Sexual Behavior and Sexual Morality

Sexual Morality
Sexual morality is the exploration of sexual behavior in the light of moral consideration like what is morally right and wrong for sexual behavior, which can be applied to other areas as well (Primoratz, 2013). These are further founded through various philosophies being around this topic that is rooted like sex and what function it plays in the life of a human being (Primoratz, 2013). Philosophers have long argued and named sexual activities with different analogies, until Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud, who considered sex as morally righteous (Halwani, 2018).
The meta-ethics is the understanding of moral principles through deeply analyzing its origin and nature for reaching moral conclusions (McCord, 2012). It leads us to moral truths and the reasoning behind the moral judgments and conclusion for different areas of exploration (McCord, 2012). It delves into the deeper meaning of what morality is, in analyzing different philosophies (McCord, 2012). It also explores the motivation of human beings and other aspects to provide conclusive analogies on a semantic level (McCord, 2012). Sexual Morality explored through meta-ethics will lead to proper arguments for the understanding of sexual morality and its philosophies. It focuses on sexual morality from a metaphysical level to deeply analyze its nature, its origin, and its importance (Soble).
Metaphysical, sexual optimist philosophers have a very open-minded view of sexuality and consider that sexuality is a connecting act between individuals, making them happy and involve them in a natural bond (Soble). It exchanges pleasure as its benefits and makes both the involved parties happy (Soble). It is deemed to be generating affection and gratitude, which further deepens the relationship of these individuals, satisfying their desires and needs (Soble). Nagel's Secular philosophy is based upon analyzing what makes human beings different from animals in understanding sexual morality to understand its uniqueness (Soble). It analyzes the physiological and psychological understanding of sexual arousals as in these encounters to people are fully aware of each other's bodily presence, also providing analogies for pervert sexual arousals where it is encountered by only one person (Soble). This philosophy neither provides nor states the rights and wrongs, but through meta-ethics, analysis understands the deep foundations of sexual human behaviors (Soble). However, it contradicts the Aquinas's Natural Law rooted in a religious context whereby sexual activity has a purpose, which is procreation, apart from which all acts of sexual activity, including masturbation, is considered immoral (Soble).
Rooted in Metaphysical, sexual optimism, a liberal's view on sexual morality can also be taken, which focuses on individuality and matter of choices for sexuality, stating that only the sexual activity which is based on coercion, manipulation, and dishonesty is morally wrong. At the same time, all the other acts are natural and not immoral to satisfy sexual pleasure (Soble). Even Masturbation and Homosexuality is not considered immoral by the secular viewpoint, even though it might be unwise or unnatural for different philosophers to study. However, it still fundamentally harms no one in the process. Thus it is not immoral (Soble). For the liberalist's view, consent is enough for making the entire act moral as it corresponds with individual choices and autonomy, taking into account the other person's choice and basing the decision on rationality (Soble). It takes into account and individual's self-identity and his autonomous choices to explore his sexuality and indulge in consensual sexual behavior for satisfying his self and the other person in the process, having no problems and moral contradictions (Soble). Sexual desire doesn't have any other motivations other than that of satisfying itself at the very core, even though it can be used to express love and other emotions, it's fundamental meaning is motive-less (Goldman, 2019).
However, there are many branching topics like infidelity which arise from changing sexual behavior and sexual morality in which the liberal's point of view is challenged where the pursuit of sexual desires and sexual exploration hurts the societal construct of marriage and people involved in religious matrimony (Haqiqatjou, 2005). Sexual autonomy in such commitments is found to be uncomfortable, which again, the liberalist would argue to be unharmful and very religious and narrow-minded in its appeal (Haqiqatjou, 2005). This inflicts the harm on the other partner and open ways for so many problematic theories for a society to thrive in (Haqiqatjou, 2005). Furthermore, the liberal view is also challenged by the romantic view of sex as liberals emphasize just the consent for the sex to be morally right (Primoratz, Sexual Morality: Is Consent Enough?, 2001). Another important and challenging argument arises whereby consent is not considered to be the only metric for analyzing the morality of sex (Soble). Even in consensual sex, if both the parties are using each other for sexual pleasure, it doesn't lead to virtuous acts (Soble). And if consent is enough, then consensual incest is morally right or wrong? (Haidt & Hersh, 2001).
