Philosophy of Sexuality

Among the many topics explored by the

philosophy of sexuality are procreation,

contraception, celibacy, marriage,

adultery, casual sex, flirting, prostitution,

homosexuality, masturbation, seduction,

rape, sexual harassment,

sadomasochism, pornography, bestiality

and pedophilia. The commonality of these

things are its relation to the various ways of

the vast domain of human sexuality.

They are related in two ways; first, it

shows human desire and activities that involve

the search and attainment of sexual pleasure or

satisfaction; and second activities that involve

the creation of new human beings.

The philosophy of sexuality explores these topics in the

areas of conceptual and normative perspective.

Conceptual analysis is carried our in the philosophy of

sexuality in order to clarify the fundamental notions of sexual

desire and sexual activity. It is also carried out in attempting to

arrive and produce definitions of adultery, prostitution, rape,

pornography, and so forth.

Example questions under the conceptual perspective are:

-What are the distinctive features of a desire to make it

sexual desire instead of something else?

-In what ways does seduction differ from nonviolent rape?

Normative philosophy of sexuality inquires about the value

of sexuality and sexual pleasure and of the various forms they

take. Thus the philosophy of sexuality is concerned with the

perennial/recurrent questions of sexual morality and

constitutes a large branch of applied ethics.

Normative philosophy of sexuality investigates what

contribution is made to the good or virtuous life by sexuality,

and tries to determine what moral obligations we have to

refrain from performing certain sexual acts and what moral

permissions we have to engage in others.

The question is not the same as what sexual

orientation or what is one’s sex- as opposed to

one’s gender. Asking the question “what is to

have sex” can be surprising. Typical answer

would be so obvious, it’s the intercourse (coitus)

between a man and a woman.

However, we are to consider some other

questions, for example:

If two people are to engage in coitus, but

there is no orgasm or one person only has

orgasm is that having sex?

What about homosexual sex, is it impossible

given the definition of coitus?

The broad definition of “sex” gives rise to the

diverse interpretation and answers to its

underlying questions. The topic of sexual ethics

can be related in the discussions of topics of

different normative ethical perspectives.

Recalling Natural Law Theory (NLT), it views

that, something is good if that fulfills its function.

Therefore, in order to work out what “good” sex

is, the most appropriate question to ask under

NLT is “what sex is for”. What is its function?

The answers to this questions would lead us

to the morally acceptable view of a sexual

activity.

St. Aquinas and other Natural Law theorists

would say that our sexual faculties have one

true end- that is procreation.

Sexual act is deemed to be pleasurable, but it is

pleasurable in order to fulfill it end. If this is

correct, then sexual activity is good if and only

if it is consistent with procreation, and bad in

so far as it frustrates that end.

is important to understand that the outcome is

independent of the desires, wants, reasons, hopes fears etc.

and that for Natural Law Theorists it is simply an objective

fact whether a sexual act is wrong or right, something

which is not affected by the culture, religion, etc. This means

that for NLT, there are objective moral truths regarding

how we ought and ought not to behave sexually.

In this sense, for traditional NLT, premarital sex,

masturbation, bestiality, contraception, homosexual acts,

pornography and adultery are all wrong.

In the view of NLT, premarital sex is wrong for children would

be brought into the world outside the safe confines of marriage.

Homosexual acts have no tendency towards procreation at all;

Contraception frustrates/does not satisfy procreation

Musturbation and pornography focus on the inwards sexual acts

of oneself, frustrating procreative ends.

Although, it is vital to make a number of clarifications as it can be

a basis of misunderstanding Natural Law Theory.

NLT is not claiming that anything that frustrates natural

ends is wrong but rather only human acts in comparison to

non-human sexual acts.

According to NLT, there is a difference between using

something wrongly and not using it at all. For example: celibacy

is morally acceptable for NLT.

The plausibility of this theory need not turn on how

religious you are. We could give an atheistic evolutionary

biological account that also talks about the “function” of our

sexual faculties.

