An analysis of some arguments involving the nature/culture dichotomy
Abstract
Reception: August 28, 2016 Acccepted: September 22, 2016 The paper analyzes two lines of argument concerning the alleged moral consequences of the impact of nature or culture on homosexual behavior. After evaluating the arguments as fallacious, an explanation of their apparent plausibility is proposed.References
BAGEMIHL, B. (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Nueva York: St. Martin’s Press.
BAILEY, N. W. y Zuk, M. (2009). Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 439-446.
ORTNER, S. B. (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture? En Woman, Culture, and Society (pp. 68-87). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
ORTNER, S. B. (1996). Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
PRESTON, C. J. (2008). Synthetic biology: Drawing a line in Darwin’s sand. Environmental Values, 17, 23-39.
SOLMSEN, F. (1951). Review of “Nomos und Physis. Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im Griechischen Denken”. The American Journal of Philology, 72(2), 191-195.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
