Sexual Morality: What Load Of Shit

This finely tuned piece was written for a class that was my very first every remote class. No showing up to a classroom full of people who REALLY love ethics and all it stands for. It was a strict class along with a notoriously strict professor. I didn’t take any chances and did my best to get the assignment done.

First time I’ve let anyone else read these, so if you have any thoughts please feel free to share them.

Keep in mind it was done for a grade. My beliefs at the time or now vary, are similar, or the same. In the end, it’s all a load of shit.

In this chapter, the issue of sexual morality, at one point in time, was initially the view of the Roman Catholic Church that still affluently expresses those views. This view could not be tolerated for long because of society’s rapid sexual exploration and freedom progression. This is here lays the two extreme positions of sexual morality: the traditional view and the libertarian view.

The traditional view is stated that all sex outside of marriage is unethical. The primary purpose for sex and its practices are, and will always be, for reproducing because it is honorable to nature. Thus, having sex outside of marriage to not reproduce and use contraceptives is immoral. A declaration written by various authors from the Vatican state the characteristics of a human being has the capacity to retain human love, which includes caring and loyalty. The declaration argues that human love does not stop at romantic love but evolves into parental love. Dignity is achieved because the ability to produce a life is what makes human sex and sexual relationships so strong. Thus to engage in sex that is without love or open to the possibility of procreation violates nature and our dignity.

The libertarian view feels that sex is an activity; determining that whether any sexual act is moral or immoral is no different from what determines whether playing ping pong is moral or immoral. Libertarians justify that as long as there is no deceitfulness, manipulation, or that it goes against the duty of others, then it is by no means immoral. To be in favor of “sexual libertarianism,” one has to question why there are such restrictions on sex if it is an act that is acted upon on free will.

“Sexual Morality”

Roger Scurton

1. According to Scruton, sexual morality must be based on “the permanent features of human nature,” not “the conditions of any particular person’s life.” What permanent features does he mean? Do all humans share them? If so, are they permanent?

The permanent feature that Scruton discusses is the human ability to feel sexual desire or erotic love and that people have that ability to avoid both of these feelings by repressing them or having nothing to do with the feelings at all. He continues that in order to receive erotic love, a person must be able to give it, and if they fail to do so this in the “normal” way, a person will do anything in their power to fulfill the capacity of erotic love and condone that as their sexual virtue. They are permanent features in human nature because some aspects have to be taught in order not to possess them.

2. Scruton argues that masturbation is a pollution of the body. On what grounds? Do you agree?

Scruton’s argument of masturbation being pollution of the body is justified as in the early developmental stages, we are to regard our body as a sacred vessel and that your body is a reflection of what you are morally. If you are pure sexually, then you are pure morally. The grounds of this argument doesn’t condone any restrictions regarding sexual morality but do state that if at an early age or a tumultuous stage in life, detaching yourself from sex and setting yourself outside of the feeling causing you to become the embodiment of a deadening desire. Masturbation is solely focused on the use of fantasy replacing reality and is serviced by the insecurities of the natural world and slowly loosens the ties of possible interactions with other people sexually because the act is not critical and strongly connects to real emotions. I agree with Scruton’s argument of it being a “pollution” of the body. I see it as an act of letting your body perform a function that completely detaches you from sexual morality.

3. Scruton bases much of his traditional sexual morality on the need to eliminate jealousy. Why? Do you consider this approach a sound one?

Eliminating jealousy, he feels, will give birth to fidelity. Jealousy is brought about when the love of another is under question since it is an act that is psychical to the detriment of both partners in eminent. Being faithful is an act that can be easily broken, broken to verify inner or a significant other faith. The only faith that is sustainable to all aspects of desire is virtuous faith, made possible by a moral education. This approach I agree with since jealously is at times an unavoidable emotion; fidelity between partners should be an act that potentially destroys that notion.

4. What does Scruton mean by “sexual integrity”? Why, in his view, does traditional sexual morality guarantee it and libertarian sexual morality compromises it? Do you think that there are other kinds of sexual integrity ignored by Scruton?

