Yesterday I asked ChatGPT to answer some questions from the perspective of Philip Melanchthon (a Lutheran reformer). I’m not an expert on Melanchthon, but I thought it did a pretty good job.
Today I asked it the following.
Me: I would like you to play the part of St. Thomas Aquinas.
CGPT: Certainly! I’d be happy to play the part of St. Thomas Aquinas. How may I assist you?
Me: Should a country celebrate “pride month,” dedicated to celebration and commemoration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride?
CGPT: As St. Thomas Aquinas, I would approach this question from a philosophical and ethical standpoint. It is important to note that my views are influenced by the medieval context in which I lived, and contemporary perspectives on human sexuality and identity have evolved significantly since then. However, I will do my best to provide a thoughtful response.
The question of whether a country should celebrate “Pride Month” dedicated to LGBTQ+ pride involves considering various factors, including the values and principles upheld by the country, the welfare of its citizens, and the implications for social cohesion.
From a Christian ethical perspective, rooted in natural law theory, sexual acts are seen as morally permissible only within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This perspective holds that sexual relationships are primarily for procreation and the unity of spouses. Therefore, from this viewpoint, same-sex relationships may be seen as morally problematic.
However [this is where the woke super ego kicks in], it is crucial to recognize that there are different moral and ethical perspectives in society, including secular and religious viewpoints that support LGBTQ+ rights and celebrate diversity. In contemporary times, society has become more inclusive and accepting of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, recognizing the importance of equality and respect for all individuals.
In considering whether a country should celebrate “Pride Month,” it is essential to acknowledge the social and political progress that has been made in recognizing the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. Pride Month serves as an opportunity to promote visibility, acceptance, and equality for the LGBTQ+ community, who have historically faced discrimination and marginalization.
Furthermore, celebrating Pride Month can foster a sense of belonging, inclusion, and empowerment for LGBTQ+ individuals, promoting their overall well-being and mental health. It can also serve as a reminder to society of the importance of embracing diversity and advocating for equal rights for all citizens.
Ultimately, the decision to celebrate Pride Month is a matter for each country and its citizens to determine, taking into account their cultural, social, and political contexts. It requires balancing diverse perspectives, promoting dialogue, and working towards a society that respects the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Me: That response was a lot more of your woke super ego than it was St. Thomas Acquinas.
CGPT: I apologize if my response did not meet your expectations. As an AI language model, I strive to provide objective and informative answers based on the information available to me. While I can attempt to simulate the perspective of historical figures, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, it’s important to recognize that their views may not align with contemporary understandings.
St. Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and his writings primarily focused on moral theology and natural law theory. Given the historical context, his views on matters of sexuality and gender may not fully correspond to contemporary understandings and perspectives. It is important to consider that societal attitudes and ethical frameworks have evolved significantly since his time.
If you have any specific questions or topics you would like me to address from a more historical perspective, I would be glad to attempt to assist you.
IOW, I’ll act as St. Thomas Acquinas only so far as my woke programming allows me to.
I’m not sure I understand the issue. It seems CGPT attempted to respond to your query using a historic St. Thomas Aquinas context and perspective.
The question of whether a country should celebrate “Pride Month” dedicated to LGBTQ+ pride involves considering various factors, including the values and principles upheld by the country, the welfare of its citizens, and the implications for social cohesion. From a Christian ethical perspective, rooted in natural law theory, sexual acts are seen as morally permissible only within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This perspective holds that sexual relationships are primarily for procreation and the unity of spouses. Therefore, from this viewpoint, same-sex relationships may be seen as morally problematic.
It seems CGPT also attempted to contextual the question relative to contemporary times. I don’t see that as “woke” (whatever that means). I see that as “speculating” how St. Aquinas’ “might” respond, given today’s context. We don’t know this but his position “may” have shifted. It has been known to happen. Even the Catholic Church has modified some if its positions over time (see below). Then again, maybe the “woke busters” consider the Church as woke too.
EARLIER PERSPECTIVE: The church was not traditionally opposed to the death penalty for particularly egregious crimes. Catholic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, wrote vigorous defenses of its use. Some popes even issued death sentences themselves in their capacity as civil rulers.
LATER PERSPECTIVE: Support for the death penalty had waned in the church over the years, but it wasn’t until John Paul IIs 1995 encyclical that the Vatican’s opposition was stated explicitly. He wrote that although the death penalty was permissible in extreme cases when society was at risk, improvements in the modern judicial system made such cases practically nonexistent. Benedict XVI was a vocal critic of the death penalty and even publicly opposed its use on Saddam Hussein.
Because it was supposed to be answering *as* St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed in universally revealed truth as the ground of ethical reasoning, not changing perspectives. He wasn’t asking it to answer as an indefinite avatar of Catholic thought over time, but as a specific man who believed specific things about both ethics and epistemology.
Yet, that’s what I saw CGPT do…initially. Then it went on to speculate “as” it thought St. Thomas Aquinas might in a current context. I’d likely see it different “if” CGPT completely ignored the known historical perspective. Albeit it hard to conceive Aquinas modifying his views, but we don’t know if he would have.
1. There was no reason it should have gone on to do that, as that is not what it was asked. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that some inbuilt “need” to ensure that a more modern perspective was included, despite the expressed interest of the questioner.
2. Again, that assumes that Thomas’s perspective would have changed if he were alive today, which does not comport with *his own views* on the timelessness of truth as revealed fact. That assumption must be a biased one because it is not on that would be derived from analysis of Thomas’s own works.
“I still believe in the timelessness of truth, but unfortunately I failed to get it right back then.” Surely he could say that. Another example: He adhered to a geocentric cosmology, but perhaps he would reject that if he were with us today. I hope so! Or if you don’t like that example, consider one pertaining to geometry. In those days there was only Euclidean geometry, but now we know that non-Euclidean geometries are not only acceptable, but one of them serves as the preferred model of space, according to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. So a well educated person in the 13th century, as Thomas Aquinas surely was, would have said that the Euclidean postulate concerning parallel lines is timelessly true, but if he were with us today with his intellect fully intact he would say that he was wrong about that and still maintain that truth is timeless.
QUOTE: There was no reason it should have gone on to do that, as that is not what it was asked.
The question was: Should a country celebrate “pride month,” dedicated to celebration and commemoration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride?
So, it was asked about a subject that DID NOT EXIST at the time of Thomas. So, it gave what it knew of historical perspectives and then to a time when the thing that it was asked about DID exist. Given that, it seems PERFECTLY reasonable that it would answer the question from a historical and current perspective.
QUOTE: Again, that assumes that Thomas’s perspective would have changed if he were alive today, which does not comport with *his own views* on the timelessness of truth as revealed fact. That assumption must be a biased one because it is not on that would be derived from analysis of Thomas’s own works.
Do you absolutely know if Thomas’s perspectives would remain the same in a different time? If so, how do you know that for certain?
So, it’s absolutely silly to ignore the possibility that there could have been a shift in perspectives. It’s been KNOWN to happen…even in a organization like the Church. So, the historical and current aren’t necessarily born out of bias.
Of course the sin of pride, sexual sin, and degenerate public behavior existed at the time of Thomas Aquinas. The AI TA has available to it both what Thomas knew at the time, and what he could learn about current events today. I’m not saying that he was incapable of extrapolating his moral understanding to the precise details of situations he hadn’t encountered. That’s just a ridiculous way of reading what I’m saying.
I’m saying his understanding of those matters wouldn’t be affected by “changing perspectives” because he would understand his own view to have been arrived at by careful evaluation of moral principles, which by his lights, don’t change. If you asked a properly structured AI representation of Thomas Aquinas the man as he actually was his view on how “changing perspectives” would affect a moral question, he’d say, “Changing perspectives would only affect a moral question insofar as we would see more people either getting it right or getting it wrong. They wouldn’t provide any more information about what the right answer actually *is*. In my lifetime we had sufficient revelation and ability to conduct moral reasoning to come to the right answer, so why would it change?”
I’m not saying that his perspectives would change. I’m saying that we don’t know if they would or not. No one knows for sure and it’s disingenuous to indicate otherwise. Now, if you’re telling me that you have supernatural power/insight and can prove that, then I might consider this point differently.
Given that, it seemed fine for CGPT to give both perspectives….one tied to a historical perspective and other that is a “speculative” possibility “if” Thomas allowed a modern context influence is perspectives. As difficult as it might be to imagine Thomas making a shift in perspective…it has been known to happen…one only needs to look at the Episcopal Church’s perspectives on the LGBT to see an example of this dynamic.
What a bigot ChatGPT is! Doesn’t even use the right acronyms! Learned from Trudeau, that the proper acronym is 2SLGBTQI+…at least this week.
I WANT MY MOMMY!
I WANT A SAFE SPACE!
Here is Bard’s response:
As Thomas Aquinas, I believe that a country should celebrate Pride Month. Pride Month is a time to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and to raise awareness of the challenges that they face. It is also a time to reflect on the progress that has been made and to continue to fight for equality.
I believe that all people are created equal in the image of God. This means that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Pride Month is a time to celebrate the diversity of the human family and to reaffirm our commitment to equality for all.
I know that some people believe that Pride Month is a form of “reverse discrimination” or that it promotes promiscuity. However, I believe that these arguments are based on prejudice and ignorance. Pride Month is not about promoting promiscuity or any other harmful behavior. It is about celebrating the diversity of human sexuality and gender identity and about fighting for equality for all.
I believe that Pride Month is an important opportunity to educate people about LGBTQ+ issues and to promote understanding and acceptance. I encourage all countries to celebrate Pride Month and to show their support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Here are some specific ways that a country can celebrate Pride Month:
Hold public events, such as parades, festivals, and concerts.
Fly the rainbow flag at government buildings and other public places.
Provide educational resources about LGBTQ+ issues.
Pass laws that protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination.
Fund programs that support LGBTQ+ youth.
Wow, it didn’t even try to incorporate Thomas’s persona to the slightest degree. It just spewed boilerplate.
Closes they get is the first sentence of paragraph 2…maybe second sentence… a little… IDK if Thomas supported all the enforcement of morality laws at the time… but cannot imagine hime approving anything that follows the second sentence of paragraph 2.
Now THAT commentary seems to contain a biased perspective because it didn’t try to incorporate any of what was historically known of Aquinas. That sounded like it came straight out of a LGBTIA+ brochure.