Product Code Database
Sexual ethics (also known as sex ethics or sexual morality) is a branch of philosophy that considers the ethics or morality of human sexual behavior. Sexual ethics seeks to understand, evaluate, and critique interpersonal relationships and sexual activities from social, cultural, and philosophical perspectives. Some people consider aspects of human sexuality such as gender identification and sexual orientation, as well as consent, sexual relations and procreation, as giving rise to issues of sexual ethics.
Historically, the prevailing notions of what is regarded as sexually ethical have been linked to religious teachings and philosophy. More recently, the sexual revolution challenged traditional ethical codes, and the feminist movement has emphasized personal choice and consent in sexual activities, especially for women.
Different approaches to applied ethics hold different views on inherent morality, for example:
Many practical questions arise regarding human sexuality, such as whether should be enforced by law, given social approval, or changed.
The unity of a couple in marriage and procreation are key factors in Christian sexual ethics, particularly in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were some of the key figures in honing Christian ethics. Augustine underlined fidelity, offspring, and sacrament as the goods of sexual morality. Thomas Aquinas developed Augustine's thought to suggest that these ought to be understood as the three ends (telos) of marriage, and ranked them in order of importance, with procreation as the primary end.
/ref> A major topic in the philosophy of sex and related to the question of the moral status of sex is objectification, where sexual objectification is treating a person only as a sex object. The concept originates in Kant's moral philosophy, and many modern thinkers have used it to criticize and analyze a wide range of ethical issues related to sex, such as pornography.
Immanuel Kant views sex as only morally permissible in the context of a heterosexual, lifelong, and monogamous marriage, whereas any sexual act that is performed outside this context is considered morally wrong. This is due to Kant's interpretation of the Categorical Imperative with regard to sexual desire. He considers sex the only inclination that cannot satisfy the Categorical Imperative; in fact, sexual desire by its nature is objectifying and lends itself to the thing-like treatment of other persons.
The solution to the overall problem of objectification and sex, on Kant's view, is marriage: Only marriage can make objectification tolerable. Kant argues that in a marriage, which is "a relationship that is structured institutionally in ways that promote and, at least legally if not morally, guarantee mutual respect and regard", objectification may be rendered harmless. Furthermore, not all sexual activity is necessarily objectifying here: sexual activity that does not involve sexual desire might treat another person as a mere thing and might thus not be objectifying. However, Kant does not distinguish between male and female sexuality, and his analysis does not consider social hierarchies or asymmetric formations of erotic desire in or outside of marriage. Kant's argument is seen as implausible by most modern thinkers.
Many modern systems of ethics hold that sexual activity is morally permissible only if all participants consent. Sexual ethics also considers whether a person is capable of giving consent and what sort of acts they can properly consent to. In western countries, the legal concept of "informed consent" often sets the public standards on this issue. Children, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, animals, prisoners, and people under the influence of drugs like alcohol might be considered in certain situations as lacking an ability to give informed consent. In the United States, Maouloud Baby v. State is a state court case ruling that a person can withdraw sexual consent and that continuing sexual activity in the absence of consent may constitute rape. Also, if infected with a sexually transmitted infection, it is important that one notifies the partner before sexual contact.
Sexual acts which are illegal, and often considered unethical, because of the absence of consent include rape and Sexual assault. Enthusiastic consent, as expressed in the slogan "Yes means yes", rather than marriage, is typically the focus of liberal sexual ethics. Under that view passivity, not saying "No", is not consent. An individual can give consent for one act of sexual activity, however, it does not condone proceeding into other acts of sexual activity without reestablishing consent.
The concept of consent being the primary arbiter of sexual ethics and morality has drawn criticism from both feminist and religious philosophies. Religious criticisms argue that relying on consent alone to determine morality ignores other intrinsic moral factors, while feminist criticisms argue that consent is too broad and does not always account for disproportionate power dynamics.
