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]