1. Application of Ethical Reasoning
Homosexual Sex

2. The Reading John Corvino, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?”
You got an excerpt of it yesterday, and it is sufficient for our purposes. However, if you are interested in reading the entire essay, simply let me know.

3. Purposes of Case Study
To illustrate some of the basic elements of ethical reasoning in use.
To encourage you to think critically about arguments – both those you may have already heard and those that may be new to you.
To model a reasoned and deliberative approach to a “hot button” issue.

4. Corvino’s Thesis and Argument Strategy
General Overview

5. Corvino’s Thesis
Thesis: It is ethically permissible for Tommy and Jim to have sex within a committed relationship.
Note: Corvino aims to provide a defense of consensual homosexual sex within a committed relationship, not gay marriage, not gay parenting, etc. These are distinct issues; do not confuse them.
After this point, all references to homosexual sex will be understood to be a reference to homosexual sex within a committed relationship. In the interest of time and ease of expression, I will not always say this. But it should be understood that this is the issue under consideration. After all, we are asking why shouldn’t Tommy and Jim have sex. And Tommy and Jim are in a committed relationship.
It would pay you to read footnote #1. Footnotes are important!

6. Corvino’s Argument Strategy: First Step
Establish prima facie reasons for Tommy and Jim to have sex, including:
Sex is pleasurable
Sex is a means to emotional intimacy within a personal relationship.
Notice that heterosexuals might very well defend the ethical permissibility of consensual heterosexual sex on the very same grounds.
Indeed, I will share with you that my wife and I engage in sexual activity precisely for these two reasons. Neither of us think additional reasons are needed to justify our behavior. We could be wrong…but we are waiting to hear the argument! 

7. Corvino’s Argument Strategy: Second Step
Identify several common arguments that seek to show that despite these positive reasons for them to have sex, it is still wrong for them to do so.
In the full reading, he examine three such common arguments:
Homosexual sex is wrong because it is unnatural.
Homosexual sex is wrong because it is harmful.
Homosexual sex is wrong because it violates Biblical teachings.
The point here is that even if the fact that sex is pleasurable and a means of deepening and strengthening a personal relationship provide reasons to engage in sexual activity, there might be other reasons – perhaps even stronger reasons – to refrain from such activity.
For example, if I were HIV positive, that may very well provide a reason for my wife and I to refrain from sexual activity despite the positive reasons we might have to engage in sex.
Notice that the reason to refrain is because I carry the disease, not because of my sex or sexual orientation.
The point is quite general: one can have good reasons to do something and even better reasons not to do it.

8. Corvino’s Argument Strategy: Third Step
Evaluate these three common arguments and show that each is not compelling.
Note: If Corvino is right, the situation is one in which Tommy and Jim have several positive reasons to have sex and no compelling countervailing reasons to refrain.
Consider a balancing scale metaphor. The “positive” reasons to engage in sex go in one scale. If nothing is in the other scale, the balance inclines toward engaging in sex.
Essentially, these three common arguments attempt to counterbalance the scale; the claim is that they go on the other scale and are sufficiently weighty to incline the balance against engaging in sex.

9. Frame the Argument Properly
Corvino does not maintain that these three arguments against consensual homosexual sex are the only possible arguments; simply that they are among the most commonly made arguments.
There may be an argument against the ethical permissibility of consensual homosexual sex that he does not consider. There may even be such an argument that no one has thought up yet!
In short, there is an implied invitation for you to engage in critical-ethical reasoning!
Human beings are not omniscient. Hence, there may be all sorts of things about which we are ignorant…and those things might include a really good argument for Tommy and Jim NOT to have sex.
Of course, we can’t just assume that argument exists. We need to have it presented to us.

10. One Argument Against Homosexual Sex
It’s Unnatural

11. An argument for why T&J should not have sex
Homosexual sex is wrong. [Ethical premise]
Homosexual sex is sexual activity with another person of the same sex. [Non-ethical premise defining what homosexual sex is.]
Tommy and Jim are both males. [Non-ethical premise identifying the sex of Tommy and the sex of Jim.]
Thus, it is wrong for Tommy and Jim to have sex with one another. [Ethical conclusion]
By saying something is wrong I am saying one ought not to do it; one should not do it.
This is a normative claim and is not “refuted” by the fact that folks do it. Just because something is done does not mean that it should be done.

12. Is this an argument?
Yes.
We have a group of statements, one of which [(4)] is supported by the rest [(1)-(3)].

13. Is this an ethical argument?
Yes.
We have a conclusion, (4), that is an ethical statement (normative in the ethical sense).
We have at least one ethical premise, (1), and at least one non-ethical premise, (2) and (3).

