Subsequently, I will proceed to form an argument on the first part of Mackie’s argument from queerness, the metaphysical component. I will show that although the conclusion follows from the premises, not all the premises are true. Similarly for the epistemological component of Mackie’s argument, I will prove that the premises from his argument can be refuted. With the failure of both components, I will show that Mackie’s argument from queerness does not succeed in proving that objective values do not exist. Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world.
In contemporary western society, how could we define the Sambia of Papua as either heterosexual or homosexual; we cannot. This brings us to the question of gender. In contemporary society we have developed a social organization of gender that creates and prescribes our sexuality. This dominant discourse has perceived sexuality as a natural phenomenon, when in reality it is made through social practices. Sexuality is developed based on the social context of what is normal, which is why we socially create different definitions of sexuality like heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual.
In our present generation, the idea of a separation between men and women really is not considered. We live in a culture where a person gets to choose sexual orientation, sexual preference, and even alter sex chromosomes. Due to of the advancement in our science, sociology, and psychology, sexism is arguably obsolete. I say all of that and an educated reader may be thinking “This girl is so wrong and has no clue what she is talking about because sexism does exist.” Well, it does, but not in the same way that it existed in medieval times. Medieval literature and outlets that interpret medieval literature depict sexism in a completely different, extremely radical way.
In a third and final point, we’ll consider that both gender studies and feminism should be studied separately because gender studies goes further and takes into account sexual characteristics and oppression in general rather than only social oppression towards a biological sex, being women. Gender is something different from social movements. Indeed, in general, gender studies bring to a reflexion on what is being a male and what is being a female according to time and places. The main goal of these studies is to observe how a sex is supposed to reproduce a common thinking and acting according to its societal past. According to Joan Scott, one of the main and first theorists of gender studies: "In grammar, gender is understood to be a way of classifying phenomena, a socially agreed upon system of distinctions rather than an objective description of inherent traits.
Hence homosexuality in nineteenth century was seen as something which was not scientifically accepted or being termed as pathological so anyone being homosexual was seen in Freudean point's of view as pathological. Foucault pointed this out and said freudian point of view would lead to preoccupation with one form of sexuality which was accepeted by the society based on the biological and medical disciplines.So according to him any individual who is homosexual would then be objectified by attaching a label of homosexual to them and giving them a social identity also. Even a person who is homosexual by his will would be forced to objectify himself as pathological because he would made to realize that in the society in which he is living
James Rachels has a better argument than Ruth Benedict in defending Moral or Cultural relativism. Rachel agreed that the fact supporting the proposition for Cultural Relativism does not support the argument. Benedict argues from a functionality standpoint, where she used certain human traits to support her argument as being abhorrent in some society but being adequately functional in another society. Though Rachel and Benedict still drew the same analogy of using Homosexuality as an example of abhorrence in one society as being acceptable in another, Rachel argues that it is a matter of moral relativism and cannot be right or wrong, rather it depends on the society one is drawing his or her moral codes from, but Benedict is arguing from the
When I say ‘substantive justice’, I mean concrete measures taken by institutions and governmental organizations which include equality of opportunity, material subvention for lesser inequality and legal attempts to prevent discrimination. Hayek opposes all these attempts by some ontological and epistemological premises which are represented and criticized above. Here, I will assert that social justice is possible according to reconciliation of equality and liberty; which is possible with a good theory of capability approach. When I say equality, I don’t mean equality of income or only equality before the law, rather equality of
According to Foucault, sexuality is just a social construct and has been turned into a discourse which in turn is used to exercise control and maintain the power structure. We have to follow these rules laid down by the governing power or else we are considered to be deviants. Tracing back the history of sexuality, Foucault argues that homosexuality was born in 1870's. With this he means that in earlier times homosexuality was taken to be normal and not considered to be a crime. It was considered to be the behaviour of an individual instead of his identity.
Foucault came up with propositions regarding sexuality. He consistently argued that it is of the essence to comprehend passion in what he defined as power rather than just understanding sexuality regarding the law, countering the repressive hypothesis. In trying to analyze the existing relationship between history, energy, and knowledge, Foucault came up with four rules that were consequently applied in the comprehension of sexuality including the provision of immanence, the state of continual variations, the practice of double conditioning and the rule of tactical polyvalence of the discourses. In analyzing the rules, a question arises; why does Foucault believe that these rules are vital in understanding sexuality? The Rule of Immanence