但首先，我們看看我課上的TA 的一份 about Alan Goldman, Plain sex 的note:
Alan Goldman (1991), “Plain Sex”, The Philosophy of Sex, (2nd ed.), Alan Soble(ed.),
1 目標：
1.1 反對“means-separable-end”對性的觀點．
1.2 解釋性不必然是什麼．
1.2.1 My preliminary analysis is meant to serve as a contrast to what sex is not, at least, not necessarily.[1]
1.3 Traditional writings were correct to emphasize the purely physical or animal aspect of sex; they were wrong only in condemning it.[2]
1.4 証明任何嘗試把性活動與道德掛鈎的理論都是錯的．
1.4.1 Any analysis of sex which imputes a moral character to sex acts in themselves is wrong for that reason.[3]
1.5 沒有所謂性變態的活動．
2 何謂means-separable-end（MSE）？
2.1 MSE把性活動看待成達成其他欲望的手段．倘若沒有了其他活動的作為性活動的目的，那麼性活動本身便是沒有價值的．[4]
2.1.1 其他欲望：
2.1.1.1 生育
2.1.1.2 表達愛意
2.1.1.3 表達互相的關顧
3 何謂性欲望？
3.1 一個行動者如果他有一個正常的性欲望，他最少必須要欲求與某一個特定的人有身體接觸，而他亦企圖在該身體接觸中獲得快感．
3.1.1 …I will begin is that sexual desire is desire for contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure which such contact produces; …[5]
3.1.2 The desire for physical contact with another person is a minimal criterion for (normal) sexual desire, but is both necessary and sufficient to qualify normal desire as sexual.[6]
3.2 釐清：
3.2.1 性活動的身體接觸不等如其他活動（如球類活動）的身體接觸．因為球類活動目的是爭勝．爭勝是性活動不帶有的．[7]
3.3 但這個釐清是不全面的．與其說（正常的）性活動不如球類活動般帶有爭勝心，倒不如說（正常的）性活動不具備球賽規則．
3.4 在正常情況下，性活動的媒介是身體，主要是性器官的接觸．所以，（正常）性活動是帶有特定規則的．我們不能否定，有些性變態的人，他們就是企圖藉球賽產生快感．因為性變態的人所持的性行為規則，不同於一般人．
3.5 更強的反對：
3.5.1 有些情侶可以視舞蹈活動為性活動前奏．Goldman的釐清解決不了這一點．
4 MSE的困難
4.1 MSE不能為人帶來一致的理論．例如，有些教會反對一切不以生育為目標的性行為，他們以此理據反對同性戀及口交，但他們卻不對親吻和愛撫．[8]
4.2 當作者表明反對MSE時，他只是表明否定把性欲望的正當性僅僅地歸因於達成其他欲望欲，而不是反對把性活動當作手段．性欲望或性活動既可以是手段，也可以是目的，也可以兩者兼備．
4.3 生育論的困難：
4.3.1 Nature’s purpose & Human purpose
4.3.1.1 性雖然帶有生育的功能，但生育功能只是nature’s purpose，而不是human purpose．[9]
4.3.1.2 避孕科技和人工受孕科技亦漸漸將生育功能性活動脫鈎．
4.4 溝通論的困難：
4.4.1 一：
性不是唯一表達愛意的方法．人類沒有理由把性看待為表達關愛的唯一車乘．
4.4.2 二：
就算沒有表達愛意的性行為，也可以是一次良好的性行為．[10]
4.4.3 三：
倘若我們把性與愛混為一談，那麼人類便很容易誤會發生性行為就等同愛一個人．
4.4.3.1 性慾和愛欲似乎有不一致的要求．一方面性慾要求人多元化，但另一邊廂愛欲卻要求人專一或排他．[11]
4.4.3.2 語意上，人類沒有casual love，只有casual sex．因為love本身就帶有「認真地」這意義．[12]
4.4.4 四：
性活動不僅是一堆規則、肢體活體和身體語言[13]，它本身就是會產生快感的．一般而言，身體語言並不會產生快感．而身體語言只是工具．
4.4.4.1 ...; if better sex is more successful communication by means of a more skillful use of body language, then we had all better be well schooled in the vocabulary and grammar.[14]（這句抵死對爆！）
4.5 互相覺察論：
4.5.1 這是溝通論的另一個版本，由Nagel提出．
4.5.2 互相覺察論提出一個性活動是雙方互相牽動亦留意得到對方的意圖的活動．
4.5.3 Negal認為一個正常的性行必須要互相覺察對方所進行的誘惑，再要被這覺察的處境牽動出高一層之的誘惑．在這種誘惑下物化對也是在互相明白且確認對方的 主體性下進行的．換句話說，這種物化也是出於主體的意願，而且有類近合約形式的限制，暫時互相把自我交給性伴侶．
4.5.3.1 （屌！誰會這樣做愛呢？咁樣諗一諗，仲邊有mood？去讀哲學書好過啦～～）倘若性活動真的如此，當我們讀到Negal的述描時，理應有性興奮才對．但我敢保證，因這描述而有性興奮的人，絕對是一個性變態的人．
4.5.4 困難：
4.5.4.1 但似乎這理論只適用於一些很複雜的智性誘惑過程，而不常適用於性活動．
4.5.4.2 這似乎把性活過度地智性化．
4.6 保育小孩論的困難：
4.6.1 保育小孩論認為，緊密的家庭關係有助保護小孩的成長．故此，非多元的愛和非多元的性，可以強化一個家庭的關係．
4.6.2 但多元化的性不見得一定會弱化家庭關係．公開地認同婚外性行為或無愛性行為，也可以保障強化一個家庭關係．因為這可以被免伴侶因性慾而放棄恆久的愛欲關係．
5 性慾是低級的和獸性的
5.1 這種想法是由Platonic-Christian的思想傳統而來的．
5.2 有認為一但人類的承認和接受性慾是動物性的，那便會做成性氾濫的局面．
5.3 但明顯，就算是動物也不會如此濫交和獸性．[15]
5.4 這種想法忽略了性慾亦並不是任意的．就算人有如動物一般的性慾，也不代表人類不會仔細地選擇性伴侶和仔細管理性行為．
