Kant on sex

Publish in



Please download to get full document.

View again

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Kant on the topic of sex
  Sexual union is the reciprocal use that one human being makes of the sexual organs and capacities of another. This is either a natural use (by which procreation of a being of the same kind is possible) or an unnatural use with a person of the same sex. Since such transgression of laws, called unnatural, do wrong to humanity in our own person, there are no limitations or exceptions whatsoever that can save them from being repudiated completely.--Kant, Doctrine of Right In short, where heterosexual acts are the only natural acts, and other acts are unnatural  —  including, of course, homosexual acts. ‘Natural’ sexual union refers to sexual deeds involving two persons of opposite sex who make reciprocal use of each other’s se xual organs and capacities in a way that is consistent with  procreation. To engage in any other sexual practices, Kant appears to argue, conflicts with our innate right to freedom, because it is an unnatural use of our sexual organs and capacities. Heterosexual acts are the only natural acts, whereas all other acts are unnatural  —  including, of course, homosexual acts. If this is the correct interpretation of Kant here, the problem is that he must be mistaken about his own theory. The reason is that homosexual acts, or acts not in line with procreation, are not in conflict with one’s innate right to freedom. The innate right to freedom gives one a right to independence from having one’s freedom subjected to another  person’s arbitrary choice, but there is no s uch wrongful subjection in consensual sexual interactions amongst morally and legally responsible persons. Plato:  Plato considers love between people solely as a homosexual phenomenon, whereas his discussion of sex includes both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. In 5th century Athens, apart from some outstanding exceptions, like Pericles’ legendary love for Aspasia, men were married for reproductive ends, yet reserved the term ‘love’ and the passionate activity of sexual love for homosexual relationships. In the Phaedrus, if men are truly lovers of wisdom, the only intercourse that will appeal to them is rational exploration together. If, however, they are men of the second order, their constant  proximity may be too much for them and they will find a sexual expression for their love. Being essentially good men, they will indulge in sexual pleasures only very rarely, understanding the regrettable effects that these have on the freedom of the mind in the search of the Forms. ARISTOTLE:  In Poetics, he wrote that woman may be said to be an inferior man. Heterosexual sex is an act of reproduction which passes as good because of that function. He saw the male as the ultimate realization of humanity, and the female as necessarily inferior. DEONTOLOGY:  Deontological Ethics is the opposite of consequentialism. It contends that the way to decide if an action is moral is to examine the intentions. If we look at the intentions of, again, two consenting adults entering into matrimony we can assume that, in this day and age, the intentions are positive. The intentions are positive thus, under this theory, the action is ethical. So, Same-Sex Marriage is ethical.  CONSEQUENTIALIST:  Consequentialism is basically utilitarian which involves making the majority happy. The consequentialist argument is based on the simple and patently obvious fact that gay marriage would make a majority of homosexuals happy and therefore, okay.
Related Search

Previous Document


Next Document


We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks