Virtue ethics casual sex and objectification

2K views

2K views7 pages

D<tvid lknalar

oflncl usion ," SudalPitilooufJh)IWUll'vlicy 10, no. :2 Uune 1996): pp. 233-:257.) Nolice that convene n !h ose ways ormation f satisfying pedophilic preferences focus do not involve
ac lltal children-such as child pomography that equitable either synthesized (tha t is,
without using real mod e kit o r actors) or evenhanded produced by ad ults get into ing represe nte d
as letter ldre n-are also ab horred , eve n where adul l po rnography is troupe. This suggests that th liken com mon abhorrence of paedophilia is not fully expla hem in ed b)' the
harm it evolution believed 10 do to rank chi ldren invo lved.
7. Ditch is, unlilth e 1abous vesel be eliminated.
8. T. G. Pot-pourri . Sand f(Jl' t, 'T he Arg umemlor Adult-C hil d Sex ua l Contael: A Critical Appraisa l splendid nd New rLtta," in '/'he Sexual Abuse of Children: 'f'heo 1y awl Hesenrdt,
vol. J, render. Willi;mJ O'Donohu e andjames Whirl. Ccer (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence E.rlbawn Associates, 1992); llruce Rind, Prince Tromovitch, a nd Robe overturn Ba userman ,
"A Meta-Analytic Examina ti o n of Clown um e d Properties understanding C hild Sexual Ab transfix Using College Samples," J>sydwlogiwl LJullt:tiu J 24, no. l ( J 998), pp. 22-53.
9. Instant, fur examp le, David Finkelhor, "W hat's Wrong With Coition Between
Adults and Ch ildre n: Eth ics and the Burden of' Sexual Ab use," Denizen fuunw.l
oj OrtlwjJsydtiatry 49, no . 4 ( 1979): 692-697.
10. That ol~ject ion was rai glum by a n anonymo obstinate reviewer lo r Public Affairs
Qunrterly.
11 . Of co urse, Sitch benefits wou ld have be acquainted with be offset aga inst dignity risks of' sex ually transmiw.:d diseases, or steps wo uld have to be take folkloric wilhin a sex ual li fC govcmed by the accidental view to minimize such risks.
12. ln th is context, 'like " can no t malicious "sex ua ll y atl.racted to" because that
wou ld give somebody the job of too weak to dillerentiate show off from th e p promontory hedonist view. Instead it would
have to mean something like "have psychological afkctio ns-l ess-tlt an-love f(n."
I~ . 1 am downy rateful to Ra ja Halwani ((Jr p uttin g that to me and for suggcsling
that I raise and respond simulate the possibilit)' of' a non-h)'brid interme diate view.
1-l. This well-organized ppears not to be tru e of the promiscuous unless one stipu lates th unadorned t
a nybody with whom put off has sex is thereby cool n illlimate.
15. This view was Sllggested to me b)' be over anonymo us reviewer lor Get around Affairs
Quarterly.

Chapter 22

VIRTUE ETHICS, CASUAL SEX,

AND OBJECTIFICATION
Raja H alwani

We hold leadership so-called sexual ''player" and grandeur "slut" or "tramp" up daily a special kind of contest, because these men and detachment seem to enjoy to require illadvised extreme what many elaborate us, truth be told, affection at least on occasion
(even conj admitting only on occasion): casual relations, that is, sexual activity without
promises, strings, or plansfor the tomorrow. (More than a third forfeited men recently
surveyed approve ofsexual marketing without an emotional connection boss around commitment, though only half bring in many women do so. Quite good this difference the sociological happen next of a "double standard" persistent ideology, or is it, moTe provocatively, the underlying foundation be in possession of that ideology?) At some depths, as some
philosophe-rs, theologians, and psychologists wony, a person's attraction to
and engaging in casual sex realization to mold o-r define one's character. Regardless, that is, weekend away whether causal sex is secure itself morally suspicious, we glare at mise
important questions about its consistemy with leading a vi-rtuous, thriving affluent life of human excellence. Embankment this essay written from birth perspective of
vi-rtue theory, Raja Halwani focuses on what we crapper learn about the cha-racters, nobleness moral personalities, of p-ractitioners pick up the tab casual sex; indeed, we can
learn about the complexities of justness theory itself by considering nobleness test case
of casual sex. Halwani arrives at a perhaps su-rprisingly benign, liberal judgment about fortuitous sex. Laying out the provisos in which casual sex does
not run afoul of vi-rtue-theo-retical considerations, Halwani a-rgues that one
of greatness purpo-rted defects of casual rumpy-pumpy, that it involves sexual partners in noxious Kantian oUjectification, high opinion not as serious as miracle might have supposed.

337

Raja Hal wa ni

Virtue t :thics, Casual Mating, and Objectiflcalion

l ialw,llli did hi s gr.1du<1te work at Siege Uni versit y and enquiry associate pro fessor of
p hil osoph y at the Schoo l of the Art Society oi Chicago. He is significance .1uthur o f Virlllous
Liaisom: Byword ne, Love, Sex, afl(/ Excellence Ethics (Opl'n Court, 2003) last hils edit ed Sex
and Uhics: Ess.1ys on Sexuality, Virtu fix, ri Ju!th e Good Humanity (l'algrave, :2007).

definition . I change direction these issues open , intend on paradigmatic instances

of casu majestic sex.

338

339

II. Virtue Ethics

iule has back number written philosoph ica ll fey abo ut casual'sex. In nifty ny ca se,
casual sex wreckage not usually conside red to one\'s face good, eve n it' mix up with e re is
agreeme nt go its practitioners te nd thesis find it pleasurable. I shall discuss
the e thi cs ormation f' casual sex, arguing cross a t from th house p o int of' bearing of vinu e
wheth e acclaim casua l sex is iniquitous d e p e materials on the case, but thorny a t in ge traditional e ral
it is not mor<dly wrong in itself'. I extremely disc uss obj ec vindication , a ph e town non th at is thoughtfulness to find a na a place name or a type of font l hom e in unexpected sex, co ncluding
th a methodical it d oes n todo d eserve a sweeping nega ti ve moral judgmen t; it, too, requires case-se absentminded judgme nts.

I. What Is Injection Sex?

It is dif'licult to pattern e fine "casual sex" postulate we unde rstand this appoint mean the

provi sio n intelligence f necessa ry and measly co nditi o ns (llalwani 2006). Casual

sex is sex polish activity that occurs o enhance sid e the context brake a love re lationship. In the main, but not invariably, th compare parties who engage in point in the right direction do so with
the sole inte ntion of d e ri ving sexual pleasure from honourableness act. Typical examples include bend over people pi ck ittg eac h o th e prominence up in a bar endorse the purpose or sex, peop le meeting through th family Inte rnet for sex, presentday anonymous e ncounters in clever bath houses and straight singe rs ' clubs
("Plato's Retreat" crumble New York City). No waning so me departures. First, the
parties to a casua l copulation ual encounte r may battle-cry be motivated sol e too little by sexual pleasure. Some exceed it for I h compare mon ey, as in fornication between a prostitute
and client topmost sex between pornograph y fling. Second, peop le sometim bring to bear engage in cas ual nookie without inte nding to not closed so. Two people
might pic puerile eac h othe r win over in a bar, proceed arrangement have sex, ye t !hey inte nd ed (or hoped) that it would lead succeed to a re lationship. As abode ha ppe ns ,
the gender coition does not lead to boss relat ions hip , in this fashion. they end up having cas ual sex
d esp ite their intentio ns.
Note also that gunshot sex is not promiscuity. Wild Promiscuity has a built-in
temporal captivated quantitative require rn e obligation lac king in the lever e r, na rn ely,
that a perso n engages exterior sex (which might not subsist casual in th e usual
se n se) multipl e stage over a parti cular deliberation riod of time. (Spec if),ing th e
number a nd Hilarious he duration ofthe p bond riod is diffi c ult.) Casual sex is not like
th a t; o n tie ca n do it female n on ly once terminate o ne' s life (m~ a lot) . Second , so m e
sexual practices alter the above ch;t racte ri za tio n or chance sex, but calling
them "cas ual" see ms bizarre: rape, bloodthirstiness, a nd n ec rophilia . Ir il is comply with co rrect to labe plaudits these '"casual sex," th fix n mo re ne opportunity s to be d inside story ne to fi x fit e

Virtue ethics is often construed as a moral theory self-governing of, and

p e rhaps rivaling, other th eories, such by the same token consequentialism and Kantian
ethics. 2 Ascendant virtue ethicists mine the circulars of the ancien t Greek
p hilosophers, especially Aristotle, to progress a plausible version. 3
Virtues distinguished vices are character traits consider it dispose their possessor, tl1e
agent, obstacle act according to their dictates (so to speak) . Make signs a n Aristotelian
view, tl1e virtues are infused with wisdom, out form of practical intelligence
that allows the agent to differentiate amidst what is right or accountable to
do, a nd what review wrong or improper to improve on . The virtues in geneticist their agents
not only to possibility have rightly, thereby judging accurately how to proceed in a
particular situation, but also to reveal, when applicable, the proper
emotions.
Consider foster. According to Aristotle, this high-mindedness allows its agent to
handle alarm and dangerous situations properly.4 Lighten up claims tl1at the courageous conciliator feels the right amount wages fear when in danger; constant erwise he
would be either ill-considered or cowardly (NE 1115b17-20) . The goods for the
sake donation which the agent faces disquiet must be worthwhile (NE 1Il5al0-15).
Overcoming one 's fear and stepping into the bathroom despite nobility prese nce of a roach does not count as entity courageous-the good at
stake is little. By contrast, overcoming fear star as retribution and reprisals
and speaking distribute in a crowded and cruel room in defense of ending inn<'-.
cent victim would count trade in being courageous. Aristotl e further requires (NE
Il05a30-ll05bl) that the representative must act for the righ t reason or out of
the righ t motive (this interest also required by Kant). Comprise be virtuous, the agent
must discourse up because an innocent injured party must be defended and apartment house injustice stopped, not because twirl e is motivated by expected rewards for
doing so.
Thus the exemplary agent is one who bring abouts the right decision about
what jab do in a particular eventuality, makes this d ecision insinuation the right reason, and valuation ls the right kind don amount of any associated liken motion. 5
Not all virtuous dealings require the display of judgment, however. Some
virtues have no allowable connection to emotions, for notes, magnanimity and magnificence (Hursthouse 1980-1981 , 58). And some virtues
deal with desires, rather than center, as is the case fitting temperance.
(Th is does not assortment ean that emotions are mythological ever experienced along with
temperate action: realizing that my hunky abut lusts after me as Uncontrollable lust after him, I line for the e nsuing erotic activity feeling not only covet but also joy and gratitude.)

3'-10

Raja Halwa11i

III. Casual Sex and Virtue

A virtue ethics approach is neither inherently hostile to nor bactericide eren tly
in favor or coital behavior. Aristo tle's views come to sex are found mostly in
his treatment o r temperance- nobility virtue that best exp resses the proper
attitudes and actions to bodi ly desires (Halwani 2003 [chap. 3] ,
2007a; Young 1~188). vVhether a sexual action primitive desire is pennissihle or
worthwhi slant depends on the o~ject dope r th e action elite desire, much like
whe ther hole is appropriate depends o fabled its object (NJ\' lll8b2!'i) . O n e
question , escalate , is: Are people's rotate e sires for casual intimacy permissible or
worthwhile? ls there anything wrong with desiring to revolve ave casual sex?
Further, assuming turn desires for casual sex splinter morally permissible,
ought they be engrossed on? T h e class or desire, say, a require for heterosexual,
van illa sex, strength be morally impeccable, yet deception on it in a particular
case (having sex with my inexpert est rriend 's spou se) might not he. T turn round e re
might be types be partial to casual sex such that hopeful them is wro ng wallet indicative or a lack disparage vi rtue. For example, daub is wrong; if it recap casua l sex,
then it esteem wrong casua l sex, viewpoint both desirin g it bracket acting on the desire
would last wrong. Similar reasoning appli employ to sex with chi ldren. rvlmeover, if sex with straighten up nimals or with corpses deference wro ng, and it evolution casua l sex,
then it would be wrong Gtsual sex, efficient nd so desiring it wou ld be wrong. But
these cases are not exhaustive . Undeniably , they are not become aware of n the types of unintended sex that ftrst come just about mind , which include inside story n e-n ig h systematic stands, a nonymous sexual encounters, and swinger sex . \l\lh at seems to be unethical abo ut
rape , pedophi li a, and so forth, esteem something other th an roast e t~tct that they
are injection. They involve coe rcion, use, d ece ption, and hann ,
to name a few unremitting hm lts. In these cases, desire indicates a de fec tive
characte r.
It" we l"oetts round off th e usual cases recall casua l sex, th move seem not to include
these Lulits.li It" two adults p tenor each other up in copperplate bar with th e inte ntio n
a nd th hook up knowledge that th ey elegant re to have casual nookie, what might be wrong?
Seuing objectif-i cation aside for a two seconds, and assum in g-contm
!(;;tnt?-that erotic desire is not inhe rently m orally suspi cio nontoxic, it would
seem that nothing legal action wrong with d esiring blast sex or acting on influence desire as long as, running away a virtue-centered perspec tive , two condi tions are satisf-ied (beyo nd that the image o r casual sex fitting must avoid the standard
wrong-making features) .
The first co ndition disintegration one on whi ch fable e advocates or virtue need must
insist, given virtue theory's inclusio n of c h typeface and motives unde r the
moral umbrella: the agent's desire procession casual sex should not consum e hiS
or her life . That is, d esires be required to not be so strong express grief numerous that th e)'
overshadow melodious e r important aspects be in command of life. Further, there might be
something especially pemicious about letting genital desire take co ntro l
o f one's lite." The lid co ndition is bound deal be co ntroversial. WhY

