Got proof? (Reading/reviewing/editing papers)

[KoNeko]

It looks like a private eye's office, with the ceiling fan and the desk with piles of papers and everything. KoNeko stands by the window, looking out across Lytter Alley when you enter. On one side of the room is a stack of red markers and an old-fashioned typewriter. As she hears you come in, KoNeko turns and faces you.

Hey. Welcome to my office. Take a seat... if you need help with a paper that you've written for a class, I can proofread and edit your papers. My fees are negotiable. Obviously I'm not going to help you write the paper, but if you want some academic feedback before you hand it in to your class, I'm happy to do that.

[hermoine]

*strides into the ship*
Ah! Fine lady! I profess I need your service.

*shakes some papers in her hand*

I have a Philosophy assignment I was wondering if you could take a look at for me, if you don't mind. I know how deeply in love you were with the subject, and so to begin with, I hope this is up to scratch.

((Would it be better for me to send it to you through PM. It's slightly long, just over 1000 words so I dunno.))

[KoNeko]

Philosophy? Philosophy?! Of course I'll read your paper. I don't mind at all. If you want, you can post it here and we can discuss it, or if you'd prefer to keep it private, you can PM it to me and I will PM you feedback. The upside of doing it here is also that other passers by might feel inclined to chip in and help you out as well, but it's up to you.

[hermoine]

Right then. This is for Applied Ethics. Bear in mind that this is my first year studying Philosophy, so I'm not too good, especially considering the lecturer we have. What I fear however is that I've gone out of point in certain parts. I'm not sure if marriage relationships actully come in with sexual ethics.

And here it is...*she slides a couple of papers onto Ko's desk...in swirling calligraphy they read:*


Discuss sexual ethics in relation to Kantianism and Utilitarianism[/u]


In what follows I will discuss sexual ethics in relation to Kantianism and Utilitarianism.


Kant believed that "the relation of the partners in a marriage is a relation of equality of possession, equality both in possession of each other as a person... and also equality in their possession of material goods". (Metaphysics of Morals, p. 97) This is true of his belief that human beings shouldn't be treated as means but as ends.

However, his view on this topic also included the belief that although humans are equal in theory, in practice, for marriage to achieve its "ends", one partner must be superior to the other. A harmonious and indissoluble union cannot be achieved through the random combination of two persons. One partner must subject himself to the other, and, alternately, one must be superior to the other in something, so that he can dominate or rule. If two people, who cannot do without each other, have identical ambitions, self-love will produce nothing but wrangling (Anthropology, p. 216).

Kant viewed women in this way: "The woman preserves her natural equality in principle, but forgoes it in practice for the sake of the common interest she shares with her husband." He saw them as lacking a requisite for active participation in the political life of the community. Thus he said that women should be "inferior" to men, for their own good, for the good of the marriage or for the good of society.

Hence this action must be undergone for there to be harmony, or unity of will between the partners in a marriage. He argued that it¡¦s practically necessary that one partner is the master; one person must command, the other must relinquish the natural equality they would possess in the ideal situation, and obey. Otherwise there will be "nothing but wrangling" and progress towards the purpose of marriage lest it may be stalled.

Such comments on Kant's part, regarding the body, sexuality, and especially about women and their place in the family and in society, certainly show their author as a rather typically misogynist man of bourgeois 18th century Germany.

This is what led authors such as Barbara Herman (Could It Be Worth Thinking About Kant on Sex and Marriage? - 1993), to describe Kant as "the modern moral philosopher feminists find most objectionable".

He continues on this subject by expressing that acts that treat another's sexuality as a mere tool of one's happiness (rape) are wrong, in the same way that acts that treat one's own sexuality as a tool of one's own happiness (masturbation) are wrong.

For this reason Kant opposes issues such as prostitution because in this case the prostitute is being used as an end, a means of enjoying oneself.


As regards the Utilitarian view, utilitarians say that any sexual activity is right provided that the following conditions are in place:

• Sex takes place in private and does not offend others
  
• Sex is between consenting adults and it increases the participants' happiness. If people are forced into sex it will not lead to happiness
  
• Sex does not harm others (This is difficult to assess as sometimes it results in heart attacks etc)

"It's not hurting anyone. We want to, so why shouldn't we?"

This statement about sexual morality even relates to cases regarding pre-marital sex. In this case, utilitarians take a somewhat positive approach and suggest the use of contraceptives to minimize possible harmful effects, and thus tipping the balance of happiness in favour of having sex rather than not. In fact, in advertising about contraception and the risks of HIV, the moral arguments in favour of taking a responsible attitude to sex are utilitarian. Possible infections or even pregnancy would greatly decrease the levels of happiness, both for the individuals concerned, for their family and even for society. One may take the following example: If X, who is underage, were to find out she is pregnant, she wouldn't be pleased because she's carrying an "unwanted" child and won't be able to fully live the joys of life even after the child is born, for the role of a mother entails certain responsibilities. Y, her partner, wouldn't be happy either, because, while he can escape his responsibility as he isn't "marked" with the any signs of pregnancy, he still remains the father. X's family will have to take care of a new child, adding to their expenses, and may feel ashamed of their daughter's situation with their neighbours. X's boss on the other hand will have to give her special leave due to her pregnancy, and continue paying her for a number of months albeit she cannot work.

Utilitarians also reflect this same opinion upon homosexual relationships. As with sex before marriage, this argument tips the balance of happiness in favour of having sex rather than not or of continuing such a relationship although a small number of members of society may be contrary to it. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action and judges each activity separately by taking into account the people affected and the expected outcome. Practising safe sex within a loving homosexual relationship would be the responsible behaviour of a utilitarian.

In the 18th Century in fact, Jeremy Bentham opposed anti-homosexual laws because they decreased the balance of pleasure over pain in society at large.
The same sort of utilitarian argument surrounds issues of adultery and the break up of marriages. Very often, the debate focuses not on the actual sexual desire of one person for someone who is not their spouse, nor on the morality of their sexual relationship, but on the potential harm that this might do to others - especially children of the marriage. Therefore it may appear that utilitarians' views on such a topic will be apt to change depending on the situation. If the case concerned a man with a married family, Utilitarians would oppose it especially because of the effect this would have on his children. However, if an unmarried man or a man in an unhappy relationship were to turn to a prostitute, utilitarians would think otherwise seeing how happiness would be greater than displeasure for there are no other particular factors, such as the man¡¦s family, showing such an act to be morally wrong.

"Sexual attraction outside marriage may be presented as the cause of so many single parent families, which in turn may be the reason why so many people are dependent on the state. The sexual act, therefore, is not condemned from a traditional 'rule based' standpoint but from one that highlights the social and economic consequences."

I argue in favour of the Utilitarian approach. It is advisable to always be aware of possible consequences which come with sex, an issue which utilitarians usually deal with by suggesting the use of contraception. I do not believe that a couple always has to be formed by the one who "commands" and the other who "obeys"¨. While Kant's view may often be the case in reality, I believe that a couple's equality isn't reached through commanding the other, but by the mutual respect of the other person, a belief which I don't think Kant's view follows. Furthermore, it is not always the male who may be the "domineering" partner, although Kant might have seen it in this view also because of the effect of the period he was living in.
[/color]

[KoNeko]

*nods and pulls out a notepad* This is a pretty interesting paper topic! I didn't ever really consider the two ethical positions (and they are commonly thought of as the two main ones) in relation to sex. I'll read it again in much more depth and give you some feedback, but in the meantime, could you give me some more information? When does this paper need to be done by? Do you need to cite your sources?

[hermoine]

In fact I was slightly surprised he told us to discuss these positions, although every topic we've done has had to revolve around these two beliefs. We're always comparing situations to them. In fact we had nothing about them in our notes.

I would prefer to hand it in next Thursday if possible, as I don't want to risk giving it to him during the last week of the term. You know, I don't want to have gone through all that and then he doesn't come and I have to wait all the holidays to give it to him.

And my sources are here. *she shakes the sole remaining paper in her hand*

Is there any other information you would like me to provide you with?

[KoNeko]

Okay, here's what I think. I'm going to post what you wrote and then comments ok? I think it's a pretty good paper overall, but here are some specific comments:

Kant believed that "the relation of the partners in a marriage is a relation of equality of possession, equality both in possession of each other as a person... and also equality in their possession of material goods". (Metaphysics of Morals, p. 97) This is true of his belief that human beings shouldn't be treated as means but as ends.

Good starting point. Personally, I tend to go from the more general belief, such as "the belief that humans shouldn't be treated as means but as ends" to the more specific (how it relates to the topic at hand - equality in partnership in marriage).