Early feminists were accused of being 'wanton' as a consequence of stating that just as for men, women did not necessarily have to have sex with the intention of reproducing. At the beginning of the 20th century, feminist authors were already theorising about a relationship between a man and a woman as equals (although this has a heterosexual bias) and the idea that relationships should be sincere, that the mark of virtue in a relationship was its sincerity rather than its permanence. Setting a standard for reciprocity in relationships fundamentally changed notions of sexuality from one of duty to one of intimacy.
As the philosopher Michel Foucault has noted, such societies often create spaces or heterotopias outside themselves where sex outside marriage can be practiced. According to his theory, this was the reason for the often unusual sexual ethics displayed by persons living in brothels, asylums, on board ships, or in prisons. Sexual expression was freed of social controls in such places whereas, within society, sexuality has been controlled through the institution of marriage which socially sanctions the sex act. Many different types of marriage exist, but in most cultures that practice marriage, extramarital sex without the approval of the partner is often considered to be unethical. There are a number of complex issues that fall under the category of marriage.
When one member of a marital union has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of their spouse, it may be considered to be infidelity. In some cultures, this act may be considered ethical if the spouse consents, or acceptable as long as the partner is not married while other cultures might view any sexual intercourse outside marriage as unethical, with or without consent.
Furthermore, the institution of marriage brings up the issue of premarital sex wherein people who may choose to at some point in their lives marry, engage in sexual activity with partners who they may or may not marry. Various cultures have different attitudes about the ethics of such behavior, some condemning it while others view it to be normal and acceptable.
Child-parent incest is also seen as an abuse of a position of trust and power, in addition to the inability of a child to give consent. Incest between adults may not involve this lack of consent, and is, therefore, less clear-cut for most observers. Many professional organizations have rules forbidding sexual relations between members and their clients. Examples in many countries include psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, doctors, and lawyers. In addition, laws exist against this kind of abuse of power by priests, preachers, teachers, religious counselors, and coaches.
Moving forward there is going to be more restrictions on conscription with the global population exponentially increasing like it is. But in terms of practicality, and by more modern Malthusianism, putting a limit on amount of babies one can have seems like one of the few going theories we have to limit it. However, this brings in major ethical issues on what to do if families happen to go over the limit.
Breastfeeding in public is sometimes considered wrong and mothers are encouraged to either cover themselves in a blanket or go to the restroom to breastfeed their newborn. In many circumstances the appropriateness of public breastfeeding is determined by the mother's judgment. There are no actual laws that prohibit the action of breastfeeding in public except two places in Illinois and Missouri.
Sex work has been a particularity divisive issue within feminism. Some feminists may regard sex work as an example of societal oppression of the sex workers by the patriarchy. The ethical argument underlying this position is that despite the apparent consent of the sex worker, the choice to engage in sex work is often not an autonomous choice, because of economic, familial or societal pressures. Sex work may also be seen as an objectification of women. An opposing view held by other feminists such as Wendy McElroy is that sex work is a means of empowering women, the argument here being that in sex work women are able to extract psychological and financial power over men which is a justified correction of the power unbalance inherent in a patriarchal society. Some feminists regard to sex work as simply a form of labor which is neither morally good or bad, but subject to the same difficulties of other labor forms.
If sex work is accepted as unethical, there is then the dispute over which parties of the contract are responsible for the ethical or legal breach. Traditionally, in many societies, the legal and ethical burden of guilt has been placed largely on the sex worker rather than consumers. In recent decades, some countries such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland have rewritten their laws to outlaw the buying of sexual services but not its sale (although they still retain laws and use enforcement tactics which sex workers say are deleterious to their safety, such as pressuring to have sex workers evicted from their residences).
Most modern secular ethicists since the heyday of Utilitarianism, e.g. T.M. Scanlon and Bernard Williams, have constructed systems of ethics whereby homosexuality is a matter of individual choice and where ethical questions have been answered by an appeal to non-interference in activities involving consenting adults. However, Scanlon's system, notably, goes in a slightly different direction from this and requires that no person who meets certain criteria could rationally reject a principle that either sanctions or condemns a certain act. Under Scanlon's system, it is difficult to see how one would construct a principle condemning homosexuality outright, although certain acts, such as homosexual rape, would still be fairly straightforward cases of unethical behavior.
|
|