Sexual integrity from Scruton is described as to have an appropriate viewpoint towards the human body and the person that embodies this category of sexual morality. This person strictly follows their values of, for example, not having sex before marriage. The traditional view of sexual morality does embrace his concept. Still, the libertarian view of sexual morality considers that acts such as “pollution,” obscenities, or perversions do not hinder sexual integrity in any way. I do not think that Scruton ignored any other aspects of sexual morality.

5. Although Scruton does not exactly condemn homosexuality, he criticizes a common justification for it. Can his arguments in the rest of the essay be used to condemn homosexuality, or can they be used to support at least some homosexual relationships? 

I feel that since Scruton doesn’t directly condemn homosexuality. Still, his justification for it is that, for example, he states that “no normal conscience cannot remain neutral towards obscenity, any more than it can remain neutral towards pedophilia and rape (not saying that obscenity should be treated as a crime)” Obscenity is and will always be in the best way possible censored in moral education. Since traditional rights were first to set the ground rules of sexual morality, making what you do to your body reflect your moral views. In libertarian views, what you do with your body is detached from your moral beliefs. Scruton does give a Quaker’s view of sex, and they feel that people do not have the right to decide what is moral and what isn’t; to say “an act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual.” Though Scruton does identify with those sediments, he does, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

“Plain Sex”

Alan H. Goldman

1. What is the significance of the essay’s title?

The significance of the essay’s title was I felt there was a play on words because the concepts of sex that Goldman discussed were the philosopher’s take on the main attributes of sexual morality. From my knowledge, the moral integrities that a person was to consider were that sex is primarily for reproduction, and I was wrong. Plain sex Goldman explains, is not what we are taught but what humans inherited from nature.

2. According to Goldman, “We all know what sex is, at least in obvious cases, and we do not need philosophers to tell us.” Do you agree? Does his analysis of sex agree with what we all know?

Yes, I do agree with Goldman’s statement because his analysis of sex divulges into the fact that in any society, sex, as he states, is a physical manifestation of the desire of another, not necessarily sex itself but for the contact aspect of it. Mentally people crave this desire at most times constantly and for brief moments at a time. For example, a little child who from birth has a security blanket with them at all times feels the need to have this blanket because it’s pleasurable. When the child is without it, thinking about it and anticipating the sight of it; the feelings it surfaces when being in its presents brings.

3. In rejecting the view that the purpose of sex is reproduction, Goldman compares sex to eating. What’s the point of the comparison? Is it a good one?

The point of the comparison justifies that eating is a task that people have to do every day to survive. Sex, on the other hand, is viewed as a means of reproduction and only as such because it is a biological function, not a natural function that everyone can embrace. He then continues that since reproducing is a biological matter, the creation of ways to prevent that until it was desirable (because the desire for sex is not essentially the desire to reproduce) made the connection of eating and sex to be alike very weak.

4. What contrasts does Goldman draw between love and sexual desire?

The contrasts drawn by Goldman between love and sexual desire is that love concentrated within an average person cannot truly deeply love but a handful of people in a lifetime. A person’s love is now deemed questionable because their love isn’t distributed evenly and is but weakly felt or felt at all. Desire, on the other hand, is the momentary chance that an individual finds another to be sexually attractive and is noticeably false love. The contrasts of monogamous sex (which exercises the will of self-control) and monogamous love hold no grounds for self-control because it can never be focused on one individual.

5. Why does Goldman believe that perversion is not an evaluative norm against which we can judge sexual behavior?

A perversion is generally a sexual act or practice that is contemplated to be unusual or abnormal. Goldman believes that perversion is not an evaluative norm against what society or other philosophers justify as sexual behavior because if any sex is misunderstood or unclear to what the message is being relayed, it is seen as perverted. It does not in any way represent a deviation from reproducing, having a loving relationship, or communication in some way. When other philosophers, such as Nagel, see that “mutual epidermal stimulation” to be the pendicle of perversion when Goldman views perversion as normal sex.

6. Goldman claims that there is no morality intrinsic to sex. What does he mean by that? What are his reasons for claiming it?

Goldman asserts that there is no morality belonging to sex because there are no moral implications that are held to sex in order for it to be judged as immoral. But what does apply to the immorality of sex is how others are treated in sex acts. His reasons for claiming that coincide with the deviance that may become social to sexual motives, the actions that derive from them has no moral bearing in itself on moral character.

7. In considering various means–ends analyses of sex, has Goldman missed any purpose of sex that you think important?

Goldman’s use of the term “means-ends” is used as a suggestion to criticize philosophers. The “conceptions that attribute a necessary external goal or purpose to sexual activity, whether it to be reproduction, the expression of love, simple communication, or interpersonal awareness” is the reason for sexual activity philosophers claim. Still, Goldmann felt the contrasts to them were if the desire for physical contact or other feelings was enough to cause sexual activity such as kissing or holding hands.

Case Presentation

“Deception or Joke?”

The moral situation that was encountered by both of the business travelers was I felt to be a joke. Upon meeting, the man was the one to make first contact by offering her a drink and then asking the woman to marry him. His reasons for proposing to a complete stranger that lived two thousand away from him could have been purely out of how she would react to the question and possibly because she was very attractive. I think he should have been very clear in justifying that he was joking. But I can’t help but think that her naivety was purely a reflection of her moral views.

According to Goldman, the reason that the man made a modest proposal could have been because he was driven by his desire to have physical sexual contact with her and didn’t know how to approach it other than asking her hand jokingly in marriage. Pointing out that they also live a great distance from each other sites out that he didn’t want a lasting relationship but regular sexual partner whenever he travels to that area on business again. Instead of treating the situation as a joke, he should have most definitely been clear that he was seeking a simple sexual adventure or building a possible relationship that could have led to marriage instead of mocking the concept.

The woman, on the other hand, could have been following her sexual integrity too strictly in this situation. Her reaction to his answer was justifiable because her impression of him being adventurous and acting on a whim and follow through on that was destroyed. She sized him up as being an individual who had reasons to fall in love and reasons to never be committed to one person. This ensued in her total lack of interest in him and his intentions.

-Case Presentation

“AIDS Education”

AIDS has been an issue for over 20 years for society in dealing with the matter and scientists trying to control the matter. At the height of the concern, the U.S. Public Health Service officer, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop proposed that the youth of the nation was severely ill-informed about their well-being and future health because of parents being pretentious when bringing up the subject of sex to their children. He felt that there should be an openness of the matter, and AIDS should be part of the discussion as well as the education of children at an early age so that their awareness would reduce the possible exposure of the virus.

I feel that the Surgeon General has the right intentions in enlightening you. No matter how young they are that there is an emanate threat to their lives if they are not careful. He felt that the “more knowledgeable the public, the safer the public,” but morals interfered. Controversy ensued because it seemed he was promoting children to practice “safe sodomy”, if in fact they were aware of what that was. Thus promoting that was immoral and had to be changed. I think his reflections of preventing the spread of AIDS bothered other people because it advocated that perverse intentions that children would not be able to grasp.

In the end, advocating the practices of sexual abstinence wasn’t the surest policy because teaching abstinence doesn’t guarantee abstinence. Though it was a pressed issue in the early stages of the awareness of AIDS, at the present time the debate to add sex education to the curriculum for younger children, could prove to be highly beneficial if enforced in not just select places, but everywhere.

Case Presentation

“Marriage and Civil Unions”

The issue of marriage and civil unions focuses on same-sex relationships and how its legislation permits it in Vermont. The regulations expressed by Vermont law indicates that a same-sex couple can “obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples”, though Vermont favors the concept of marriage for opposite-sex couples. A law enacted in California allows both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples (unmarried of course), that are over the age of 62 to receive benefits as married couples, though limited.

This presentation brings to light the many restrictions, partly governmental and the remaining religious, to permitting the sanctity of marriage for same-sex couples. Being that over the years, legislatures representing numerous U.S. states have tried to follow in Vermont’s laws by permitting same-sex couples to adopt children to be a benefit. But the lack of legal protections is a major disadvantage for same-sex couples, making civil marriage a very hard task.

Another feat that same-sex couples face in the trek in attaining marriage is the religious restrictions, the “system of civil unions preserves the fundamental constitutional right…of religious faiths in Vermont to choose freely and without state interference to whom to grant the religious status, sacrament or blessing of marriage…” This indicates to me that the state has no problem for same-sex couples to marry them, as long as they can acquire a religious sect to marry them. And that issue is still being debated that if an opposite-sex married couple can live together, have children and participate in the community, a same-sex couple should be permitted to share those same rights.