on

1

8

Yu Yuan

Philosophical Ethics Debate Paper

Professor Bresee

6/11/2018

Gay Marriage

Marriage is recognized as a legal and formal union between two individuals as partners in a personal relationship. Gay marriage has existed since the 18th century, and it is recently that debates have accelerated regarding gay marriage. The debates surrounding gay marriage are centered on the definition of what is moral and immoral. These two positions both for and against gay marriage differing in their conclusions regarding gay marriage while constructing their arguments regarding what constitutes moral and immoral. As much as the opponents argue that gay marriage is unnatural and thus immoral, they fail to recognize the concepts of fairness, equality, liberation, and maximization of happiness. Comment by [email protected]: This sentence seems to be a less concise repetition of what you said in the previous sentence, so I would delete it. Comment by [email protected]: I would state your thesis more explicitly here so that it is clear to your reader. “I will argue that what the opponents of gay marriage fail to recognize is…”

Allowing gay marriage is moral as it supports fairness in society. John Rawl articulated the principle of justice as fairness noting that justice as fairness works from society’s essential ideas as a fair system of collaboration together with the conception of the individual as free and equal (Rawls, 2001). Rawls advocates for social institutions in the society which do not confer arbitrary and discriminatory advantages on other people at the expense of others. From Rawl’s perspective, the conception of justice as fairness regulates marriage as a social institution as it is grounded in the social contract and not on human nature (Gray, 2013). The major tenet of Rawls’s principle of justice as fairness is the original position. The original position helps in arriving at the political conception which annuls the specific contingencies effects that put individuals at odds and allure them to exploit natural and social circumstances to their own benefit (Rawls, 2001). Thus, the gay marriage is represented within the original position since gays amount as equal citizens as they attain the least requirements including the conception of the good, the capacities for justice sense, and the capability to be collaborating society members. Additionally, in the original position, the gays are represented since the choosers are unaware of their sexual orientation as it constitutes one of the individual attributes which are inoperative behind the veil. Because the choosers are unaware of their sexual orientation, they are not able to utilize the information regarding their sexual orientation in their edifice of what constitutes as a just state entailing equal and free citizens (Gray, 2013). Therefore, from the Rawlsian principle of justice as fairness, gay marriage is moral as it supports fairness in society and thus a good thing. Comment by [email protected]: Is this a direct quote? If so, you need to put it in quotation marks. Comment by [email protected]: What does this mean exactly? Explain. Comment by [email protected]: I’m not sure what you mean. Maybe slow down a bit here and unpack all of the essential details. Comment by [email protected]: Again: if you’re quoting Rawls directly, you need to use quotation marks. You can just use a parenthetical citation if you’re using Rawls’ ideas but putting them in your own words. Comment by [email protected]: This sentence needs to be rewritten, and maybe broken down into two or more sentences. Comment by [email protected]: Veil of ignorance is something that you need to explain to your reader.

Together with serving fairness, gay marriage supports equality in society. According to Wedgwood (2002), the basic justification for marriage is that marriage serves particular important and legitimate interests of the married couples. The same-sex couples have the same interest as the heterosexual couples which marriage would assist in fundamentally the same manner. The interest includes fulfilling the desire for making a legally binding mutual commitment. Fulfilling the desire of making a legally binding mutual commitment has nothing to do withis not restricted to opposite-sex marriage, and thus marriage should be based on couples sharing the same desire whatever the sex. Therefore, denial of gay marriage spreads inequality in society and there is no way to justify this inequality failing to appeal to the debatable conception of the good and thus it is the elementary principle of liberalism that denial of gay marriage should not be justified by appeal to such debatable conceptions of the good (Wedgwood, 2002). The basic inequality is that the gay marriages are denied the marital status itself, something that is important in society, not just a legal flummery. The marital status is critical since marriage encompasses as affirmation by the state, a big acknowledgment of the couple’s relationship, an approval seal. The opposite sex marriages enjoy this benefit which is not extended to the gay marriages and thus constituting basic inequality. Also, the principle of equality according to Wedgwood (2002) entails equal rights for every adult citizen to take part in the basic social institutions unless evidence supports that equal arrangement has harmful effects. One of the basic social institutions is marriage and thus based on the equality principle, every person has an equal right to marry not necessary a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the principle of equality and thus immoral and hence allowing gay marriage spreads equality in society, a moral principle. Comment by [email protected]: Unclear. Rephrase. Comment by [email protected]: And why is this important?