6 性與道德
6.1 性活動就如商業活動一樣，本身並不是一個道德課題．某些與性活動或性慾有關的不道德活動之所以是不道德，是因為它犯下了人類的道德要求，而不是因為該活動與性有關．
6.1.1 例如：強姦是不道德的，不是因為強姦是性活動，而是因為強姦犯剝削了受害者的專嚴和權利．[16]
6.1.2 例如：兒童性騷擾是不道德的，亦可能可以不是因為性活動本身，而是因為帶有地位不平等的控制活動．如兒童比較天真易受成年人控制；而過早的性生活通常會為兒童帶來負面影響等．
6.2 在哪些理論下，性活動才與道德課題有較大的關係？
6.2.1 效益主義進路：
6.2.1.1 性行為通常會帶來強烈的快感．
6.2.1.2 如果我們以效益主義來看，性活動便是道德上應該實踐的．
6.2.1.3 但這明顯有問題，因為我們不是有責任去滿足任何人的性慾．
6.2.2 康德式的進路：
6.2.2.1 性將會變成不道德的，因為性活當中將不能被免在某程度上控制對方的身體或思想．
6.2.2.1.1 例如：誘惑對方．
6.2.2.2 或更學究地說，在性活動當中，我們有可能於某時刻當中，把性伴侶僅僅常作工具或手段，企圖藉此滿足慾望．
6.2.2.3 當然，只要相方同意，又不是「僅僅」把對手常成功具，確認對方的主體性，便應該沒有問題．
7 何謂性反常或變態(perversion)？
7.1 有．
7.2 作何能夠談及norms的活動，都可以有反常態生發．
7.3 statistically unusual & evaluative abnormal
7.4 但性反常只帶有統計學上的意味，即statistically unusual，不是abnormal．[17]
7.4.1 例如：嘉藤鷹金槍不倒，每次可以做愛三小時．這是statistically unusual．
7.5 很多時，人類亦把性反常與不道德聯上關係．但這是沒有理由的．如有時反常的性行為可帶來更大的性快感一樣，性變態的行為也不一定比正常行更不道德．
7.5.1 例如：強姦一隻羊是比強姦一個人較為道德，只少由效益主義的角度看．
8 repetitive pleasure & cumulative pleasure
8.1 性似乎只能為人帶來repetitive pleasure．
8.2 性快感的短暫性和強烈性是掛釣的．
8.3 亦由於它的短暫，令我們很少把性放在人生計劃的重要位置．
9 好句：
9.1 The briefness of the pleasures contributes to their intensity (or perhaps their intensity makes them necessarily brief), …[18]
9.2 Sex affords us a paradigm of pleasure, but not a cornerstone of value.[19]
9.3 The romanticization of sex and the confusion of sexual desire with love operate in both directions: sex outside the context of romantic love is repressed; once it is repressed, partners become more difficult to find and sex becomes romanticized further, out of proportion to its real value for the individual.[20]
[1] P76.7
[2] P76.10
[3] P84.7
[4] P74.4
[5] P74.6
[6] P75.3
[7] P75.7
[8] P78.5
[9] P77.4
[10] P78.9
[11] P79.3
[12] P79.4
[13] 這是Robert C. Solomon的理解．他把性行為比喻作身體語言．
[14] P81.8
[15] P80.5
[16] P85.9
[17] P88.10
[18] P88.3
[19] P87.9
[20] P83.9
資料來源: “Plain Sex”筆記
就先base on the idea of Goldman to interpret 康德的 theory on sex 於現代的認同和問題。
Paper 的題目：
According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, sex is morally justified only under the condition of marriage. His reasons are as follows: “The sole condition on which we are free to make use of our sexual desire depends upon the right to dispose over the person as a whole…. If I have the right over the whole person, I have also the right … to use that person’s organa sexualia for the satisfaction of sexual desire. But how am I to obtain these rights over the whole person? Only by giving that person the same rights over the whole of myself. This happens only in marriage. Matrimony is an agreement between two persons by which they grant each other equal reciprocal rights, each of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person to the other with a complete right of disposal over it.” (Lectures on Ethics) How far do you think Kant’s view is adequate as a theory of sexual morality? Discuss with reference to issues such as homosexuality, sex without love, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, and intra-marital rape.