However, his view on this topic also included the belief that although humans are equal in theory, in practice, for marriage to achieve its "ends", one partner must be superior to the other. A harmonious and indissoluble union cannot be achieved through the random combination of two persons. One partner must subject himself to the other, and, alternately, one must be superior to the other in something, so that he can dominate or rule. If two people, who cannot do without each other, have identical ambitions, self-love will produce nothing but wrangling (Anthropology, p. 216).

Ok… I see what you’re saying, but it seems on the face of it that Kant is saying two different things. It sounds like he’s saying that generally, people shouldn’t be treated as means, so partners in a relationship should be equal. However, this is unrealistic in practice so in order for a successful marriage, there must be some sort of dominant-submissive relationship between the partners. (It’s ok, Kant is weird like that.) Out of curiosity, do you know how this would fit into his categorical imperative?

One other thing… so far you’ve written about Kant’s position on marriage. The topic is about sexual ethics, so I’d suggest writing a few lines about sex in a marriage.

Kant viewed women in this way: "The woman preserves her natural equality in principle, but forgoes it in practice for the sake of the common interest she shares with her husband." He saw them as lacking a requisite for active participation in the political life of the community. Thus he said that women should be "inferior" to men, for their own good, for the good of the marriage or for the good of society.

I won’t comment on what I think of Kant on this. However, you have in the quote that women should forgo their equality “in practice for the sake of the common interest she shares with her husband.” I think it’s worth just a sentence explaining what “common interest” means in this case.

Hence this action must be undergone for there to be harmony, or unity of will between the partners in a marriage. He argued that it’s practically necessary that one partner is the master; one person must command, the other must relinquish the natural equality they would possess in the ideal situation, and obey. Otherwise there will be "nothing but wrangling" and progress towards the purpose of marriage lest it may be stalled.

Ok. “This action”? Do you mean sex, or the domination/submission thing? Otherwise, this is a good paragraph for tying together all your previous points.

Such comments on Kant's part, regarding the body, sexuality, and especially about women and their place in the family and in society, certainly show their author as a rather typically misogynist man of bourgeois 18th century Germany.

This is what led authors such as Barbara Herman (Could It Be Worth Thinking About Kant on Sex and Marriage? - 1993), to describe Kant as "the modern moral philosopher feminists find most objectionable".

That’s a good connection in these paragraphs between what Kant said and what people think Kant said in relation to today’s society.

He continues on this subject by expressing that acts that treat another's sexuality as a mere tool of one's happiness (rape) are wrong, in the same way that acts that treat one's own sexuality as a tool of one's own happiness (masturbation) are wrong.

For this reason Kant opposes issues such as prostitution because in this case the prostitute is being used as an end, a means of enjoying oneself.

Good. I’d start the paragraph with “Kant” instead of “He”. For the first paragraph, I’d say why he thinks these acts are wrong as well. Even if it’s simply reiterating the means/ends distinction, it’s worth putting it in. Philosophers love explaining all the obvious details.

As regards the Utilitarian view, utilitarians say that any sexual activity is right provided that the following conditions are in place:

• Sex takes place in private and does not offend others
• Sex is between consenting adults and it increases the participants' happiness. If people are forced into sex it will not lead to happiness
• Sex does not harm others (This is difficult to assess as sometimes it results in heart attacks etc)

Fair enough. The “sex does not harm others one” could also mean that if people are having adulterous affairs or whatever that the other party won’t know because it’ll make them upset or something. Utilitarians would accept that because it would reduce the happiness of the offended party.

"It's not hurting anyone. We want to, so why shouldn't we?"

This statement about sexual morality even relates to cases regarding pre-marital sex. In this case, utilitarians take a somewhat positive approach and suggest the use of contraceptives to minimize possible harmful effects, and thus tipping the balance of happiness in favour of having sex rather than not. In fact, in advertising about contraception and the risks of HIV, the moral arguments in favour of taking a responsible attitude to sex are utilitarian. Possible infections or even pregnancy would greatly decrease the levels of happiness, both for the individuals concerned, for their family and even for society. One may take the following example: If X, who is underage, were to find out she is pregnant, she wouldn't be pleased because she's carrying an "unwanted" child and won't be able to fully live the joys of life even after the child is born, for the role of a mother entails certain responsibilities. Y, her partner, wouldn't be happy either, because, while he can escape his responsibility as he isn't "marked" with the any signs of pregnancy, he still remains the father. X's family will have to take care of a new child, adding to their expenses, and may feel ashamed of their daughter's situation with their neighbours. X's boss on the other hand will have to give her special leave due to her pregnancy, and continue paying her for a number of months albeit she cannot work.

