On sexual morality and marriage

Dr. Ching-wa WongDepartment of Applied Social Sciences

Hong Kong Polytechnic Universitysscwwong@polyu.edu.hk

Outline Philosophical approaches to sexual

morality The naturalness argument against

homosexuality Utilitarian views on homosexuality The liberal and communitarian views on

marriage, family, and reproduction Arguments for and against same-sex

marriage

Approaches to Sexual Morality

Stances on sexual moralityGeneral approaches

Political doctrines Ethical doctrines

1. Traditional view

2. Sexual Libertarianism

3. Utilitarianism

1. Liberalism2. Libertarianism3. Communitarianism4. Utilitarianism

Christian ethicsConfucianism‘Naturalism’Freudian ethicsFeminismPluralismNihilism…

Sexual liberation: Backgrounds

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) Mischel Faucault (1926-1984)

Debate over sexual liberationSexual Libertarianism

The traditional view

The utilitarian view

If coercion is not involved, there is nothing wrong with: Homosexuality Sexual perversion Pornography Prostitution

Sex outside (heterosexual) marriage is wrong.

The demand for sexual freedom should be balanced with other social values, so as to maximize happiness.

The case against Homosexuality:

The naturalness arguments

Austere naturalism What is unnatural is also immoral.

Homosexuality and sexual perversion are unnatural. Therefore, they are immoral.

Unhappiness: A naturalistic argument against homosexuality Michael Levin, ‘Why Homosexuality is Abnormal?’

(1984)1. Homosexuality necessarily results in pain.2. The pain is caused by the abuse of bodily parts.3. The right use of the male genital depends on its

evolutionary functions.4. The right use of bodily parts is rewarding, and their

misuse is painful.5. Therefore, male homosexual acts are ‘abnormal’ in the

sense that ‘it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire [to have intercourse].’

(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27902859?uid=47656&uid=3738176&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=5910200&uid=32458&uid=62&sid=21103487023343 )

Elements of the naturalness arguments1. Aristotelian functionalism2. Objectivist conception of happiness

The utilitarian rejoinder

Harm: the utilitarian/liberal approach John Stuart Mill’s ‘principle of harm’ in On

Liberty (1869): ‘the only purpose for which power can be

rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’

‘The only part of conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others.’

‘In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.’

Why the harm principle? Everyone wants happiness. But different people have

different conceptions of happiness.

It is only by engaging in ‘the experiment of living’ that one knows what is truly happy for oneself.

Thus, we have no right to interfere with an individual’s decision or action unless it harms others.

But children and women are not

fully rational, and should be protected.

The case of homosexuality Homosexuality as a private conduct. Policy issues: non-interference, neutrality, and

tolerance. Limitation: Moral paternalism is required if people

intentionally harm themselves out of ignorance.

Alternative defense of homosexuality : Peter Singer’s non-liberal version of utilitarianism http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/homosexu

ality-is-not-immoral

Liberal and Communitarian views on marriage

Marriage: Two political views Liberalism (John

Rawls):Marriage is a social institution regulated by the conception of justice as fairness; the form that marriage takes is grounded on our social contract, not on human nature.

Communitarianism (Michael Sandel): The meaning of marriage is connected up with our common belief in the good life; it is a matter of communal ties and not of individual choice.

A version of the communitarian view: the natural law theoryJohn Finnis, ‘Marriage: A basic and exigent

good’ (2008): Human nature plays an important role in

shaping a society’s conception of good. Marriage’s good is bound up with the social

values of procreation and friendship. Excessive individualism is a violation of the

natural law. (

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1392288)

Some communitarian questions about family life Are there any limits of our sexual freedom

as conceived by our society? What forms of sexual partnership are

congenial to our common conception of the good life?

Are sex and marriage instrumental to reproduction according to this conception? Or do they form an organic whole?

What if society no longer have consensus over the issue of the good life?

Same-sex marriage:Arguments for and against

Theories and criteria: summing up Libertarianism:

Individual freedom Liberalism:

Contractual relationship; mutual respect; tolerance; individual freedom.

Utilitarianism: Overall happiness.

Communitarianism: Common conception of good; social meanings

of human activities; human nature.

Arguments for and against same-sex marriageAgainst The value of tradition Naturalness Harmful effects on

homosexuals and other people

Human rationality

For Liberation Maximization of

Happiness Fairness Public reason

Suggestions for further reading General ethics textbooks:

Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry (2002), Applying Ethics, Wadsworth.

Mackinnon, Barbara (2001), Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Wadsworth.

Political theories and ethics: Michel J. Sandel (2007), ed., Justice: A Reader, Oxford

University Press. Michael J. Sandel (2009), Justice: What’s the Right Thing

to Do?, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Philosophy of sex:

Robert B. Baker & Kathleen J. Wininger (2009), Philosophy and Sex, New York: Prometheus Books.