以下為我的分析及判斷：
How far do you think Kant’s view is adequate as a theory of sexual morality?
To start with the question discussing the morality, we may have to look back to an old question on the connection between sex, love and moral values by Martin[1]. In responding to Kant’s idea on sex as a moral issue, he commented the justified sexual activity is only under the condition of marriage. Here, we have to have some understanding on the idea of marriage based on its duties and responsibilities concern.
For a general terminology, marriage is the formation of mutual relationship of two individuals and the setting up of family. Sometimes, marriage also associates with some more other purposes including the bearing of children and the following of kinship.
Kant’s idea for the morally justified sex is under the condition of marriage which is a kind of contract for the two individuals. This contract is built up under the well informed situation which the two individuals agree to treat one another as one itself. I think the “marriage” referred by Kant will be the combination of erotic love and the setting up of contract. Erotic love involves the double and shared egotism[2] and which also include the sexual activity. The comment by Kant on sex will be the desire fulfillment involving the one individual having the right to dispose over one other individual as the right to use one other person’s organa sexualia for the satisfaction of sexual desire require the having the right over the whole person.
This activity will be dangerous as this activity involve the granting each other’s right. Hence for restriction and the protection of each individual with equal reciprocal rights, marriage as a contract system is necessary. The concern of Kant will be the treating of sex partner only as a mean to server for the end of the fulfillment of the sexual desire. This concern for sexual activity as immoral will therefore be taken into consideration seriously.
According to the above interpretation, the fulfillment of the sexual desire requires the protection by the contract system of marriage and hence to have the right over other. Under this circumstance, the sex beside the condition of marriage is then a moral issue as there is no granting commitment of both individuals’ right.
But is this pretty cynical while the prevention of not respect others require a system, and a contract to do so? On the other hand, in modern point of view of plain sex, we do have agreement and a well informed situation which makes sex is under the restriction of morality. But this restriction of sex is not based on the action of sexual act itself, but the extent of what sexual act can bring along.
The recent argument by Alan Goldman toward sex[3] itself is not a moral issue since sex is not merely a mean to serve some other ends, in which some of those ends will be responsible for the moral issue. We know what sex is even though we are not given the meaning by philosopher. The right to dispose other mentioned by Kant is relativity temporary and momentary process with respect to other right. The well informed process is indeed an alternative form of contract in which for the protection of two individuals. Even though this kind of contract is in a relativity “virtual” form, but it is still the case in doing the job.
By then, according to Goldman analysis on the mean-separable form end, the moral issue related to sexual activities will be the rule of sexual activity. If this is the case, we can see there is basically no difference between Kant’s idea and Goldman idea in which sex is not a moral issue. What makes sex activity immoral will be the violation of other moral standard.
To summarize Kant’s idea towards morality: the treating of other individuals as only a tool for the succeeding of one’s sexual desire beside the condition of marriage will be immoral. However, this condition will be somehow modified in modern society in a well informed situation. And we can see: if the treating of sex partner is not merely as a mean for the fulfillment of sexual desire and also in the well informed or somehow in the contact based format, the sexual activity will not have much problem.
Discuss with reference to issues such as homosexuality, sex without love, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, and intra-marital rape.
In discussing the above issue, we first discuss about intra-marital rape.
