Philosophy Of Love And Sex: Our Nature And Sexual Morality
The web dictionary defines Human Nature as the bundle of fundamental characteristics including ways of feeling, thinking, and acting, which humans tend to have naturally. I define human nature as the way in which we live according to our morals and upbringing, however, a strange thing happens when the meaning of human nature collides with philosophy. While currently taking the course Love and Sex: philosophical perspectives, I understand that it portrays a nebular of theories and ideas that derive from great early and modern philosophers who had shared their beliefs in the way we carry ourselves as human beings in both mind and body. Many of these philosophers highlight the sexual ethics of human nature while other philosophers don’t seem to believe that there is such a thing as human nature. Immanuel Kant was one of those philosophers who observed human behavior in his “Crimina Carnis” article as well as the rights and wrongs of their sexual ethics in his “Duties towards the body in respect of sexual impulse” article. Like him, philosopher, Author Schopenhauer expanded on Kant’s ideas and took the idea of human nature and sexual ethics on different route through targeting “The metaphysics of love of the sexes”. Sigmund Freud, a psychological scholar of the philosophical mind, also shed light on his views on sexual ethics and human nature in his article “The Sexual Abbreviations” and Marquise de Sade, the founding father of sadomasochism, strongly believed in only his views of human nature and sexual ethics in his article “Philosophy in the bedroom”. As a matter of fact, even though their definitions of human nature and views of sexual ethic was somewhat different from each other’s, each one of these philosophers believed their explanation was the only explanation. People today still believe that following the beliefs of these philosophers are what makes us moral but I disagree agree for a few reasons. In this essay I will dissect and discuss today’s meaning of human nature and sexual ethics and compare and highlight the views of philosopher’s: Immanuel Kant, Author Schopenhauer, Sigmund Freud and Marquise de Sade based on their readings. I will then conclude each comparison by stating my reasons and opinion about their views through shedding light on my views and the change in humanity then and now as it relates to our nature and sexual morality.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), was a great philosopher who expressed great interest in the preconditions of knowledge as well as reconciling morality and religion with science. I believe laws play a vital role in the way in which we view human nature and even sexual ethics. These laws may have derive from things we were taught growing up or things we learned along the way. Today there are a lot teachings we cast aside due to listening to the beliefs of others or simply being woken and accepting to the things we felt weren’t right all along. To us taking part in what we was told was wrong is against the norm and we see that as bad or evil. However, Kant elaborated on these feelings in his readings “Crimina Carnis” and “Duties towards the body in respect of sexual impulse”. Most philosopher believe that human nature is a mix of good and evil but Kant seem to not have the same opinion as the other philosophers because in his reading he rejected this theory that human nature is a mix of good and evil. He saw human nature as a human presenting himself as good when he does what is expected of him; which are the moral principles and evil when he goes against the norms; which is being immoral. To Kant, being good or evil depended on how society one lives and what traditions are being followed within that society setting. When reading “Duties towards the body in respect of sexual impulse”, Kant’s views on sexual ethics or morality seems to be traditional and conservative. Kant opposes every conceivable sexual practice except sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife; for instance oral and anal sex, prostitution etc. It appears that he is against sex outside of marriage or “casual sex” as we know it today, however, whether all of Kant’s views on sexual ethics follow from his moral philosophy is less important than the underlying idea they reflect which is “that we do not own ourselves and are not at our own disposal”.
In my opinion, it is almost desensitizing to use a person for sex and in doing that, treat them however you please until you are satisfied but these readings indicate that Kant was strongly against objectification. Even though sex is like a norm for most relationships, he believed that sex without marriage was both degrading and objectifying to both partners. This is where the phrase, “human beings should be treated as ends but not means” was introduced, meaning to treat others as you would want to be treated. Today pornography paints a perfect picture of the way sex should be to some people but to Kant even this was degrading, especially to women. He spoke about men taking away a woman’s rationality to have sex.
Which made me question, do women really want to reenact such a senseless way of having sex for pleasure by performing oral sex or foundling themselves to arouse men? In other cases if it is a woman satisfying herself for a woman, men satisfying himself for a man, or human satisfying themselves for an animal these sexual impulses or appetites are all considered animalistic natures to Kant. Kant seemed to believe that even when both parties were in it for pleasure they dishonored the human nature of each other by using one another as an instrument for the satisfaction of lust. He even insists that we do not own ourselves when he states “Man cannot dispose over himself because he is not a thing; he is not his own property. ”
I believe that we live under the impression that we are free to do what we please with our self and it is our rights. He believed that whiles treating everyone as an “end” we should also treat ourselves as an “end” but not a “mean” which goes against homicide, suicide, lying, selling, marketing, or prostituting ourselves even if it’s for goodwill for instance, giving a kidney, donating blood or even sacrificing your life to save one’s life. Finally, In reference to saving one’s life, a question was asked in class “If someone entered your home to kill your mother would you tell them the truth or lie?” Commonly, we all would lie to save the life of the ones we love however, Kant’s explanation of this is strange. Kant would reject the white lie, because it makes an exception to the moral law or in other words, he seem to believe that the duty to tell the truth should stand regardless of its consequences.
