Sex and Ethics

[sageowl]

Hi all, I'm new here, so be nice! (for a week or so, then gloves off)

I am going to assume that most people of any theist or atheist persuasion can agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I don't see that God or (not God) is necessary for us all to agree that certain behaviors are reprehensible and other behaviors are commendable. Where the lines between ‘scumbag’ and ‘decent human being’ are drawn is a less clear issue and worth some thought and discussion.

So here's an topic that I think is well worth thinking about:
What moral/ethical responsibilities are inherent in sex?

To try to answer my own question now, starting with the most obvious:
1) All parties involved should be consenting and of an age, sobriety and sanity to be able to consent intelligently. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with this, there is no point in bothering to post.

2) Both parties involved must be prepared emotionally to be responsible for any new life that they might create. Accidents happen; every encounter is a calculated risk. If you screw up (PUN!) this is your responsibility. If you can't handle this, you aren't ready for sex.

There is a lot of room for debate within that second premise, as to what exactly being responsible for a new life consists of, but I don't think there are any intellectually honest grounds on which to debate the premise itself. If you disagree however, it might be worth posting.

But more interesting to me would be what specifically is involved in being responsible for a new child? What are your moral obligations? Also, in general, what other obligations are inherent to sex? Is a certain level of fidelity implied? Why or why not?

Thanks for reading!

 

[nnmartin]

I believe that fidelity, especially for a young adult, tends to go against the natural order.

It seems to be more a conditioned belief in modern culture for people to behave in certain ways, ie: to keep the family together.

In the older times, fidelity was needed so that the woman would have a man to look after the offspring , but with contraception that set-up is no longer required.

So fidelity is nothing more than wishful thinking and wishy-washy ideas about love.

 

[Quintessence]

2) Both parties involved must be prepared emotionally to be responsible for any new life that they might create. Accidents happen; every encounter is a calculated risk. If you screw up (PUN!) this is your responsibility. If you can't handle this, you aren't ready for sex.

I disagree. If you are not intending on having a child, you do not have any ethical obligation to consider the ramifications of having one provided that:

1) You are infertile, impotent, on birth control, have had your tubes tied, or otherwise unable to conceive/impregnate
2) You have the means to get an abortion and have no qualms about having one

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Personally I think it comes down to just two things:

1. Informed - Are the parties involved aware of the likely and potential outcomes (this would include a whole range of subjects from physical to emotional)? Are they aware of the current state of the parties involved (particularly in terms of things like STDs)

2. Consent - Are they giving their consent without undue influence over that decision through fear of punishment (but not for hope of reward, unless one has been intimated and will not be forthcoming) or grooming.

Provided those two are met, i.e. that all parties who are affected by directly attributable objectively negative outcomes give their informed consent to the event and its possible outcomes - there are no ethical issues whatsoever, regardless of anything that they might choose to do - or things like age, sexuality, financial arrangements, impregnation, infection by a disease, obscure fetishes, necrophilia etc etc etc Oh and I use this same metric outside of the sexual field as well.

I'm sorry, but if you disagree with this, there is no point in bothering to post.

Seems to be an unusual request for a debate then if you do not want to debate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1) All parties involved should be consenting and of an age, sobriety and sanity to be able to consent intelligently.

But no intelligence is needed to "consent intelligently"? As for sanity, what if one is only mad north by northwest?

I'm with Dogbert on this one. Sex at any time with anyone is immoral and unethical. It can lead to headaches, fatigue, and (worst of all) unwanted family members.

 

[nnmartin]

I'm sorry, but if you disagree with this, there is no point in bothering to post.

that is quite a handy clause to have in an OP.

I might try it myself from now on, though I'd likely just end up talking to myself!

 

[nnmartin]

To try to answer my own question now, starting with the most obvious:

2) Both parties involved must be prepared emotionally to be responsible for any new life that they might create. Accidents happen; every encounter is a calculated risk. If you screw up (PUN!) this is your responsibility. If you can't handle this, you aren't ready for sex.

bearing in mind, sex drive tends to be the highest in young males who usually have young girlfriends then we have a difficulty already.

How many 16 or 17 year olds are really ready emotionally to have a child?

Will you tell them all that they shouldn't have it off together?

