I was reading Andrew Sullivan's view about homosexuality (in favor) and was wondering what would be the Kantian and Utilitarian response to his arguments.

Comments

Not having the details of Sullivan's view ready to hand, all I can offer are some general comments on homosexuality, Kant and utilitarianism. On Kant, you might want to have a look at the replies to question 1681, and if you can get a copy, at Alan Soble's paper "Kant and Sexual Perversion," cited in his answer to that question. Prof. Soble makes a strong case that Kant's views on homosexuality are little more than sophisticated gay-bashing.

The most relevant Kantian thought might seem to be that we should never treat anyone -- ourselves included -- merely as a means and not also as an end. In Kant's view, any sort of sex outside marriage falls short on this score, including masturbation. (Kant seems to have been particularly hung up about solitary sex.) This means that arguments against homosexuality based on Kant's views are likely to prove more than their proponent may have had in mind. In any case, it's hard to credit the view that non-marital sex always amounts to nothing more than using someone simply for one's own pleasure. For one thing, good sexual partners care about their partner's pleasure and not just their own. And even if Kant were right, it's hard to see how marriage would magically solve the problem. (As for masturbation, let's grant: it's most commonly done just because it feels good. But there are many things that we sometimes do exactly for that reason.)

Which brings us to utilitarianism. From that point of view, the fact that sex is a source of pleasure counts in its favor, and this applies no less to homosexual sex. Of course the utilitarian will call on us to ask broad questions about consequences. Does homosexuality lead to more unhappiness than happiness? It's hardly obvious that the answer is yes, though negative attitudes about gay people cause a lot of misery. If everyone were homosexual, then the species might cease, but if everyone were a philosopher, we'd all die of starvation. And on it goes.

The most intriguing thing about this issue is that it somehow remains an issue. This tells us something about the charge around sexual matters, but not much else. It's hard to come up with serious, plausible arguments to show that there is something morally wrong with homosexuality.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Ethics, Sex