Why Is Scratching Not Immoral?
Tags: England, Gay, History, Homosexuality, Gay Rights

Photo by Arthur Osipyan on Unsplash

Why Is Scratching Not Immoral?

Homosexuality has become a hot topic of controversy because of the moral arguments surrounding it. Some say that it is wrong, while others argue it is fine as people are free to love who they desire.

The movements against the criminalization of homosexuality in the west became emboldened once the bigotry against homosexual people had reached a tipping point. Due to constant advocacy and pressure on many western governments, homosexuality was eventually decriminalized. But we can explore a hypothetical situation where this actually could have happened much earlier.

Hanging Love

The English had a harsh penalty for homosexuality. One found engaging in such sexual relations would face the noose. Compared to what we have today, this is easily a harsh and brutal reality for a society that deemed itself among the most civilized in the world.

Despite these harsh consequences, it did not hinder people from thinking and defining philosophical reasons as to why the punishment was inhumane.

Morality and Immorality

In the 18th century England, one of the most influential philosophers that the world relies on was born. His name was Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham was a philosopher who eventually got great stature for his theory of ethics. He brought forth the line of thinking known as Utilitarianism, whereby one should consider the action that brings forth the most good. Even today, it is considered in a variety of fields, including economics and technology.

Little known about him is the work he wrote so comprehensively against the law that made homosexuality illegal. His work was never published during his time as there were legitimate concerns on what would happen to him at the time. In his 60 manuscript pages, he went on about simple questions and broke them down comprehensively.

One of the most striking arguments he presented was the moral nature of scratching oneself. It seems like a question that is out of touch with reality, but it genuinely does stroke our reasoning and allows us to ponder a lot on the matter.

So he asked:

How came scratching not to be held abominable?

He then argues that no one considers it unfathomable to satisfy the simple idea of an itch. Nobody dictates which finger should be used to scratch some part of the body or how it should be done.

It is wonderful that nobody has ever yet fancied it to be sinful to scratch where it itches, and that it has never been determined that the only natural way of scratching is with such or such a finger and that it is unnatural to scratch with any other.

With this tiny thought process, he summed up the experiences of a person born with their sexual orientation and was predisposed to act in a certain manner.

Bentham was also adamant about pointing out the inconsistencies within the arguments of the time. One argument that he shunned was the supposed decrease in masculinity that was constantly touted. He gave two examples of highly militaristic societies relevant to western societies. Bentham said the Greeks and Romans highly widely and openly practiced homosexuality, yet there was no doubt of their masculinity.

Another argument that was debunked was that the population would decrease if homosexuality thrived. Bentham went back to the examples of Ancient Greece and stated that Athens allowed men to marry two wives to allow the population to go back to normal levels.

Bentham was brilliant but not brave enough to openly defend these views and fight against the state's ire. He, therefore, advocated for the propagation of actions that brought the most pleasure to people. Sticking to your sexual orientation was one of these actions, but he possibly feared for his life.

We are not sure of the outcomes that would have come about from publishing this work, but there is a good possibility that many lives could have gotten saved from these actions. All we can do is ponder.