but they are not discovered by reason.
And some moral impulses defy reason. What reason does one have for risking their own life to save the life of a complete stranger?
Jason
LikeLike