Philosophy - Peter van Inwagen - Essay Example

? My Philosophical Belief My belief is that sexual orientations should not be debatable and an indelible structure should be adhered to that surpasses all individual desires in favor of what is natural and readily admissible by a given society, in lieu of personal inclinations that give rise to stigmas and increased controversies. This belief was held based on evidential consequences of unnatural mating. Indeed, being straight is a recognized normality in the world of today and could be deemed a consequence of determinism. However, with the increasing span of global human rights surpassing sovereign state laws and personal inclinations of societies, and in the same way the citizens of the United Kingdom may adhere to the European Court of Human Rights to address domestic issues, a citizen of Massachusetts may be able to contract and perform a marriage with his lover of the same sex. However, seeing as how unnatural and seemingly undesirable the concept of same sex marriage appears to me, I can adduce to my belief the fact that the majority of Americans are still in opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. Maria, on the other hand, believes the contradictory, citing human right values and the existence of stereotypical constraints which curb individualism in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Her evidence to the same pertains to the overwhelming number of gay couples that came forward in the first few months of legalization in California. The number was roughly equivalent to the same as that of Massachusetts in 4 years, thereby buttressing her side of the argument. It is indeed her moral inclination that such unions are Ruritanian by nature and a matter of personal choice between those involved. This of course is to be construed as more or less an order for the State to step aside and amend any laws barring the traditional institution of marriage as one existing solely between a man and a woman. 1) It is seemingly agreeable by most people who are straight that being straight is the natural discourse of the world. It is the way the human race progresses and it is safe to say that the natural attraction between opposite genders is necessary to propagate life into the future, as had been the case with earlier societies battling the existential crisis. Without this attraction, the world would spiral to a halt, and the seemingly expansive choice in orientation would ridicule not just the concept of marriage but the process of evolution as well. Even if morals were expelled momentarily while this belief was expounded, it would simply transpire that the belief itself is self-explanatory, the consequence of straight attractions would always augment in favor of humanity. Maria on the other hand is of the impression that choosing a sexual partner is not a matter of naturalism as dictated by society but what occurs naturally within one’s own mind. The choice of orientations being given to an individual of sound mind and conscious decision-making prowess allows one to hold the self as the profound dictator of one’s own desires. It negates societal stigma and in itself forms the belief that the preference of orientation should be the choice of the individual and not the choice of the State. Maria’s belief is in itself the reason of her belief. 2) I reject the notion that even though equally strong positives and negatives of pertaining to a strict orientation dictated by society exist in the real world, I should not believe in the fact that one orientation should be deemed natural and the others unnatural. It is true that the minority of cases of same sex marriage that surfaced in California right after the law was passed do pertain to a suppressed sociological regime that exists within the murky shadows of society, it does not acknowledge the fact that personal inclinations are not exactly the best form of judgments for the entire society. Consider the use of drugs, for example. While it is evident that the proliferation of drugs is a crime worthy of condemnation and its consumption is scorned upon by the wider public, a pocket of supporters for Marijuana want to legalize it in Canada. This notion, while dotted with its own merits and demerits, does not immediately go in favor of the general public as it runs the risk of widespread use of inhibitors and tranquilizing medicines which almost certainly would curb productivity. Thus, a pocket of supporters in favor of Marijuana who may even present themselves as evidence of its lack of side effects may, in favor of Nominalism, may be allowed to make a disadvantageous decision for the general public. The State stops them from doing so. Thus, just as the widespread use of a drug does not make it immediately admissible in favor of the country, similarly, the presence of alleviating factors (such as State law) that dissuade unnatural sexual orientations may prove beneficial for the country as they prevent diseases from spreading and promote natural propagation of the human race. This decision and belief exists in the presence of the omnipotent factor of preservation of human rights. While same sex marriage count exploded in California as soon as it was legalized, the same was not true for Massachusetts which took 4 years to reach that number and it was still a far cry from the prevailing number of straight marriage contracts. Maria would cite the growing divorce rate and the relatively stable rate of divorce for gay couples as evidence in favor but it is indeed more a play of numbers than anything since the rate at which gay couples get married still falls drastically short of the straight variety. It is admissibly strong evidence that the presence of an extra X chromosome in the male DNA does pertain to him having a sexual disorder that alludes to an attraction towards the same sex. The XXY condition is not that uncommon amongst males and allowing them the option of choosing for themselves which gender to pursue may depreciate the discrepancies in their behavior. Even so, it is hard to suggest something of a choice to one’s own offspring with the dangers of disease and social stigma in mind. It is hardly beneficial to the human race as a whole if such a notion was endorsed and it is for that reason that my moral belief in defining a natural sexual orientation should stand. I reject the notion that strong arguments on both sides would falter my stand. 3) I believe in the validity of my belief since it is the most intuitive option capable of transpiring in the modern age. While I understand that a rebuttal is imminent and Maria may provide an argument against the notion that the matter of sexual orientations should not be left to be governed by the sole enterprise of human beings, I am not wayward in thought. Although fully conversant with the counter arguments, I do not hold it to chance that my belief may not stand true simply because of the presence of opposing arguments but instead it carries forward by virtue of thought in realism. As such, I may not believe that sexual orientations are a matter of personal opinions and preferences since allowing society and an individual such a discretion is liable to increase his chances to engage in immoral conduct. It thus accrues unfavorably for humankind at large as it invites criticism and points towards discrepancies that the generations have had to endure throughout history. Past generations that engaged in homosexual conduct were rightly considered outcasts as they pertained to oppose a cultural understanding common to the entire human race which, although may be cited as examples of free will, ultimately serve more to dissuade people from adhering to a free culture than persuading them to support the notion. Their personal preference gave rise to negativities such as diseases and rebellions which lead society towards chaos in an undesirable fashion. It is pertinent to understand that the concept of choice is often misused by individuals to culminate in negative outcomes that may not always support their initial belief in the long run. Again, this could be contrasted with the concept of drugs. In their prohibited state, they are widespread, have varying factions that promote them, and provide such a lucrative opportunity for underground vendors that territories and violence with regards to it are all but natural. Again, some abusers of, for example, Marijuana, would still consider it better for it to be legalized and made available freely as that would offset illegal proliferation of the drug and curb the presence of cartels that profit on addiction and continue to plague societies. This example easily allows one to oversee the benefits and offsets of allowing a minority to make decisions for the majority, and the dominating causative factor of free will determining the outcome. It is immediately apparent to me that such an allowance would wreak much in the way of exacerbating the dissentients in the future and does not uphold the rights of minorities as much as bringing about disturbance in a set pattern of life. It is true that science may allow human cultivation to reach new proportions of control over the upcoming population, consequently allowing couples of same sex to have children according to their own desires as well, but a mere minute or two of contemplation would easily suggest that such freedom would not only upset the genetic tree of future generations but also inhibit the presence of heritage and social structures within society that exhibit themselves through time as sources of identity. Thus, it is apparent to me that decisions with regards to sexual orientations should not be allowed to falter and should adhere to the strict patterns determined by intrinsic sexual inclinations towards the opposite gender that have existed throughout time. It is not a question of what I may believe but rather what can be interpreted as a stern belief for an ever-changing modern society by observing the historically determinable factors of human evolution which basis its propagation on natural reproduction. It is my insight that sexual deviation from the norm should not endorsed by public authorities. My belief, therefore, allows me to see that, as per (1), my belief in itself is explicably held unto itself, that it justifies its own existence by stipulating that sexual norms are there for a reason, existing over time and trial and preferences with regards to orientations should not be a virtually acceptable phenomenon. Maria believes that sexual preferences exhibit personal tastes and desires and therefore contribute to the ideology of freewill, her argument in itself is apparent to her as the right discourse. She does not believe that there ought to be any state regulated limitations on the choice of partners and that in itself lead her to assume that it is the right confabulation to pursue. Both beliefs can be deemed as right even though both carry their own insight and consequently their own conclusion which is why they co-exist concurrently, giving ample credit to the notion that both sides are equally weighty. However, I reject the notions stipulated in (2) and (3) as evidence in favor of Maria’s belief is sporadic and can hardly be deemed conclusive. It has always been the status quo in past generations where homosexuality or bisexuality was rightly curbed for its unnatural and immoral reverberations and eliminating the choice from the equation would only compound on Realism in so much as demarcating the exact distinction between right and wrong. Works Cited Therez, Maria. Personal Interview. 8 January 2011. Iwagen, P.V. “Is it wrong everywhere, always, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence?” Read More