Lecture 18 Sex – Part 2 Contemporary Moral Problems

CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

LECTURE 18

SEX – PART 2

REVIEW: OUR QUESTIONS

[1] What moral requirements or permissions govern human sexual activity?

[a] What is sexual activity?

[b] Which forms of sexual activity are morally permissible and which are impermissible?

[c] Are any forms of sexual activity morally obligatory?

REVIEW: GOLDMAN’S VIEW

A sexual desire is a desire for contact with another person’s body and the pleasure which such contact produces.

The Plain Sex Analysis: Sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill sexual desire.

1 THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF PLAIN SEX The Plain Sex Analysis has no moral implications on its own.

"There is no morality intrinsic to sex, although general moral rules apply to the treatment of others in sex acts as they apply to all human relations."

The Point: If a sexual act is immoral, this is not because it is a sexual act but because it is a violation of some more general moral rule.

MEANS-ENDS ANALYSES AND PERVERSION Means-ends analyses are often thought to imply that sexual activity which does not communicate love or some other emotion or is not directed at reproduction is a deviation from an evaluative norm.

Plain sex implies that the only coherent account of perversion is that of the statistically abnormal.

A "perverse" desire is simply one not shared by most people.

PLAIN SEX AND PERVERSION Homosexual desires, foot fetishes, etc. are perverse (if not the statistical norm) but, unless they violate a general moral rule, not wrong at all.

[A] perverted sex can be more or less pleasurable than more normal sex for those involved. - pleasure is independent of statistical frequency.

[B] perverted sex can be more or less moral than more normal sex. - morality is independent of statistical frequency.

2 PLAIN SEX AND MORALITY: MORE EXAMPLES [1] Adultery. [2] Pre-Marital sex. [3] Marital exchange for non-sexual favors. [4] Prostitution. [5] Sexual favors for job advancement. [6] Bestiality. [7] Necrophilia. [8] Sex in public. [9] Masturbation. [10] Sex out of pity. [11] Creating pornography. [12] Consuming pornography. 7

SEX, MARRIAGE & CHILDREN Goldman admits that

- Since most of us cannot really love many, there are good reasons for restricting deep love to marriage. - The benefits of family units to children provide some reason to avoid serious external commitments which weaken family ties. - Perhaps monogamous sex strengthens families by restricted sexual desire and guaranteeing an outlet.

SEX AND CONSEQUENCES Also relevant to the morality of sex acts are the long term effects of the acts upon others and oneself.

- Does premarital sex or promiscuity weaken one’s future ability to enter into a monogamous relationship? If so, is that bad for one or one’s partner? - Does premarital sex help prevent marriage between sexually incompatible people? - How likely are forms of sexual activity to bring other persons into existence? 9

3 WASSERSTROM ON ADULTERY

Main Question: Is adultery immoral? If so, why?

Adultery = extramarital (but not premarital) sex.

Wasserstrom’s Thesis: There are possible marital situations in which adultery would not be prima facie immoral.

1ST ARGUMENT AGAINST ADULTERY

[1] It is prima facie seriously morally wrong to break an important promise. [2] Adultery involves the breaking of an important promise to abstain from sexual relations with persons other than one’s spouse. ____ [3] So, adultery is prima facie seriously immoral.

Note appeal to more general rule in [1]. 11

2ND ARGUMENT AGAINST ADULTERY – PT 1

[1] It is prima facie seriously morally wrong to deceive another person. [2] Adultery involves deceiving another person. ___ [3] So, adultery is prima facie seriously wrong.

Note appeal to more general rule in [1]. 12

4 2ND ARGUMENT AGAINST ADULTERY – PT 2

Deception can involve direct lies but it can also be passive or implicit if one has a standing commitment to reveal the truth or one engages in activity which one has promised to avoid.

But neither of these forms of deception must be a feature of an adulterous relationship.

2ND ARGUMENT AGAINST ADULTERY – PT 3 Wasserstrom holds that because of the connection our culture produces between sex and feelings of exclusive love or affection, having sex with someone "tells them" that you have feelings of exclusive love and affection for them.

So, perhaps extramarital sex will almost always involve deceiving one's marital partner or one's partner in the adulterous affair.

OBJECTION TO THE 2ND ARGUMENT Wasserstrom's Objections

[1] Whether or not adultery requires deception depends on the persons involved and the extent to which they take sex to be connected to love and affection.

[2] It is worth questioning whether it is good that we treat sex as an expression of love and that we treat love as exclusive in its objects.

5 FIRST LIBERATIONIST POSITION

First Liberationist View – We should cut the link between sex and love.

Questions [1] Is it possible for us to do this? [2] Would it be desirable to do this?

SECOND LIBERATIONIST POSITION

Second Liberationist View – We should cut the link between love and exclusivity (leaving the link between sex and love intact).

Questions [1] Is this possible? Can one really love two people at once? How about three, four, five? [2] Even if it is possible, would it be a better for us to be able to love more than one in this way?

WHY ADULTERY NEED NOT BE IMMORAL Wasserstrom claims that if we had a situation in which sex did not "tell someone" one had exclusive love for them then possible cases of "open marriage" would involve no deception of the spouse and no breaking of a promise. Hence, it seems adultery would not be immoral in those cases.

Notice: This is not an argument that most current adulterous acts are morally permissible.

6 FIRST OBJECTION TO WASSERSTROM Persons who have not made a promise or commitment to sexual exclusivity are not really married.

But, adultery is, by definition, sex with someone other than a person to whom one is married.

So, even if it is morally permissible for such persons to have sex with others, this isn’t really a case of morally permissible adultery.

REPLY TO FIRST OBJECTION

Wasserstrom claims a commitment to sex with and only with a partner (or set of partners) is neither necessary nor sufficient for marriage.

- People incapable of having sex can get married. - People can "give permission" for a spouse to have sex with a third party. - People who make such a commitment but no other commitments are not obviously married.

2ND OBJECTION Another (Consequentialist) Argument [1] It is a good thing to have strong families. [2] Sex outside of marriage weakens a family unit. ____ [3] So, sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Notice: This might also provide reason to get married.

7 OBJECTIONS

[1] Is this argument for the immorality of adultery? Only if we have reason to think that marriage is a good thing and required for strong families.

[2] This argument doesn’t give us reason to think every possible instance of adultery is wrong. Even if marriages are generally good things, perhaps particular ones are not.

CONCLUSIONS

- It is difficult to see what would make all adulterous actions prima facie immoral.

- Adultery is prima facie immoral when it violates a promise or involves deception. So, most actual acts of adultery are prima facie immoral.

- If marriage is an important good, then if adultery would weaken a marriage, it is to that extent, wrong.