Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Why moral approval matters
“The problem with you people,” my critic scolded, “is that you’re no longer happy with merely being left alone. You don’t just want us to tolerate homosexuality. You want us to think it’s RIGHT.”
Well, duh.Seriously: no matter how many times I hear this complaint – and it’s pretty often – it still surprises me. Of course I want people to think that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Why think otherwise?
This is not to say that I anticipate universal approval. But I can still aspire to – and work towards – as much approval as possible.
One reason is that such approval makes our lives easier. True, my life is pretty good as it is. But it would be better with the legal protections that straight couples take for granted.
And it’s not just about me. I care about teens kicked out of their homes, workers fired from their jobs, servicemen and women discharged from the military, and so on – all simply for being gay. Increased moral approval of homosexuality would help.
Yet there’s another reason for seeking to change people’s false moral beliefs about homosexuality. Moral truth matters.
It matters both for its own sake and for what it achieves. Morality has a crucial social function. It shapes our behavior; it coordinates our life projects; it defines our community. These are all good things.
But morality doesn’t work in the abstract. It works only when people recognize and encourage it. This requires moralizing – the voicing of approval and disapproval that gives morality its public face and force.
Moralizing often gets a bad rap. The term “moralist” conjures up an image of a finger-wagging busybody, hypocritically pointing out the specks in his neighbor’s eye while ignoring the planks in his own.
But at its best, moralizing can protect and nurture us. It steers us in ways that are good for us, good for those we love, and good for the community at large.
As social creatures, we depend on moralizing. We benefit from our parents’ scolding, which keeps us out of trouble. We benefit from our neighbors’ raised eyebrows and encouraging glances, which nudge us to be the best people we can be.
In order for moralizing to work, however, we have to care to some extent about what other people think. We have to take moralizing seriously. Imagine life in a world where no one cared about other people’s moral opinions. Such a life would be, in Thomas Hobbes’ words, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Now imagine a world where vast numbers of people—maybe half your neighbors or more—morally disapprove of some of the most intimate and important aspects of your life. Most readers of this column don’t have to imagine that. As LGBT people, we live it daily.
What do we do in the face of such widespread moral disapproval? Often we avoid or ignore it. That’s an understandable response, but it worries me.
It worries me because of how morality works. Morality has a job to do, and it can’t do it well if we become too comfortable with ignoring others’ moralizing. Just as unreasonable or unenforceable laws erode our confidence in law itself (think Prohibition), widespread dismissal of others’ moral views erodes morality’s social function.
Don’t misunderstand: I believe people should think for themselves, and of course we shouldn’t worry about everything our neighbors think. Some neighbors are thoughtless and stupid. What’s more, there are sometimes good moral reasons for bucking the majority.
But when large numbers of people – many of them educated, intelligent, and decent – disapprove of a central feature of our lives, that’s troubling. Not just for pragmatic reasons – although those are important – but because of morality’s role in the social fabric.
The alternative to avoiding or ignoring other people’s disapproval is to try to reverse it. Reversing it means convincing them that same-sex relationships are not merely tolerable, but morally good.
And that’s what we should aim to do. Not because we desperately need to be patted on the back, and not merely because their moral approval would make our lives easier.
Ultimately, we should do it because morality matters—to us, to them, to everyone.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
For over fifteen years he has traveled the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics. His writing has been featured in regional and national periodicals, at the online Independent Gay Forum www.indegayforum.org, and in numerous scholarly anthologies. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
Morality is a PRIVATE affair and it should be used as a road map for personal conduct. As long as what we do does no harm to another, it is no one’s business. Furthering this ideal is that no one has a right to force their idea of what is moral on another individual. That goes BOTH ways folks. What’s next, we all demand to get inside everyone’s head and rearrange the furniture? Shut up about your private life and act like a decent human being in public. Simple.
