A lot has been written about queer theory, but less attention has been given to how it relates to virtue ethics. In this essay, I will argue that queerness can be seen as a challenge to traditional moral systems based on the idea of heterosexual marriage as the foundation for all virtuous behavior.
In order to understand why queerness challenges the concept of virtue, let's start by defining what virtue is. Virtue ethics is an approach to morality that focuses on cultivating specific character traits, such as courage, honesty, compassion, justice, and temperance. These traits are seen as essential for living a good life, and they are acquired through habituation – repeated practice over time. In other words, being virtuous means becoming someone who acts consistently according to certain moral principles. Traditionally, these principles were based on the assumption that men and women have complementary roles, with each one fulfilling their duties within the context of a monogamous relationship. This view was reflected in ancient Greek philosophy, where the ideal man was supposed to be brave, self-controlled, wise, just, and pious, while the ideal woman was expected to be obedient, chaste, loving, loyal, and domestic. For centuries, this view dominated Western culture, informing not only personal relationships but also political structures, social norms, and legal codes.
Recent developments in queer theory have called into question this view of gender and sexuality. Queer theorists argue that sex, gender, and desire are fluid concepts, rather than fixed categories that must fit neatly into a binary system. They point out that many people do not identify exclusively as either male or female, or as straight or gay, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with non-monogamy or polyamory. Moreover, they challenge the idea that heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate form of intimacy, suggesting that all forms of love and affection should be recognized as valid expressions of human connection.
But does this mean that queerness destabilizes the concept of virtue? Can we still talk about moral excellence if we reject the traditional gender roles and expectations associated with it? One possible answer is yes – but only if we expand our understanding of what constitutes virtuous behavior beyond the confines of conventional morality.
We might consider compassionate relationships between two men or women to be just as virtuous as those between a man and a woman; or we might recognize that monogamy may not always be necessary for living an ethical life. In short, queerness challenges us to rethink our assumptions about what makes someone good or bad, allowing us to see new possibilities for moral growth and development.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everything goes when it comes to morality. There will always be certain behaviors that are objectively harmful or immoral, regardless of one's sexual orientation or relationship status. But by questioning the role of traditional gender norms in shaping our values, queer theory opens up new ways of thinking about how we relate to each other and how we live our lives. It invites us to explore alternative models of social organization and personal fulfillment, and to embrace diversity as a key component of a flourishing society. As such, it represents a profound challenge to the idea that heterosexual marriage is the foundation for all virtuous behavior.
Does queerness inherently destabilize the concept of virtue?
The notion of virtue is not inherently destabilized by queerness because it involves personal qualities such as honesty, courage, compassion, integrity, fairness, etc. , which are independent from sexual orientation or gender identity. Queer people can possess these virtues just like heterosexual individuals and contribute positively to society through their actions.