You’ll have to explain what you mean by “harmful effects” in terms of premarital sex. Is that stuff like pregnancy? Actually, you discuss it a bit later in the paragraph but I’d suggest just putting something about it up front and then referring to it later.

Your example using X and Y is good. I love examples in my students’ papers – they’re so good for illustrating otherwise rather abstract points.

Utilitarians also reflect this same opinion upon homosexual relationships. As with sex before marriage, this argument tips the balance of happiness in favour of having sex rather than not or of continuing such a relationship although a small number of members of society may be contrary to it. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action and judges each activity separately by taking into account the people affected and the expected outcome. Practising safe sex within a loving homosexual relationship would be the responsible behaviour of a utilitarian.

Good discussion in this paragraph.

In the 18th Century in fact, Jeremy Bentham opposed anti-homosexual laws because they decreased the balance of pleasure over pain in society at large.
The same sort of utilitarian argument surrounds issues of adultery and the break up of marriages. Very often, the debate focuses not on the actual sexual desire of one person for someone who is not their spouse, nor on the morality of their sexual relationship, but on the potential harm that this might do to others - especially children of the marriage. Therefore it may appear that utilitarians' views on such a topic will be apt to change depending on the situation. If the case concerned a man with a married family, Utilitarians would oppose it especially because of the effect this would have on his children. However, if an unmarried man or a man in an unhappy relationship were to turn to a prostitute, utilitarians would think otherwise seeing how happiness would be greater than displeasure for there are no other particular factors, such as the man¡¦s family, showing such an act to be morally wrong.

This has some good illustrations in it. Make sure that your use of “utilitarians/Utilitarians” is consistent though.

"Sexual attraction outside marriage may be presented as the cause of so many single parent families, which in turn may be the reason why so many people are dependent on the state. The sexual act, therefore, is not condemned from a traditional 'rule based' standpoint but from one that highlights the social and economic consequences."

Ok… I’m not sure how this quote fits in. Are you going to discuss it at all? How does it relate to the rest of your argument?

I argue in favour of the Utilitarian approach. It is advisable to always be aware of possible consequences which come with sex, an issue which utilitarians usually deal with by suggesting the use of contraception. I do not believe that a couple always has to be formed by the one who "commands" and the other who "obeys"¨. While Kant's view may often be the case in reality, I believe that a couple's equality isn't reached through commanding the other, but by the mutual respect of the other person, a belief which I don't think Kant's view follows. Furthermore, it is not always the male who may be the "domineering" partner, although Kant might have seen it in this view also because of the effect of the period he was living in.

Good… you pick a position and argue for it. I’d suggest that move the last sentence of your paper to after “obeys”. Your comment about mutual respect of the other person is a powerful statement to make and would make a better concluding sentence.

----

Did that make sense? I hope that helped.

[hermoine]

*hugs Ko*
Oh thank you so much! You've just made me like Applied Ethics despite the fact that lessons are usually rather boring.

I'll run off and rearrange some stuff in it.

How much do I owe you dear?

OOC: I'll arrange the transaction myself then.

[KoNeko]

Hmm. If you want, you can edit it and I'll take another look if you're not sure. I really enjoyed reading your paper. I mean, Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism are the two main positions in applied ethics, and I've just never seen them applied to the ethics of sex, so that was an interesting read.

Hmmm. As for cost... *scratches head* I don't know. I really don't mind though, you can just pay me whatever you think it is worth.

[hermoine]

*hands her 4 galleons*

Thanks for all the great feedback. Sadly my lecturer postponed last Thursday's lesson so I guess I'll have to give him the assignment after the holidays.

This has really helped to me loads though, especially with the way to tackle some aspects at times, because in fact he was often ending up writing "Why?" all over my work. Do all philosophers like to dwell on that question per chance?


Recently I was thinking I could take Philosophy at A' Level when I finish from college. I could take private lessons while in Uni, because write now I'm studying it at an Intermediate level(the difference is the difficulty level and the amount of work covered basically). I was looking at some requirements of some foreign Universities(mainly Oxford) and they require very high grades and about 4 A' Levels. So yeah, you may still find me lurking around with more philosophy stuff in the years to come.