Duties Toward the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse
Essay Preview: Duties Toward the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse
Report this essay
Written By
Penny Smith
Duties Toward the Body in Respect Of Sexual Impulse
Is there a distinction between love and pure sexual impulses. By using appetite as an analogy we can try to understand. Kant suggests, sexual impulse that derives from love is in its self not love, in the first place. True love, suggested by Kant, is in fact affection in which promotes happiness in others and in turn gives the individual happiness. The impulse of sexual “love” is derived by not anything other than a sexual appetite. This appetite disregards moral relationship making the object of sexual desire becomes a thing. Kant defines a “thing” as something which can be treated as having no rights and can be used as such. Because of sexual impulse, Kant suggest, human beings are designed instinctually/naturally to use another human being as an object of ones enjoyment. Kant believes sexual desire is the source of why individuals are ashamed and thats the reason some chose to suppress their sexual tendencies. He believes when two individuals give into sexual desires they are dishonoring the human nature of the other. He suggests the object is sex and not defined as human nature. One is dishonoring the other in order to satisfy ones own sexual desires.
The harm that is the result of giving into natures desire is viewed by most philosophers as the only thing wrong, in the conduct of the act. However, this view is attacked by Kant. He suggests allowing such conduct is immoral and that any person who could evade being harmed by them could make whatever use he wanted of his sexual tendency. A person is not a thing but human being with rights and can not be owned. The conduct of such tendencies would violate those rights. A moral rick is present due to the object of intention because it is about sex not towards ones humanity. Satisfying the vaga libido is not allowed by the rules of morality. Because one satisfies the other in order to gain. In the case of concubinatus both persons sexual desire mutual and has been fulfilled. However, the use of the surrendering person during the sexual fulfillment is used as a thing. Therefore, the desire is of sex not concerning the human self. To enjoy a part of a person means to enjoy the whole because a person is a unity. But because the person has a right over only one part they are treating the other as a thing and not a human being. The rules of morality are violated by this conduct. Matrimony is the only way to obtain full rights of the whole. This agreement gies the other full rights over the whole of the other and vise versa. This agreement does not break moral laws allowing concubinatus sexual to apply. Devoting ones whole self and sex to another through matrimony allows the other to agree to the same. By doing this you allow the other