In today’s culture, sex has become a topic that is vastly open and common. The dynamic of sex has been continuously growing over the past years and now most people are open to casual dating, hooking up, friends with benefit and more. As culture of sex is rapidly changing, we must stop and consider the implications and the moral aspect of sexual openness that’s so common today. Philosopher Immanuel Kant has written about sexual impulse and the implications of it in his work: Duties Toward Body with Respect to Sexual Impulse. This essay will discuss the main arguments of Kant’s article and the explanation of why would morality of sex argument only is effective in view of God.
In Kant’s article, Duties Toward Body with Respect to Sexual Impulse, he argues that there is a clear line between love and sexual impulse. He explained, “Love, as human affection, is the love that wishes well, is amicably disposed, promotes the happiness of others and rejoices in it.”(). He basically explains that true love rejoices in others’ happiness and is not selfish to seek their own happiness all
…show more content…
Therefore, these arguments would not make sense for a person who has a low view of human morality. Since, these arguments cannot prove Christian sex ethics to someone who does not accept his basic beliefs, informing them would strengthen his reasoning. For example, Goldman’s Plain Sex says that by separating love and sex it is possible to enjoy sex without running into ethical problems. Goldman’s definition of plain sex is that the purpose of sex is to achieve human contact in order to achieve physical pleasure (). Furthermore, this will allow sex to be only be surrounded by ethics that are same as other activities. Ultimately, objective moral standards must be established for arguments such as plain sex to diminish sexual
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.
In The Introduction to the History of Sexuality, Foucault explains how during the 19th century with the raise of new societies, the discourse or knowledge about sex was not confronted with repulsion but it “put into operation an entire machinery for producing true discourses concerning sex” (Foucault 69). In fact, this spreading of discourse on sexuality itself gives a clear account of how sexuality has been controlled and confined because it was determined in a certain kind of knowledge that carries power within it. Foucault reflects on the general working hypothesis or “repressive hypothesis,” and how this has exercised power to suppress people’s sexuality. It has power on deciding what is normal or abnormal and ethical or unethical about sexuality. Through discourses of life and sexuality, power is exercised because humans learned how to behave in relation to sexuality, which method keep individuals controlled and regulated. This explains why people experience that sense of behaving inappropriate when we talk about sex in a different way than the whole society. Foucault points up how sexuality is not just treated in terms of morality, but it is a matter of knowledge and “truth.” However, these discourses, including sexual discourses are not true or false, but they are just understood to be the truth or falsehood to control society. As a result, sexuality begins to be explored in a scientific way, developing the “truth” science of sex (Foucault 69). For Foucault, he asserts that sexuality has developed as a form of science that keeps us all afraid of such phenomena, which people think to be true, thus this science helps society to discipline and control individuals’ behaviors.
As humans, we are all created equal however, are we obligated to act morally? Although each person may have different beliefs on the topic, everyone has their own methods of moral reasoning. According to Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and most philosophers, he believes that we are all obligated to act morally through duty-based ethics. With such a belief, we are obligated to act in accordance with a specific set of maxims regardless of the consequences. Kant developed one of the most influential moral theories that derived from human reason. Throughout the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets out to find a better understanding of morality developed from principles rather than experience. He clearly argues why we are obligated to act morally through the importance of duty, moral worth, and the categorical imperative.
Goldman defines sexual desire as the want to be in contact with another person’s body and the pleasure that the contact produces. He defines sexual activity as the activity which fulfills these desires and achieves pleasure. According to Goldman, contact with another person’s body is the minimum requirement that is needed for sexual desire. However, he firmly denies that sex is just a means to an end. Therefore, sex is not just for the purpose of reproduction, an expression of emotions, or a way to communicate. If one were to be in accordance with sex being a means to an end, then anything that did not meet that criterion would automatically be deemed as perverse. Thus, if someone were to have sex for any other reason they would be seen as perverted, according to this claim.
Sexual objectification refers to the way in which a person sexually reduces another by treating them as a mere sex object (Halwani). Sexual objectification is rarely referred to as a benign topic, though throughout this evaluation, an enlightened, thou broad range of opinions are discussed emphasising the ambiguity of the term in relation to the morality of sexual objectification. Halwani’s definition only embraces ‘treatment’ and or the ‘behavioural’ aspects of sexual objectification, nevertheless Halwani recognises that the process by which someone is sexually objectified occurs most frequently throughout the following scenarios: During casual sex, as the parties desire nothing more than the others body party, essentially their sexual parts. When we look at naked pictures of people and become intrigued by their sexual aspects. Engaging in pornography, as the material already objectifies it’s actors as models (Halwani). Perving on a person’s bodily features such a “her booty” as he or she walks by. Catcalling, by reducing the person solely to their physical appearances and lastly, fantasising about someone, as it objectifies them solely on their physical appearances and can in turn symbolise men or women holistically (Halwani, 2010, pp 186). Allowing for a broader discussion in relation to when sexual objectification is morally permissible (if ever), idea’s constructed by Immanuel Kant, Martha Nussbaum and David Soble are broadly evaluated in order to construct when sexual objectification is permissible.
