6

Firstly, women are not art. Women are people. You are not prohibited from seeing women as art. If you want to examine the female form as art, why not go to an art museum? Or join a life-drawing class? What you are prohibited (or at least discouraged) from doing is starting at strangers' bodies without their consent. Your intent may be entirely decent, but ...


4

How incest as a taboo is defined is dependent upon the culture you are raised in. If I remember correctly, Cleopatra was the result of 27 generations of brother-sister marriages. In some cultures marrying your first cousin is ok, in others, second cousins are ok. In some to marry an uncle is ok. In others, several generations. Every society defines it ...


4

Your reasoning is valid. However, the consensuality of the union is not the premise that defenders of same-sex marriage are basing their argument on. Defenders of same sex marriage are working from the assumption that some gays and lesbians are born that way, and they cannot help or change the fact that they are attracted to people from the same sex. This ...


4

I think you're criss-crossing some distinct notions here. First, there are moral senses of terms like "rape" and "assault." Moreover, there are legal senses. Finally, there are psychological senses* of these terms. The legal sense of rape is (historically) as follows: Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against ...


3

Tim Jankowiak writes the following about Kant's ethics: Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind [of] rational faith. Kant attempts to provide a ...


3

Male lions eat the cubs of other lions to maximize the chances of their own offspring thriving. This is natural behavior, yet no one will ever argue that it is moral behavior. Arguments against the morality of homosexuality are purely religious. If you don't accept the religious argument against homosexuality, then there is really no way of arguing against ...


3

The issues you list -- altruism, reciprocation, etc... -- are not specifically sexual, but are general ethical issues and therefore would be discussed outside of sex. Philosophers prefer general principles to specifics, so instead of studying sexual selfishness, they would study selfishness in general. Which probably makes philosophers lousy lovers :) This ...


2

I myself have wondered why I have come across so little discussion of sex among philosophers, especially since it seems to me that it would be a very serious question for ethics and philosophy of religion (i.e. why do sexual norms vary so much from society to society? Why are some religions so hung up on trying to control sexual behavior?). If there is ...


2

No gay marriage in itself does not justify incest marriage per se. Both are quite different. However reasons why gay marriage is justified may apply even to incest. For example in Obergefell v. Hodges - "The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. First, "the right to personal choice regarding ...


2

I confine my remarks to Plato, who dominates your question Plato, Aristophanes & the Symposium Plato does not identify himself or the Platonic Socrates with Aristophanes' view. Aristophanes was a comedic playwright and he is here represented as in humorous mood, engaging in a jeux d'espirit. The story of the original three sexes and of Zeus' bipartition, ...


2

Morality of watching porn I would feel ashamed of any intentional kind of involvement in any business based on exploitation of human beings especially, but really of anything. Exploitation is motivated by greed and several other morally primitive ego drives. (Google Books search) (Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia search) And if anyone should justify it ...


2

Ill try to answer your actual question, but there are many views, and many possible answers, as I am sure you are aware. Porn (and the wider sex industry) is a sector of human activities where there are some real concerns about consensual behaviour, and abuse, vs. freewill. Of course it is easy to forget that the exact same issues exist in many other ...


2

I can't speak to any justification of "reflexive disdain" for promiscuity (which seems a bit harsh to me), but I can certainly think of some basic economic/game-theoretic arguments one might make to prefer monogamous partnering, and to prefer non-promiscuous people over promiscuous people, at least for the purposes of being possible romantic/sexual partners. ...


2

The source of stories about Thales, marriage, children and sexuality is mainly Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, given extra circulation in Plutarch's Lives. Given, then, the unlikelihood that Plutarch had access to any genuine work of Thales, what were his sources for this Milesian? Only twice are these specifically ...


2

First, you overestimate the agreement that incest is morally wrong. Yes, I would find it viscerally disgusting to “mate” with my sister, but many philosophers wouldn't accept this subjective feeling as an argument for the claim that incest between adult siblings is morally wrong (if it is consensual and no children are conceived). Now to the main point: ...


2

An answer to your specifically stated question: Yes, the distinction is meaningful. But it has to be understood within the context of the specific faculty, agent, and end. If you hold that sexual faculties have a different end than Feser's unitive and procreative ends, than you will see this argument as fallacious, especially in the comparisons Feser draws. ...


2

" “contrary to” and “other than” " Surely ig0774 is correct. That something is, or can be, contrary to an aim, is an uncomplicated idea, and free of difficulty. Aristotle spoke of people who overindulged in sexual intercourse, saying they had sagging buttocks. If such buttocks are bad for riding horses in war, then over indulgence in sexual intercourse is ...


2

I think your question is more aligned with science or anthropology than philosophy. It isn't just a matter of having sex. How many places are there where a person could merely walk around naked in public without getting arrested? Our sex culture is deeply rooted in biology. Humans are among the very few a animals that both mate face to face and walk erect. (...


2

It's an interesting edge case in practice, with many different legal stances around the world. In the USA, the potential problems associated with such material, largely do not outweigh free speech rights, unless the Miller Test for obscenity is crossed. That free 'speech' rights offer legal protection for child sex robots, was found so widely disturbing it ...


1

Some philosophers have practiced sex in public places. Diogenes the Cynic engaged in public sex, though only with himself. His point was to confront his fellow Athenians with the truth of their animal nature. Most of us, however, prefer a life of self-consciousness and feel some pride in the fact that we are not merely dogs, from which the word Cynic derives....


1

It’s about why morality evolved. Shame evolved to avoid being vulnerable, for instance while defecating. Disgust evolved to avoid hazards from infection. Humans hijacked these to serve cultural ends, and then have applied reasoning and develop cultural practices which moderate shame & disgust where it’s not relevant to harms, and to provide legal and ...


1

Your question is "why", and the first place to look is broadly at whether we think the objection to your behaviour is in some way either natural or rational, or whether it's mostly a function of the history of our particular society and culture. I suspect the balance is towards the latter because appreciation of male beauty, which for most natural or ...


1

The main difficulty with this argument is that you would have to establish that marriage is about the production of lineal-bloodline children. That is problematic for a few reasons: It is easily argued that marriage is less a matter of producing children and more a matter of retaining property within certain bloodlines. Note that in the few matrilineal ...


1

Identity is changing, fluid, performed rather than in-built. This means that our behaviour (which is a series of different events rather than a one-off phenomenon) shapes our identity. Therefore the question 'what is your identity' is inherently wrong/misleading, because it presupposes stability that simply does not exist. It is confessional in a sense that ...


1

Gay marriage and incest are quite different, actually, and neither justifies the other in itself. However, the postulate that the State or the society has no power or function to intervene in consensual sexual activity does justify the legalization of incest, unless restrictions of application are imposed upon it. Such restrictions can be set either to ...


1

Larry Young and Brian Alexander in their book “The Chemistry Between Us” give evidence that it is neither societies nor cultures that bind us in partnerships but chemical pair-bonding that can be identified in our brains. The cause of what you are concerned about is more at our species level rather than at the level of culture. They also argue for a ...


1

The word love leads to multiple misunderstandings because it is wide and fuzzy but basically implies attraction. From the perspective of the systems theory: physical attraction occurs between two entities, and it is generated by two forces, one from each entity towards each other. This means that for attraction to exist, there should be a force between ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible