No abstract

No abstract

The most striking distinction between the erotic life of antiquity and our own . . . [is] that the ancients laid the stress upon the instinct itself, whereas we emphasize its object. The ancients glorified the instinct and were prepared on its account to honour even an inferior object; while we despise the instinctual activity in itself, and find excuses for it only in the merits of the object.Sigmund Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (note, 1910) In the last quarter of the 20th Century a distinct subarea of philosophy arose. Professional books and articles on the philosophy of sex were published during this period. University courses devoted to the topic proliferated.1 Questions addressed by academic philosophers included the ontological and analytic, for example, "What is sexual activity?" or "How to define 'sex act'?" --an issue that the public discussed, too, after President William Clinton denied that he had "sexual relations with that woman," Monica Lewinsky. Academic philosophers also addressed normative or evaluative questions, such as "What is natural human sexuality?" (in contrast to "perverted" sexuality) and "What is morally right or permissible sexual behavior?" This new focus of study emerged partially with second-wave feminism's criticism of the politics of heterosexuality and sex discrimination and with the slowly growing legal and social acceptance (including network television) of minority sexualities. Scholars working within the phenomenological, existentialist, evolutionary, conservative, Marxist, liberal, feminist, and diverse theological traditions have written much about the metaphysics and ethics of sexuality, although the philosophy of sex remains eclectic and interdisciplinary, not wedded to any particular ideological perspective.In addition to studying specific ontological and moral issues, scholars can also approach the philosophy of sex historically. In this project, they explicate the writings of significant figures from the past, fashioning into a coherent whole what might resemble a loose set of scattered claims. Or they investigate the thought of a philosopher to discern characteristics of the period or culture in which he or she wrote. Or they use this history as a mirror (or even as a lamp) to see contemporary practices and ideas more clearly or freshly. Another task is tracing an argument, theme, or problem (e.g., the nature of sexual desire or arousal) through a series of thinkers, showing how it stays the same and how it gets modified over the centuries. Philosophers of sexuality have concentrated, so far, on definitional and evaluative matters. The history of the philosophy of sex is the least developed part of the field.Human sexuality is, of course, a topic that is endlessly discussed and over which people argue ad libitum et nauseum, not only at scholarly conferences but also in the local tavern or coffee shop. The subject is not owned by professional philosophers. Indeed, the glossy volumes on the shelves of mall bookstores are written by ordinary peopl...

In the first part (the "Doctrine of Right," the Rechtslehre) of his late, post-critical Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which part is devoted to the Law, Immanuel Kant tells us about a crime that is "deserving of death, with regard to which it still remains doubtful whether legislation is also authorized to impose the death penalty." This crime is "a mother's murder of her child." 1 But Kant is not concerned with a Susan Smith, who drowned in an automobile submerged in a lake her properly, legally, conceived children. That it is "doubtful" that the law should be brought to bear against infanticide is reserved by Kant for a special case: Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth.. .. A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law. .. and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation. 2 The old Kant is cruel, heartless about the plight of the illegitimate child, which he likens to a stash of marijuana. This is not a humanist Kant, but a callous, prejudiced kisöreg. 3 The slightly younger Kant is no more compassionate. In his pre-critical Lectures on Ethics (1775-81; the Vorlesung), he expressed this piece of brutal misogyny: No matter what torments I have to suffer, I can live morally. I must suffer them all, including the torments of death, rather than commit a disgraceful action. The moment I can no longer live in honour but become unworthy of life by such an action, I can no longer live

Feminist critics, particularly, Sandra Harding, Carolyn Merchant, and Evelyn Fox Keller, claim that misogynous sexual metaphors played an important role in the rise of modern science. The writings of Francis Bacon have been singled out as an especially egregious instance of the use of misogynous (“rape”) metaphors in scientific philosophy to promote the scientific method and to justify technological innovation. This chapter presents a defense of Bacon, arguing that the feminist reading of Bacon is based on misquotations, passages taken out of context, projection, and scholarly uncharitability.