There are many things which we could ask regarding this

overall NLT approach to the ethics of sex.

However, the main question to ask turns on why we might

think that just because something is the case; namely, it is the

function of sexual faculties to reproduce, that this is how things

ought to be.

KANT AND SEX

 For Immanuel Kant, sex is morally permissible within
the context of heterosexual, lifelong and
monogamous marriage. Any sexual act outside these
context- homosexuality, masturbation, adultery
premarital sex- is morally wrong. 
 The reason for this thinking is complex and can be
connected to his view of Categorical Imperative
where in: act in such a way that you always trat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end.
 Kant, like St. Augustine and sometimes Freud, are
deemed to be sexual pessimist. Plato and many other
 modern philosophers would be counted as sexual
optimists.
 The broad feeling among the pessimists is that our sexual
desires and impulses, and acting upon those impulses are
undignified. The sexual part of our nature is unbefitting to
how humans should behave and threatens our proper
moral life. 
 For Kant, sexual desire is the only impulse in us that
takes the body of another human as the object of
indulgence. 
 Kant is a believer of the notion of treating others as
whole persons is the key to being moral, but for him,
precisely what is missing is sexual desires.
 That is, in sex, we are treating others as objects and not
treating them as whole persons and hence acting
immorally. In the language of his formulation of Categorical
Imperative: in having sex we are treating people merely as
means to an end. Making Kant a sexual pessimist.
 In as far as this relates to ethics, the stand it looks is
like any sexual desire or act is going to be morally
wrong. But for the act ought not be viewed as wrong is
the role of marriage.
 The context of marriage and only marriage, Kant
thinks that sex and sexual desire is more than simply
treating another merely as means to an end.
 For Kant marriage is:
[Marriage] is an agreement between two persons by
which they grant each other equal reciprocal rights, each
of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person
to the other with a complete right of disposal over it.
  So we can avoid the charge of objectifying and using a
sexual partner merely as a means to an end because
in sex within marriage you are treating each other as a
whole person and thus there is reciprocity.
  Sex within marriage is about the whole person and not
simply the genitals, sexual desire and pleasure.

 SEX AND UTILITARIANISM

 In Utilitarianism, an act is not ruled from the basis of it
being a particular act. This means, if Utilitarianism is
correct, it cannot be said that any particular sex act is
always wrong. 
 Premarital sex, or homosexual sex, or masturbation,
or oral sex can be morally acceptable. The matter is
decided by whether or not the act brings about more
pleasure overall than not doing so. 
 Although, qualifications must be made in this view:
First, Utilitarianism is committed to the claim that the
act of having sex is always good. This leaves space for us
to show that rape and paedophilia/pedophillia are
morally wrong.

 These acts does not take much to see that the overall
unhappiness, mental and physical suffering of the
victim, the distress of the relatives and love ones etc. is
much more greater than the acquired pleasure from the
wrong doing.
 Second, just because sex is typically pleasurable, it
does not mean Utilitarianism is committed to the claim that
we have a duty to have as much sex as possible.
 In here, the concept is that, there are things we can do
that bring about more overall happiness. Or we might
suppose having sex all the time might  have
detrimental effects on the relationship and one’s mental
and physical health.
Third, for Utilitarianism, heterosexual sex within a
marriage might be morally wrong if there has been a
coercion or threats, or just general unhappiness with
perfunctory sex, where almost any other activity would
bring about more happiness.
Fourth, adultery or having multiple sexual partners
can be morally acceptable. 
 We can imagine a case where, for example, the overall
happiness is increased if a married couple agree to
have sex with other people to keep their own marriage
fun and interesting. 
 Or we might think that someone who is generally not

interested in, or does not have time for, a long-term

relationship is happier with mutually consenting
multiple sexual partners (or prostitutes).
Fifth, Mill gives a different answer to Bentham to
questions regarding what we ought to do when
considering various sex acts because of his distinction
between higher and lower pleasures.
 In general Mill did not value sex and he took the
pleasures that arose from it to be fleeting and of lower
 value. This is because Mill thought that some
pleasures are qualitatively distinct from others and thus
outweigh other, lower, pleasures. Bentham however
would not make this distinction.
 Virtue Theorist do write about any applied ethical
issues, they typically do not write about sex. However,
there are few who do not defend traditional accounts of
sexual ethics and consequently, it is unhelpful to try
and work out the virtue theory view on sexual conduct.
 Although, there are some things that might arise to the
say of virtue ethics to the context of sex and sexual
acts. 
-The virtue theorist would say that rape is always
wrong because it violates the other person’s sexual
autonomy which is the choice of when and how to have
sex and with whom.
Paedophilia/pedophilia is also always wrong for similar
reasons.
-Adultery might be wrong because an intemperate
person would break the marriage vows because of their
sexual desire.
The answer to whether a virtue theorist would think a
certain sexual activity is right or wrong will depend on
whether a virtuous agent would do that act.

One fine evening, while you and your family are

peacefully gathered in the living room to do your own
things and tasks, you hear the news from your television
that states: “A man arrested for stealing formula milk
and diapers for his 5 month old son’’. And as he was
getting interviewed the man says he that was lay-off of
work, had a hard time finding a new job, and poverty
lead him to do his act. On top of this he is a single
parent.
How would you react on this? 
 The Bible says, You shall not steal. It does
not state one should not steal because one
already has the resources in them, it does
not say one should not steal because one
does not possess anything at all. It is a full
stop commandment, You shall not steal.
 In any way around this statement, stealing
entails a morally wrong action. It can be
explain about different normative theories
namely, Kantian Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics,
and Virtue Ethics.
 To steal is take something to someone
without permission or knowledge of the
owner and has the intention to keep it.
 Recall that in Kantian Ethics, to determine
whether an act is morally permissible
 (acceptable) or not, we can utilize two
formulations of the Kantian Categorical
Imperative.
According to the first formulation, if we
consider the maxim behind an action (the
general principle that supports the action in
the mind of the person acting), then we
should consider whether or not that maxim
could be willed to become a universal law.
The second formulation would consider
whether or not the action involves treating
another person merely as a means to an
end, rather than an end to themselves.
 The categorical imperative says: “act only according
to maxims you can and would become a universal
law”.
 If the maxim is: “I want to steal something” then, if I
will stealing to be a universal law, then anyone could
steal whenever they wanted.  
 But if anyone could steal whenever/whatever they
wanted, the very concept of personal property
wouldn’t exist (because if anyone is entitled to just
take my property from me in what sense is it mine?)
 And if there is no such thing as personal property, the
very concept of stealing doesn’t make sense (because
you can’t steal something from someone if it isn’t
theirs to begin with)
 Therefore, willing that “I want to steal this thing”
leads to a contradiction of Kantian Ethics. Therefore,
stealing violates the categorical imperative.
Therefore, stealing is wrong
 Kant’s moral philosophy is deontological,
meaning he does not believe in the idea of
an action is a function of how fruitful its
outcome is.  
 Rather Kant believes that the motives (or
means) and not consequences (or end)  of
an action determines its moral value. 
 The categorical imperative if Kant’s
deontology is an absolutist, meaning in the
view of the action of stealing is wrong. In an
example where a poor father steals milk and
diapers for his son would be wrong in the
view of Kantian ethics, it is simply a
adherence to the simple rule or duty not to
steal.  
 In Utilitarianism, the view is teleological,
consequentialist and relativistic in nature. It
may seem to be more open on the idea of
stealing to be sometimes morally
acceptable. 
 This is applicable if, all that needs to be the
case for an example of stealing to be
morally right is for the good consequences
to outweigh the bad consequences. 
 In Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism, it focuses
on the moral judgement that is brought
about by an action that gives the greatest
amount of happiness.
 Act Utilitarianism views that whether or not
it is acceptable to steal something will
depend on the situation. There is no moral
right to property over and above its
utilitarian benefits and so if an act of
stealing results in a greater good then it
would be morally acceptable to steal.
 In Rule Utilitarianism, argues that although
there may be individual instances wherein
 stealing leads to greater happiness, having
a rule of        “do not steal” leads to greater
happiness overall. 
VIRTUE ETHICS ON
STEALING
 Aristotle states that some actions will never
fall within the Golden Mean- for example
stealing. With this, Aristotle views stealing
as an injustice act that deprives a person
what is justly and fairly theirs.
 Although, Virtue Ethics is not interested in
the moral status of an individual action,
rather its interest is in the character traits
and dispositions of the person doing an
action.
 Given for example that a person steals in
the basis of righteousness, courage  and
virtuous patience (virtuous dispositions,
Golden Mean), then the act may be
considered moral.  On contradictory, if the
act of stealing is in the basis of  rashness,
 shamefulness and irascibility (vice of
excess), then the act will not be considered
moral.
 Simulated killing is the dramatization or enactment of
killing within a fictional context (e.g. in video games,
films and plays)
 It is a fictional death and murder.
 A question of moral dimension of simulated killing is
the focus of this discussion wherein these are tackled:
The difference between watching a killing (in film)
and playing the role of the killer (in video games).
The effects of simulated killing has on a person’s
character.
Whether simulated killing is wrong in itself.

