The First Known Philosophical Essay--from 1785--Arguing Against Punishing Gay Sex 

It's so refreshing to hear these ideas fleshed out and backed up. So often I hear people declare actions "wrong" with very little argument as to WHY it is wrong other than "because it is, and there's something wrong with you if you don't agree." Thank you.

I've watched about 20 of your videos in the last week. I've enjoyed them all. You seem to have enjoyed giving this one more than most. 😊You've rekindled my interest in philosophy. Took a few courses in college back in the 80's. I plan to watch all your videos and start reading philosophy again. Currently reading 5 proofs of the existence of god by Edward Feser.

My biggest problem here is the first point too, but specifically with why necrophilia is only an example. Point one doesn't exclude said wrong time from being too early.

I’ve been gorging on Kaplan’s lectures recently. They are all interesting and fun. This is the funnest by a country mile. Brilliant approach to a tricky subject.

For the necrophilia, there is (imo) a utilitarian argument against it. Just by knowing that necrophilia is allowed, even though the dead person is not affected, all other people, knowing that they could be a victim of this crime upon their death, will feel uncomfortable (pain). And although the necrophiliac might get 10, 100, or even 1000 'points' of pleasure, if every other person feels even 0.1, or 0.01 'points' of discomfort (and this would be over the course of a lifetime) then that would still lead to a net negative. The same argument allows for the other taboos as there are a larger proportion of the population who would be affected by the punishment and detterance. So there is a net positive which counteracts some people's discomfort. If there were more people who wanted to be "used" after death, then that would allow consensuality, and also generate more of a net positive.

Necrophilia is easily considered wrong even in this philosphy. It causes discomfort/anger (i.e. pain) in all people who know the decased, and in the community. Ergo the total (i.e. aggregated) amount of pain is bigger than total amount of plesure.

Over 2000 years earlier, in Plato's 'The Symposium', Aristophanes argues that men and women were designed by the gods to desire a partner of the same or the opposite sex depending on their nature, and that 'the way for happiness for our race lies in fulfilling the behests of Love, and in each finding for himself the mate who properly belongs to him.'

Actually, if memory serves, I believe the essay was never published in Bentham’s lifetime, first being published in 1978, in two consecutive issues of the _Journal of Homosexuality._

I'm surprised that the argument in favor of not punishing bestiality does not cause controversy in your classrooms during this lecture. It's something widely seen as wrong by most people these days. I suppose the pain such acts can inflict on the animals were not worth considering back when Bentham wrote this essay. I'm greatly enjoying your videos. Thank you very much for making them!

I wanna see if you can discuss this hot button issue sometime which I will list below: Regarding such…know Beccaria & Alan Goldman (among others believe); “The punishment should fit the crime In such case: Let me say up front at will repeat at the end as a disclaimer: I see ‘S. Assault’ firstly, by violence an force, coercion, any/all forms of manipulative exploitation as grave violation & shld be punished by harm done up to life (beginning with my first on list downward). However, one particular Statute has undergone massive change in the severity of punishment since my adulthood. I’m 52..an the changes I saw began in the late 90s Namely, The unwavering, mandatory cookie cutter way Statutory relationships are punished. Firstly, while I agree with s*x being illegal under a certain age an support penalties according to simply violating by age; I don’t feel it’s anything but arbitrary and capricious to throw out mitigating factors, or literally start the lowest level of punishment for such in the high felony range (as in most states) 2. To play god an say, regarding ages of high school (where all States allow Romeo and Juliet laws) we know exactly when consent begins an we can punish the elder with S assault charges & additional counts (like 2-20 yrs) for each &.every time they had relations, regardless whether the younger was 100% into it, we can demonize by age alone too. Within every US State though..with the knowledge of God..some states say full consent is 16, some say no..here it’s 17..an others say it’s 18..then in all states thry say 14-17 can consent around their age..but some states say..only if the elder is 1 yr older, others say 2, and other states 3 or 4 yr older is okay..but regardless..1 day beyond that age limit..the elder is automatically guilty of not just a misdemeanor..oh no.0-1 yr Class 1 Mis wld be fine an definately reasonable considering the States don’t agree on the exact age..but no..the worst kinda criminal behavior is what one day above the age limit for that particular state gets the elder & they don’t care if the word Assault in the charges levied at them causes the jury pool to think of real brutal S assault…if it taints the elder with all that..nor do we even hv to show he knew of her age..even if the younger lied to the elder, nor do we have to prove preponderance of evidence of endangerment by certain S acts, or trauma if there is as none, nor do we have to show clear an convincing evidence of manipulation or that the relationship was only illegal by age, & wld hv been 100% normal otherwise, we still can prosecute (all this power rests with the king prosecutor, nor does he/she have to give a care even if the parents consented to the relationship.. Etc etc This is an example of laws which have been shaped by emotion & literally kick out reason..laws that are usually stacked (relating to several counts), where one can be just over the upper age limit an if the prosecutor so chooses..the elder can also end up with the old scarlet letter about his/her neck (as an offender) for life..further muddying up the Offender registry with so many who aren’t dangerous an don’t need to be on that registry..cld go on and on and on..this is one example of lunacy & draconian law within our system..nobody wld bring it up though..bc to do so on such an emotional issue causes one (as I am now) to say; I’m a father, grandfather, and no.i’m not saying this bc I have any desire to engage in such behavior Ya see how emotional this is that I had to start with and end with a disclaimer of my own beliefs? Just think how unfair a trial wld be then The laws keep getting more and more added on with each legislator session though..it’s a beautiful way come election time to say how you keep everyone’s kids safe:..an no matter how off the wall your tougher amendment is..what other politician can vote ‘no’..even if your amendment truly does all the draconian things I list above