Approval will never happen, God willing. While you are busy destroying the fabric of our tolerant society, islam is getting stronger. They will just stone you…
Thanks, Dr. Corvino, for another insightful column. I find myself amused by the commentators who expect extensive justifications, definitions, citations, and whatnot from a 500-word weekly column — as if this space could (or even should) approximate a submission to a scholarly journal. Given the confines of space, you’ve done a fine job laying out a succinct argument (a la Hegel and Dewey , et al.) for the reciprocal nature of human relationships and the attendant social need for moral affirmation. Kudos.
John, there’s not much call or use for a moral consensus in a society as diverse as ours. Orientation aside, how many ways can people live widely divergent lives? When immigrants from ten different countries can be passing me in a single cross walk, cultural relativity is a matter of striking up a conversation. When some need to be billionaires and others need to take vows of poverty, when some are carnivores and others are vegetarians, surely you don’t think you’re going to get everyone to even agree that there’s a single moral page let alone get them all on it. The important point is that we respect civil rights and allow others to pursue their lights without hindering ours. That legal process is what’s common and subject to the same tragic manipulation when its ignored or usurped. For myself, I never confuse religion and morality. The Constitution is more important.
Dear John, two things come to mind. First, morality is a construct of those that are in the majority. History shows enough of how disparate moralizing has been. Second, I would think that most young gay men and woman don’t really care about those that moralize. Typically actions speak louder than words, and the actions that we tend to see don’t say much for the moralizers. It seems to be left to those of us oldger gay people to think about our place within society. We are the ones that think about passing on what we’ve worked hard to acquire. What leave our belongings, wealth and the like to straight people that spurned us and our lives?
I think that some people are getting confused with what he means by “relationships” here. He’s talking about every aspect of a devoted relationship between two people being seen as on an equal ground with any other relationship, regardless of it being heterosexual or homosexual. Equal eyes by those who use the word “moral” like it actually means anything beyond opinion. We should fight to try and be seen as equals because those who do not see us as equals are in some cases the majority. This is where we come to the clear fact that we are in a culture war and I believe we need to fight that culture war if we want to avoid persecution. Of course with our being so demanding to have laws changed and the constitution honored rather than turned into a tool against us we generate attention and people then form tools which they can use against us. How can we have the moral high ground if we try to push so hard to be equals? Then we’d argue back, why can’t we be equals? Then they would argue that we’re immoral. And that’s why we need to change that. Because if we are moral as seen by the majority of the public their argument will only validate their own irrational beliefs, and any psychologist knows that these beliefs are most generally the cause for many life problems, stresses, and various other functions. Ethically it wouldn’t be useful to try and counsel the general publics religion away, but those who are highly religious are already doing that to their own culture. More youth are leaving the various faiths of their ancestors and this could be seen as beneficial to receiving equal rights due to people’s “morals” being based on ethics rather than on religious superstition. How do we see more of this change? By making the enemy in this war display their true colors. Let them come with their torches and their pitchforks. Allow them to degrade society as a whole, to limit research, to ensure that no diseases ever get cured, and to encourage breeding to such an extent that they overpopulate the world. People see this happening and they realize the old ways are flawed and do not work or apply to this new heavily populated world. This collective moralism seems to stem from raw survival instinct, if you view human nature as collective. Unfortunetly humans do not operate collectively. We are all childish, selfish, and stupid. We seek only to satisfy the needs to us which satiate our interests in the best and most efficient way. Blaming others for the various problems in the world is one great way to accomplish this need. Yeah let’s blame the liberals, or the conservatives. Really the blame will always be to ourselves, and I, at least, acknowledge that I am not someone who stands on a fence. I used to, but at least I am willing to say that I am a cultural warrior and I live to achieve progress in the sciences to prove that research and the scientific process are not flawed, are superior to just assuming that God will take care of everybody, and for actually doing something and contributing to a world that never says “thank you” but is willing to try to hang me by a noose. That being said, bring it on, world. We’ll see who history remembers as more moral. The one who helped to save and improve lives or the ones who sought to persecute him for who he loved, refusing to see him as an equal.
I am going to have to disagree with you John. When morals and the foundations of those morals come from separate origins, human instinct is to protect yours at the expense of others. It is part of cultural-centrism. Overcoming that means getting them to absorb your set of morals and accept them as valid and part of their own.
Too much has been invested by religion in cementing those moral ‘laws’ in the way that they want them. It is a fight to the death at this point. Neither fundementalist christian nor muslim is about to let us convince them of anything when it comes to our moral right to exist at all.
As a non-christian, I have dealt with this for far too long. Add in being gay and it is insufferable. While my actual morals nearly match, point for point, because they have an origin other than theirs, they are wrong. Logic appears to have no bearing. The fact that I am a moral person has no bearing. Only that the origin of my morality and the fact of my mere existence disqualify the possibility of validity is what matters.
That level of religious belief will not separate itself from morality and judgment of others by the standards of their own systems. I live my life by my own moral compass without the least concern for the perceptions of others concerning ‘morality’.
They must live their life and I mine. I honor the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you. Therefore, I let them live their morality without comment and I expect and demand the same. I meet each challenge to mine with dignity and calmness. I also don’t expect them to change theirs since I will not change mine. I do demand the right to mine when challenged.
So, this need for the approval of the majority at large, not so much. Only those in my immediate day to day life matter that much. Fortunately, I am lucky in that respect, I have their respect and understanding of who and what I am and where my morality lies. It is in fact enough.
Dr. Corvino: “Seriously: no matter how many times I hear this complaint – and it’s pretty often – it still surprises me. Of course I want people to think that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Why think otherwise?”
Equality matters legally. Are you conflating what is right with what is legal ?
Dr. Corvino: “One reason is that such approval makes our lives easier. True, my life is pretty good as it is. But it would be better with the legal protections that straight couples take for granted.”
No, your life would not be better: your relationship would be legally recognized perhaps but unless you ARE your relationship(s) then ??
Dr. Corvino: “I care about teens kicked out of their homes, workers fired from their jobs, servicemen and women discharged from the military, and so on – all simply for being gay. Increased moral approval of homosexuality would help.”
I hope that we all care about individuals who have been brutalized due to their perceived/real sexuality. Pleased you mentioned those examples and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.
Dr. Corvino: “Yet there’s another reason for seeking to change people’s false moral beliefs about homosexuality. Moral truth matters.”
What theory of truth are you assuming Dr. Corvino ? Further, how are you epistemically situating and justifying “moral” truth ?
Dr. Corvino: “But morality doesn’t work in the abstract. It works only when people recognize and encourage it. This requires moralizing – the voicing of approval and disapproval that gives morality its public face and force.”
Perhaps morality *only* works “in the abstract” ? Could you explain your assertion that is necessarily does not ??
Dr. Corvino: “As social creatures, we depend on moralizing. We benefit from our parents’ scolding, which keeps us out of trouble. We benefit from our neighbors’ raised eyebrows and encouraging glances, which nudge us to be the best people we can be.”
To define human beings as “social creatures” seems to be an unsupported assertion(?) Further: If indeed “We benefit from our neighbors’ raised eyebrows and encouraging glances” then why have you questioned the query from the “critic” you mention at the outset? Should you not then just accept (perhaps even thank ?) your “critic” for their (supposedly necessary) “neighbors’ raised eyebrow” ?
Dr. Corvino: “The alternative to avoiding or ignoring other people’s disapproval is to try to reverse it. Reversing it means convincing them that same-sex relationships are not merely tolerable, but morally good.”
One cannot necessarily move logically from the experiences of GLBT individuals to GLBT “relationships.” You did this same thing two weeks ago. I am open to hearing an argument that adequately addresses how one may move with intellectual ease between/among GLBT people and any/all of their relationships. Might you also define the type of “relationships” to which you refer? Do you mean (only) our sexual relationships ??
