Timeline for Kant's categorical imperative and casual sex. Why does casual sex necessarily involve using someone as a mere means?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2022 at 8:48 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | In other words: Kant is in no way about changes of perspective and putting oneself in other people's shoes. It is purely about the internal differentiation between rational and desire-driven volition and acting only because the former is not in conflict with the latter. Therefore, the whole thing comes down to: can it be rationally willed to work as a prostitute? | |
| Jun 3, 2022 at 20:40 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | @causative As a matter of fact, the humanity formula (not merely as means...) comes down to respect of rational volition, ie. you don't have to consider actual wishes but you'll have to project your own volition insofar it is rational in Kant. Thus, you can even discard explicit wishes if they are irrational, ie. produced merely by our faculty of desire. Therefore, Kant's own moral philosophy and sex will be hard to bring together. Kantian thinking will probably be compatible if argued well. | |
| Jun 3, 2022 at 10:59 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Please elaborate on the 'hint' that sex is a special moral category? How do you get this impression? I might have an answer then. If manual labor is permissible, it is probably because it cannot be avoided? "What is necessary is never unwise" and all that. It is widely asserted that sex is not 'necessary' in the same way. | |
| Jun 3, 2022 at 8:06 | comment | added | Nikos M. | Casual sex does not necessarily use the other person as means. But usually it does (eg sex workers). | |
| Jun 2, 2022 at 23:23 | comment | added | tkruse | The way I personally interpret Kant, any transaction with other humans who agree to it without coercion is not immoral. This covers many forms of sex and many forms of labor, though obviously not all forms. The key question is only whether the other person consents freely enough to the terms. Finding some partner for an activity mutually beneficial to both is different from treating another as a mere means. | |
| Jun 2, 2022 at 16:24 | comment | added | causative♦ | Yeah, "don't use others as a means to an end" requires a very generous interpretation to make any sense, because even something like buying a candy bar is using the cashier as a means to an end. Maybe you can interpret it as something like, "acting without consideration of whether the other person wants the outcome, too." But I don't know if Kant says that in so many words. And you can't respect the wishes of others in all things, because the freedom of one person is often in conflict with the freedom of others. | |
| S Jun 2, 2022 at 14:41 | review | First questions | |||
| Jun 9, 2022 at 7:20 | |||||
| S Jun 2, 2022 at 14:41 | history | asked | tashakinns | CC BY-SA 4.0 |