Article Analysis Essay on Homosexuality and the PIB Argument

Introduction

John Corvino uses his article "Homosexuality and the PIB Argument" to analyze and criticize the argument against homosexuality. PIB stands for polygamy, incest, and bestiality. According to Corvino, people tend to equate homosexuality with PIB, thus creating a PIB argument. In his article, Corvino presents his PIB argument, rejecting some responses given by defenders of homosexuality.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

PIB argument is a slippery slope type of argument; that is, permitting homosexuality, means allowing polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Corvino interpretation of the argument is presented as a transition from P to Q and then from Q to R and considers the transition to be either "casual" or "logical." He gives an example that in a casual transition, if Johnny is allowed this Friday to stay out past his curfew, he would want to do it next Friday, then other nights of the week until all respect of the curfews are lost; that is, allowing Johnny to stay out this Friday creates a desire in him to stay out next Friday and ignore the curfew altogether ultimately (p.504); that is, P causes Q and Q causes R. Corvino considers this transition a weaker connection between events and thus a weaker argument.

In a logical transition, Corvino says if Johnny is permitted to stay out past his curfew this Friday, then it is permissible for Johnny to stay out late whenever he finds fit, since the reason for not allowing him to stay out past curfew this Friday is the same reason for not allowing it on any other night (P logically entails Q and Q logically entails R). To Corvino, this connection is stronger, thus a stronger and plausible argument (p.504).

Following the above interpretation, Corvino considers the homosexuality and PIB argument a logical argument, and it follows that:

• If homosexual relationships are morally permissible, then PIB relationships are morally permissible as well.
• But since PIB relationships are not morally permissible.
• Homosexual relationships are not morally permissible (p.504).

Andrew Sullivan's Objection to John Corvino's Logical Version

According to Andrew Sullivan, while homosexuality relationships are a constitutive part of someone's identity, PIB (Polygamous, incestuous, bestial) relationships are not. In his interpretation, Sullivan argues that: if X is a constitutive part of a person's identity, then it is morally permissible to let such a person act in behaviors that honor or promotes X. It also follows that if X is not a constitutive part of a person's identity, then it is not morally permissible to let such a person act in behaviors that honor or promotes X. Therefore, according to Sullivan since preference for homosexual relationships is a constitutive part of a person's identity and PIB is not, one's choice for homosexuality is morally permissible, and people should be prevented from acting on morally impermissible polygamous, incestuous or bestial relationships.

Plausibility of the Logical and Causal Versions

Concurring with Corvino, there is no evidence that people who support (tolerate) homosexuality are likely to develop tolerance to polygamy, incest, and bestiality - a point also acknowledged by many proponents of PIB. Using the first example; if Johnny is allowed to stay out past his curfew this Friday, it does not guarantee that he will develop a desire to do it next Friday, or any other night of the week (P causes Q and Q causes R). Since no certainty allowing homosexuality would guarantee permitting PIB, I concur with Corvino that casual version of interpretation is a weaker argument. This leaves logical version far more plausible moral principle to derive the permissibility of homosexuality and PIB; that is, the logical moral grounds of permitting homosexual relationships should also entail the permissibility of polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Although not all circumstance call for logic, I agree with Corvino, specifically on this reason.

Majority of sexual libertarians such as Andrew Sullivan choose to reject plausibility of logical interpretation (p.505). Initially, I agreed with Sullivan's interpretation of the PIB argument, but I came to understand why Corvino found the argument unsatisfactory.

In deciding whether something is a "constitutive part" of someone's identity, Sullivan views homosexuality as immutable, central to homosexuals' self-concept and tied up in someone's ability to love (p.506). Although I am not certain whether a preference for PIB relationships has no immutability (unchangeable and non-voluntary trait), I concur with John Corvino in questioning its moral importance. Unless opponents such as Sullivan determine the relevant similarity between PIB and homosexuality in relation to the ability to change, the immutability aspect remains irrelevant. The same argument can be provided on the centrality of homosexuality on self-concept; that is, those in favor of PIB argument can claim that self-concept does not give relevant moral distinction.

While homosexual cannot find love satisfaction from a heterosexual relationship, it is debatable if the same can be said to those with PIB relationship preferences. I want to believe, even those with polygamous, incestuous, and bestial relations they can experience love in other types of relationships.

References

Corvino, J. (2005). Homosexuality and the PIB Argument. Ethics, 115(3), 501-534. DOI: 10.1086/428456