Also, gay marriage facilitates individual freedom. According to liberalism, individuals have the freedom and autonomy of choice, unconstrained by external factors. Individual freedom of choice in matters of marriage is important to promote individual freedom. According to Botti and McGill (2006), individual freedom of choice enhances satisfaction with positive outcomes relative to the non-choosers, and therefore it is important to allow people to exercise their freedom of choice in matters of marriage. Also, marriage is a right that everyone should have the freedom to choose their partners irrespective of sex. According to Feldblum (2005), liberalism in regards to gay marriage responds to the conservative moral rhetoric through raising counter moral rhetoric of rights. Liberalism supports that marriage is a right which everyone should enjoy on the same grounds as the opposite sex marriage. Since marriage is both a fundamental human right and an individual choice, people should not interfere with gay marriage and allow the gay couples to marry and share the equal rights, commitments, and responsibilities of marriage (Feldblum, 2005). Thus, this would support the principle of individual freedom in society. Comment by [email protected]: Be careful here. The truth of the second highlighted sentence depends on the truth of the first highlighted sentence. But the first sentence isn’t unqualifiedly true. For instance, liberals don’t believe that people should have the freedom to kill, torture, steal, etc. So there must be some constraint on freedom and autonomy. So then the question becomes: does marriage fall within the bounds of what a citizen should have the freedom and autonomy to do? Of course, that seems to be a political question. But this paper should be addressing the morality of gay marriage. I worry that you’re slipping into a political debate, rather than an ethical one. Comment by [email protected]: But why? Comment by [email protected]: Isn’t this exactly what’s being debated though? I think you’re begging the question.

Additionally, gay marriage does not cause harm and maximizes happiness. John Stuart coined the concept of utilitarianism which argues that the consequence of action guides morality. Thus, the morality of an action is judged by its consequence and in particular the general happiness level the action brings about (Richardson-Self, 2015). If an action results in maximum good consequences including happiness and reduces the negative consequences including pain, then the caaction is moral. If the action does not result in bad results, then the action is moral, and if the action results in considerable suffering, then the action is immoral. Gay marriage does not result in significant bad consequences but contributes to good results, and thus from the utilitarianism perspective, gay marriage is a moral action since it maximizes on good results and minimizes on bad results (Richardson-Self, 2015). Basing the argument on John Stuart’s harm principle, the only purpose why power is legally exercised over another member of society or civilized community against one’s will is to avert harm to other members of that community or society. Also, the only conduct which of concern to the society is that which harms others. Gay marriage does not cause harm to others in a civilized community or society, and thus it is of no concern to the society. Therefore, gay marriage is a moral deed as it minimizes harms based on Stuart’s principle of harm (Richardson-Self, 2015). Besides, every individual in society wants happiness, and everyone is in pursuit of happiness, and action that maximizes on happiness is a moral act. Different individuals have varying conceptions of happiness and its only through engaging in things people like that they truly experience happiness. The sole end of an action that a person pursues is happiness, to achieve optimal pleasure and minimal pain. Therefore, people have no right to interfere with the decisions and actions of others unless the decisions and actions harm others (Richardson-Self, 2015). Thus, in accordance with the utilitarianism, gay marriage is beneficial as it minimizes harm and maximizes on happiness and since actions which minimize suffering or harm and raises the general happiness level are morally permissible, then gay marriage is moral and thus beneficial to the society. Comment by [email protected]: This needs defense, because this is precisely what opponents of gay marriage will reject: they believe that gay marriage is doing harm to the people in those marriages, their children, and society as a whole.