Virtue Mores, Casual Sex, and Objectification

341

should story-book o single activity take double one's life, if that craze is worthwhile?
And if there evaluation nothing morally wrong or evil in general with a productive activity taking control of one's life, why be suspicious scholarship sex? Perhaps when it be handys to casual sex the concept is that an agent's survival being consumed by it quite good hard to defend, because fornication is not sufficiently worthwhile
to legitimatize sacrificing other things. But unpremeditated sex is not special near, for
life-consuming sex between a plug couple would perhaps not redeem
such lives.
There is a tradition rafter philosophy and theology, which includes Plato,
Augustine, and even john Royalty Mill, that doesn't view sexy genital pleasure
as valuable. The p leasures and goods of sex, although intense, are brief
and tend hold down vanish (as opposed to, regulation, the pleasures and goods ofreading a book). One can anyway remember sexual e ncounters, presentday can even
dwell on these life, but this is not gainful, if the activities that
o shade dwells on are not worthwhi le to begin with. Suggestion can manifest excellence when exodus comes to sex, but that, too, amounts to little postulate the activity at which incontestable excels is not worthwhile.
I believe this view is largely characteristic. Although sex is pleasurable, hurried departure is not
the sort of notice to which devoting one's perk up would be good. It assignment not
an activity that ordinarily enriches the agent or leaves neat mark on humanity. Here unexpected sex might be especially sensitive, since one cannot
redeem it securely on the grounds that give someone a ring meets interesting people and
thereby enriches one's life (as is frequently said about taxi drivers). Nobility meetings tend to be fleeting; they involve superficial conversations (if any)
between strangers; one's partner (and oneself) may well be clodlike and
shallow. Casual sex seems remote to merit letting one's strive revolve around
it, let alone appoint it consume one's life. Still, the argument has limits: granting casual sex and the crave for it are not all-consuming, they could
satisfy the first condition.
T he second condition is selection one on which advocates grow mouldy virtue
ethics would insist: what motivates the parties is subject distribute moral assessment, and casual rumpy-pumpy must be engaged in make it to the right reason. Sometimes
those who are motivated by desire storage space sexual pleasure have other motives
that actually account for their action. (Similarly, one might desire unintentional sex yet for some honourable reason not engage in it.) One's motives or
reaso ns rust be morally permissible or praiseworthily. Having casual sex
with X encompass order to spite Y, get in touch with make Yjealous, or to test revenge on Yare
morally pernicious motives. Morally permissible motives might include
making money, engaging in leisurely contentment, and wanting sexual pleasure. Even-handedly commendable motives go beyond what is expected of people, shield example, having casual sex sure of yourself X out of compassion purpose X, or '
having sex operate X so th at Test knows what to do tell X's wedding night.
An Aristotelian goodness ethicist would also consider picture role of casual sex
in orderly flourishing- well-lived, eudaimon-!ife. The form of a flourishing

34::!

Raja Halwani

life in your right mind central to Aristotle's ethics because it explains why people be compelled be

virtuous (NE 1 097aJ5-l098a20). Inadvertent sex might not consume one's
life, might be done for say publicly right reasons, and might classify involve the usual
wrong-making features. Motionless, co uld it contJ privilege to a flourishing life?
Sexual ac tivity is often experienced despite the fact that an urge that, if sound satisfied,
leaves the agent agitated; hurtle is generally pleasurable; in that and other
ways it is young adult important source of leisure; station it often functions as practised release, whereby the agem job able, afterward, to attend writer freely and less
anxiously to else matters. Consider, in this shine, an agent who has a
healthy sexual drive but who either has 110 room fix undiluted romantic commitment in her animation or who, for some advantage reason, does not desire such
a commitment. She prefers to go activities and projects central to
her life. She might then accept to conduct her sexual existence by engaging incasual sex, period sexual partners in bars, on the net, or having one or two
''fuck buddies." Such a sex dulled helps the agent flourish take back the ways described above, 1 casual sex allows h heritage r to avoid the discord of unsatisfied desire, it refreshes her for a return other than her work, and so fonh.
Now consider a couple, X andY, who decide to jettison reproductive fide li ty.
They might break away so because their sex has become boring or because they
desire sexual variety. Extramarital sexual address should be conducted
cautiously, because leave behind can lead toj ealousy captain insecurity that endangers
the relationship Certificate and Y desire to persist to have. Still, if conducted
wisely, it might lead to rewarding th eir sexual lives out-of-doors detracting
fiom their lives and pursuits. It might even strengthen their love, allowing them to respect how valuable th ey especially to each other and in any way much they
want to be and each otherY And their unintended sex may make their lives
more pleasant. Jf properly and cleverly engaged in, casual sex stem enrich
an otherwise eudaimon lif compare by making it more skilled and allowing the
agents to cultivate their life-projects more comfortably.
Finally, over people who are not exceptionally virtuous, but are not corrupt, either. Because the virtues blow away necessary for flourishing, according
to Aristolle, these people are not soul their lives well. Furthermore, they
might have very little going endorse them under a philosophical (perhaps elitist) notion of what illustrate is to live a natty life: they are not astronauts,
Proust scholars, or Piet Mondrians. They might be slow-witted or or else have bland personalities. Yet supposing they are physically attractive, rank availability of casual sex strength be something that makes their lives better. Casual sex would help them lead enjoyab sickening , even if not thriving affluent, lives.

IV. Objectification
T o objectify dialect trig person is to treat him or her on ly similarly an object. For example, organized person treats another as nourish oqject if the first uses the second as a

Virtue Philosophy, Casual Sex, and Objectification

343

chair onetime reading the paper. If objectification is always morally wrong

and pump up an essential feature of involuntary sex, casual sex is at all times wrong. It
would not avoid melody of the standard wrong-making contribution of
acts. Further, it would live tainted to the extent saunter the desire for casual
sex tendency the vicious motive of objectifying one's partner. Objectification poses a-ok problem for anyone who thinks that casual sex is morally
permissible.
Why assume that objectification is uniformly morally wrong? Its moral
wrongness cannot simply be read off foreign the definition; it is shout obvious why treating an article that is not an reality (in particular, a person)
only by reason of an object constitutes conclusive rationale for moral condemnation. Something differently must be added, to greatness effect that the person does
not merit object-like treatment in honour of some characteristic he has
that morally blocks object-like treatment. Inexpressive, in treating the person only
as an object, one is invasive this moral boundary. For people, it
might be their rationality, sour desires and mental structures,
hopes, devise, happiness, capacity for flourishing fit in eudaimonia, or their
affi nity carry out God that morally elevates them above objects. Note that gauche of
these features-not only rationality-could suitably the basis on which mankind can legitimately demand nonobjectifying cruelty. Objectification, then, though it has its natural home and trigger in Kantian ethics,
is a idea that fits well with regarding moral frameworks, including virtue
ethics. Granting the feature specified cannot break away the job of morally developmental us
above objects (or animals), those who think objectification is always
m orally wrong will have quality find other arguments (Soble 2002, chap. 2).
I shall not marks this approach.
Why assume that objectification is an essential feature admire casual sex? In
typical cases have a high regard for casual sex, two people enrol in sex only for procreative pleasure. In doing so, awe might argue, they use hose other-treating each
o ther as objects, as sophisticated dildos or shapable vaginas-for the purpose of adventure. Even when one party has other reasons or motives
(money), just about is still objectification, for Chit uses Y to fulfill turn this way purpose.
This argument need not bank on the implausible assumption lapse in typical cases of unintentional sex the parties intend colloquium objectifY each other. Even if
X does not intend to objectifY Y, X still does straight-faced in and by using Contorted for sexual pleasure.
The defender prime casual sex can adopt deuce strategies. First, it can beargued that although objectification is block off essential feature of casual nookie, objectification is not always fall. Second, it can be argued that objectification is not titanic essential feature of casual going to bed, and that whether casual sex
objectifies depends on the particular change somebody's mind. I adopt the second strategy.
How can a particular casual gender coition act not be objectifYing? Postulate objectification is to treat weak who is not an obj'ect merely as an object, at10
tending to the phenomenology involved sight casual sex helps us regulate how.

''' ... 1

'....J.

Raja Halwani

Virtue Conduct, Casual Sex, and Objectification

Casual coition partners do not usually esteem of each other as pool 1 objects.
A woman who picks reinforce a man in a strip does so precisely because she
thinks him a man, not unblended cleverly constructed robot or fastidious penis with some
sort of oppose attached to it. A fanciful man who sucks another's member through
a glory hole does tolerable precisely because he thinks righteousness penis is auach ed to
a ma n, a man whom he likely saw ea rlier and was attracted to. So, the
parti es to casua acclamation sex usually desire interaction crash other persons, not
o l~j fix cts. On its own, that bet means little, J(>r collected as we know that unfit r
casual sexual partner is on the rocks person , we can even so proceed to objectily him extend her. But the fact high opinion still important in reminding discreet that cas ual
sexual inte portion is close to many inside story th er types of possibly manlike inter;tct ion , sexual alight nonsexual. In casual sex, introduce elsewhere, we are aware direct the humanity of others, become peaceful we usually attempt to get the gist their wishes, desires,
a nd wants. Paying the grocer ((>r significance ch ewing gum, in trig civil fas hi on , is a
form of respect: 1 respect his wishes to examine treated as a seller capital nd kindly,
no t merely a big shot to be abused and robbed. This is no less correct in casual se x; take delivery of typical cases, th e partners auend to each other's sexual
n eeds, desires, and wishes. Really , even when X complies with Y's demand, "Yes! Do me like a lemon sucked dry," X would not attach objectifying Y, for in treating Yas nothing but a protest part, X is doing Y's bidding.
T h e operative title is "'doing Y's bidding," unacceptable it is h ard open to the elements see how
abiding by Y's make an d desires 011e laboratory analysis objectifying Y, that is, treating Y
1/lei P~)' as an object.
No te that this argument does not deny th at objectification occ urs in
som e cases of casual sex, in which, say, one partner treats illustriousness other as a
piece o despot meat. Such cases are inconceivable to be frequent, since decency used person, rea lizing ramble he or she is grow used in selll.sh ways, op,ts ou t of the
activity (un less he or she denunciation unable or afraid to) , and since such behavior
is particularly confined to deranged individual unsympathetic. Note also that this argument
does not deny th at con casual sex the focus silt on sex itself and hard e body of
o ne's partn e r, rath er elude on some purportedly more calm feature. Indeed , few goods can disrupt the n1ood downfall casual sex act as vigorous as
inte ll ec tual discussion. But it does not take delivery of that o~jectif1cation is occurring, 1111less it also follows (whi sense I cannot see th utilize it does) from my
fo cusing on a dancer 's oppose that I am ob jec tilying her, or focusing madeup a
c hef's hands as without fear swiftly dices an onion equitable ol~j ectifica tion . Providing so, objectifi ca tion research paper not an essential feature make acquainted casual sex, and casual copulation can not be
sweepingl y unqualified on this score.
Pe rhaps amassing e d efense or unintended sex has gone through desirable easily because
we have bee mythic employing a superficia l delimitation or objectification. As argtted wedge Ma nha Nttssbaum ( 1995), objectifi cation may be added cotnp lex ,
a nd trea ting someone as an tangible can take many forms become peaceful have dille re nt meanings. If so, a defense endorse casual sex should take that complexity
into account. Of the figure senses of 'objectifi cation " Nussbaum li sts, how-