In intra-martial rape, of course, if we consider the word “rape”, will obviously be a moral problem. As raping is already a moral issue in disregarding the other’s dignity and right and intra-marital rape is surely a moral issue, but not the moral issue base on the sexual activity itself. The concern of the situation of intra-marital should be taken in to account of moral issue. But this moral issue will be the breaking of promise between the two individuals during the contract of marriage. Overall the general case for intra-marital rape is under the consideration of Kant’s statement.
In the case of pre-marital sex, if we really have to follow the “contract” of marriage according to Kant, we can conclude pre-marital sex is not moral as a contract has not been set up with the occurring of sexual activities. However, the criterion for inform is fulfilled with respect to the two individuals’ will and only if the two individuals are not treating each other as merely a tool for sexual desire, and we can conclude pre-marital sex will not no problem in sexual morality.
For extra-marital sex, this one is one form of expression of sex without love, but with one more criterion: the having of marriage as a promise. As under the requirement in marriage, the one individual should be loyal to one another and treat other as itself. I think this loyalty involve telling the truth with no conceal. According to Goldman’s idea on multiplicity of sex and love, we can understand the sexual desire is of larger variety and casual, while love will be exclusionary with singularity and taken seriously. In order to fulfill the variety of sexual desire of sex, but to sustain the loyalty to one other individual under the contract of marriage, the only possible solution will be the well inform to other individual with no conceal. Yes, love is a key component in marriage; neither lover is induced before and after marriage and the love should be undivided. But does the undivided situation also hold in sex? As the statement by Goldman has showed sex is not merely the tool for the expression of love. Hence I don’t really think having pure sex without love with other will affect the original love inside marriage. And we can say under the informed situation, extra-marital sex should be with no sexual morality.
As similar in extra-marital sex, sex without love is only in the absent of the marriage. However the sexual activity should also be guided under Kant’s meaning in treating other not merely as a tool and the situation of well informed contract. Neither of the above criteria can be absent to make the sexual activity of sex without love not in morality issue.
In homosexuality, I first assume the homosexuality is based on the starting of love. In ancient Greek, the love of homosexuality was praised as the sexual desire was not involved in the love of homosexual people. This relationship was only allowed in lover conditions since the marriage was only permitted for the two individuals in different sex. But this assumption may not hold firmly in nowadays situation. Sexual activities do appear between homosexual people. Hence the justification for the sexual morality should be based on this. One argument should be taken into serious account will be homosexuality will cause the degrading of dignity. However, we cannot reject there will be love in between homosexual people. As Martin quotation of Erich Fromm’s the Art of Loving:
“Love, he suggests, is the attitude characterized by giving, caring, and acting responsibly and respectfully while also maintaining one’s own integrity, self respect, and individuality”[4]
With this, we cannot say there is no respecting of each other between homosexual people. Of course, if there is love, they are both respecting each other, not treat each other only as a means and the case will be fine. And of course, the well informing will be necessary as similar to above.
Nevertheless, if there is no love involved between homosexual people, how about their sexual act? I think this will be the case we have treated in sex without love, also only under the well informed situation and the treating of ends for others.
To conclude, Kant’s criticism on the problematic for all sexual activities we can see is the treating one another only as the tools for pleasure and the fulfillment of sexual desire. And this is the problem. But with Goldman’s idea on the neutral properties of sex itself, we can see the problems should go to other moral standard, not sexual activities itself. With respect to Kant’s consideration of respecting others, Goldman also suggested Kant’s idea should be carefully considered under moralities, which say the correctness of having sexual activities.
[1] Mike W. Martin, Everyday Morality: An Introduction to Applied Ethics(Second Edition), Zbelmont, CA. Wadserts Publishing Co., 1995 pp217-229
[2] Ibid pp219
[3] Alan Soble(ed.) The philosophy of Sex(Second Edition) Rowmen & Letterfield Publishers Inc., 1991, pp73-92
[4] Mike W. Martin, Everyday Morality: An Introduction to Applied Ethics(Second Edition), Zbelmont, CA. Wadserts Publishing Co., 1995 pp219
很對不起，我以上的文對"intra-marital rape" 的理解錯了，請不理會那段子便是。
當然，我的文是只看康德或對人的尊重，Goldman's claim about the nature of "sex" in itself，以及雙方的"well informed situation" (which is based on the Theory of Justice by John Rawls).
另外：其實我倒對Goldman 的說法感到 can not reasonablely reject.
如 果sex in itself 不僅僅只是means to some others ends ，其實可以理解到好多人"說" the act of sex is for the representing of love ，其實會不會只是treat sex as the merely means for the satisifing of sexual desire?
這個問題，就要問下有閃光的各位了~~
No comments:
Post a Comment