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
To support her first premise Anderson argues that the good which is sex in this case, is realized only when each partner mutually returns the other's gift in the spirit with which it was received by giving one’s own sexuality to the gift giver, so as to acknowledge that the good is serving a higher purpose than just sexual gratification. The commoditization of sex hence seems to address the lower value of sex and not the higher and more lasting value of sex. Anderson invokes the idea of the value of sex being personal and shared to those involved. The value of sex is at two levels and are both personal as is involves the fact that those entering the act of sex recognize that they are sexually attracted to each other and establishing an intimate relationship in their mutual offering of themselves to each other. This establishment of an intimate relationship implies a connection between the two as unique to them. The value is also shared as the same “good” is being realized for both involved in the act of sex, it is also in the virtue of the act being shared, that there is goodness of the value. Therefore the aspects of the higher value of sex can’t be realized in commercial terms as the norms that govern the goods as impersonal and individually enjoyable, but does indeed satisfy...
Casual sex is very prevalent in today’s society. Raja Halwani writes that for casual sex to be morally permissible it must meet certain conditions. In this essay I will use the writing “Virtue Ethics, Casual Sex, and Objectification” written by Raja Halwani, to prove that most cases of casual sex are not morally permissible.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
The famous bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, is claimed as a cornerstone of Christian theology by both Catholics and Protestants. Many of his views are regarded by Christians as authoritative interpretations of the Bible because they have withstood heated debate throughout the centuries. Christians ought to ask, however, whether such allegiance is justifiable in all cases. Augustine's idea of sex after matrimony, for example, is very narrow, restricting actions and emotions married Christians today consider part of the beauty of intercourse. A logical assertion then, is that Augustine's view of sexuality, as delineated in many writings, is a response to his life of sensuality prior to salvation; therefore, his idea about the intent for sex within marriage stems more from his former sin than from Biblical perspective.
In particular, he examines how the “slow formation in antiquity of a hermeneutics of the self” (pg. 6) set the process for morality being conceived of having a fundamental relationship with human self-formation as an ethical subject (pg. 28). In order to demonstrate his thesis that there is a relationship of transfer of the ideas and practices that posit the individual as an ethical subject of sexual conduct between classical antiquity and Christianity (pg. 32), Foucault presents a number of textual examples from Greek philosophers and medical practitioners from the 4th Century BC (pg. 12). He structures his genealogy through engagement with and discussion of these texts, which he examines using the baseline notion of pleasure. In this historical analysis, he attempts to reveal the authors’ and texts’ attitudes towards sexuality as a domain of
I will begin first with the idea that sexual behavior should not be granted its own moral code. Sexual ethics only makes sense if sexuality plays a unique role in human life. If procreation has significance precisely because it is a contribution to God's ongoing work of creation, sexuality is supremely important and must be governed by restrictive rules, which would therefore prohibit sexual acts that are not for procreative purposes. This justification of sexuality as a unique aspect of human life, however, is dependent on a theological claim that there exists a God who micro manages the sexual lives of individuals. Without the presence of such a God, there can exist no separate restrictive rules on the nature of sexual acts. Even if we grant that there is a God, most people will agree that sex is more often used as a way to intensify the bond between two people and therefor sex is the ultimate trust and intimacy that you can share with a person.
These questions arise from our own desires as Christians to reflect a biblically sound attitude towards sexuality and relationships. That same desire to act according to biblical scriptures is subject to opposition from today’s culture and views about sexual relationships, gender, and roles. A new definition of marriage, sexual orientation, and sexual practices is challenging our relationship with God and our view of human sexuality. Bishop John Spong defines sex and its impact on relationships: “Sex can be called at once the greatest gift to humanity and the greatest enigma of our lives. It is a gift in that is a singular joy for all beings and enigma in its destructive potential for people and their relationships.” (Spong, 1988)
... decades ago. This book is one that will allow the reader to view many aspects of sexuality from a social standpoint, and apply it to certain social attitudes in our society today, these attitudes can range from the acceptance of lesbian and gays, and the common sight of sex before marriage and women equality. The new era of sexuality has taken a definite "transformation" as Giddens puts it, and as a society we are living in the world of change in which we must adapt, by accepting our society as a changing society, and not be naive and think all the rules of sexuality from our parents time our still in existence now.