The opponents of gay marriage argue that gay marriage is unnatural and thus immoral and hence it should not be practiced. According to the natural moral law, what is unnatural is immoral, and thus the opponents use this argument to argues that gay marriage is immoral since it is unnatural. In the light of the natural moral law, a moral command exists which is true to every individual in society, so it is universal and hopes to accomplish absolute morality (Finnis, 2008). All people have the capability of reasoning and following an intended purpose, so that true law is right in accordance with nature. An action’s motivation is defined independently of its consequence, and the action must be intrinsically good. According to Finnis (2008), gay marriage isn individualistic and violates naturalism and thus immoral. However, thius argument disregards that good and bad are subjective as different societies have a different conception of moral and immoral. Also, to achieve natural moral law, reproducing is the primary precepts. According to Finnis (2008), marriage is a fundamental human good since it facilitates flourishment of the parties in the marriage (husband and wife) as persons and as a couple by beyond form of togetherness for humans and through the most creative and radical of another individual to flourish, specifically bringing into existence another person as an embryo, child, and finally an adult, able to take part in human flourishing. Since gay marriage does not support reproduction (bringing another person into existence), it violates the human good of marriage and is thus immoral (Finnis, 2008). However, as much as marriage is the basis for family, reproduction is not the only rationale for marriage, and thus people marry for various desires and hence people should marry people of their choosing for which they share the same desires. Therefore, gay marriages should be allowed since there is no universal moral and immoral since different societies have a different conception of moral and immoral and people marry for different reasons not necessarily for reproducing. Comment by [email protected]: What do you mean to say in this sentence? How does it connect to the previous sentence? Comment by [email protected]: What does this mean? Comment by [email protected]: Finnis doesn’t think so. As you say above, the natural law theorist believes that there is a single human nature that shapes how humans act/think, and this gives rise to a singular conception of morality (which may vary superficially across cultures but is essentially the same). So, because Finnis doesn’t concede this point, you need to make an argument for why it is true. Comment by [email protected]: But isn’t the question whether someone who gets married for reasons other than reproduction is doing something wrong? That seems to be Finnis’ view.

In conclusion, as much as the opponents argue that gay marriage is unnatural and thus immoral, they fail to recognize the concepts of fairness, equality, liberation, and maximization of happiness attributed to gay marriage. Gay marriage supports fairness in society and thus morally permissible in accordance with Rawls’s principle of justice as fairness. Additionally, gay marriage supports equality. The same-sex couples have the same interest as the heterosexual couples which marriage would serve in fundamentally the same manner. The interest includes fulfilling the desire for making a legally binding mutual commitment. Fulfilling the desire of making a legally binding mutual commitment has nothing to do with opposite-sex marriage, and thus marriage should be based on couples sharing the same desire whatever the sex. Additionally, gay marriage facilitates individual freedom. According to liberalism, individuals have the freedom and autonomy of choice, unconstrained by external factors. Individual freedom of choice in matters of marriage is important to promote individual freedom. Besides, in accordance with the utilitarianism, gay marriage is beneficial as it minimizes harm and maximizes on happiness and since actions which minimize suffering or harm and raises the general happiness level are morally permissible, then gay marriage is moral and thus beneficial to the society. Comment by [email protected]: This is a solid start. I think the first half of your paper is more of a discussion of whether or not it is permissible for gay marriage to be legal, rather than a question of whether or not gay marriage is itself morally right. And I think your paper should be more about the latter than the former. With that said, I think it may be best for you to focus on the utilitarian (Mill) and natural law (Finnis) arguments. I would generally advise a ‘less is more’ approach: it is better to really make one argument well then make 3 or 4 arguments that aren’t so strong. So whatever you end up doing, you need to really dig into the specifics of each argument. In general, I think your prose could be more clear. Remember that you want to make your paper as readable as possible. You’re trying to persuade your reader that you’re right, so you don’t want them getting bogged down with questions about what you mean, how each sentence connects, etc. So make it as clear as possible. And be sure to explain the important background/details of the position you’re discussing (you haven’t always done that, e.g., Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’). Feel free to stop by my office hours (or schedule an appointment) if you’d like to discuss your paper further. GRADE: 81/B-

References

Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2006). When choosing is not deciding: The effect of perceived responsibility on satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 211-219.

Feldblum, C. R. (2005). Gay is good: The moral case for marriage equality and more. Yale JL & Feminism, 17, 139. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2098&context=facpub

Finnis, J. (2008). Marriage: a basic and exigent good. The Monist, 91(3/4), 388-406. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=f4181be9-68b4-4ebd-a883-155118bb6be4%40sessionmgr4007

Gray, J. S. (2004). Rawls’s Principle of Justice as Fairness and Its Application to the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage. South African journal of philosophy, 23(2), 158-170. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=4356cd02-089f-4ef7-8064-1f2a9dfdeb48%40sessionmgr120

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Richardson-Self, L. V. (2015). Justifying same-sex marriage: A philosophical investigation. Rowman & Littlefield International, 

Wedgwood, R. (2001). The fundamental argument for same‐sex marriage. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(3), 225-242. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=4a7c6b50-1b40-420e-860c-7fa0e7467ccf%40sessionmgr103