Heythrop Journal 56 (5):751-758 (2015)

Tim Hsiao
Grantham University
Critics of homosexual activity often appeal to some form of natural law theory as a basis for their arguments. According to one version of natural law theory, actions that “pervert” or misuse a bodily faculty are immoral. In this paper, I argue that this “perverted faculty argument” provides a successful account of good and evil action. Several objections are assessed and found inadequate.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/heyj.12134
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,156
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Natural Law and Natural Rights.John Finnis - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Real Essentialism.David Oderberg - 2005 - New York: Routledge.
Good and Evil.Peter Geach - 1956 - Analysis 17 (2):33 - 42.
The Metaphysics of Evolution.David L. Hull - 1989 - State University of New York Press.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
250 ( #34,448 of 2,411,819 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #31,137 of 2,411,819 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes