o "male" occupations are infringing upon individual liberty by creating quotas, and are discriminating against men by requiring more challenging examinations as in the example of the New York City Fire Dept. At the same time, a natural rights theorist might argue the opposite. S/he might say that as it is, women are not enjoying the same amount of liberty as men are and, consequently are morally justified in enacting laws to force compliance with equality and freedom. S/he must weigh the two positions according to which infringes on liberty the least.PART C- SHOULD HOMOSEXUALITY BE ACCEPTED BY SOCIETY?Describe two central moral issues.I believe that the two central moral issues raised in the debate over whether homosexuality should be accepted by society are:(1) Is homosexuality immoral?(2) Is discrimination against homosexuals immoral?These are distinctly moral issues because they require value judgements about human conduct (normative statements), they cannot be decided by empirical evidence or by running experiments, they seek to define standards of human conduct (which apply to everyone), and they are not "laid down by authoritative bodies." Application of moral theories to "Gay Basics: Some Questions, Facts, And Values."Act Utilitarianism: Since the act utilitarian judges morality according to how much utility, or end happiness a particular act produces, s/he might believe that homosexuality should be accepted because more happiness would be achieved in the long run. According to Mohr, a relatively large portion of the population is gay. I think it would seem reasonable to an act utilitarian that not only would these great number of gays be happier if they were allowed the same legal rights as everyone else, but an overall social acceptance would follow shortly behind. A parallel may be drawn to the acceptance of blacks in the U.S. over the past 150 years. In short, the act utilitarian might stand for ...
