John Corvino

This chapter presents John Corvino's response to Maggie Gallagher's key arguments in Chapter 2. These include her claim that the main reason to oppose treating same-sex unions as marriage is because it is not true; that the key public purpose of marriage is to regulate procreation; and that same-sex marriage rejects the central function of marriage, which is to signal the ideal that children need a mother and father. Corvino argues that Gallagher fails to identify the unchanging biological reality to which the word “marriage” supposedly refers, exposing her to the infertile-couples objection. He then raises the question of why same-sex couples cannot marry, stating that marriage equality means extending legal marriages to same-sex couples.

This chapter makes a case for same-sex marriage. It considers several versions of the “Definitional Argument” against same-sex marriage, which claims that regardless of what these unions are called, they simply cannot be marriages. It also assesses the argument that extending marriage to same-sex couples would be bad for children, and the “slippery-slope” argument, which claims that allowing same-sex marriages would leave no principled reason for prohibiting polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Finally, the chapter studies how same-sex marriage affects religious freedom and other cherished values.

This introductory chapter begins by presenting the shift in the percentage of Americans who favor legal recognition of same-sex marriage. It describes the status of same-sex marriage in America, saying that only a handful of states allow same-sex marriage and that the issue remains divisive. The book is a debate about marriage as a legal and social institution, and whether it should include same-sex couples. It features the debate between John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, uncovering where they differ and why. The debate is challenging because of its implications on the issue of the role of government, the significance of sexual difference, the needs of children, the function of social norms, the freedom of religion, and the nature of marriage itself.

In June 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in which baker Jack Phillips refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Court decided the case on fairly narrow grounds; in particular, it set aside the question of whether Phillips illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to sell the same cake to a gay couple that he would sell to a heterosexual couple. Concurring opinions by Justices Kagan and Gorsuch do address that question, however, and in this paper I explore the debate between them. By distinguishing between design-based and use-based refusals of service and then arguing that some use-based refusals are tantamount to discrimination on the basis of protected traits, I argue that Jack Phillips did indeed discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I also argue that another baker, who refused to create a “Leviticus 18:22 ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin’ ” cake, did not discriminate on the basis of religion. I thus side with Justice Kagan against Justice Gorsuch on the question of whether the Colorado commission treated the two bakers inconsistently.

At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label “harm reduction.” If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What’s the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there’s more to “harm reduction,” as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous “more.” Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites —safe spaces for the use of risky drugs—as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.

In 2012, baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious beliefs. Colorado Public Accommodations law prohibits business owners from denying the “full and equal enjoyment” of their services on the basis of sexual orientation, and Phillips refused to sell the couple the very same items he would sell to a heterosexual couple. But Phillips, who fashions himself as a “cake artist,” argues that applying the law here would interfere with his free-speech rights. Moreover, he argues that he is not actually discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but on the basis of a particular understanding of marriage; he is happy to sell Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people a wide range of other items. In this chapter, I evaluate both arguments. In the postscript, I briefly explain the US Supreme Court's June 2018 ruling on the case.

David Hume has been variously interpreted as an emotivist, a subjectivist, a projectivist, a realist, all of the above, and none of the above. In my dissertation I attempt to clear up this confusion. I argue that Hume is a moral realist who embraces a secondary-quality model for moral value. As such, he believes that there are true moral propositions, that their truth is to some extent independent of human beliefs, attitudes, and desires, and that, nevertheless, moral qualities cannot be understood apart from their effect on human perceivers. I defend this account against both exegetical objections by Hume scholars and substantive objections by contemporary moral realists, quasi-realists, and anti-realists.

In this paper I consider Hume's position on the analogy between moral qualities and secondary qualities. Although some have suggested that Hume's use of the analogy is important to his moral philosophy, others have disputed its significance to Hume. My position in this paper is that Hume believes there are indeed similarities between moral and secondary qualities that illuminate the nature of virtue. This paper is divided into two parts. In the first, I consider Hume's point(s) in raising the analogy by arguing for four similarities between moral qualities and secondary qualities that he likely had in mind; and in the second, I respond to various objections alleging that Hume did not, and indeed, could not, rely on the analogy in any substantial way.

This paper revisits the “morality pays” approach to answering the “Why be moral?” question in business. First I argue that “morality pays” is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and thus inadequate to the task. Then I examine and reject a proposed virtue-ethics alternative, arguing that it either collapses into “morality pays” or else introduces a new problem. After sketching an account of moral reasons, I go on to argue that “morality pays” can be reframed, not so much as an answer to “Why be moral,” but as a prescription for reforming corporate institutions.

In his “Why be Moral? A Different Rationale for Managers,” , La Rue Tone Hosmer argues that managers should be moral because “acting in ways that can be considered to be ‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’ is absolutely essential to the long-term competitive success of the firm.” According to Hosmer, moral behavior generates trust among stakeholders, which leads to stakeholder commitment, which leads to increased stakeholder effort, which ultimately leads to corporate success. Though we agree with Hosmer’s causal reasoning, we are concerned about an ancient loophole, namely, cases where the mere appearance of morality will generate the same trust, and commitment, and so on, and will thus enable managers to reap the material benefits of morality while nevertheless engaging in immoral practices. We conclude that a virtue ethics perspective will strengthen Hosmer’s model so as to cover such cases

Discussions of loyalty in business typically assume that employees have a prima facieduty of loyalty to their companies, one that sometimes conflicts with other duties, such as the duty to blow the whistle in response to dangerous or unethical practices. Ronald Duska, however, denies the existence of any such duty. According to Duska, one does not have an duty of loyalty to a company, even a prima facieone, because companies are not proper objects of loyalty. He bases this conclusion on two premises: first, that loyalty is appropriate only in relationships that demand self-sacrifice without expectation of reward, and second, that the employee-company relationship does not demand such sacrifice.In this paper I pose a dilemma for Duska. Briefly put: one can interpret Duska''s phrase relationships that demand self-sacrifice without expectation of reward" either narrowly or broadly. If one interprets it narrowly, then Duska''s first premise is false; if broadly, then his second premise is false. Either way, Duska''s argument is unsound. However, after rejecting his conclusion about loyalty in business, I go on to argue that Duska is right to deny that the duty of loyalty conflicts with the duty to blow the whistle. More generally, the paper is an attempt to elucidate the proper application of loyalty in business.