utilitarianism

contraception

• However this is an unreasonable criticism, because of Kant’s lack of consistency. Kant is hypocritical, because if everyone was celibate (like Kant who never married, and catholic priests), the population would similarly decline, yet he does not criticise celibacy for the similar result. 

• Bentham points out that ‘if then merely out of regard to population it were right that [homosexuals] should be burnt alive, monks ought to be roasted a live by a slow fire

homosexuality

• Bentham argues that homosexual practices don’t harm society/ lead to break up of family life 

• Therefore, should be allowed even if (as it was the case) Bentham personally disapproved of it 

• Law should enter into the bedroom only when what occurs there harms society 

• Bentham compared the english sitch with ancient rome, where homosexuality was legal -> argued roman society not affected detrimentally by homosexuality 

• Mill supported the basic thrust of Bentham’s message. In On Liberty he makes the point that sexual acts performed in public would be indecent but not when performed privately where they are morally neutral (unless Mill’s Harm Principle is violated, as it would be in cases like marital rape, for example). 

NML criticism of homosexuality

However, NML might argue that it is unnatural and doesn’t lead to procreation 

mill’s response to NML

Mill argued in On Nature that what is natural and unnatural for humans is no indication of what is morally right or wrong. Here, he seems to be repeating Hume’s view that one can never derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. In other words, moral judgements can never be derived from mere states of affairs (see your notes on meta-ethics for more on this). So Mill would not have agreed that homosexuality can be condemned on the grounds that it is unnatural.