Sexual pleasure, according to optimist philosophers, is very significant, and expression of it has intrinsic value, which means its pursuit is very important and natural that requires no justification (Soble). For this reason, sex without marriage and undirected towards creating life is considered justified and morally right as it should be enjoyed and promoted according to these philosophers (Soble). Irving Singer has put forward his views that sexual desires are inherently not bad, and pursuing it is not immoral as it doesn't reduce the other person merely to objects. Still, it is a healthy way of enjoying the other person's flesh (Soble). These philosophers think sexual activity has nothing to do with how people plan to pursue it and how they want to be involved in it, which is why sexual activity is not immoral and acting on sexual impulses is considered normal and natural with no problematic consequences or immoral justifications (Soble).
However, there is another branch of meta-ethics that is opposite to meta-ethics optimism; meta-ethics pessimism. It revolves around the idea that sexual desires reduce the other person as merely a sex satisfying object, making the act itself completely manipulative and selfish psychologically, physically, and emotionally (Soble). It also points out the arousal points of the other human beings which is a source of sexual desire for a person, showing that the person interested is only interested from what he can drive pleasure from and not the other person who is totally different and much more than his/her physique (Soble). It is a challenging argument to the meta-ethics optimism theory finds no moral objections in being involved in such acts, as the act is considered fundamentally immoral by the pessimists due to its manipulative nature (Soble). It also further argues that the moment of sexual passion hampers rationality, which can drive the person to do things he wouldn't do if he didn't have the sexual urge at that moment, showing how it can weaken the rationality at the moment (Soble). In this philosophy, sexual activity is only considered moral in marriage and fro procreation purposes (Soble).
Conclusively, It is important that through meta-ethical analysis, the foundations of morality are explored. Sexual morality is also explored through different points of view, dividing the meta-ethical analysis into two different branches; meta-physical sexual optimism and meta-physical sexual pessimism. There are two sets of arguments in which one focuses on a pessimist point of view challenging the optimist point view where different viewpoints contradict the concepts like infidelity and consent as the only source of analyzing sex as moral. There are different layers to these arguments leading to different conclusions inherently contradicting each other's notions. Meta-physical sexual optimism provides rationality behind the fears of pessimism through emphasizing that sexual activity and its pursuit is not inherently wrong and is not responsible for people acting perversely, manipulatively, and selfishly, which has more to do with other aspects of human nature.
In conclusion, meta-ethics is a fruitful base of analyzing a morality as it delves deeper into understanding its origin, like in the Nagel's Secular Theory to gain clarity on the moral judgments. For the Aquinas's Natural Law argument which poses a challenge to Nagel's Secular Theory can be countered by Christine Gudorf which analyzes that the presence of clitoris in females has no purpose of procreation and is simply for the sexual desire which shows that sexual activity is not designed only for creating a life (Soble). The emergence of different viewpoints as to how the sex is viewed and whether it objectifies the people for a sexual purpose, how it can be dangerous due to its impulse and most importantly does it inhibit a person's ability to think rationally in the moment of arousal, has created a wide perceptive arena to take insight from. There are so many other theories that pose a challenge to the optimist view, which doesn't necessarily mean that the optimist view is not a reasonable philosophy for sexual morality. Sexual morality, as understood by the optimist view, is a morally just and pursuable act that provides maximum benefits to both the people involving in it consensually.
References
Goldman, A. H. (2019, February 12). Why Sexual Morality Doesn't Exist. iai News.
Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual Morality: The Cultures and Emotions of Conservatives and Liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 191-221.
Halwani, R. (2018, October 19). Sex and Sexuality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Haqiqatjou, D. (2005, September 17). Ashley Madison and the Problem of Liberal Sexual Ethics. Public Discourse.
McCord, G. S. (2012, January 26). Metaethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Primoratz, I. (2001). Sexual Morality: Is Consent Enough? Ethical Theory and Moral Practise.
Primoratz, I. (2013, February 01). Sexual Morality. Wiley Online Library.
Soble, A. (n.d.). Philosophy of Sexuality. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.