Sufficiently Less Than Enough: Consent, Sex, and Moral Behaviour
Consent is uniquely argued position within philosophical analysis of moral and immoral behaviours, especially in regards to positions refuting consents ability to be sufficient enough to legitimize moral behaviour. We must remain critical in our analysis of consent, and ways that it may, or may not legitimize moral behaviours. At first glance, one might assume that; the consent of two people is enough to constitute moral behaviour. Upon further investigation, we become aware of another’s ability to consciously consent and engage in acts that will degrade and cause some form of harm to the other, usually for their own mental or physical pleasure, inducing the fact that consent is not sufficient for ensuring moral behaviour. Consent is certainly a necessary part of contextualizing and legitimizing moral, sexual behaviours, however, consent is not implicitly sufficient for moral behaviour on its own. Consent is not sufficient legitimizing certain behaviours.
One most take into consideration that consent is necessary, however, although a necessary requirement, it does not, by default, qualify as sufficient. I will argue this by using Seiriol Morgan’s views on the nature of human desires, and his discussions of Kant’s moral theories opposing arguments failed to completely analyze in their views of consent as necessary and sufficient. Consent does not, by default, illicit moral behaviour. Moral behaviour is often legitimized through consent; however, immoral behaviour may benefit or even be validated through consent. In our evaluation of consent and ways in which consent is considered morally transformative, we must understand the diverse nature that consent is situ...
... middle of paper ...
...alls us to be more aware of certain sexual impulses that we have an obligation to refrain from, even if consent is given and no one objects to these types of desires.
In conclusion I hope this paper has shown why consent does not constitute moral behaviour, although it does produce a necessary process of ensuring external notions used to protect an individuals free choice to engage and participate in various actions. Moral behaviours rest in our abilities to engage in various duties of virtue that take into account the happiness, respect, and well-being of others around us. Although they may have consented to, or actively engaged in free choice that led to positions of unhappiness and suffering, we must reflect on our ability to ease the discomfort of others and remain critical of stark, legitimate theories of morality that limit the emotional value of humanity.
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
Farley says “the requirements articulated in this norm is all the more grave because it directly safeguards the autonomy of persons as embodied and inspirited, as transcendent and free (Farley, 218)”. Giving your consent on sex makes it better on the two willing to give consent, it's an agreement, and trustful. “This right or this obligation to respect individual autonomy sets a minimum but absolute requirement for the free consent of sexual partners (Farley, 218)”. In addition, I also argued that when giving your consent on sex if something where to occur, it's based in your choice. Farley would say that “ the requirement of free consent, then opposes sexual harassment, pedophilia, and other instances of disrespect for persons capacity for, and right to, freedom of choice (Farley, 218)”. Which proves my argument to be correct, that giving your consent is self-decision, and self-choice. The consent on sex proves to sufficient based in
In the day and age where online dating and meeting is becoming more common, it’s easy to alter how you are perceived. You can disclose details about yourself you believe are attractive and withhold/hide information about yourself you believe other people would reject you for. The Lenient Thesis provides that it is only a minor wrong to deceive another person into sex by misleading them about certain personal features such as natural hair color, occupation, or romantic intentions. This thesis does exclude run-of-the-mill deception like someone’s sexual history, t.v show preferences, or how funny one finds the other. In “Sex, Lies, and Consent”, Tom Dougherty seeks to argue against the lenient thesis, and instead that deceiving another person
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Consent is known as the permission, or approval of a certain action. A current debate in today’s society is about consent during sexual relations. This is a very controversial subject due to the fact that there are so many different scenarios that come into play when you are talking about consent between parties. When discussing consent, there are many different topics that come into play depending on who you are talking to. In my opinion, one of the most important things that come into play when discussing this topic is respecting who you are with.
The application of morality begins at a young age for many people. Many children take on the morality of their parents through the daily events that influence their development. In many ways, parental sexuality means fidelity, and the ability to stay monogamous in order to properly raise a child in a complete family unit. This in turn expresses sexual fidelity as a form of morality, and without sexual fidelity, there will be painfully undesirable consequences. Along with the family unit being an influential aspect of sexuality, religion, particularly Catholicism, claim that sexual activity is solely justified by the reason of procreation. Freud also perceived sexuality as the dark and evil part of the human being, when allowed to freely express sexuality, the person i...
The second part of the essay is call for reform from the current state of sexual ethics as it relates to the most vulnerable social group– teenagers. I conclude that current christian attempts within sexual ethics are failing teenagers and suggest ways in which my ordering of sexual ethics might prove more effective.
There are several arguments against philosophical anarchism. Most of the arguments are in line with either the theory that consent is not required or of the theory we have already consented. For the sake of being brief, this essay will attempt to refute only the latter of the two. Along with the idea of individual consent is the longstanding, traditional theory of the authority of God. Other arguments follow a less anarchist view and are that of tacit consent and more specifically that of majority consent.
The reason I am writing this paper is to share the information I attained about human sexuality by learning about sexuality in a college setting and by exploring my sexuality through personal experiences. I do not consider myself to have experienced much exposure to sexual behavior but I do have a cultural bias to what I consider a heavy amount of exposure because the North American culture is considered more promiscuous and sexually active than other cultures.
One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated; How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
Within the past thirty years, the courts have extended the legal parameters of rape to include the withdrawal of consent after penetration. Courts and state legislatures around the country should seek to modernize rape statutes to protect all victims of nonconsensual intercourse, regardless of when those victims manifest their lack of consent. Within English common law, a conviction of rape required evidence that the perpetrator used force or threats of force against the victim. There is much contradiction between states regarding consent. In an effort to eliminate moral ambiguity or the question of consent, an affirmative consent standard should be set into place that refines the classification of consent from “not saying no to sex” to saying yes to the sex with words or obvious enthusiastic actions.
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we feel is necessary.