To us lying to a murderer is the right thing to do and is moral but to Kant it seems as if lying violates the principal of right and although helping a murderer carry out his wicked deed is a heavy disadvantage or consequence to face, for Kant morality is about principles not consequences. These readings obviously reflect a change in the way we view human nature and sexual ethics as we act by what we feel or what we know to be right but our idea of morality as it relates to expressing ourselves, feeling free to do what we want with ourselves and others, masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality and lying are all immoral.
Phycologist and philosopher Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) was known for his theory of human psychosexual development and therefore, fixated upon human sexuality. Taking a different approach from Kant, Freud observed human nature and their sexual ethics physiologically and shared his view through his reading “Sexual Abbreviations”. Naturally, as kids our sexual instinct never kicks in until we are exposed to something of that nature and then we become curious to the idea of it. Freud begins by disagreeing with popular opinion about the nature of our sexual instinct; that it is absent in our childhood, develops at the time of puberty in connection with physical changes and is reveals its Vaga libido or manifestations of an irresistible attraction exercised by one sex upon the other. In other words, Freud believed that human beings were sexual beings right from the start. He then introduces two terms “sexual object” referring to the person who is sexually attracting; and “sexual aim” referring to the act towards that person. The rest of the reading is then concerned with deviations in respect to the sexual object and sexual aim as well as what is assumed to be normal. Unlike Kant who was concerned about a man taking away a woman’s rationality to have sex and treating them as objects, Freud flipped the script and introduced the idea that there are men whose sexual object is a man and not a woman, and women whose sexual object is a woman. He calls this an “inversion” and the people “inverts”.
We know this today as homosexuality; being sexually attracted to the same sex. Today, we live in a society where people are no longer hiding who they are, and though there are some countries who have not yet accepted the lifestyle of Lesbianism or Homosexuality, others support it and go against the norms to introduce a freedom to love whereas they are considered equal. Yet Freud classifies their behavior as Absolute inverts, amphigoric inverts, and contingent inverts. It seems as if separates them from humanity and gives them a nature of their own whereas they are innate nervous degenerate portraying more degeneracy or innate character. He takes a look at “Sexual Objects of Inverts” and finds that the theory of psychical hermaphroditism holds that an inverted man, feels he is a woman in search of a man. The many male prostitutes who offer themselves to inverts, imitating women in their clothing and behavior, support this. In women, Freud suggests that inverts exhibit both mental and physical masculine characteristics and look for femininity in their sexual objects.
When taking a look at the “Sexual Aim of Inverts” Freud argues that no single aim can be given in the case of inversion. The aim can vary from anal intercourse, to masturbation, or even just contact with the mouth. To Kant the thought of dissecting and accepting bisexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality would have probably been sickening as a matter of fact there are some people today who still have a hard time accepting this lifestyle but Freud concludes this thought by highlighting the errors relating the sexual instinct and sexual object as being more intimate than they actually are. He concludes that the sexual instinct is probably independent of its object and that its origin is unlikely to be due to its object's attraction. In other words he does not treat it as an illness or degradation but as if it is something to not be ashamed of. To further express his views of human nature and sexual ethics, in his reading he addresses the issue that the use of inappropriate sexual objects cannot be ascribed to the insane, but are in fact found otherwise 'normal' people. He goes deeper in discussing how a man and a women should enjoy each other or that of the opposite sex by first examining; the “overvaluation of the sexual object” which is when the subject becomes infatuated by the mental perfections of the sexual object (similar in many ways to power of love) therefore it shouldn’t be restricted.
Next the “Sexual use of the mucous membrane of the lips and mouth” which is when the use of the mouth is regarded as a perversion, if it is brought into contact with the genitals of another. Though to many it invokes feelings of disgust, this factor of disgust can be overridden by the vaga libido and the sexual instinct in its strength would override disgust. Lastly, he mentions “Sexual Use of the Anal” whereas he proposes that again it is disgust that labels this act as a perversion however, though it is a sexual part, the anal should not be limited to intercourse between men. Freud proposes that the more frequent cases of the mouth and anus, implies that they are claiming to be treated as genitals. Freud being open to this idea is a clear evidence of change in the way in which people think today because to many this is considered immoral and not a part of human nature. The contrast between both philosophers Kant and Freud brings me to a more neutral philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher best known for his work “The World as Will and Representation”. He responded to and expanded upon Immanuel Kant's philosophy concerning the way in which we experience the world and called himself a Kantian. His critique of Kant, creative solutions to the problems of human nature and his observation of the limits of human knowledge, are among his most important achievements and he claims that his philosophy could not have been conceived before teachings of Friedrich, Ludwig, Freud, Kant, Plato and others were available. In Schopenhauer’s readings “Metaphysics of the Love of the Sexes”, he argues that love is actually an individual human experience of a universal human impulse to reproduce, and that this should be only between a man and woman who are compliments of one another, in order to create a neutral or in his case “normal” product.
Unlike Kant and Freud Schopenhauer seems to take the union between men and women more stern. In my opinion this seems a bit unfair as if he is implying that in order to produce normal you must be equal, however that is immoral to me and to human nature as people today are free to love who they want no matter the size, color or gender, and the product of this is beautiful. Schopenhauer’s philosophical anthropology seemed to be shaped through a notion of love. To him as everything is fair in war, even love results in deception. He expresses how “Nature attains its ends by embedding illusions in an individual so that it appears to be reality which he claims is advantageous to the species and if this is so then it seems to be advantageous to himself. I observed that perhaps this could be where Kant’s idea of “treating one as yourself” is inherited. Schopenhauer had developed a teleological anthropology in which individual humans have a drive to screw themselves over, for instance, committing themselves to a person while under the duress of illusion and he believes this illusion ends once what was needed from the species was attainted.
Once again I can see how Kant’s objectification theory is reflected throughout his readings. I do believe that this part still takes place today. Though it is not right as I previously mentioned in Kant’s readings, people senselessly use others and I can understand Schopenhauer’s idea of the illusion because people act a certain way only to gain what they want but once it is accomplished they convert back to being themselves. This happens in relationships today and is still something that impacts this generation.
Unlike all of the other thinkers of this essay the most conflicting of them is the father of sadomasochism, writer and philosopher Marquis de Sade (1740-1814). Sade is a mythological figure of the French literature and this is reflected in his readings “Philosophy in the bedroom”. He spent a lot of time deconstructing the concept of “procreation”, and exposes the fact that in nature, the behavior within procreation consist of non-procreative acts, and anti-procreative acts. Similar to Freud, he has classed the behavior of human nature. For instance, nature is complex in the way she produces seeds, millions of seeds die while only one fertilizes the egg, and many eggs are produced however, they all never come to fruition but are simply discarded and unused.
It seems as though Sade uses his observations of the predominance of non-procreation and anti-procreation in nature to celebrate the natural superiority of masturbation and sodomy over conventional heterosexual intercourse. Therefore unlike Kant and Schopenhauer’s ideas, Sade is completely open to the idea of what they would deem to be immoral and against human nature. Sade strongly defends sadomasochism in several ways, as he argues that certain men and women have it in their nature to take pleasure in giving and receiving sexual pain and because he considers this natural behavior for them, they are right in acting in accordance with their nature. Today the act of S&M has become a part of some person’s sexual ethics, indulging in pornography and movies such as, Fifty Shades of Grey making them a norm. He believes that one who likes to endure sexual pain is acting in accordance with the way nature designed them therefore to human nature this should not be immoral.
Sade acknowledges that this type of passion is a craving, but it is a natural one, and natural grounds are the only grounds on which natural passions can be judged. He defines sadomasochism as the technique or tool for realigning man with nature. He argued that apart from being free, people are enslaved, degraded and ruined by their appetites, but in fact, Sade was enslaved and ruined by society's response to his appetites, not by his appetites in themselves. Sade was scrutinized and labelled a masturbator because he saw it as being more than just a last resort. In the 18th and 19th Century, he was one of the first persons to argue that masturbation was wholly natural, and a valuable pleasure in and of itself. He was totally against Kant’s belief that stated “we are not our own properties” and with a clear head he never viewed masturbation as a pathological disorder. Even now in the 21st century masturbation is still suggested as a degrading sexual act or frowned upon when done to simply please one’s self. Sade was imprisoned for most of his adult life, with pitifully few opportunities to pursue happiness, and whatever misery he experienced was directly linked to his punishment rather than his obsessions.
In conclusion, the four thinkers that I have chosen to make this comparison was Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, Arthur Schopenhauer and Marquis de Sade. In examining each one of their readings through their definition of human nature and views of sexual ethics that is different in society today, I’ve learned that some people today are still abiding by the ideas of these thinkers and using their teachings as their motivator to living morally. Though each of them made interesting points, some in which I’ve favored for instance, Kant’s idea of objectification and not treating people as means but ends, Freud’s idea of being naturally open to your sexual instinct and accepting the lifestyle of others without judgement, Schopenhauer’s idea of informing people that love can be deceptive as its illusions makes it imperfect and Sade’s idea of allowing women to feel free to be themselves and not be objectified but to take part in dominance as well. I favored selective ideas from each of these thinkers as well as had my share of disagreements. I don’t believe that everything these thinkers suggest should be the way to live morally because times are changing, and people are growing to find themselves and realize that who they are as a human is based on the choices or decisions they make.
I believe the right or wrong will to do something comes from within as Kant’s proposed but I do not agree to his thought of being immoral if we have sex before marriage because people should be free to love and express that without time limits. People should be free to have sex with the person they love without discriminating their difference that is Schopenhauer’s views of sexual ethics doesn’t stand with me. People today of all races, sizes and sexes are producing children and the product of this is beautifully normal to me. I believe that the human nature are both the positive and negative forces within us that shapes us and that philosophy has its fault’s in itself and even that is a part of Human nature.