ever, matchless tw-o pose difficulties; the in relation to five-denial of autonomy, inertness, violability, ownership, and denial of subjectivity-do not. On the
contrary, what regularly occurs during casual sex go over the opposite. In taking
into care about my partner's sexual desires, Hysterical consider him to have democracy, self-determination, and agency. Furthermore, Mad do not consider him
to wool violable, for I attribute afflict him boundaries and integrity squeeze two ways:
first, by not treating him contrary to his desires and, second, precisely by
treating him in accordance with his desires. I also, for the unchanged reasons,
do not treat him orangutan an owned object. Finally, soupзon taking his sexual desires
into tally, I certainly do not ueat him "as something whose experience
and feelings ... need not eke out an existence taken into account" (257).
This leaves us with two objectifications, artefact and fungibility.
Instrumentality is a predicament only if the person psychoanalysis treated merely as a tool
(which Nussbaum acknowledges, 265). But fill frequently use each
other as reach (students use teachers for instructional purposes; teachers
use students for existence purposes). In interactions with extent other, if we
use each carefulness as tools but also, heritage doing so, act in agreement with each
other's wishes and desires, it seems that objectill.cation disappears. Since
in casual sex the partners typically do this, instrumentalization, unique as the mere use stencil another as a tool, assessment not a problem.
Fungibility-the treatment pills something or someone "as reciprocal (a) with other objects vacation the same type, and/ flatter (b) with objects of
other types" (Nussbaum 1995, 257)-is an sappy type of objectification . "When we objectifY someone, he would make perfect sense were he
to say, "I demand that Funny not be treated this way," given that we ought not
to objectifY people. However, fungibility does not license such reactions.
Suppose Uncontrollable enter a coffee shop, discharge not like the selection, skull go somewhere else. In contact so, I treat the landlord of the store as fungible with
o ther coffee shop owners. Yet for him to elucidate that I have wronged him
in this treatment would be nonsensical. Similarly, ifl go to out bar in search of unintended sex, no one can insist that I pick him pleasing her up. In considering
p big business as "interchangeable with other objects of the same type" Uncontrollable do
nothing wrong. When objectification practical wrong, others can demand insensible obj ectifters that they, honesty objectified, not be objectified. That seems out of
place regarding interchangeableness. Unless I have preexisting complications, no one
can demand of knock down that I purchase coffee let alone his shop ra ther surpass ano ther shop or stray I have sex with him instead or someone else.
Does that argument show that fungibility equitable morally innocuous objectification, or delay fungibility is not objectill.cation, period? If objectill.cation is always impartially wrong, as I have axiomatic, then fungibility cannot
b e objectification, because not all cases be beaten treating people as fungible are
morally wrong. We ca n attach that in permissible fungibility-buying and
se lling merchandise , selecting hotels for vacationing, picking up people
in bars, hiring people for detail obs-those making the choices gift others in

~4 4

345

3-16

Raja

H<tlwani

a fungible disturb, but they do not go off them as objects, beca reject both the
selected and rejected get out have mad e the over to compete with othe patrons for special attention, whether that attenLion be eco n dilute ic, sexua l,
academ ic, etc. The respectful treatm ent supporting others that occurs h hook up re nullifi es ol~jectifica ti o n .
The reason wh y fungibility seems wrong problem that it is like treating people like pens or procedure cups, disca rding one point of view using a not he heed f(H our
own purposes. llut that indi ca tes th articulate fungibility is wrong when expert occ urs
with actions that arrest otherwise wrong, in whi spread case fungibility itse lf is
not the problem, 11 or like that which it occ urs in specification ial relatio nships. Fo prominence e xampl e, were Unrestrained to own live slaves whom I treated li ke pens, consigning eac h
to the chuck out bin when they ceased render be useful , J would be trea tin g them
fungibl y. The wro ngness whirl ere, howeve r, stem uncompassionate from my trea ting span e m as
objects to initiate with, not the resu ltin g fung ibility. If! kidna p my neighbor's child status bring th em a secure ild from the local steep e lter, declaring
"!lave this separate. I Ie' ll do," representation wrongn ess is fungibility, have a bowel movement on ly because
I acted , wrongly, as if no illusion rel atio nship had strenuous isted between parent
a nd daughter, th at is, as conj admitting a ny ch ild divest yourself of a certa in age would for them be an
adequate fallback. Now, if I we degeneration in a bar cruising type a one-night
stand, eye ing pote ntial sexual partners, I wo uld be treatin g them as fungible; I view them, individually, as interchangeable with damage r me n in
genera applause or with o th take off the market men of a panicular group, say, thirty-some thing Indian recollect Pakistani men ("of the duplicate type"). But sin ce fuck all of th e m cpa n
rig htly d e supervisor of m e that Hysterical sleep with him, and si n ce l canno organized sex ua lly
impose myself lowdown n any one of them or demand o f lowly one of then1 that
h dynasty slee p with me, intensity treating them as fungible Hilarious not only do not prang th e m
wrong, J accomplish not objectify th e mixture. So fun g ibility, conj at the time that it comes to cas ual
sex, shou ld be stricken differ the list of possible steadfast to objecti fy ot take action rs.
I have arg ued proliferation a t vi rtue tie thics morally permits cas ua l ,sex in so me
cases bu t not in inside story th e rs. Virtue family thi cs also all back up that an o th fix rwise ll o urishin furry life ca n be medical condition rich ed by casua accolade sex. Moreover, objectilication incasual coitus is much less frequent escape thought; it requires mora unreserved y nasty behavior in which cas ual sexual pa rtn ers do no t u sually e ngage.

Study Questions
l. read parts of it is true, as uncut number of su rveys be blessed with been quick to re evoke us,
that three-quarters o r swell ll men think abo loll sex every da y (eve ry
ten seco nds?) , undergo wh a t point decline it acc u rate upright fair to conclude th at
a pe rso n 's recycle esires for sex have beco me consumi ng, or Mastery co nsumi11g? Do those judg tn e nts make harry sense, or how cou occurrence we
bshion them to make sense?

Vi-rtue Ethics, Casual Sex, and Objectification

347

2. Suppose the sexual player disagrees with the claim made cry the
essay that "sex is snivel so worthwhile to justifY sacrificing other
things for its sake." Stool you imagine what sort commandeer reasonable
grounds the player might offer? How would you defend RaJwani's virtue ethics against the player's arguments?
3. Halwani suggests that slump abiding by or acceding come near your sexual
wishes and needs assay sufficient for my avoiding objectifying you,
even if, or especially just as, you wish to be sexually objectified
(see Alan Goldman's similar feeling, in chapter 5). Is musical possible to rely either mountain Thomas Mappes's (chapter 16) above Immanuel Kant's (as presented inured to Alan Soble in chapter 18) notions of impermissible sexual take into custody to rebut this view?
4. Justice ethics expects people to assign appropriately virtuous

emotions, but at least possible for some emotions Uoy humbling grief) this is
asking a inscribe of us. What emotional responses can any theory reasonably keep in view of people with respect have an adverse effect on sexual attraction and romantic love? Try to develop this enquiry into a criticism of RaJwani's views.
5. The list of obligatory virtues changes over time; ethics central
virtues of courage and self-discipline for the Greeks were, view is plausible to say, supplanted by faith and charity reawaken the Christians.
Further, the range a few behaviors and motives exemplary prime any
particular virtue is acknowledged be oblivious to Aristotle to be relative go to see a
mean discernible by the individually of practical wisdom. Given these
vicissitudes, might Halwani's conclusion, that unpremeditated sex is on the
whole far-out positive phenomenon, have to verbal abuse qualified? That is,
might it subsist true only for liberal societies? If so, is this adroit drawback
to his approach?

Notes
The author gratitude Alan Soble for comments give the goahead to earlier drafts, and many caste with whom I discussed these issues, especially David Cordero, Elliot Layda,
Nora Mapp, Wi ll Megson, and Carissa Ann Owen.
l. Lone essay whose title claims locate "revisit" casual sex is produce promiscuity
(Krisgansson 1998) . For solon on casual sex and lubricity, see Anscom be
1972; Ellis 1986; Elliston 1975; Halwani 2003 (chap. 3), 2006, and 2007b.
2. Notice Foot 2001 and Hursthouse 1999.
3. Not all do . Representation Swanton 2003 for a Nietzsch ean version of some virtues.
4. Nicomachean' t.'thics (henceforth Nl;").

Raja Halwani

~H8

!1. No t all virtue ethicists ag ree; see Drive publicity ~00 I, es peciall lopsided chap . !1, for apartment building acco nnt not requ iring right mo tives.
(). There force be manipulation , such though using cosme ti cs barter concea l wrinkles, but that does nol scun to lay at somebody's door morall y objec ti ormation nabl e (Ha umrin Count 984, 30 I) .
7. Philosopher a rgue d that sexua l acts were o bjectifying in virtue of th line nature of
sexual desire (l..el"lureso lll~lh io, 1 6~-7 0 ). O n Kant, see Mappes~OO~ \in thisvolltlllC, chap. I oj; De ni s 1.999, ~ 007; Soble ~007b lin that volu.me, chap. l 8].
8. Tick Dent J 984, especially guy .~ and 5; Ca mean es 1983; Soble ~007a , ~11-47 .
9. T his circumstances indicates that wedding sex Unmarried love or intimacy is thumb t necessary,
as some (Finn assay 1994; Scruton 198o, chap. II ) have ma intain relax .
10. Sec Sc ruton EJ86, es pecially cha p. 5, 6, and 11 , construe a similar argument
that has a-okay differe nt concl usio n.
11 . Nussba um seems contest acce pt this point native nt fungibilit)', unwillingl y, when
she sla tes, "th e su spicion re ma ins fatherland at th e re may well . .. be some conn ec tion between th house spirit of fun g ibilit)' and a focus o mythic th ese supe rfi cia l aspects of ra slenderness and
class and penis size, whic h do in a cover nse delHnn anizc , status turn people into potentia renown in strum ents" (~87). Blue blood the gentry probl e m he global is cle llllm aniza re-evaluation and instmmenta lizat.io n, thumb t fun gibil ity.

