And not only is this desirable on general grounds, but on this specific issue there seem to me two good reasons for deprecating the limits within which the discussion is conventionally confined. In the first place, the legal and moral aspects of the matter are not as distinct or as independent as certain well-intentioned but woollyminded thinkers like Dr. Chesser* would have us believe. For if we continue to accept the view that homosexual acts are wrong-and this is, in effect, what is meant by saying that we should ignore their moral aspect― then how are we to distinguish between those acts which should be punished and those which should not be? A criterion is called for. But any criterion suggested is likely either to be ultimately inapplicable-along the lines, say, of John Stuart Mill's famous attempt to distinguish between self-regarding and other-regarding actions: or-like appeals to the public good or social welfare-to reintroduce, perhaps surreptitiously, the very moral considerations it professes to eliminate. Secondly, it seems to me very arguable that, if the law on homosexuality were reformed but the general moral opinion of the community remained unchanged, the position of homosexuals would not be noticeably improved. The fear of legal sanctions would have been removed, but the shadow of public opprobrium would remain. For those who think that homosexuality is sinful this is a consoling reflection-and it is indeed significant that at more than one point the Wolfenden Report rests on this argument to sugar its pill. For those, however, who take a different view of the matter, such a prospect is alarming. There is little point in liberalising the law, if this merely means that the

* LIVE AND LET LIVE, THE MORAL OF THE WOLFENDEN REPORT. By Dr. Eustace Chesser. (Heinemann, 8s. 6d.)

weapon of persecution is to be taken out of the hands of the magistrates and placed into those of the mob.

Accordingly, it seems to me that all those who subscribe to a rational as opposed to a dogmatic morality should ask themselves, if they hope to have a considered opinion about what should be done, Are homosexual acts morally wrong? Secular arguments designed to show that they are fall into three main categories. First of all, there are the arguments that are demonstrably invalid, either because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premiss, or because the premiss is ultimately unintelligible: the most obvious example of this type of reasoning is that which takes it stand upon the 'unnaturalness' of homosexuality. Secondly, there are the arguments that are perfectly valid in themselves, but unacceptable because they involve false factual premisses: such as, for instance, arguments that assume that homosexuality leads to cultural decline, or that adult sexual acts determine sexual preferences. Finally, there is one argument (advanced to me once by a philosophical colleague) that is both valid and plausible: namely, homosexuality arouses instinctive repulsion, and what arouses instinctive repulsion is in its nature wrong. The difficulty with this argument, however, is that it has consequences that many of its adherents would not accept. For while, at first sight, it seems to place disapproval of homosexuality on as firm a basis as any other moral belief, it does so only at the expense of making all moral beliefs ultimately subjective. And subjectivism in ethics I for one find deeply repugnant; whereas homosexuality I don't.

Once we concede that homosexuality as such is not wrong or sinfulthough of course there are many genuine offences arising out of homosex-

25