14. Is this argument deductive or inductive?
The aim is to provide logically conclusive support for the conclusion.

15. Is this deductive ethical argument valid?
Yes.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. (Put another way: If true, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.)
Remember: To say the argument is “valid” does not mean it is to be accepted as a good argument. It simply means that the argument is such that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

16. Is this deductively valid ethical argument sound?
Since the argument is valid, this depends on whether the premises in the argument are, in fact, all true. Are they?

17. Well, some of them clearly are…

18. (1) Homosexual sex is wrong. [Ethical premise]
(2) Homosexual sex is sexual activity with another person of the same sex. [Non-ethical premise defining what homosexual sex is.]
(3) Tommy and Jim are both males. [Non-ethical premise identifying the sex of Tommy and the sex of Jim.]
Absent non-standard use of English terms or surprising findings to the contrary, premises (2) and (3) are clearly true.
So, if one is going to challenge this argument, the challenge will have to be directed at Premise (1) – the ethical premise.

19. Beginning to Assess an Ethical Premise: An Opening Question
First, we can ask the proponent of the argument under consideration why she accepts the ethical premise in question.
In our example, ask: “Why do you believe homosexual sex is wrong?”
This is asking why the proponent of the argument accepts Premise (1).

20. Possible answers…
Corvino examines three common answers that are typically given to this question:
Because it is unnatural. {Our focus}
Because it is harmful.
Because it violates Biblical teachings.
For our purposes, we will be assuming that she goes with the first answer: Homosexual sex is wrong because it is unnatural.

21. A New Argument
Once the proponent of the argument provides her support for Premise (1), we can immediately formulate another argument.
The conclusion of this new argument will turn out to be the crucial premise from the first (original) argument – i.e., Premise (1).
This makes an important point. The premise of one argument might be the conclusion of another argument. And a premise in this other argument might be the conclusion of yet another argument. And so on and so forth.

22. Therefore: Homosexual sex is wrong [Ethical conclusion]
(1) Homosexual sex is wrong. [Ethical premise]
(2) Homosexual sex is sexual activity with another person of the same sex. [Non-ethical premise defining what homosexual sex is.]
(3) Tommy and Jim are both males. [Non-ethical premise identifying the sex of Tommy and the sex of Jim.]
So, premise #1 of this argument, becomes the conclusion of another argument. Which will look like this: 1) 2)
Therefore: Homosexual sex is wrong [Ethical conclusion]
Here we see the premise of one argument becoming the conclusion of a different argument.

23. A New Argument We might get something like this:
It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts.
Homosexual sex is an unnatural act.
Thus, homosexual sex is wrong {Premise (1) in the original argument.}

24. Old Concerns Revisited
Once this new argument in support of original Premise (1) is formulated, we can ask of it all the questions that we asked of the first argument:
Is it an argument?
Is it an ethical argument?
Is it deductive or inductive?
Is it valid?
In this case, we would answer all of those questions the same.

25. Assessing the New Argument
Again, we can focus on the crucial ethical premise:
(5) It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts.
Again, we could ask why the person accepts this premise and repeat the process of analysis.
Alternatively, we could seek to assess or evaluate the ethical premise just given, i.e., (5). Let’s do that…
If we “repeat the process of analysis,” we would be generating yet another argument where premise (5) above becomes the conclusion of this new argument.

26. General Criteria for Assessing an Ethical Premise: “The Four C’s”
As we noted yesterday, the following four criteria are important for evaluating ethical premises:
Clarity
Coherence
Consistency
Completeness

27. The Criterion of Clarity
One cannot assess an argument until one is clear about what the statements mean.
(5) It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts.
In the premise under consideration, we need to make sure that we have proper clarification regarding the meaning of “unnatural.”

28. What does ‘unnatural’ mean?
Corvino examines five possible meanings of ‘unnatural’:
Statistically infrequent
Not engaged in by the other animals
Not proceeding from innate desire
Violating the principle (or biological) purpose of the organ
Disgusting

29. The Criteria of Consistency and Coherence
Once the meaning of ‘unnatural’ is clarified, we can evaluate the premise under consideration by drawing out the logically consistent implications of accepting it (given a specific meaning of ‘unnatural’) and see whether those implications cohere well with our other considered ethical judgments and beliefs.

30. One Permutation of the Argument
Suppose we understand “unnatural” to mean statistically infrequent. We can reformulate Premise (5):
From: (5) It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts.
To: (5a) It is wrong to engage in statistically infrequent acts.

31. A Complete Statement of the Argument for Premise (1)
(5a) It is wrong to engage in statistically infrequent acts.
(6a) Homosexual sex is a statistically infrequent act.
(7) Thus, homosexual sex is wrong. {Premise (1) in the original argument.}
The original argument is back on slide 11.

