Goldman on Plain Sex

Frederick Elliston’s “In Defense of Promiscuity” elucidates promiscuity and claims that non-committal sex holds more merit than sexual experiences restricted to either marriage or commitments; two spheres of the Western norm rejected by Elliston. Contrarily, Robert M. Stewart claims in “Meaningful Sex and Moral Respect” that engaging in “junk sex” (i.e. non-committal sex) hampers a person’s overall ability to achieve a higher level of sexual experience which surpasses physical pleasure and seeks deeper meaning. Although Stewart presents his arguments in accordance with morality and respect, his claims are one-sided and represent only the detriments of “junk sex” which make his arguments more questionable. On the other hand, Elliston’s arguments

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

It is Reiss’s belief that our traditional approach in regards to sex has led to the negative sexual consequences that we observe today and that it is time to do something to change this. He begins by discussing the multiple dimensions of this “crises” describing the specific details

'Sexual ethics provide a framework for Jewish conduct so that the tradition may continue in stability and morality'

Since the substantive account of consent emphasizes the importance of one determining one’s restrictions, it conflicts with the Lenient Thesis that objectively assumes that certain types of features such as religion are more critical to sexual decision making. Dougherty (2013) supports her argument with an example where Chloe deceives Victoria into having sex by lying that she shares the same love of nature, peace, and animals even though she was in the military and enjoys hunting and eating animals. The Lenient Thesis would argue that Victoria validly consented since lying about a peripheral feature would only be a minor wrong. However, the substantive view of consent would disagree because personal preferences are still considered core features that constitute when consent is violated (Dougherty, 2013, p.728). Thus, it brings a more subjective view to the table where everyone’s deal-breaker should be valued.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

While the idea of ‘good’ is a subjective analysis that must be observed on a case by case basis, happiness is capable of being defined. Happiness is the ultimate ends to a mean. In performing the proper function of man (rationality) we are using means to achieve ends,

The recent discussion of Richard Wasserstrom’s “Is Adultery Immoral” has raised a controversial issue of whether adultery is immoral. On the one hand, Wasserstrom presents two of the standard reasons why many people consider it to be immoral, because it breaks a promise and because adultery involves deception based on the assumption that a promise of sexual exclusivity is a necessary component of marriage. This argument then is based on the reasoning that since adultery involves at the very least a broken promise, and very likely, deception of some type, this is what makes adultery immoral. On the other hand, however, Wasserstrom argues that adultery may not necessarily be immoral because an

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

To begin with the authors of the article defined sexual values as the moral guidelines individuals use to make decisions regarding their sexual behavior (Richey et al .661). I gave my opinion of what sexual values are to me in the first paragraph. My view and the authors view are to some extent different;

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Everyone has something inside of them that makes them want to do good and make someone in this world happy. According to Kant, “some of our feelings are satisfied by moral acts and such moral feelings can be found in virtually all of us” (482). For me, that connection is why morality and happiness go hand and hand. Immoral acts can be fun or tempting and people commit immoral acts all the time. I believe that when people do a good deed it will bring more joy to them than doing something immoral. It may be more fun; however, they can affect the happiness of others in a bad

Moreover, the morality, good character and happiness cannot be separated from one another. This is because to a huge extent we tend to offer as the best individuals to our families, friend and colleagues who are the source of our happiness. Therefore there is an understanding that we can enjoy their company when we offer our best morals and support. With this understanding, we realize that a good moral character is a requirement to true happiness irrespective of the people we are dealing with. This understanding enables individuals to realize and prevent any moral deviation so as to maintain happiness with all persons (Delattre 137).

The only thing that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness that is caused. Therefore the right actions are those that produce the highest ratio of happiness over

For this essay this paper will be discussing the subject of moral behaviour and if it is necessary for happiness. The view that this paper will reflect and focus on is that “moral” behaviour is not absolutely necessary to be happy. To fully comprehend the topic in question we must look at the definitions of morality and happiness. Moral behaviour is subjective in the sense that what may seem right to one person may not seem right to another. Happiness is also entirely subjective due to the fact that what can make one or some people happy might not be the case for others. Examples will be given to demonstrate the fact that moral behaviour is not necessary for happiness. To be blunt the matter of the fact is that there are many people out