Utilitarianism on
Simulated Killing
PLAYING THE KILLER

 From the view of Act Utilitarianism, it says that an

action is right of it maximizes happiness, and wrong if
it is not. In playing a video game, no one is actually
 harmed in simulated killings. So as long as the player
is enjoying then there is a gain in happiness. 
 Although, how about the increased risk of having a
harmful behavior in reality or the outside world?
This increased risk could lead to:
-Killing
-aggressive behavior
-forms of asocial behaviors
-change in the gamer’s attitude towards violence in
general
 Reports shows that in some cases, where a gamer
perhaps already has a predisposition to violence,
playing the killer will lead to violence and harm. So
the utilitarian would say it is morally wrong for a
person to play such games. 
 Whereas in other cases, where the player has a
“normal” disposition, playing a killer in a video game
may have no negative effects; in which case, it is not
morally wrong
 So for Utilitarianism if there is a clear link between
risk-increasing acts and playing the killer in games
then we might be able to say that such game playing is
morally wrong. 
Kantian and Virtue Ethics
on Simulated Killings
 The theories of Kant and Aristotle holds similar views
on simulated killings particularly on playing the killer. 
 Whether they think that the killer is right or wrong is
going to depend directly on the data about how doing
so will change the person playing the game.
In so far of explaining simulated killings in Kantian and
Virtue Ethics,
 For Kant, if playing the killer makes us less able to
reason and hence discern our duty towards others,
then Kant would say that we should avoid them
In virtue theory, if playing the killer makes us less
virtuous — e.g. less courageous, empathetic, sensitive
etc. — then the virtue theorist will claim this will make us
less able to do the right thing at the right time to the right
proportion. This means that playing the killer is to be
avoided.
 ACTING THE KILLER
 The points and contexts of simulated killings in the
sense of acting as the killer would be in the form of
film or play. 
  Actors don’t imitate real-life killings, and even in
films, which may be more lifelike with special effects,
etc., violence is typically unrealistic. Instead, actors
pretend to kill (and to die) on the understanding that
certain actions are to be understood as killings. 
 Suppose an actor confessed to feeling real murderous
rage after the play or filming. This would be
disturbing. Such feelings are not part of the
conventions of acting, and indicate a blurring, in the
actor’s psychology, between the character and the
actor himself.

