RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceLast week, Brandon McGinley ’10 threw down the gauntlet, challenging social liberals to offer a comprehensive sexual ethic to contrast with the Anscombe Society’s (“A Call for Consistency,” Feb. 4). The very structure of his argument reveals the divide ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I agree with the article... but really? You couldn't come up with a good argument against bestiality? What about the fact that animals can't consent? Isn't that the obvious one? Otherwise, good job.
so good
turd
A great article. I have recently begun to be slightly more concerned with the weakness of the position that "no one should do anything he or she is uncomfortable with" - because it doesn't help anyone get any closer to formulating for themselves what it is that they are uncomfortable with. Anscombe knows there is a vacuum and they have tried to fill it, in my opinion doing a poor job (mostly because their arguments are a rationalization of religious prejudice, even though they would never admit that religion has very much to do with it)
You'll never win at someone else's game, but boy would Anscombe folks like you to try. Way to make the game your own, Mr. Knop.
Yeah, great article that's fair to everyone.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity." ... With all due respect, I really think that this gambit is a mistake, both intellectually and politically. My hunch is that you do accept a definite view about the ethics of sex: you think that rape is *wrong*, and this is not just an expression of a personal preference. It is an expression of a firm moral conviction. Of course it's hard to spell out all of these firm convictions, much less to organize them into a system that looks like a moral theory. But frankly, it's not *that* hard, and we really ought to try. Why? Because liberals who disclaim serious moral views have no way to justify the moral and political demands they make on others. I'll bet you think that gay marriage ought to be permitted, and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to be illegal. I know that I do. But if I want to justify the changes in law and policy that would be necessary for these things to happen, it just won't work to say, "Well, according to my personal preferences, I'd rather people not do these things". When we change the law, we enlist the power of the state to make people do things they don't want to do — e.g., hire gays and lesbians for jobs for which they are qualified, or to provide spousal benefits to gay couples. The only legitimate justification for this sort of "coercion" will point to firm moral convictions about the rights of those affected and the values that the law should aim to promote. Liberals should not be afraid to articulate and argue for their convictions. This just encourages the widespread and disastrous meme that liberals are moral relativists without serious moral principles. If you don't take your own opinions seriously, no one else will take them seriously, and the field of moral and political argument will be ceded to the other side. Don't do it!
@Rado:
You’re a little off when you say that “The only legitimate justification for this sort of "coercion" will point to firm moral convictions about the rights of those affected and the values that the law should aim to promote.” What about coercion based on utility? The law doesn’t mandate seatbelts because of moral considerations—it enforces it because of the positive utility of forcing people to wear seatbelts. Similarly, you might argue that the constraints that traditionalists attempt to enforce lead to disutility because people can’t fulfill their desires.
Travis writes "My view of sexual culture (that every individual carries their own sexual morals) doesn’t exclude the Anscombe Society’s position. No one should do anything that they are not comfortable with for any reason."
Travis, correct me if I'm wrong, but your personal sexual ethic in this statement seems to be twofold:
1) everyone should be free to determine his or her own sexual ethic
2) "no one should do anything that they are not comfortable with for any reason"
There appears to be a direct contradiction in these two aspects of your position. If everyone is free to determine his or her own sexual ethic, then you can't make universal statements that seek to establish moral absolutes. In point 2 your "personal" system of ethics starts with the phrase "no one," indicating that everyone ought to abide by this rule. Point 2 is doing the very thing you condemn in point 1.
There are two ways you can avoid this contradiction. In order to make this a truly personal system of ethics you can revise your second point to read "I shouldn't do anything that I am not comfortable with." This is fine, but realize that you have no grounds to criticize any other personal system of sexual ethics, even those that permit sexual violence and harm. Imagine a system of ethics that runs completely counter to your view that "no one should do anything that they are not comfortable with for any reason." There might be someone who thinks that all people should engage in sexual experiences that push the boundaries of their sexual self-expression. In order to reach complete sexual self-actualization, people should experiment with children and animals. Failure to do so is a moral shortcoming. You have nothing to say to this person without violating your first point.
The preferable option is to abandon your first point based on a principled explanation of your second point. Your second point seems to rest on a principles that you think (whether or not you know it) should be universal. Perhaps you can justify it through some version of the harm principle? In Rado's response to Brandon McGinley's original post, Rado outlines a few possibilities that a liberal might advance for calling a sexual act wrong: "when it causes harm, violates an obligation, or expresses unmerited contempt or disrespect." Any of these might make a fine starting point for a system of sexual ethics. My point is that you are appealing to moral absolutes without even knowing it to create a normative sexual ethic that you claim is purely personal. Don't pretend that you aren't doing the exact same thing you criticize in the Anscombe Society. Your article attempts to universailze a standard for sexual conduct too.
@jy: Who says that calculating utility can't go hand in hand with moral conviction? In fact, there is a pretty well known moral theory that seems to indicate that calculating utility is exactly how we arrive at moral truths.
YAY KNOP!!!!!11!!!!!1