User:Thomasgraziadio/Sexual ethics

Moving forward there seems there is going to be more restrictions on conscription with the global population exponentially increasing like it is. In China there is a two child policy, and before that they had a one child policy which was highly controversial. But, in terms of practicality putting a limit on amount of babies one can have seems like one of the few choices we have to limit it. However, this brings in major ethical issues on what to do if families happen to go over the limit. (added this in the public health area towards the bottom)

According to Kant, like many older philosophers, sex was only permissible through heterosexual marriage and any sexual act that wasn't towards procreation was considered morally wrong or unethical. He thought that if you weren't married to someone than having sex with them was immoral because you were just using them as a means to an end. However, when you became married to someone part of your vow of marriage was surrendering yourself to your partner for any sexual act (equally) therefore creating "reason" and morality for sex. So by his standards pretty much everything besides vaginal intercourse was wrong and shouldn't be practiced. It wasn't until utilitarianism for when most sexual acts became moral, besides rape and molesting. For utilitarianists it's all about the overall happiness the act brings, therefore if having multiple wives or having agreed sexual partners outside your marriage (adultery) was the greatest happiness then it was ethical and moral. This paved the way for more modern ways of thinking sex and makes homosexuality moral, and any other type of sexual preference.

Moving forward there is going to be more restrictions on conscription with the global population exponentially increasing like it is. In China there is a two child policy, and before that they had a one child policy which was highly controversial and came into effect in 2015. But in terms of practicality, and by more modern Malthusianism, putting a limit on amount of babies one can have seems like one of the few going theories we have to limit it. However, this brings in major ethical issues on what to do if families happen to go over the limit.

According to Kant, like many older 18th century philosophers, sex was only permissible through heterosexual marriage and any sexual act that wasn't towards procreation was considered morally wrong or unethical. He thought that if you weren't married to someone than having sex with them was immoral because you were just using them as a means to an end. However, when a person became married to someone part of their vow of marriage was surrendering themselves to their partner for any sexual act (equally) therefore creating "reason" and morality for sex. By his standards pretty much everything besides vaginal intercourse was wrong and shouldn't be practiced. It wasn't until utilitarianism for when most sexual acts became moral, besides rape and molesting. For utilitarianists it's all about the overall happiness the act brings, therefore if having multiple wives or having agreed sexual partners outside your marriage (adultery) was the greatest happiness then it was ethical and moral. This paved the way for more modern ways of thinking about sex while also making homosexuality moral, and any other type of sexual preference.

(edited versions without the proper citations. citations can be found in the actual article.)

I also added something very minor to the lead and inserted "philosophy" into this sentence "Historically, the prevailing notions of what is regarded as sexually ethical have been linked to philosophy and religious teachings." helped make my section more relevant.

Not until contemporary times has sex thought of as something generally good in the history of western philosophy: "Plato denigrated it, arguing that it should lead to something higher or better (Phaedrus, Symposium), Aristotle barely mentioned it, and Christian philosophers condemned it." A major topic in the the philosophy of sex and related to the question of the moral status of sex is objectification, where sexual objectification is treating a person only as a sex object. It originates in Kant’s moral philosophy, and many modern thinkers have used this concept to criticize a wide range of ethical issues related to sex, such as pornography.

Kant views sex as only morally permissible in the context of a heterosexual, lifelong, and monogamous marriage, whereas any sexual act that is performed outside this context is considered morally wrong. This is due to Kant's interpretation of the Categorical Imperative with regard to sexual desire. He considers sex the only inclination that cannot satisfy the Categorical Imperative; in fact, sexual desire by its nature is objectifying and lends itself to the thing-like treatment of other persons.

"The idea seems to be that sexual desire and pleasure cause very acute forms of sensation in a person's own body; that these sensations drive out, for a time, all other thoughts, including the thoughts of respect for humanity that are characteristic of the moral attitude to persons. ... In that condition of mind, one cannot manage to see the other person as anything but a tool of one's own interests, a set of bodily parts that are useful tools for one's pleasure, and the powerful urge to secure one's own sexual satisfaction will ensure that instrumentalization (and therefore denial of autonomy and of subjectivity) continues until the sexual act has reached its conclusion."

The solution to the overall problem of objectification and sex, on Kant's view, is marriage: Only marriage can make objectification tolerable. Kant argues that in a marriage, which is "a relationship that is structured institutionally in ways that promote and, at least legally if not morally, guarantee mutual respect and regard", objectification may be rendered harmless. Furthermore, not all sexual activity is necessarily objectifying here: sexual activity that does not involve sexual desire might treat another person as a mere thing and might thus not be objectifying. However, Kant does not distinguish between male and female sexuality, and his analysis does not consider social hierarchies or asymmetric formations of erotic desire in or outside of marriage. Kant's argument is seen as implausible by most modern thinkers.

Finished product after peer editing.