 The topic of simulated killing may be far from other

related issues studied under ethics, however, for the
lenses of Utilitarianism, Kantian and Virtue Ethics,
morality, agency, consequences of the action brought
about simulated killings are applicable in ethics.
 The ethical views from different perspectives in the
issue of simulated killing are of relevance and
connection to psychology. 
 In so far that simulated killings is the context or the
topic, it brings about being inconclusive and decision
whether it is morally right or wrong is further
explained via studies including experimentations

Have you ever lied?

Have you seek permission to your parents that you’ll be doing a project with your
classmates but you’ll covered it to have some good time?
 Have you told your mom that there’s no more change to the money she gave you after
she made you buy something in the store?

Did you ever made a “white lie” to a friend just so to please them?

If you ever did some of these, how did it go for you? How did you feel at the end of
telling a lie?

What is it to tell a lie? Are there times where lie can be acceptable? If so, what are the conditions that
made lying okay?

Truth and trust is an essential part of the society. It is built and gained in our daily interaction with
others.

Children are told not to “tell lies”, religious contexts condemn lying, relationship is built on trust and
viewed that one should not lie on their partner.

ase 1:

Imagine you have been having a bad day, but you stumble upon your friend in the hall way
asking how you are doing. You simply reply “I’m fine, and you?”. Did you lie?

The example given cannot be categorized as a lie, for it can be explained by a simple concept of “a
standard answer to a standard question”. In this situation, the one asking is already expecting the reply
in this circumstance.

tilitarianism is under the context of consequentialism:

Act Utilitarianism would say, it is morally acceptable to lie depending on the situation. If the lie
would lead to a greater happiness, then act utilitarianism would accept the act of lying.

For example:

Your friend asks you if she’s dressed nice for the occasion but she does not, you just replied yes.
Then in this situation, the lie is acceptable for act utilitarian for the “yes” brought happiness to your
friend.

Rule Utilitarian on the other hand would argue that the rule is “never to lie. It would lead to a much
greater happiness than a rule that allows everyone to lie.

For example:

If everyone could lie to bring about happiness and reduce pain, then it also follows that one can
trust nobody in anything anyone could say. The rule utilitarian approach would argue that in this
situation, there is no one to trust anymore, then it results to a less happy society.

Kantian Ethics in Telling Lies

 The point of telling a lie is to make another person believe on something that is not true.
However, if someone always tells a lie, then people would establish trust and wouldn’t believe each
other.

In this perspective, Kant would argue that the maxim wherein “it is okay to lie” fails to fall in a
categorical imperative. This is because it would lead to a contradiction of conception.

If it was always acceptable to tell a lie, the very concept of telling a lie would not make sense
(i.e., that is saying something falls in order to deceive). Recall that, categorical imperative states that one
should always tell the truth.

or Aristotle “falsehood is in itself bad”, this then appears to be saying that lying is always
wrong.

However, Aristotle later argues that there are degrees to which telling lies is bad: Lying to protect your
reputation, for example, is not as bad as lying to gain money.

Given this, you could potentially argue that there may be situations where it is morally acceptable to lie,
such as in the example of saving a life above anything else.

Applied ethical issue of the moral acceptability of eating animals is considered when; it remains to be
seen what conclusions might be drawn to be either justify or condemn aspects of our multi-faceted
behavior and attitude towards animals.

Justifying Meat Eating-

In a comparative justification, meat-eating is morally acceptable because it relates to the

comparison between humans as meat-eaters as well as other animals are also meat-eaters.

Second justification considered for meat-eating is a wider outlook on the world we live
in. Part of the creation of the world, what is written in the Bible is “

Second justification considered for meat-eating is a wider outlook on the world we live in. Part of the
creation of the world, what is written in the Bible is,

“[…] the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”. This verse is often interpreted as God
providing man with a soul, and thus differentiating mankind from the rest of animal creation. In
addition, after “the Flood”, God says that “[everything] that lives and moves about will be food for you.
Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything”.

Recall that Act Utilitarianism says that an action is right if it maximizes happiness, and wrong if it
doesn’t. The view of happiness is understood as pleasure and is the absence of pain.

