Dermott O'Flanagan
Sexual Ethics Paper
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
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.
He introduces basic conditions that an act must meet in order to be deemed a perversion. The sexual acts must be unnatural, a fetish or unnatural inclinations (Nagel, 1). Nagel goes further to discuss a basic definition of a normal sexual relationship and he claims that the general basis of that relationship is two people noticing each other. The relationship initiates through one person’s arousal and then the arousal of the other person. Mutual arousal must precede physical contact, these mutual perceptions establish a normal, natural sexual
THE ISSUE OF CONSENT In acknowledgement of the particular difficulties involved in the prosecution of rape cases and the consequent poor conviction rates, a central alteration in the law on sexual offences concerned the meaning of consent and the manner in which it should be established in a court of law. Previously, the Se... ... middle of paper ... ... y asking the reasonable person what may by its nature be sexual begs the question. Into what nature of the term sexuality are we asking people to enquire?
"That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." (Romans 1:26-27)
Natural law theorists claim that actions are deemed right just because they are looked at as natural and something that is unnatural is immoral. However, there are different understandings of what is natural and what is not, which can make support for this theory hard. Examples such as homosexuality, give a strong argument against the natural law theory. We will look at the work of John Corvino as he explains the arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, but also the reasons why these arguments are not strong evidence. With these examples in mind, the fact that something is unnatural is not a good enough reason to claim something immoral.
The committee makes several recommendations in regards to changing the laws and legislations surrounding the incrimination of homosexuals for what had previously been considered sodomy. The basic premise being that “homosexual behaviour betwe...
The first century morality was not unlike our twenty-first century morality. Premarital and extra-marital affairs exist in both. Prostitution is common in both centuries. The speed in which sexual perverseness can occur in today’s society can occur at a much more rapid rate due to the Internet, however, with the same outcome as it was then, the defiling of one’s body, a body that belongs to God. God forgives us as Christians, as King David wa...
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.
If homosexual behaviors were to be made a universal law, all the people should, therefore, engage in them, and if this happened, the human race would become extinct because there is no reproduction among homosexuals. The categorical imperative in this case, therefore, assumes that there is a commitment to the overall advantage of humanity, and the homosexual behaviors, in this case, cannot be permitted.
It is assumed that sex was designed by nature exclusively for the purpose of procreation: partaking in sex for anything outside of its “natural intent” is deemed immoral. However, although heterosexual couples frequently engage in sexual activity for reasons other than procreation, one can assume that Anderman amends his argument by pointing out that procreation is a possibility of heterosexual sex, whereas it is impossible in homosexual sex. He continues to assert that not only is any act that cannot produce offspring immoral, but that the state has an interest in preventing these acts from occurring. Consequently, this definition of morality opens a variety of questions concerning non-homosexual groups that fall under the umbrella of sex acts that hold no possibility of
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.
This field of Sexology, developed from German and French influences, developed a taxonomy and categorization of sexual ‘deviance,’ in which homosexuality was at first seen as pathological and unnatural. This notion of a ‘degenerate’ sexuality and deviances, political, legal and social groups began to understand homosexuality in medicalized terms. Krafft-Ebbing, Ulrichs, Freud. Paedophilia and greeks.
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.
Leisure’s article provides us with examples that deter the word natural to its various definitions when referring to homosexuality, and why they were inconsistent. He provides various examples to emphasize that homosexuality is not unnatural, and in this case we were “enable to find a meaning for unnatural that enables us to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural or that if homosexuality is unnatural, it is therefore wrongful behavior”.