Sounds overly moralistic here.

 

[Skwim]

What moral/ethical responsibilities are inherent in sex?

I think the moral responsibilities are about the same as in any interpersonal relationship: honesty, tact, consideration, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and probably a few others. Don't know of any ethical responsibilities.

 

[lunakilo]

Hi all, I'm new here, so be nice! (for a week or so, then gloves off)

I am going to assume that most people of any theist or atheist persuasion can agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I don't see that God or (not God) is necessary for us all to agree that certain behaviors are reprehensible and other behaviors are commendable. Where the lines between ‘scumbag’ and ‘decent human being’ are drawn is a less clear issue and worth some thought and discussion.

So here's an topic that I think is well worth thinking about:
What moral/ethical responsibilities are inherent in sex?

To try to answer my own question now, starting with the most obvious:
1) All parties involved should be consenting and of an age, sobriety and sanity to be able to consent intelligently. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with this, there is no point in bothering to post.

2) Both parties involved must be prepared emotionally to be responsible for any new life that they might create. Accidents happen; every encounter is a calculated risk. If you screw up (PUN!) this is your responsibility. If you can't handle this, you aren't ready for sex.

That sounds like a long "abortion os wrong"-statement to me.
You forgot to think about the situations where all parties involved have not given there consent, or where there was a misunderstanding between the parties involved.

But more interesting to me would be what specifically is involved in being responsible for a new child? What are your moral obligations? Also, in general, what other obligations are inherent to sex? Is a certain level of fidelity implied? Why or why not?

Ok, but given two points above...
If you decide to bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do your best to make sure that child is loved and cared for and will have a good chance of living a happy life.
There is not in my opinion no single right way to do this.
There is no sure way to do this.
There is only untrained parents trying to do what they think is best.

"what other obligations are inherent to sex?"
I don't think there are any inherent obligations.
If indeed all parties involved have consented, then they hopefylly know what they have consented to.
If two people agree that this is just for the fun of it, then that is what they both consented to, and that if where the obligation ends.
If two people agree that they will stay together forsaking all others until death do them part, then that is what they both consented to.
But it is not "inherent to sex".

 

[Quintessence]

I think the moral responsibilities are about the same as in any interpersonal relationship: honesty, tact, consideration, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and probably a few others. Don't know of any ethical responsibilities.

This sounds more like a list of virtues than a list of morals to me.

There are a few potential ethical issues, such as human overpopulation and the spread of disease. I think most of us would say that those who are carriers of AIDs have certain ethical responsibilities given their condition. How you prescribe your morals from there could reasonably vary.

Ethics and morals are so frequently used interchangeably, though, that I'm not sure what distinction you had in mind when you wrote this post. Could you clarify what you meant by ethical responsibilities?

 

[Skwim]

This sounds more like a list of virtues than a list of morals to me.

I think virtues are nothing more than moral excellence.

There are a few potential ethical issues, such as human overpopulation and the spread of disease.

I would call these problematic issues rather than ethical ones. In both, the issue would come down to the behavior of the individual, which I regard as one of possible morality.

I think most of us would say that those who are carriers of AIDs have certain ethical responsibilities given their condition. How you prescribe your morals from there could reasonably vary.

Then you and I see ethics differently. See my next reply.

Ethics and morals are so frequently used interchangeably, though, that I'm not sure what distinction you had in mind when you wrote this post. Could you clarify what you meant by ethical responsiboilities?

Going back to my college philosophy courses, I remember the distinction being one of the individual vs. the group; morals being the character of the individual, and ethics being the behavior of an individual as approved by a group, like business ethics or professional ethics.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting. I think I understand what you meant better now. However, I don't quite follow how broad issues like overpopulation come down to individual behavior when they have significant impacts on the greater whole. If we consider the ramifications of our individual decisions on the broader society, wouldn't that be a humanitarian (ethical/group) issue? These can be treated separately, but there's an interplay here that seems important.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the moral responsibilities are about the same as in any interpersonal relationship: honesty, tact, consideration, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and probably a few others. Don't know of any ethical responsibilities.

I mostly agree with this, although I think honesty, tact, etc are ethical responsibilities. But that's just a quibble.