Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Humber College Philosophy of Love and Sex - PHIL-225-909 Laila Andreucci 17-August-2021

    Uploaded by

    Anuu Bhatti
    The document compares and contrasts how two authors, Michael Ruse and Leonore Tiefer, discuss the concept of "natural" in relation to kissing and homosexuality. Both argue that kissing and homosexuality are natural acts that have evolved through cultural and biological processes over time. However, Ruse's argument for homosexuality being natural is seen as vague and lacking empirical evidence, while Tiefer provides strong evidence through cultural examples to argue kissing is a natural human act prevalent across societies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Humber College Philosophy of Love and Sex - PHIL-225-909 Laila Andreucci 17-August-2021

    Uploaded by

    Anuu Bhatti
    52 views4 pages
    The document compares and contrasts how two authors, Michael Ruse and Leonore Tiefer, discuss the concept of "natural" in relation to kissing and homosexuality. Both argue that kissing and homosexuality are natural acts that have evolved through cultural and biological processes over time. However, Ruse's argument for homosexuality being natural is seen as vague and lacking empirical evidence, while Tiefer provides strong evidence through cultural examples to argue kissing is a natural human act prevalent across societies.

    Original Title

    Final Exam

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document compares and contrasts how two authors, Michael Ruse and Leonore Tiefer, discuss the concept of "natural" in relation to kissing and homosexuality. Both argue that kissing and homosexuality are natural acts that have evolved through cultural and biological processes over time. However, Ruse's argument for homosexuality being natural is seen as vague and lacking empirical evidence, while Tiefer provides strong evidence through cultural examples to argue kissing is a natural human act prevalent across societies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views4 pages

    Humber College Philosophy of Love and Sex - PHIL-225-909 Laila Andreucci 17-August-2021

    Uploaded by

    Anuu Bhatti
    The document compares and contrasts how two authors, Michael Ruse and Leonore Tiefer, discuss the concept of "natural" in relation to kissing and homosexuality. Both argue that kissing and homosexuality are natural acts that have evolved through cultural and biological processes over time. However, Ruse's argument for homosexuality being natural is seen as vague and lacking empirical evidence, while Tiefer provides strong evidence through cultural examples to argue kissing is a natural human act prevalent across societies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The passage discusses the views of various philosophers on whether certain sexual acts like kissing and homosexuality are natural. Leonore Tiefer and Michael Ruse are analyzed and their views on kissing and homosexuality are compared and contrasted.

    Tiefer presents kissing as a natural act that has evolved through cultural processes, while Ruse argues that homosexuality is natural and not a perversion. Both see these acts as naturally evolved orientations.

    Both Tiefer and Ruse argue that kissing and homosexuality have naturally evolved and developed in humans over time through natural and cultural processes.

    Final Exam

    Shawn Totaram

    Humber College

    Philosophy of Love and Sex - PHIL- 225-909

    Laila Andreucci

    17-August-2021
    Final Exam

    Compare (similarities) and contrast (differences) the way that “natural” is discussed

    in two different contexts:

    The notion of sex and sexuality is natural in its very essence. Somewhere in the human

    deep skin, there exist desires that arise from inner instinct rather than socially constructed

    tendencies. There is plethora of school of thoughts that build the theories around sex, sexual

    tendencies and orientation. The features such as kissing, romance and sexual intercourse

    complete the sexual process in human. Moreover, the completion of such features with differing

    genders is also variant in human society. On the one hand, some theorists, like Plato and Kant,

    suggest that acts like kissing and homosexuality are rather unnecessary or unnatural. On the

    other hand, there are critics, such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, that regard every act

    that sustain pleasure and affection as part of sexual process (Ruse 264). In the forthcoming

    sections, two such critics, namely, Leonore Tiefer and Michael Ruse, will be discussed through

    highlighting their respective similarities and differences regarding kissing and homosexuality.

    Comparison:

    Tiefer presents a detailed yet comprehensive background and analysis regarding kissing

    and its role in ancient and contemporary human affairs. He states that kissing as a romantic and

    erotic tendency remained an alien act for the various tribes and cultures of America and Eurasia.

    Involvement of kissing in commencing a sexual act was introduced by European culture and

    tradition. He has classified kissing in various classes that differ from relation to relation. Some

    kisses carry motherly affection while some contain erotic and romantic emotions. Interestingly,

    hehas termed kissing as an act that has been evolved through certain cultural processes. Its
    meaning and essence has been transformed from a taboo or disgust to a primary element in

    sexual ecstasies (Tiefer 81).

    Similarly, Ruse has justified the homosexual orientation through various ground realities

    and arguments. He has argued that it is unnecessary to assemble homosexuality with natural

    tendencies because there is nothing unnatural that shrouds the homosexual behavior. Moreover,

    he argues that human being has been evolved through various processes. Human culture,

    tradition and societies have been evolved through the lapse of time. The unnatural taboos of past

    have been transformed into normal and natural through evolutionary processes. As far as

    morality is considered, Ruse has disregarded the indulgence of morality and homosexuality. He

    sustains his argument that both morality and biological features and tendencies are different

    elements that should not be dealt equally and simultaneously (Ruse 263).

    In short, for both Ruse and Tiefer sexual acts like kissing and homosexuality are naturally

    evolved orientations that develop in human through natural evolution and processes.

    Contrast:

    Speaking of contrasting elements, Michael Ruse has presented a rather vague analysis

    and empirical data that fail to prove homosexuality as a purely moral and natural act. His

    analysis differs in mechanism, for it frequently fluctuate in order of historical and contemporary

    proofs. His ambiguous argument on reproduction and its relation with kin selection theory fails

    to identify and address the real conflict of homosexuality with nature (Ruse 263). Moreover, he

    unsuccessfully tried to prove homosexual behavior in animals. This attempt of Ruse not merely

    weakens his stance but also proves his argument as a shot in the dark. Moreover, he has tried to

    link homosexuality with unpervert tendencies. He claims that despite its rebellious entity,

    homosexuality is not perversion and should be accepted by all nook and cranny including
    philosophers and theorists. This very notion portrays Ruse’s inability to prove his argument

    efficiently (Ruse 266).

    On the other hand, Tiefer’s analysis on kissing and its variant relationship with human

    stands strong both as an argument and theory. He depicts a clear picture of kissing as a natural

    act in terms of affection, love and ecstasy. Through presenting empirical data of tribes that dwell

    in various regions of the globe, Tiefer has proved that kissing is not merely a natural act but is

    also widely prevalent in every part of the world. He has taken American society as a case study

    in which kissing and its intensity vary from culture to culture and classes to classes. He proves

    through his argument that the tradition of kissing has been transformed cultural processes and

    human nature. This biological phenomenon has been further highlighted and endorsed through

    the lapse of ages (Tiefer 81).

    You might also like