Monogamous Sex Makes ‘Good’ Sense to Reason, or Does It?

Last updated on: January 4, 2017 at 10:49 am by Paul Louis Metzger

Monogamous Sex Makes ‘Good’ Sense to Reason, or Does It? 2017-01-04T10:49:49-08:00 Paul Louis Metzger

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

©iStockphoto

In my last post titled “What’s Up with Monogamy? Reflections and Resolutions in a Time of Transition,” I noted the overriding sense in American society to look upon extramarital sex critically. Then I went on to ask:

Why does American society, by and large, still look upon extramarital sex with disfavor? Does the disfavor point perhaps to the receding echo of an ancient divine decree? Vestiges of the essential nature of things, created and/or evolved?… Does the disfavor follow from the leftovers of reason or is the disapproval a remaining fragment of human virtue? A lack of utilitarian appeal? Mere cultural moorings that will evolve or dissolve in time based on changes to our response mechanisms to behaviors and those responses’ neural impact on our psychological states?

It is not just Christian Scripture with its divine decrees and stipulations that looks disapprovingly on extramarital sex. Immanuel Kant would appear to make a compelling case against extramarital sex, albeit on rational grounds. It seems fair to claim that from a Kantian framework, extramarital sex could never prove virtuous. However, it should be noted that it is often argued that there is a tension or contradiction in Kant’s thought as to the appropriateness or virtue of sexual pleasure even in a marital context.

In an essay titled “Good Sex on Kantian Grounds, or A Reply to Alan Soble,”[1] Joshua Schulz lays bare Kant’s removal of the intellectual dimension from sexual desire in his treatment of sexual ethics in his Doctrine of Right. However, elsewhere in the same Doctrine of Right, Kant argues that sexual desire in marriage includes both intellectual and sensual qualities. It is the intellectual dimension (bound up with human personhood) that would safeguard against objectification;[2] the removal of it from consideration leads to sexual intimacy of any kind as morally problematic in Kant’s thought. Schulz seeks to resolve the seeming contradiction from the vantage point of Kant’s overarching system.

Regarding the moral dilemma posed by sexual pleasure, Kant maintains in his account of sexual ethics that in making one’s own body an instrument for another’s sexual pleasure and vice versa, a two-fold objectification and degradation occurs: there is no sense of either party being an end in themselves, but rather, nothing more than a means to an end of sexual gratification. Such dual objectification is morally repugnant or profane based on the second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative; that is, one should never treat the other or oneself merely as a means (in this case, for the attainment of reciprocating pleasure), but also at the same time as an end. This formulation of the categorical imperative reads, “The practical imperative will thus be the following: Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means.”[3] If it is indeed the case that the double degradation noted above always occurs, it would appear that celibacy is not only inherently moral, but also a moral duty (Refer to Schulz’s treatment of Kant, sex and celibacy in “Good Sex on Kantian Grounds”).

As suggested above, this particular account of sexual intimacy as always morally deviant (and thus, the moral duty to pursue celibacy in all cases) does not appear satisfactory based on Kant’s overarching system. Beyond Schulz’s own treatment (to which I shall return), I offer the following. For one, how could celibacy as a moral duty, presumably imposed upon all, advance life for the race? Would it not function in effect as the equivalent of collective suicide, that is, the collective determination to end the human race? If so, this same determination would stand opposed to one of the formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative: “…act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”[4] If the aim is to cultivate virtue in the race, how would the equivalent of mass suicide in the form of universally binding celibacy foster virtue?[5] Universally binding celibacy would not prove coherent or satisfactory.

Schulz offers other reasons why celibacy is not a moral duty to which all people must adhere. In what follows, we will look briefly to Schulz’s own account of Kant’s philosophy in the attempt to address further situations where a couple can pursue sexual pleasure in a virtuous manner.

Contrary to Ayn Rand’s view noted in the previous post on monogamy (“What’s Up with Monogamy? Reflections and Resolutions in a Time of Transition”), for Kant, one can never rightly view a relationship as virtuous if one looks at the other simply as a means to one’s own self-cultivation, including rational pleasure—the just reward for one’s own greatness (as in the case of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged). No matter how seemingly rational, this orientation lacks virtue, even if the other party operates with the same aim in mind, as in the case of Rand’s model. From a Kantian framework (apart from whether or not Kant always reasoned in keeping with his overarching system), there are certain conditions that help to ensure that happiness involving sexual intimacy is wed to virtue.

According to Schulz (who is operating within a Kantian framework), the following conditions make it possible for a couple to experience sexual pleasure in a virtuous manner. First, the couple only pursues sexual pleasure in a context that safeguards against moral degradation; a lifelong monogamous marriage, especially one that is legally sanctioned, can help to insure virtuous sexual activity (still, according to Schulz, there may be other contexts beyond monogamy that can safeguard against concupiscence). Second, the union involving sexual intimacy features all the accompanying constraints (especially when they are preconditions for sexual intercourse) such as cohabitation and the mutual sharing of assets and joint care for the couple’s offspring resulting from intercourse. Third, the monogamous sexual union entails the mutual beneficent care and cultivation of virtue in one’s spouse. When practiced, these parameters make it possible for the two parties to pursue sexual intimacy in a morally virtuous manner (Refer again to “Good Sex on Kantian Grounds”).

As cogent as this line of reasoning may appear, someone might still ask: why should humans be considered ends in themselves based on intellectual capacities or some other qualities, and not simply as mere means? Is this perspective ultimately a rational claim devoid of religious dogmatic underpinnings? Or does Kant unknowingly presuppose the biblical tradition with which he was very familiar? The biblical tradition includes such teachings as the image of God doctrine (Genesis 1:26-31), which presents humanity as the pinnacle of creation (based on humanity’s ability to reason or some other quality or condition, according to many theologians), as well as the Great Commandments (Mark 12:30-31), which involve the tenet that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves in addition to loving God as the ultimate end.

Perhaps Kant would dismiss the idea that he presupposes the biblical tradition at one or more points in his intended rationally-framed ethical system. What is beyond dispute is that he would find abhorrent the notion that ethics is nothing more than mere cultural moorings that result from base instincts and the herd mentality. If that were the case, ethics, like sexual pleasure, would be nothing more than animal appetites. While the race would no doubt flourish, distinctively human dignity would disappear.

________________

[1]See Joshua Schulz, “Good Sex on Kantian Grounds, or A Reply to Alan Soble,” in Essays in Philosophy, vol. 8/2; the link to the online version of the essay is embedded in the text above in this post.

[2]Kant claims that “Rational nature exists as end in itself.” Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), Ak 4:429; page 46.

[3]Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Ak 4:429; pages 46-47.

[4]Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Ak 4:421; page 38.

[5]See a particular account of how suicide contends against the supreme principle of moral duty and virtue in Kant’s Groundwork, Ak 4:421-422; pages 38-39.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 30, 2015

What’s Up with Monogamy? Reflections and Resolutions in a Time of Transition

Next Post

January 7, 2016 How Strong Is Your Will to Live, to Love, and to Hate? Musings on the Movie "The Revenant"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2025 April 2025 March 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz