AskPhilosophers Questions

Is necrophilia morally objectionable? I was under the impression that it wouldn

Anonymous — Tue, 18 May 2021 20:49:33 +0000

Read another response about Death, Sex, Ethics

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro, Allen Stairs

Is necrophilia morally objectionable? I was under the impression that it wouldn't be, insofar that bodies don't have legitimate interests (e.g., physical or psychological well-being) to be damaged, but a friend pointed out to me that people who are alive now still have wishes regarding what should be done once they are dead. For example, they leave money to their children in their wills, and are able to live contently knowing that this will be honored. If we lived in a society where people's wishes were routinely disregarded after death, then we would have no reason to think that our own wishes would be honored, and we would therefore be distressed by this. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I've often heard it said that Americans are uncomfortable with sex, and that

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 05:15:10 +0000

Sex

Read another response about Sex

Read another response by Jonathan Westphal

I've often heard it said that Americans are uncomfortable with sex, and that this is seen in the fact that it is often forbidden to depict sexuality or nudity in popular media, yet depictions of graphic violence are ubiquitous. Implicit in this observation is that depictions of violence should rightly seem as bad, or worse, than depictions of sex. But what makes any such depiction bad? Is it just a matter of the psychological distress they cause? Is it that they encourage people to do what they depict? Are some things just intrinsically obscene?

Is there any reason to believe that one sex is biologically superior to the

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:16:49 +0000

Gender

Sex

Value

Read another response about Gender, Sex, Value

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Is there any reason to believe that one sex is biologically superior to the other in a generalized sense? I've heard it said that men are inferior to women because they don't live as long and, in every age group are more likely to die than women. Add to that the fact that men's immune systems aren't as resilient as women's, they invest much less in reproduction, more boys than girls have ADHD or autism, and (it has been argued) men's sexual and aggressive urges are the cause of most violence and suffering in the world. As a man myself, I find these notions deeply troubling, not least because I am not a violent person, but also because though the above facts are scientific, I've read other arguments that evaluative notions of 'superiority' and 'inferiority' have no place in scientific discourse. So if it's not for scientists to say whether or not one sex is superior to the other, which type of expert should we appeal to, if at all? Philosophers such as yourselves, who presumably understand value better than most people? If so, do you think one sex can be considered superior to the other, in any all encompassing, generalized, meaningful way?

Suppose some man is absolutely shy in romantic matters. Still, he loves to talk

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:56:22 +0000

Ethics

Sex

Read another response about Ethics, Sex

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Suppose some man is absolutely shy in romantic matters. Still, he loves to talk to beautiful women about all kinds of non-romantic, non-sexual subjects, and people like to talk to him. The main reason why he likes to talk to beautiful women is that it secretly arouses him sexually. Moreover, when talking to women he gets to see them at a close distance, to hear their voices clearly and to smell them. Perhaps on some occasions women will even touch him in a friendly manner. When he is alone at home, this man will remember those conversations and masturbate while thinking about those women and their physical closeness. My question is whether this is wrong (assuming that masturbation is not generally wrong). I think it is not wrong, but I have some doubts. My first problem is that this man is using those women without their full consent. They don’t know his real reason for talking with them nor what he will do “with” their conversation. I think Kant said something like we should not use other people as means for our interests without their consent. Secondly, I think it is not impossible that this practice will, over the years, have some bad effect on this man. Perhaps it will make him come to see women, in general, as “objects”, and perhaps someday he will do something nasty because of that. This may be improbable, but it seems possible. All in all, do you think it is wrong for him to “use” women in this way?

Some Christians claim to oppose homosexuality by saying, "hate the sin, not the

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Aug 2017 04:08:14 +0000

Religion

Ethics

Sex

Read another response about Religion, Ethics, Sex

Read another response by Richard Heck

Some Christians claim to oppose homosexuality by saying, "hate the sin, not the sinner." Is this a meaningful distinction? Is it a cogent defense against accusations of homophobia?

According to Kant, prostitution is morally wrong. The second formulation of the

Anonymous — Wed, 03 May 2017 03:32:48 +0000

Sex

Philosophers

Read another response about Sex, Philosophers

Read another response by Michael Cholbi

According to Kant, prostitution is morally wrong. The second formulation of the categorical imperative states that one should never use themselves, or another as a mere means. 1. I can see how prostitution would fail to respect self, as it is using one's body as a "mere means" to earn money. But how is that different from a farmer, who use his body to work in the fields to harvest crops for food and money? 2. Prostitution also fails to respect another, by using the person to satisfy his sexual urges. However, by paying the prostitute, isn't it also respecting her by recognizing her dignity and worth and paying her for her "work"? On the basis of these 2 points, can you please explain why prostitution is morally wrong?

Ethics of procreation:

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 04:04:41 +0000

Sex

Ethics

Biology

Read another response about Sex, Ethics, Biology

Read another response by Michael Cholbi

Ethics of procreation: Consider a scientist that could grow humans knowing that two thirds of them would die after suffering short lives of terror and extreme deprivation, but one third of the lives he could produce in this manner would survive to a productive adult life. We would think that if he were to create extremely bad lives rather than good lives, he would be committing Mengalian atrocities, or at least, that is what I think the general intuition would be. But there are conditions in which people procreate knowing that their children will suffer short and extremely bad lives, in subsistence conditions, where two thirds of the children they produce will suffer in this way. To ensure the two cases are analogous, suppose that the scientist creates these lives only to ensure his genetic continuation, his security in old age, or out of economic necessity, and will stop producing lives only when he has two viable children to support him and work in his lab. Can one context of procreation be plausibly justified without this justification extending to the case of the scientist, which I assume nobody believes may be justified? If so, how? Is there anything about the natural context of sexual procreation that serves to justify what would ordinarily be beyond excuse?

The general consensus seems to be that since men aren't women, they can't speak

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:38:18 +0000

Feminism

Sex

Read another response about Feminism, Sex

Read another response by Stephen Maitzen

The general consensus seems to be that since men aren't women, they can't speak about or fully understand the issues pertaining to women. I once read an analogy that tried to equate this logic with someone telling a veterinarian that since he isn't a cat, he cannot speak about the issues pertaining to cats. But since veterinarians do speak about cat issues, then it is safe to assume that men can speak about women's issues as well. Does the analogy work? Can men speak about women's issues?

Recently, I read an article about someone whose parents would purposely have sex

Anonymous — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:19:10 +0000

Sex

Children

Read another response about Sex, Children

Read another response by Allen Stairs, Richard Heck

Recently, I read an article about someone whose parents would purposely have sex in front of him when he was a young child. Many of the comments left in response to the article remarked that this amounts to child abuse. (For a less extreme example, it's commonly held that exposing young children to porn or graphic sex scenes is similarly inappropriate.) I agree that this sort of thing is egregious, but I don't know how to explain why. When the child is watching his parents have sex, what exactly is happening that harms him?

So I know philosophy tries to answer all kinds of questions and from different

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:08:48 +0000

Sex

Read another response about Sex

Read another response by Alexander George

So I know philosophy tries to answer all kinds of questions and from different subjects, but I have never heard of any philosopher that discusses sex. Or do they? And in that case, what kind of questions or dilemmas exist when a philosopher discusses sex?