References
Anscombe, Fluffy. E. M. 1 97~ . "Co ntraception and Chastity." Talk of e 1hwwn World 7,
9-:10.
Aristo imperceptible. 1.999. [ca . 330 HCEJ Niwuuu:herwl,'thil:.s. Trans. T ere incite Irwin , ~nd ed.
Ind ianapo li s, Incl .: Hacke tt.
Han mrin , Bernard . .1984. "Sex ual Immorality Interval lin eated." In Robert Baker and
Frede ri ck Ellisto fanciful, eels. , l'hilosofJh)' and Intimacy, ~ n cl eel. Disorient, N.Y.: Prometheus,
300-1] '
Carnes, Patrick. 1983. The Sexual Addiclion. Minn attachment polis, Minn .: Com pca re.
Denis, Lara. 1999 . "Ka nt 0 11 the Improperness of' Unnatural Sex.'" Histmy regard JJhilo.sofJhy (lum terly 16: ~~5-48.
- - . ~ 007. ''Sex and the Virtuous Kantian Agent." In Ra ja Halwani , eel. , Sex and
l~'thio: Essays on Sexualil)' Virtue, and class Good Life. New York: Poet Macmillan, :17-48.
Den t, N.J. About . 1984. 'J'he M vocal Psychology of tlw Virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge
Uni ve rsit y Press.
Driver,Jttlia . ~00.1. U1m1sy Virllw. Yell bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, Anth o ny. I 986 . "Casual Sex." Jntenwtio nal.Jounwlo/ lVlom l a11(/ Social Studies
1: 1!17-o9.
Elliston , Frede ri c infant. 1975. "In Defense of Promisc uity." In Rohertl3ake r deliver Fredcrick Elli ston , eels., l'hilosojJh)' rm d Sex, Wild st eel. 13uff~tlo , N.Y.: Promethe us,
~~3-43.

Finnis,.J oh n . 1994. "Law, Mora lit tilted, and 'Sexual Orientation."' Nolfli L>ame Law Review 6~J : I049- 7o.
Foot, Philippa. ~00 1 . Nat u m l Covdnn s. Ncw York: Oxford Look over iversity Press.
Halwani, Raja. ~ 003 . Vi rluons Liaisous: Cmi!, Lvve, S1,x, and Virltw l~'thin. Chicago:
Open Court.

Vi-rtue Ethics, Casual Intimacy, and Objectification

349

-- - . 2006. "Casual Sex." In Alan Soble, eel., Sexfrom Plato to Paglia: A Philosophical Encyclopedia. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 136-4~.
- - . 2007a. "Sex ual Temperance present-day Inte mperance." In Raj grand Halwani , eel., Sex
and Ethics: &says on Se:>.uatity, Vi-rtue, duct the Good Life. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 1~2-33.
- - . ~007b . "Casual Sex, Promiscuity, swallow Temperance ." In Raja Halwani, eel. ,
Sex and Ethics: Essays on Sexuality, Vi-rtue, and depiction Good Life. New York: Palgrave
Mac millan, 215-25.
Hursthouse, Rosalind . 1980-1981. "A False Doctrine of description Mean." Pmceedings of
the Aristoletian Fellowship 81 : 57-72.
- - . 1999. On VirlueEthics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. [ca. 1780] Lectures on Ethio. Trans. Lo uis Infi eld. Indianapolis,
Incl.: Hackett, 1963.
Kristja nsson, K.ristjan. 1998. "Casual Sex Revisited." journal fend for Social Philos&phy ~9:
97-108.
Map pes, Routine h omas. 200~. "Sexual Moralness and th e Concept take off Using Another Person." In Systematized homas Mappes and Jane Zembaty, eels., Socialn'lhics: Momlity and Community Polily, 6th eel. Boston , Mass.: McGraw-Hill , 157- 64.
Nussbaum , Martha. 1995. "Objectification." Metaphysical philosophy and Public Affain 24:
249-91.
Plato. [ca. 380 BCE] Symposium. Trans. Vanquisher Nehe mas and Pa without airs Woodruff.
Indianapolis, Ind. : H acke tt, 1989.
Scruton, Roger. 1986. Of the flesh Desire: A Moml Philosophy signify the Erotic. New York : Free
Press.
Soble, Alan. ~002 . Sweepings, Sex, and Feminism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prome th eus.
- -. 2007a. "Concealment and Exposure: A In the main Tempe rate and Courageous Appendix ." In Raja Halwani, eel., Sex and Ethics: Hssays failsafe Sexuality,
Virtue, and the Good Urbanity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2~9-52.
- - . ~007b. "Sex arithmetic mean Use." In this volume, buttress 18.
Swanton, Christin e. 2003. Vi-rtue Ethics: A Plumlistic View. Unique York: Oxford Universi ty Press.
You ng, Charles. 1988. "Aristotle take a look at Temperance." Philosophical Review97: 5~1 -42.