the "wrong time," could refer to actual pedophilia and pederasty.

A corpse is no longer a person. Depending on one's tastes, it's either meat or organic waste. So purely on the basis of its being a corpse, surely the only rules that would apply to it (as if that was all there was to it) would surely be the same as masturbation with some implement? I think for the utilitarian example to be of value, it needs to be placed in its total context, though? So the corpse the guy at the morgue fiddled with was my granny last week, and whatever anyone else might think of what she became between then and now, her corpse belongs to her family. So Bentham's necrophilia example is perhaps valid taken entirely out of context? And if it is, it justifies cannibalism, too. (Whoa! I've gone a bit too far there. It makes it pointless to punish a cannibal in certain circumstances. For instance if she was your granny, and you're the sole survivor, and you choose to fiddle with her remains, and then turn her into a stew, there's no point in punishing you for that, on its own.) Now I'm no longer in the mood for my dinner. Better give it to the dog. (I think if I died, and fell to the ground, the dog would leave my flesh alone. He would lie there and wait for me to return to life - although if starvation started to threaten, he might just have a little nibble, seeing as I don't need that meat any more. There might be some natural law angle one could develop from this? "Dog ethics" - unconditioned by clever arguments, so a model for a more "natural" human morality in some matters?)

When was the claim made?

Isn't the wrong time not only necrophilia but also pedophilia? That would cause a truckload of pain...

amazing stuff, thx!

🤣🤣🤣 I used the act of necrophilia as a counterexample to Hedonism on the basis that there must be some qualitative property to make necrophilia unvalued despite its possibility of pleasure... and Bentham uses it as his first example on this list!! 🤣🤣🤣 What a madman. No wonder people remembered him. It's so based, yet such a hard pill to swallow. Necrophilia and cannabilism ought to be wrong even to most utilitarians. This is great! I guess the most diehard utilitarian believes these things are good: necrophilia, cannibalism and more! Maybe desecration of the dead comes up in aggregation though?

My issue with necrophilia isn't a matter of consent (obviously a corpse can't consent, but it also doesn't feel pain so is morally irrelevant), my issue is that it is _unsanitary_ . And my issue with beastiality is that even if the animal did consent, we wouldn't really have a way of _knowing_ it is consenting, and thereby knowing it will experience pleasure.

What if a rapist gets more pleasure from rape than the victim get pain? 🤔 I think rape would still be wrong but I’m not sure why. Or similarly what if a thief values the item they want to steal more than the owner? I think it might be not wrong to steal if they value it enough like if it is a medicine to save the thief’s life and the owner doesn’t care if they have it or not. Perhaps the lesson from this example is that it is good to maintain law and order in a society.

Pederasty is not homosexual sex, is sex involving a kid and an adult.

this video is sure de demonetize xd

I'm thinking that this can no longer be taught in Florida? That is a question.

if the pleasure a rapist gets from raping overweights the pain it costs to the victim, then the crime is impunishable?

I think the problem is if enough people becomes gay and stop having kids. The aging population leads to all sorts of trouble (the most recent example being France needing to raise retirement age as they are short of workers to support the aging population). I get the impression that utilitarianism does not take into account the passage of time. What might be pleasurable now may lead to pain in the future. And it is best not to gamble on that possibility

To me, the fact that Bentham's use of utility cannot find anything wrong with homosexuality shows that his method is flawed. That this accords with modern sentiments has nothing to do with any prescient attributes of his method but shows a dissolution of morals that has resulted from postmodern thought.