วีดีโอ

Glad to hear it!!! Best wishes - Queer theory is, sadly, often unintelligible and I wish it wasn't so... but I think we will see some more accessible scholarship on it as people become more interested.

All that condescension just to be wrong about everything you typed 🤣🤣🤣

Also, your view commits you to believing the view that slavery is moral and the view that it is immoral are equally valid. One of these views only become correct when society decides it does, apparently. Yikes!

@@koopag8 The Bible legislated slave beating and the Bible is 100% pro-slavery. I am anti-slavery. That is my subjective judgment. I didn't say all subjective opinions were equally valid. I just said that from an understanding that morality is subjective we can have a dialog on consensus morality. We are not bound by the 100% pro-slavery bias of the Bible.

Thanks for sharing. I think many essentialists make great claims about homosexual identities. Remember that these categories help us understand "IDENTITY" - Aka how one conceives of oneself. This is not the same as same-sex desire (which, according to Kinsey, everyone might experience to some degree), but rather how one conceives oneself as gay, straight, bi, etc. In other words, a gay identity is not really about who one desires sexually but rather how one understands oneself based on the feeling. With regard to your argument, I have some questions (mostly because I am quite ignorant about Alan Turing other than what I saw in "The Imitation Game" and my history classes): Do we know that he self identified as "gay" (or its equivalent in England at the time)? Do we know Alan Turing never experienced "gay culture"? Did he not have early sexual experiences in and then conversations with fellow gay people? If that is the case, maybe he WAS influenced. Again, I do not know... For a Biological Essentialist claim about a gay identity, one needs to look at some scientific research around the presence of the identity across cultures to find physiological/biological traits that would generate the identity (self-conception as gay). If the identity is essentialist, it would be held by everyone with its defining traits, it would not change, and it would be innate (though can be acquired if one is a cultual essentialist). I think even if Alan Turing identified as Gay (which I do not know - though he did engage in same sex behavior), I am not sure that this particular person's identity is enough to say that "a gay identity is an essentialist component of homosexual people." Essentialist claims are becoming less convincing as studies continue to show significant variation of what it means to be "gay." I recommend you read Chapter 2 of Annamarie Jagose's book "Queer Theory" in which she claims that the "homosexual" identity is not stable and universal among all gay people. www.amazon.com/Queer-Theory-Introduction-Annamarie-Jagose/dp/0814742343 Of course, this does not mean LGBTQ+ people do not deserve equal rights because their identities are constructed or essentialist. I am simply making philosophical claims about the nature of the identities. :)

@@ishruiz2070 Sure all these questions about alan turing case will hardly ever be answered since we can't ask him haha we can only hypothetise... I also have not all the knowledge and details on Alan turing life but I do know that he was heavily pressured and unhappy of his prosecution by the british government for his sexual orientation.If I understand correctly your answer you are separating one self identity with the sexual orientation (wanting to avoid a claim like "I am who I am because I have sexual relations with other man").Coming to think about it,my example is a bit difficult to analyze there are many questions that you raised that cannot be answered .My reflections was more based on the fact that one self conception would be on how one self can identify in its social environment right? . And I don't see how in more ancient times in the occidental society in this example UK of the first part of the 20th century one could actually identify himself in being gay. If one self identity is socially constructed can we say the same for one's self sexual orientation? Therefore I suggested the essentialist analysis being the better suited theory... I can totally imagine that essentialism would be categorized as outdated and be badly welcomed because like psychoanalisys no one likes to be told who he is whitout having a choice... Although I agree with you that the essentialism theory is not enough to determine all the fineses of the identity concept...

Hi! Great great question. Sorry for my delay. The terms are very very similar - in fact, Nature vs Nurture can help you understand Essentialism vs Constructionism. I would say that the main difference pertains to how the two terms are used. Specifically the fields in which the terms reside. "Nature vs Nurture" more closely relate to the field of psychology. The terms are trying to explain the meaning of a particular behavior or emotion for the person. Was "X" person born that way or raised that way and does that affect how they behave, conceive of themselves, or feel? It has a more particular application to understand the psychological function of a person. Conversely, "Essentialism VS Constructionism" falls in the field of Philosophy (of which Ethics is a branch). In this field, we are trying to understand the nature of the CATEGORIES of "race," "gender," "Sexual Orientation" not as psychological factors but rather as theoretical concepts. What is the meaning of the concept Race? How did race come to be? And how does (or should this) this dictate the proper treatment of people or how one advocates for justice? The use of Essentialism vs Constructionism are more universal, theoretical, and philosophical. Not applied to a particular person's psyche. That said, the terms do interrelate. Psychologists might use the philosophical understanding of race, gender, sexual orientation (an essentialist or constructionist understanding) to better inform their views on the nature or nurture of particular behaviors and feelings. However, they would not use psychology to DEFINE the concepts of "race, Gender, Sexual orientation" as philosophical Categories. Similarly, an ethicist might use psychological understandings of how race, gender, s.o. affect people to generate moral claims - but would not use them to explain particular behaviors/feelings within a person's mind. In sum: Similar terms but used in different contexts/fields for different purposes. :)

Hello! I thin that is a rather specific question. The answer varies - depending on who you ask. I'll break it down by category: Normative Ethical Framework? Mostly. A natural law claim would certainly attempt to establish some normative claim - though it might not always be "normative for all humans" - rather, it might be "normative for some humans (e.g. all women, all men, etc.). HOWEVER, some theorists (like Jean Porter) say that there are very few actual normative rules we can derive from human nature as there is too much variation based on culture. Essentialist ontology? depends on who you ask. Some people claim Natural law are a set of precepts found in nature that can be "read off" through reason. Others consider natural law to be more of a rational process than a list of rules. In any case, both seem to be innate/natural parts of humanity but one has substance and the other is more of a process. Theism? Depends. There are some non-theistic natural law theories that simply claim there is morality and moral law inscribed in nature but it doesn't come from a God. Human Rights theories, for example, draw from a normative natural law foundation but are not necessarily theistic. My videos are mostly for my students in a Catholic school - thus we operate from a theistic framework. Metaethical reallist committment? Also depends. Certainly natural law participates in a metaethical process that utilizes the lived reality of the subject (realism). However, some natural law claims attempt to arrive at universal ahistorical moral claims as well... They simply use real nature to arrive at those claims - so I am not sure about the word "commitment."

@@ishruiz2070 Thanks for this very helpful answer. I should have made my question a bit more clear though as I had an Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of Natural Law in mind (defended by David Oderberg or Robert Spaemann for example). I wanted to know how it fits into "modern" categories of ethics.

Hey! Great question. Yes. If people switch methods every time they come up with a new moral question, one could say that their morality revolves around convenience. Constantly switching methods essentially means: I don't have a set process to determine right from wrong. However, I have two more notes: First, Methods develop over time in the face of critiques. An Ethicist crafts a method and it is usually challenged by other philosophers. Then it grows and evolves. You will see this in my future videos. Second, It is possible to craft Methods that use pre-existing Methods. For example, Martha Nussbaum created a Capabilities Theory that combines Deontology and Virtue Ethics. She says that all societies must have a baseline set of rules that govern actions/policies (Deontology) in order to promote the development of central human capabilities (Virtue Ethics). She's my favorite Ethicist - I will have a video on her later on ;) .