Utilitarianism says that happiness is good, not just that the happiness of humans is good. If happiness is
good, then it is good no matter what creature feels it.
There is nothing in the theory that gives us a reason to privilege human happiness over the happiness of
non-human animals. So it seems that the logic of utilitarianism requires us to take as much account of
beings that are not human as of human beings.

For a utilitarian, an act (or rule) is wrong if it produces more suffering than an alternative. Who
is suffering is irrelevant. When it comes to suffering, animals should be treated as equal to people.

Does this mean that eating animals is always wrong? Not necessarily. First, there is the question
of whether stopping the practices of farming, slaughtering and eating animals would reduce the amount
of (animal) suffering in the world more than it would increase (human) suffering.

Second, the utilitarian position only objects to suffering, not to killing. Although it can seem very
strange to think about it in this way, if you painlessly kill an animal and bring another animal into being,
you haven’t reduced the total amount of happiness in the world.

And so it seems that any maxim that concerns how we treat animals can be universalized.
There is no contradiction, either in conception or in the will, in universalizing the maxim to eat meat.

Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which states ‘Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end’.

Because of our capacity for practical reason, human beings are ends in themselves. We have a rational
will and can adopt ends. This is the only thing that is unconditionally good, and for everything else that is
good, its goodness depends upon being adopted by a will. Animals are not rational wills and are
therefore not ends in themselves, and can therefore be treated as means to our ends. We may
therefore eat them.

For a utilitarian, an act (or rule) is wrong if it produces more suffering than an alternative. Who
is suffering is irrelevant. When it comes to suffering, animals should be treated as equal to people.

Does this mean that eating animals is always wrong? Not necessarily. First, there is the question
of whether stopping the practices of farming, slaughtering and eating animals would reduce the amount
of (animal) suffering in the world more than it would increase (human) suffering.

Second, the utilitarian position only objects to suffering, not to killing. Although it can seem very
strange to think about it in this way, if you painlessly kill an animal and bring another animal into being,
you haven’t reduced the total amount of happiness in the world.

And so it seems that any maxim that concerns how we treat animals can be universalized. There
is no contradiction, either in conception or in the will, in universalizing the maxim to eat meat.

Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which states ‘Act in such a way that you
always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end’.

Because of our capacity for practical reason, human beings are ends in themselves. We have a
rational will and can adopt ends. This is the only thing that is unconditionally good, and for everything
else that is good, its goodness depends upon being adopted by a will. Animals are not rational wills and
are therefore not ends in themselves, and can therefore be treated as means to our ends. We may
therefore eat them.

Despite these results, Kant argued that we may not treat animals in any way we want. He starts
from the idea that we have the duty to others (and to ourselves) to be virtuous.

We have a duty to protect and develop our ability to have a good will and to do our duty. He
then argues that if we lack kindness towards animals, we may become unkind towards other people –
and this would be morally wrong.

Therefore, we need to treat animals in such a way that we don’t damage our own abilities to be
virtuous. So while we have no duties to animals, we do have duties concerning animals, but these are
indirect duties to ourselves and other people.

Aristotle’s discussion of eudaimonia is concerned with the good life for human beings specifically.
Animals, unlike humans, are not capable of reason and so eudaimonia doesn’t apply to them. So,
Aristotle would likely not see any issue with eating animals.

But some more recent virtue ethics philosophers take a different approach to this.

Cora Diamond, for example, argues that there are different practices surrounding the eating of animals –
some of which are virtuous and some of which aren’t.

Yes, animals are a different kind of being to humans and so we shouldn’t treat their
happiness, but they are nevertheless living beings that can have good and bad lives.

To completely ignore this, as some factory farming practices do, demonstrates the vices of callousness
and selfishness.

In contrast, rearing your own chickens and treating them humanely – even if you do ultimately eat them
– demonstrates the virtues of sympathy and respect.

So, in summary, virtue ethics could say that eating animals is sometimes acceptable – as long as it is
done in the right way and for the right reason.