Kant and Sexual Morality Essay

German Philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that it is morally wrong to use a person merely as a means to your end. This judgement helps us to understand and determined sexual morality. Thomas A. Mappes supports Kant’s claims and helps to further explain Kant’s statement by defining it and introducing the idea that one must give their voluntary informed consent in order for certain actions to be moral. Mappes also illustrates that voluntary informed consent can be undermined through both deception and coercion. This helps us in the understanding of sexual morality. It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not this statement is relevant when talking about sexual morality. The word merely is where this statement claims immorality to be. Merely meaning only and without any consideration of another person by not showing them any human respect. We use people as a means to our end in everyday situations. If we are hungry we go to a shop and buy food. We are 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 someone merely as a means to our end, then we are not respecting him or her as human beings. Voluntary informed consent, according to Mappes (p. 73 of course book) is central to the notion of treating people merely as a means to an end. Voluntary informed 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 example of a person who has a gun put to their head and are forced to hand over $200. Although the person has given them the money, they did not do this voluntarily, therefore did not give their voluntary informed 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 have given their voluntary informed consent. Voluntary informed consent is important when looking at sexual 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. Coercion meaning forced to make voluntary informed consent and deception being tricked into voluntary informed consent. When making a judgement on the morality of sexual behaviour it is important to consider whether deception or coercion have influenced the voluntary informed consent of the subject. If there is no voluntary informed consent, then a person is being used merely as a means to another persons end. This support Kant’s 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 threat 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 someone merely as a means to an end. Identifying Deception when looking at the morality of sexual behaviour, and determining whether or not it supports Kant’s 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 enter into a sexual relationship if both parties have a mutual 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 Kant’s 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, but a child or person with severe learning difficulties is unable to give informed consent. If someone is to endeavour in sexual behaviours with a child or a person with learning difficulties, then it is clear they are using them for their own sexual gratification, and not respecting the person whom they are using. As Kant claims, this is morally unacceptable. When thinking about the morality of sexual behaviour it is hard to ignore that of homosexual relationships and/or homosexual sex. When looking at Kant’s 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 homosexuality to be immoral. He also makes that statement that they are victims and have unflattering beliefs. Levin (1999 p. 126) claims â€Å"homosexuality is deviant†¦ [and] homosexuals have no place in the military if they weaken morale, and there are good reasons to think they do [weaken morale]† When looking at Kant’s 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 nothing in his claims to suggest that homosexuals would coerce, deceive and use another merely as a means to their sexual ends within the military. Therefore, when looking at Kant’s claims, regardless whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual, the morality of sexual behaviour can only established 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 vary considerably from Levins. Corvino (1997 p,6) addresses the idea that homosexual sex is unnatural and therefore immoral. Corvino defends the right 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, chewing gum etc and Corvino states that sexual organs may be useful in a relationship other than just procreation. Corvino makes reference to the churches view on sexual behaviour. Although the church disapproves of homosexual behaviour, Corvino (1997 p. 6) highlights that they 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. Corvino’s view supports Kant’s 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. Kant’s 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 Kant’s claim and introducing the idea of voluntary informed consent, and how it can be undermined through deception and coercion, we are able to clearly distinguish whether or not a persons sexual behaviours are moral or not. Kant’s claim suggest that there is nothing immoral about homosexual behaviour, unless one is merely 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 Kant’s claim.