Naturalistic Perspective - Essay Example

Naturalistic Perspective: Naturalism is the notion that laws of nature are operational in the universe, and there is nothing that lives and exists over and above the natural universe. According to naturalists, rules that govern the behavior and structure of the universe are natural laws. On this note, the universe exists because of these laws. Paul Kurtz, a proponent of this school of thought identifies mass and energy as the material principles of naturalism. According to him, ghosts, deities and spirits do not exist, and therefore there is no need of religion. On this note, Paul Kurtz belongs to a group of scholars who believe in an aspect of naturalism called metaphysical naturalism (Kurtz, 21). The naturalists believe that the universe is a large organism that does not have any purpose. They also denote that the universe has many parts that function in a systematic manner for purposes of achieving a specific purpose. Naturalists also believe that nature does not concern itself with satisfying the needs and desires of human beings (Ganeri, 32). These needs and desires are there for purposes of challenging mankind, and reminding them of their status in nature. This paper analyzes the naturalist’s view of homosexuality. Homosexuality is considered a deviant behavior amongst Christian and religious societies. It involves same sex relationship, which according to religious enthusiasts, is unacceptable. This paper also provides my perspective and view of this behavior. It also analyzes the views of other people in regard to homosexuality, and thereafter explains how these views interact with each other. This paper has a conclusion which is a summary of the main points found in the text. Naturalists view of homosexuality: Naturalists view sex as an instrument of human culture, and association. To them, sex is an instrument of pleasure, and there is a need to celebrate it. In regard to homosexuality, some naturalists might find it morally wrong because it is an abomination of the body. To them, homosexuality creates a repulsive feeling that dehumanizes the body of an individual. For instance, sex between people of the same gender is unacceptable in the society. This is because the action goes against the laws of nature, which requires that sex should only be between a man and a woman. As noted earlier on, naturalists believe that the universe exists because of natural laws. Mankind is part and parcel of the universe, and they must follow the rules of nature. For instance, sex between a man and a woman is for the purpose of procreation. Having sex between people of the same gender undermines this purpose, and thus it is morally wrong (Nuccetelli, 51). However, in my own opinion, a large percentage of naturalists would believe that homosexuality is neither immoral, nor moral. This is because sexual feelings and urge do not have any purpose. This group of naturalists believes that sex does not exist for reproduction and therefore there is no need to frustrate the act of sex. On this note therefore, homosexuality is a natural act which is neither morally wrong nor correct. To summarize the naturalists’ perspective on homosexuality, it is important to denote that two views exist. Some would believe that it is morally wrong, because it goes against the laws of nature. To them, nature exists because of these rules. An individual who breaks these rules will face stigma because the behavior is unacceptable in the society. Stigma refers to the unfavorable social conditions that surround the life of an individual who behaves against the set up norms of the society. The other view is the opinion that sex does not have any purpose; therefore people should not interfere with the act. On this basis, homosexuality is neither wrong, nor good. Personal Opinion concerning homosexuality: My personal opinion in regard to homosexuality emanates from my religious beliefs. In my own opinion, homosexuality is wrong, because it goes against the roles of sex as outlined in religious beliefs, notably Islam and Christianity. Sexuality is an idea that came from God; on this note, a man and a woman were created by God. Their purpose is to complement each other’s life, including engaging in sexual relationships (Himbaza and Adrian, 32). Homosexuality goes against these principles established by a supreme being. On this basis, homosexuality is an example of a deviant behavior, and it is a symbol of corruption of the flesh. Homosexuality is a sign that an individual does not have any ethical values, and it is therefore a sin. For instance, in Christian religious book, the bible, God at one point punished the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality. This is because they were using their sexuality for the wrong purposes. Another reason as to why I am against homosexuality is my belief that sex is for the purpose of reproduction. The religious books of the Bible and the Quran support this notion. For instance, the Bible denotes that the man must reproduce and fill the world. This is a command that came directly from God. Muslims also believe in this command (Schofield, 11). Sex within the same gender is a violation of this command, because there is no way reproduction can take place. On this basis therefore, homosexuality is a paranormal phenomenon because it goes against the normal expectations of the society in relation to sexual behavior. Basing on these arguments therefore, homosexuality is a morally wrong practice that goes against the normal functionality of sex. View of others in regard to homosexuality: There are various theorists who support homosexuality. For instance; according to utilitarianism, homosexuality is not wrong, because it does not cause any harm to the society. Utilitaranists believe that the results of an action are the guiding factor of whether the action is moral or immoral. On this basis therefore, utilitaranists believe that if the results of an action makes an individual to be happy, then that action is morally right. On the other hand if the result of an action makes an individual to feel pain, then the action under consideration is morally wrong. There is no prove that homosexuality causes pain. On this basis, utilitaranists believe that homosexuality is not a deviant behavior. Another explanation is the belief that homosexuality does not cause any disrespect or harm to another individual. This belief is contained under the theory of categorical imperative. According to this theory, people are allowed to act on a situation, using a reason that will apply to all situations of the same similarity (Ganeri, 41). For example, it is permissible for a person to read a book because it does not harm or disrespect any one. On this note therefore, a person is allowed to act in any manner as long as it does not harm or disrespect a third party/ person. Using these arguments, it is important to allow homosexuality within a society. This is because the actions of people involved does not cause any harm to the society (Downes and Christopher, 33). On this basis therefore, it is not right to subject homosexuals to stigma. Allowing them to freely express themselves and interact within the society will reduce any form of stigma that is brought about by discrimination. Other people’s view is based on the theory of stoic virtue ethics. According to this view, our characters are shaped by our beliefs and reasons. Irrational beliefs develop a bad character, while rationale beliefs develop a good and appropriate character. On this basis therefore, pleasure is an example of a rationale belief, and homosexuality satisfies such kind of a belief. On this note, homosexuality is an example of a good character, and the society should not condemn homosexuals. How these views interact with each other: The naturalist view on homosexuality, my perspective and that of others have some similarities and differences. One notable difference is that to the naturalists, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong. On the other, in my own opinion homosexuality is wrong, while to the views of other theorists, homosexuality is morally wrong if it has a negative impact to the society, by causing harm or disrespect to another person. On this basis therefore, the arguments of these other theorists is based on the impact the behavior has towards the society. Naturalists on the other hand, analyze it on the impact the behavior has towards the laws of nature. This is because their belief is found on the grounds that the universe is made up of natural laws, and it is these laws that shape it. On this basis therefore, sexuality is an aspect of nature, and it must be under the guidance of natural laws (Downes and Christopher, 23). In my own opinion, I denoted that homosexuality is an aspect of sexuality. This belief is similar to what other theorists and naturalist believe in. They all believe that homosexuality is an aspect of sexuality, but we disagree on whether it is morally wrong, or right. Conclusion: In conclusion, this paper denotes that naturalists have two different views on sexuality. Some believe that the law of nature requires a man and a woman to engage in sex, while others believe that sex has no purpose, and it is a natural act. On this basis therefore, it is not right for mankind to interfere with the act, be it between gay people, or straight people. This paper manages to identify my own opinion concerning homosexuality, and it is based on religion. In my own opinion, homosexuality is wrong because it contravenes the command of God which requires mankind to re-produce. This paper manages to identify various theories that explain the nature of this phenomenon. It identifies three important theories, such as the utilitarian theory, the stoic virtue ethics theory, and the categorical imperative theory. All these theories support the behavior of homosexuality. Works Cited: Downes, David M., and Christopher Ray McCormick. Understanding deviance: a guide to the sociology of deviance and rule breaking. 2nd Canadian ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 20122013. Print. Ganeri, Jonardon. The self: naturalism, consciousness, and the first-person stance. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 2012. Print. Himbaza, Innocent, and Adrian Schenker. The Bible on the question of homosexuality. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Print. Kurtz, Paul. Philosophical essays in pragmatic naturalism. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990. Print. Nuccetelli, Susana. Ethical naturalism: current debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print. Schofield, Clark. Religion and Homosexuality. New Delhi: World Technologies, 2012. Print. Read More