Kant and Sexual Morality

The article then addresses the idea of consent, and whether or not forced intercourse such as

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

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

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Individuals are concerned with creating a bond with another individual, which homosexual partners dispute the natural law theorist requirement that only heterosexuals can perform this. He also continues to state that gay sexuality does not harm others because institutionalizing gay marriage breed’s support for children and other healthy relationships, as do heterosexuals. Corvino clearly remarks his claim throughout his work, all which leads to his main argument that gay sex is not “unnatural” or immoral, as many individual’s believe it is.

It was not until the twelfth century that homosexuality started to be condemned. This condemnation proved to live through then until now. Due to the fact that America incorporated these early views into its early laws, even the most bland of today's sex acts were seen as unlawful (“Homosexuality and Mental Health”). Since then, these laws have changed, however, there is still a primarily negative connotation on homosexuals when coming from a church or legal standpoint concerning the masses of America.

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

One of the points that Kant tries to make is to never treat “humanity”, whether it be yourself or another person, as a means the same time as an end (Wells-Quash, 2010). On the topic of capital punishment, it can be viewed that just simply killing someone out of revenge for a heinous act is against the notion of Kant’s system.

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.

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

This means that a person would do something they are not necessarily interested in but they would do it to accomplish something else. You gave us a wonderful example when you told the story about the twenty-one year old at the party. The people at the party didn’t exactly like this man but because he was able to get them alcohol they let him stay. This boils down to treating people as if they are a meaningful part of society and not just to accomplish a meaningless goal. People are meant to be treated like equals. With this particular aspect of Kant’s view we are able to see where our rights come from. In this theory every human is treated as an equal so theoretically everyone will have the same

Therefore using anything at your disposal as a means would have no moral worth. “It is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity in our person as an ends in itself; it must also harmonize with it”(Kant, 113). People must act not according inclinations or rules, but it involves performing acts that have no gains for us, and that is the only way to preserve humanity.

Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant’s theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.

Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.