32. Evaluation of Premise (5a)
Problem: Once the premise is stated in this way, the logical implications of accepting it become untenable.
Simply think of all the actions that this encompasses:
These pictures are of someone piloting a ship, herding goats, and attending a course on critical and ethical reasoning.
Are these pictures of unethical behavior?

33. Each of these actions is statistically infrequent and, thus, unnatural in the specified sense.
However, none of them is ethically wrong to do.
Thus, if homosexual sex is wrong, it must be wrong for some other (or some additional) reason.

34. Another Possible Meaning
Suppose we understand “unnatural” to mean “not engaged in by the other animals.” We can reformulate Premise (5):
From: (5) It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts (i.e., one ought not to engage in unnatural acts)
To: (5b) It is wrong to engage in acts that are not engaged in by the other animals.

35. Complete Statement of the (Newest) Argument for Premise (1)
(5b) It is wrong to engage in acts that are not engaged in by the other animals.
(6b) Homosexual sex is not engaged in by the other animals.
(7) Thus, homosexual sex is wrong. {Premise (1) in the original argument.}
Again, the original argument is back on slide 11.

36. Evaluation of the (New) Argument for Premise 1
Problem #1: There is overwhelming empirical evidence that premise (6b), the non-ethical premise, is, in fact, false.
Originally: (6) Homosexual sex is an unnatural act.
Now: (6b) Homosexual sex is not engaged in by the other animals.

37. In Evolution’s Rainbow, Joan Roughgarden documents that homosexual activity can be found in 450 different vertebrate species.
Homosexual activity is engaged in by the other animals and is, therefore, not unnatural.

38. Evaluation of the (Newest) Argument for Premise 1
Problem #2: Consistent application of the principle embodied in premise (5b) would require that we view the following actions as ethically wrong:
Recall: (5b) It is wrong to engage in acts that are not engaged in by the other animals.
Well, what about…

39. These are pictures of folks their brushing teeth, attending church, attending college, collecting peeps .
Are these pictures of unethical behavior? If so, contact librarians immediately. 
However, none of these is ethically wrong to do. Thus, if homosexual sex is wrong, it must be wrong for some other (or some additional) reason.

40. Inviting Students to Engage in Critical-Ethical Reasoning…

41. Task for Students
Corvino examine three other permutations of the “unnatural” argument against homosexual sex. For each of these, I invite you to do the following:
Formulate or construct the “target” argument.
Examine Corvino’s evaluation of the “target” argument.
The “target argument” is the argument that Corvino is criticizing, i.e., the arguments making the case that homosexual activity is wrong because unnatural.

42. Hint: Redeploy Old Structures
Earlier, we saw this structure:
(5) It is wrong to engage in unnatural acts (i.e., one ought not to engage in unnatural acts).
(6) Homosexual sex is an unnatural act.
(7) Thus, homosexual sex is wrong (i.e., it ought not to be done).
This provides the basic structure for the “target argument.”

43. Hint: Remember the Importance of Clarity
Each permutation turns on a specific meaning of “unnatural”:
It is unnatural because it does not proceed from innate desire
It is unnatural because it does not use sexual organs for their biological purpose (i.e., procreation).
It is unnatural because it is disgusting.
Regarding #1, just because an impulse is innate does not mean it is ethical to act on it. Suppose there is a genetic basis for alcoholism or violence. Would that make it ethical to act on those impulses. Males have an innate impulse to pursue a diversity of sexual partners. Can I appeal to this innate impulse to ethically justify cheating on my wife? 
Regarding #1, while being innate does not automatically mean it is ethically right to act on it, it is also true that being acquired or learned or chosen does not mean it is ethically wrong to act on it. If I learn to dribble with my right hand and intentionally go against my natural inclination to dribble with my left hand (being left handed), that is not unethical. A soldier who chooses to resists his natural impulse to run and sacrifices his life for his fellow soldiers…unethical?
Regarding #1, there is some rather good reasons to believe that one’s sexual orientation is innate. I certainly did not “choose” to be attracted to females…rather, I just found myself attracted to them.
Regarding #2, we don’t use our brains for its biological purpose when we use it to write literature, paint, play sports, etc. None of these activities/behaviors are essential for our survival (assuming our brain evolved to aid us in surviving and mating). Are these unethical?
Regarding #2, consistent application of the principle would mean use of contraception, sex between husband and wife when wife is pregnant, oral sex, sex between a sterile married couple all unethical.
Regarding #3, this simply abandons the very idea of ethical reasoning. I find cleaning toilets, autopsies, etc. “disgusting.” I don’t think these actions are unethical.