The Morality Of Objectification And Its Effect On Objectification

Tropp, Sandra Fehl., and Ann Pierson. D'Angelo. "Pornography (1983)." Essays in Context. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 543-47. Print.

The unconscious mind houses the preconscious, a small section that houses material that is non-threatening, and easily brought to mind. But deeper in the unconscious mind are the instinctual drives, the wishes, desires, demands, and needs that are kept hidden from out conscious selves because of the conflicts and pain they would cause if they were brought to bear every day. Psychoanalytic personality theory tells us that the personality consists of three separate, but forever intermingling elements, id, ego, and superego. The id section of a personality is by far the largest, the only section that we are born with, and the section that contains the unconscious thoughts, it is raw, unorganized, and from the time of birth it tries to reduce tension caused by our primary drives. The ego, a section that develops soon after birth, balances the instinctual desires of the id and the realities of the outside world. Last of course is the superego, the final personality structure that is developed in childhood, and represent the rights and wrongs of society, contained within the superego is the conscience, the part of us that prevents us from behaving in a morally deplorable way and is responsible for guilt. Psychoanalytic personality theory is not without its virtues; Freud’s proposed five psychosexual stages – oral, anal, phallic-oedipal, latency and genital – are all supported in life.

“In men, in general, sexual desire is inherent and spontaneous” whereas “in the other sex, the desire is dormant, if not non-existent, till excited” (457). Greg’s terminology is extremely power-laden. “Spontaneous” has the connotation of energy and activity, whereas “dormant” and “victim” imply inactivity. An important concept is the assumption that men, the “coarser sex,” act on women, the “weaker sex” (457).

Psychological egoism is the interpretation that humans are always inspired by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism, which was widely recognized by psychologists and philosophers states that all human actions are motivated by selfish needs to benefit themselves. According to psychological egoists true altruism does not exist because the consequence of such an act leads to an increase in personal happiness. However, Joel Feinberg does not agree with that theory and in his essay he disagreed with the thesis that altruism

These differences aren’t biological as some researchers lead us to believe, claiming that men are more sexually stimulated by images, making it natural for women to be gazed at. Bordo argues that our culture determines what if acceptable for “women learn to anticipate, even play to the sexualizing gaze…in the process we learn how sexy being gazed at can feel-perhaps precisely because it walks the fine edge of shame” (135). Yet, with the use of erotic male images and her clearly sexually reaction to them, Bordo pushes readers to question why there are differences in how men and women are viewed and view each other. Who decides what is acceptable?

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.

I believe that through his analogies of the misuse of body parts, counter arguments and his response to them, as well as the logical implications, Michael Levin poses a strong case that homosexuality is abnormal. With that said, the purpose of this paper is to analyze Levin’s argument, to do that I will address the parts previously mentioned, analogies, a counter argument, and logical implications.

This binary relationship manifests itself in Levy’s work in another way, as well. Toward the very end of the book Levy claims she has no complaint against women who do gain genuine sexual pleasure from “their vaginas waxed, their breasts enlarged” (Levy, 198). On one hand, Levy recognizes that sexuality is personal and that everyone’s own experiences and preferences are unique. Yet at the same time, by drawing the line between “authentic” and “fake”, she must impersonally interpret these experiences in order to classify them as “problematic”. This desire to judge yet not judge women’s sexual nature represents an underlying tension within the book that threatens to unravel her arguments.

In an insightful analysis of Plain Sex, Alan H. Goldman discusses the interactions of a sexual act. Goldman claims that a sexual act is merely the expression of love in a physical form. Goldman continues to questions sexual ethics, reproduction, and interpersonal awareness throughout the piece attempting to establish the purpose of sex. I found Goldman's perspective intriguing due to the simplicity of his claim, sexual acts are simply an expression of love. Goldman calls this “romantic love”, a sexual interactions that is entirely sensual and is “Inconsistent [with] sexual ethics and concepts of perversion” (pg.272) Romantic love differs from other types of love, romantic love can be expressed in many ways between partners.

“People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet?” (Moseley) An egoist would argue that one acts for one’s own self. More specifically, an ethical egoist is one who thrives to improve ones own self being, with much respect to morality. Ethical Egoism is the theory that one should pursue his or her own interest above all the rest. It is the idea that all persons should act from their own self interest in relation to morality.

There is a certain innate desire to help others, just as others will feel that same fulfillment for returning that aid. At the same time, however, there is also an inherent yearning to seek out one’s own best interest. This brings about a discussion regarding the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. To understand the similarities and differences, one must first understand the two concepts including their natures, as well as their doctrines of motivation.

emphasizes that although reality is constructed by our social interactions, our perceived reality, including those of a sexual nature are not the same for everyone. It is critical that a situation is defined by the establishment of relevant identities of those involved in the interaction. It is this construction that involves

In the first quadrant, the speaker examines both sides of the young man’s life where he looks at the darker and better sides but most importantly demonstrating the way he misuses his good-looking ability to commit sexual crimes. However, the speaker does not condemn it openly but appreciates his good look “how sweet and lovely” (1), but

Paragraph 2 – Many religious standards would take a very similar ethical perspective to pornography, especially Christianity, which would specifically oppose the “use” of people that occurs in the industry. MacKinnon describes how “women exist to the end of male pleasure” (MacKinnon, 309) in pornography, and Tisdale says that “porn uses people as objects” (Tisdale, 315). In the Christian view, this usage can be seen as very utilitarian, and “the commandment formulated in the New Testament, demanding love towards persons, is implicitly opposed to the principle of utilitarianism” (Wojtyla, 174).

Descriptive egoism holds that for each individual, there is only one ultimate aim survival and the betterment of the sole individual based on their own hierarchical principles.