>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
Do you think the Categorical Imperative can be used as an argument against homosexuality?
Bumperischer threadorativ
The maxim which straight people have sex is the same one fags have sex.
The difference is what they're attracted to.
No, it actually requires homosexuality. If the maxim of "not letting men put their penises inside you" was a universal law, then women wouldn't get pregnant and humanity would be extinct.
>>1243236
I actually pondered this yesterday.
>>1243698
But homosexuality doesn't always implies a dick inside you (lesbians?).
If the maxim were "have sex with someone of your same gender", then it would not be a universal law as we would become extinct.
Promotion of sterile promiscuity fails the test and homosexuality is under the umbrella
>>1243236
not how it works
for instance if everybody posted this post forever we'd all starve to death
Yes, but then again, so would be posting on 4chan
>>1243236
It can also be used as an argument against any and all forms of non-reproductive heterosexual sex acts, such as blowjobs, handjobs, or sex with condoms, because they lead to the same universal law - human extinction.
Kant was an autistic hack.
>>1247266
>Kant was an autistic hack.
Then why isn't he more popular on here?
>>1243236
>maxim
That's real fuckin' spooky.
>>1243236
Checkmate homesexuals
>>1247275
Underrated post
>>1243236
>Do you think the Categorical Imperative can be used as an argument against homosexuality?
No, because the universality principle is only Kant's version.
If you want a more modern adaptation of deontology, read Charles Fried's Right And Wrong and Thomas Nagel instead.
The universality principle isn't necessary for something to be valid as a duty, nor as a law.
>>1243236
I'd prefer all guys be gay thb
>>1247266
I don't understand how these things lead to extinction. You are assuming having sex with men/mastubating/etc. would imply you are not reproducing with women which isn't necessarily true.
>>1247266
>It can also be used as an argument against any and all forms of non-reproductive heterosexual sex acts
And he'd be right to condemn them
If anything, all men being homosexual would rapidly improve the human race through eugenics, as all children would be the result of deliberate, committed action.
>>1247885
And how doesn't keeping men closeted not been just fine until they found their soapbox?
>>1247842
No, you're using the idea too broadly. It isn't 'if you think this action is right everyone should do it all the time' it's 'if this is the right course of action in this particular instance, then if everyone did it [when in the same scenario, 100% time] society wouldn't crumble into anarchy and chaos'. So sometimes having consensual, homosexual, non-reproductive sex is just fine and dandy- as is sometimes having consensual, heterosexual, non-reproductive sex.
It's normal for 2% of the population to be gay.
Kant's arguments result in a kind of banal fascism if followed to their conclusion.
>ctrl-f
>polari
>0 results
