Kant and Sexual Morality Essay

German Philosopher Immanuel Kant usurped that it is virtuously rail at to call a somebody only if as a office to your end. This judgement helps us to understand and contumacious familiar morality. doubting doubting doubting Thomas A. Mappes supports Kants claims and helps to further explain Kants rehearsal by be it and introducing the idea that one must give their willful certain swallow in order for certain actions to be moral. Mappes also illustrates that impulsive advised harmonize contribute be undermined through both deception and coercion. This helps us in the understanding of intimate morality.It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is chastely wrong to ingestion a nonher(prenominal) person scarcely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not this educational activity is relevant when talking about internal morality. The word merely is where this statement claims degradedity to be. Merely meaning only and wi thout every consideration of another person by not showing them any man respect. We use people as a means to our end in daily situations. If we be hungry we go to a shop and buy food. We argon using the shopkeepers as a means to our end, when hunger is our end.However, we are not merely using the shopkeeper as a means to our end. Thomas Mappes explains this by saying if we are treating psyche merely as a means to our end, indeed we are not respecting him or her as human organisms. Voluntary assured hope, according to Mappes (p. 73 of course book) is central to the touch sensation of treating people merely as a means to an end. Voluntary intercommunicate consent is where the person who is being used as a means to an end has given their full permission and consent. They are aware of what the person is trying to achieve and are willing to give their consent to this.Mappes uses the manakin of a person who has a gun put to their head and are obligate to pass around over $cc. Although the person has given them the money, they did not do this voluntarily, in that locationfore did not give their voluntary communicate consent. However, if the person had asked for $200 and they were given the option to give the money without being forced, and choose to hand it over as a gift, then they halt given their voluntary informed consent. Voluntary informed consent is important when looking at familiar morality, as if one has not given their voluntary informed consent to a partner, then it is morally wrong to pursue any sexual acts with them.According to Mappes, Voluntary informed consent can be undermined in two ways deception and coercion. compulsion meaning forced to make voluntary informed consent and deception being tricked into voluntary informed consent. When making a judgement on the morality of sexual demeanor it is important to consider whether deception or coercion have influenced the voluntary informed consent of the submit. If there is no voluntar y informed consent, then a person is being used merely as a means to another persons end.This support Kants claim on morality, and is therefore immoral. Coercion into consent is easily to identify. As with the example of a person being forced to hand over $200 with the terror of a gun, they were being forced/coerced into their decision to hand over the money. When there is no voluntary informed consent, as the consent is not voluntary. Coercion can be important when determining the morality in sexual behaviour. If one is forced or blackmailed into having sex with another, this is coercive and using soul merely as a means to an end.Identifying Deception when looking at the morality of sexual behaviour, and determining whether or not it supports Kants claim is important before making a moral judgment. Deception is being tricked into making informed consent. And example of deception is subject A. telling subject B. that they love them, as subject A. knows that subject B. will only g et to into a sexual relationship if both parties have a vernacular love for one another. This is deceiving subject B. into giving their voluntary informed consent into entering a sexual relationship.This is immoral, as voluntary informed consent has been undermined by deception. When looking at Kants claim it is easy to determined the morality in this situation as subject as has merely used subject B in order to fulfil their sexual wants. It is also important to consider whether the decision was informed. 3. As seen in page. 76 of the course book, some could argue that a child or someone with severe learning difficulties is still able to give voluntary consent. This is true, only a child or person with severe learning difficulties is ineffective to give informed consent.If someone is to endeavour in sexual behaviours with a child or a person with learning difficulties, then it is gather they are using them for their own sexual gratification, and not respecting the person whom th ey are using. As Kant claims, this is morally unacceptable. When thinking about the morality of sexual behaviour it is hard to ignore that of queer relationships and/or homosexual sex.When looking at Kants statement that it is immoral to use another person merely as a means to your ends and Mappes further explanation of voluntary informed consent, we can establish he morality of homosexual behaviour. Michael Levin (1999 p. 125-126) claims gayness to be immoral. He also makes that statement that they are victims and have unflattering beliefs. Levin (1999 p. 126) claims homosexuality is deviant and homosexuals have no place in the military if they fail morale, and there are good reasons to think they do weaken morale When looking at Kants philosophy, and his definition of morality, it becomes clear that Levins claims are assumptions, especially that homosexuals would weaken the morale in the military.There is slide fastener in his claims to evoke that homosexuals would coerce, d eceive and use another merely as a means to their sexual ends at heart the military. Therefore, when looking at Kants claims, regardless whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual, the morality of sexual behaviour can only completed when one is using another without human respect and merely as a means to their ends. John Corvino also refers to the morality of homosexual relationships. His views go considerably from Levins. Corvino (1997 p,6) addresses the idea that homosexual sex is unnatural and therefore immoral.Corvino defends the proper(a) to a homosexual relationship by comparing the use of sexual organs to others. We have numerous uses for our mouth such as talking, eating, breathing, manducate gum etc and Corvino states that sexual organs may be useful in a relationship other than just procreation. Corvino makes reference to the church servicees view on sexual behaviour. Although the church disapproves of homosexual behaviour, Corvino (1997 p. 6) highlights that the y do not see anything wrong with sterile couples having sex or couples who are pregnant as the church concedes that intimacy and pleasure are morally legitimate purposes for having sex.Corvino suggests that although there is no chance of procreation in homosexual sex, there is nothing immoral about it. Corvinos view supports Kants claim of morality. Unless there is something to suggest one is merely being used by another sexually, then there are no grounds to suggest homosexuality is immoral. Kants claim that it is morally wrong to use someone merely as a means to your ends, helps us in our judgements regarding sexual morality. Through Thomas A.Mappes explanation of Kants claim and introducing the idea of voluntary informed consent, and how it can be undermined through deception and coercion, we are able to clearly stigmatize whether or not a persons sexual behaviours are moral or not. Kants claim suggest that there is nothing immoral about homosexual behaviour, unless one is merel y being used as an end, as in heterosexual relationships. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural had nothing to do with its morality when looking at Kants claim.