Let me attempt to reconstruct your argument.
1. Morality serves the important social function of making life easier.
2. Ignoring something that makes life easier is wrong because it makes the lives of the ignoring group harder.
Therefore, ignoring morality is wrong.
I don’t think that morality does serve the important social function of making life easier, especially for the groups it excludes by virtue of their existence. I think we’ve got a lot of evidence for that, too. I think Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the rest have argued quite convincingly that morality is toxic and makes life increasingly more difficult for even those who follow it. That fact alone (that more and more find such prohibitions rightfully unjustifiable) explains its decline. Further, the morality referenced by you for rational conversation implies a belief in a rational methodology and even moral reasoning that all participants acknowledge and subscribe, when the reality couldn’t be more false. There is no ethical reasoning with a lot of this individuals who accept “morality” (I’d go further…and suggest that there’s no reasoning at all with them). Arguing rationally and accepting the rules of logic and reason achieves very little. Instead, what we see is that the role of certain moral values diminishes as its utility fades.
Ethics serves to make life easier, and I don’t think I need to explain the difference between morality and ethics to you. And further, I don’t think that gay people ignore ethics any more than straight people do. Morality can be ignored.
And that’s the biggest problem with some people who are gay. They do not seem to be able to pick up on this message that they should be seen by the public as equals if they want to be treated as equals. But instead many in high school may choose to use flirting as a weapon against straight nemesis or try to dress in a manner which makes them stand out as different. If you want to be seen as different but not for the reasons you may have been hoping to achieve. All of my friends who vote republican and generally hate gay people say they do so not because of any form of morality (they’re not religious at all) they do it because they have formed stereotypes about what a “typial” gay person is like. They never recognize anyone around them as gay until that person has displayed a sign or symptom of a stereotype they are used to seeing, and that is partially the fault of those individuals for reinforcing those stereotypes or believing that their personality must somehow be defined by them.
Now I know that being seen as moral equals is important. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve had many friends, due to my influence, learn to see gay people as equals. But before I came along, expressing that I was openly gay by actually having to say I was gay and had a boyfriend rather than possessing a stereotypical “gay personality”. Even before this came about they knew me as an individual, by my personality, my ways of wanting to express myself and be perceived as a strong, confident, person with a great deal of skill and tallent. A person who could help his fellow man in times of trouble. A person who was morally acceptable in their minds. Then they learn that I am gay and they don’t mind. It doesn’t matter how much of a super-christian or anti-gay they are. They will gladly accept me as their brother or fellow man, and if they know me well enough they will learn to think of me when voting on policies that affect gay people. If more people could do that rather than try to stand out and communicate or express one’s sexual orientation by reinforcing stereotypes which may be correlated with thoughts of immorality then indeed we could easily change public perception. I just don’t see enough people making a serious effort.
Maybe it’s due to a lack of education. I remember a quote from a Larry King interview saying that when a man decides to come out of the closet he may have never studied or researched the gay community, and no one has ever told that newcommer the “gay story”. How has homosexuality been treated through history? Many may not have known about the Nazi’s persecution, the public knowledge of homosexuality being recognized as far back as recorded human history, itself. They will often see themselves as strongly defined by this sometimes newly discovered aspect, and without anyone there to guide them what do they latch on to? Stereotypes. Because social stigma will always exist and some people may prefer to latch on to what is known rather than go to the trouble of understanding how one develops a personal identity for one’s self and researches and understands one’s “story”. This isn’t just a problem within the gay community either, of course. It’s an issue which has come up in many various cultural groups where people may seek to define themselves too strongly through a single personality aspect, turning into a stereotypical representation of that group of people including what may be seen by the public as stereotypically amoral.
Anyway, I’ve said enough. I’m sure most people will see my words as too politically incorrect or something. I’m just trying to express my own emperical observations. I don’t see morality as a religious factor, either, but more as a culturally reinforced examinaiton of what morality is. I’m certainly not saying two people shouldnt be able to walkl while holding hands or make out on a park bench. Those are freedoms all people should be entitled to. But if your method of self expression tries to push too hard on some people they will discriminate against anyone with shared attributes. Like this article said, perfectly, sometimes you have to cater to what the people will want to see. That’s what I do. I wear a “mask” on my personality which presents myself as a proud gay man and an upstanding citizen. When I go home at night and no-one is around accept for my lover we’ll be wearing different masks , ones which better represent other sides of our personality. This is all done for the sake of perception and people do it all the time. So I may be preaching to the choir, but it’s a strong lesson that many people who are first coming out and finding themselves may need to learn, as perception and being noticed are best done in a mature, accepting way. One last tip: If you can demonstrate that you are somehow on a more mature ground than the person who may be attacking you for being gay with violent verbal outbursts you can even win them over by not fighting back and continuing to express a personality that somehow expressed your possessing the moral high ground. For example, while visiting my fiance’s relatives in Alabama one of his friends started comparing me to Jeffrey Dahlmer and saying that I was an “evil” person for “choosing” my “lifestyle” and I started asking him if he activley chose to be straight to which he then had to admit then I pulled out the statistics of some psychological researchers arguing that 80% of the population may be capable of being bisexual if they culturally and willingly wanted to pursue that orientation. He then grew quiet and wanted to hear more about what I had to say. I spoke of how many people cannot have any determinaton in “deciding” who they are attracted to, some of these people are heterosexual but others are homosexual, approximatley 2-5% of the total human population. The reason for this is theoretically due to exposure in the womb to certain levels of testosterone or estrogen, and in some lesbians the inner-ear structure has been shown to be different, while brain structure in some gay men has also been shown to slightly differ. I wasn’t arguing with him any more. I was educating him, like any good psychology professor should do (many don’t, of course, due to their religious superstitions and lack of pay). By the end of the day I had completely altered his perceptions of a group of people he thought he knew and therefore hated. He went on to share that knowledge with his other friends and family if it ever came up in a conversation. Through educating one person, taking the high ground, and demonstrating that I knew information which he did not and that he was drawing conclusions he realized he could only listen or he could choose to not listen and therefore do something morally irresponsible for being in another person’s home and trying to yell at them in front of other friends and family members rather than let the professor talk.
I think a distinction between “morality” and being “religious” needs to be made. One does not need to be religious to be moral. In fact, most of the people I know that are very religious are quite immoral in many respects. I’ve also known aetheists and agnostics who are actually quite moral in most every regard. I agree that being accepted by the masses in a moral sense makes life easier – but that mass acceptance does not confer real validation (unless you consider the majority to always be correct, which history has proven is frequently NOT the case). I have to say that I am not exactly in snyc with the tone of this column – it has too much of the “I need your approval to validate my worth” subtly woven in. Moreover – who defines what is “moral” or “morally sound”? Religion? That’s a scary thought – they rationalize a lot of very immoral behavior, often in the name of their diety. While others approval of me “morally” might make life easier on some level – that’s only because the majority of people in the world are not gay and therefore cast themselves, by default, as the ones to cast judgment. That doesn’t validate their judgment. I live my life in far more “moral” ways than most every straight person I know – should they be seeking out my “moral approval”? I’m sure they would laugh at the concept. TO be honest, whether or not I have someone else’s “moral approval” or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to me. People define what is moral is a very self-serving manner – always have, always will. I don’t look to others for the kind of acceptance that can only come from inside. Seeking out this external “moral approval” doesn’t feel like the best path to go. Living out lives from the inside out will provide examples for others to see and assess. Yet, at the end of the day – their “moral approval” is ultimately irrelevant. They aren’t “God” individually or collectively (no matter how much organized religion acts as if it were). Have to say that while you make some interesting points, I’m not entirely sure I agree with the general sentiment of what you’ve written here.