From: jbrege@umich.edu
Date: Sun Dec 14 2003 - 08:04:23 GMT
I'm new to the board so if this is way off let me know:
Charles asked:
What is the MOQ perspective on homosexuality? Would you say a same-sex
preference lies in the biological level, or the social level? Or perhaps
some other level? ...To me, it seems that if homosexuality was of the
biological level, then it's backwards. Because the levels of the MOQ at all
times strive to preserve themselves, at least to my understanding; therefore
any human sexual preference, being strictly biologically-driven, would
result (unless measures are taken) in the production of more human life.
This seems to me to be the primary function of the biological level, to
sustain and create new life. Obviously there has to be a measure of biology
involved in same-sex preference. But can social issues offset the
biological course? Or, to put it plainly, from the MOQ biological viewpoint
is homosexuality considered normal?
In his reply David Buchanan seemed to argue that it was normal as far down
as the biological level of quality.
As an example of homosexuality in nature he wrote of Baboons:
They live and graze in pretty large groups and homosexual behavior
seems to minimize the disruptive effects of competition. Male manatees have
orgies together. And Lesbian gulls have been observed raising chicks
together.
From this evidence he concluded that it was a social level prejudice and
intellectual level Darwinism that made it appear abnormal:
"It contradicts both social level Prejudice and intellectual
level Darwinism, so we tend not to notice it."
and
"The selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore
is made on the basis of social patterns of value."
I think this answer is sensible for the most part, but I think it can be
tightened up a bit. It does seem the case that a homosexual preference lies
at a biological level. It doesn't seem that society or intellectualism
drives such sexual preferences but does is this enough evidence towards the
fact that homosexuality is "biologically" right? I'm not sure.
The baboon case appealed to seems a much clearer case of social quality
than biological quality:
"They live and graze in pretty large groups and homosexual behavior
seems to minimize the disruptive effects of competition."
This explanation clearly benefits the "large groups" or society of animals
and though this in turn benefits the biological level, it is only through
the social. It's not the level of biology that ok's homosexuality or says
that it is morally right as it doesn't directly benefit biology.If everyone
were homosexual then the entire species would die out, hardly a goal of
biology.
The "gut" response that David describes occurs at the biological level.
It's his biology rejecting a "biologically" low quality situation.
Does this mean that homosexuality is a social construct or an intellectual
construct? Definitely not. The fact that biology doesn't value
homosexuality isn't conclusive evidence that homosexual preferences don't
originate at the biological level. Plenty of things happen at every levels
that are immoral to some or all levels. I'm not sure what it means, that
someone feels a drive biologically but such a drive is immoral at the level
of biology. I'll think about that but for biology, it definitely seems a
higher quality event for a chance of procreation than for no such chance.
At the social level, on the other hand homosexuality serves high quality
purposes as David's arguments from baboons show. At the intellectual level
it is also morally right. It's reasonable for any consensual homosexual
activity, and better than ignoring such drives. Since, it's morally right
at the int. and soc. levels and since these are higher and more moral than
the biological levels then it is morally right in MoQ.
As for the question to whether homosexuality is "normal," I'm not sure if
such a question makes sense in the frame of MoQ. Normal seems like a
descriptive term. Normal is a function of regularity of occurrence, not a
value or moral question. Even to ask whether an event like homosexuality
is normal "at a level" doesn't really make sense. Anything that occurs,
occurs at all levels. I'm not sure, the MoQ has anything to say about
normalcy. It would be like asking if something is fast or big according to
MoQ. It's not a question that MoQ pertains to.
Anyway, I think the most interesting aspect that arises from Charles'
question is, "what does it mean for a drive to occur at the biological
level that is not morally biologically right?"
sincerely,
jake
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 14 2003 - 08:05:55 GMT