I was having a convo with a coworker about 'gender affirmation surgery' in the transgender population. She basically stated that being transgender is right because that is how God made someone. It's natural or biological. Her argument struck me as committing the is-ought fallacy. In fact, I think that type of reasoning is popular nowadays.
For the record, I don't view transgender or 'gender affirmation surgery' as being immoral. However, I believe that it is moral for reasons that go beyond just biology. In addition to biology, there's also evidence that is causes little to no harm. That latter part is why I accept that there's nothing immoral about being transgender. If the only standard for morality is just biology (or how something is), then we risk justifying all types of behavior that we wouldn't want to accept.
What if non-monogamous behavior is natural or a matter of biology? Is it therefore moral? Just because something is a certain way, does not mean that it should or ought to be that way. You need more than biology to make a case for morality, imo.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to agree or disagree!
For the record, I don't view transgender or 'gender affirmation surgery' as being immoral. However, I believe that it is moral for reasons that go beyond just biology. In addition to biology, there's also evidence that is causes little to no harm. That latter part is why I accept that there's nothing immoral about being transgender. If the only standard for morality is just biology (or how something is), then we risk justifying all types of behavior that we wouldn't want to accept.
What if non-monogamous behavior is natural or a matter of biology? Is it therefore moral? Just because something is a certain way, does not mean that it should or ought to be that way. You need more than biology to make a case for morality, imo.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to agree or disagree!
Last edited:
