Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 377–410 | Cite as

Dark Desires

  • Seiriol Morgan
Article

Abstract

An influential view of sexual morality claims that participant consent is sufficient for the moral permissibility of a sexual act. I argue that the complex and frequently dark nature of sexual desire precludes this, because some sexual desire has a character such that it should not be gratified, even if this were consented to. I illustrate this with a discussion of a famous literary character, the Vicomte de Valmont, and draw on Kant's anthropology to illuminate the nature of such desire, before offering an account of its psychological roots. In the course of the paper I explain why the view of sexual desire endorsed by my main opponents is mistaken, and attack the limited conception of the normative which is a central plank in the argument of a prominent recent defender of the view, Igor Primoratz.

bodily pleasure consent contempt intentionality Kant's anthropology passions Primoratz sexual desire sexual morality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Denis, L., Kant's Ethics and Duties to Oneself, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (1997), pp. 321–348.Google Scholar
  2. Dworkin, A., Pornography: Men Possessing Women. London: The Women's Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. Dworkin, A., Intercourse. London: Martin Secker and Warburg Limited, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. Goldman, A., Plain Sex, Philosophy and Public Affairs 6(3) (1977), pp. 267–287.Google Scholar
  5. Herman, B., The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Kant, I., Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. V.L. Dowdell. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Kant, I., Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent, trans. T. Humphreys, in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. Kant, I., Religion Within the Bounds Of Mere Reason, trans. G. di Giovanni, in A. Wood and G. di Giovanni (eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. Lectures on Ethics, trans. P. Heath, in P. Heath and J. Schneewind (eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Lectures on Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Kant, I., The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Morgan, S., Sex in the Head, Journal of Applied Philosophy 20(1) (2003), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Nagel, T., Sexual Perversion, in Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
  13. Primoratz, I., Ethics and Sex. London: Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Primoratz, I., Sexual Morality: Is Consent Enough?, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4(3) (2001), pp. 201–218.Google Scholar
  15. Scanlon, T., What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Scruton. R., Sexual Desire. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. Sherman, N., Making a Necessity of Virtue: Aristotle and Kant on Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Wood. A., Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seiriol Morgan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PhilosophyUniversity of LeedsWoodhouse Lane, LeedsUK

Personalised recommendations