Sexual Morality Through a Meta-Ethical Lens: Key Perspectives

Introduction to Sexual Morality and Meta-Ethics

Sexual morality is the exploration of sexual behavior in the light of moral considerations — namely, what is morally right and wrong with respect to sexual conduct — and its principles can be applied to other areas of human life as well (Primoratz, 2013). These principles are further grounded in various philosophies concerning sex and the function it plays in human existence (Primoratz, 2013). Philosophers have long debated sexual activities through different analogies, until thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud began to consider sex as morally permissible (Halwani, 2018).

Meta-ethics is the study of moral principles through deep analysis of their origin and nature, with the aim of reaching sound moral conclusions (McCord, 2012). It leads us toward moral truths and provides the reasoning behind moral judgments across different areas of inquiry (McCord, 2012). Meta-ethics delves into the deeper meaning of morality by analyzing different philosophical traditions (McCord, 2012). It also explores human motivation and other aspects of behavior in order to provide conclusive analogies at a semantic level (McCord, 2012). Exploring sexual morality through meta-ethics produces stronger arguments for understanding sexual morality and its philosophical underpinnings. It examines sexual morality from a metaphysical level in order to analyze its nature, its origin, and its significance (Soble).

Metaphysical Sexual Optimism and Secular Philosophy

Metaphysical sexual optimist philosophers hold a very open-minded view of sexuality, considering it a connecting act between individuals that generates happiness and draws them into a natural bond (Soble). Sexual activity, in this view, exchanges pleasure as its primary benefit and satisfies both parties involved (Soble). It is understood to generate affection and gratitude, which further deepens the relationship between individuals and satisfies their desires and needs (Soble).

Nagel's secular philosophy is grounded in analyzing what distinguishes human beings from animals in the context of sexual morality, in order to understand its uniqueness (Soble). It examines the physiological and psychological dimensions of sexual arousal, noting that in such encounters both parties are fully aware of each other's bodily presence. It also provides analogies for perverse sexual arousal, where the encounter involves only one person (Soble). This philosophy neither prescribes nor prohibits specific acts, but through meta-ethical analysis seeks to understand the deep foundations of human sexual behavior (Soble). However, it contrasts with Aquinas's Natural Law, which is rooted in a religious context and holds that sexual activity has a single purpose — procreation — and that all acts outside of that purpose, including masturbation, are considered immoral (Soble).

According to optimist philosophers, sexual pleasure is highly significant, and its expression has intrinsic value, meaning that its pursuit is natural and requires no external justification (Soble). For this reason, sex outside of marriage and unconnected to procreation is considered justified and morally acceptable — something to be enjoyed and affirmed (Soble). Irving Singer has argued that sexual desires are not inherently bad, and pursuing them is not immoral, as doing so does not reduce the other person merely to an object, but is rather a healthy way of enjoying the other person's physical presence (Soble). These philosophers hold that sexual activity is independent of how individuals choose to pursue it, which is why acting on sexual impulses is considered normal and natural, carrying no inherently problematic consequences (Soble).

The Liberal View: Consent, Autonomy, and Sexual Freedom

Rooted in metaphysical sexual optimism, the liberal view of sexual morality emphasizes individuality and personal choice, stating that only sexual activity based on coercion, manipulation, or dishonesty is morally wrong (Soble). All other acts are considered natural and morally permissible as means of satisfying sexual pleasure (Soble). Even masturbation and homosexuality are not considered immoral from this secular viewpoint, even if some philosophers regard them as unwise or unnatural. Fundamentally, these acts harm no one, and therefore are not immoral (Soble).

For the liberal, consent is sufficient to render an act moral, as it aligns with individual choice and autonomy, takes the other person's preferences into account, and grounds the decision in rationality (Soble). The liberal view takes seriously each individual's self-identity and their autonomous choices to explore their sexuality and engage in consensual sexual behavior that satisfies both themselves and their partner, without moral contradiction (Soble). As Goldman (2019) argues, sexual desire has no motivation beyond satisfying itself at its core; even when used to express love or other emotions, its fundamental character is essentially motive-neutral.

Conclusion: Competing Frameworks and Their Implications

Through meta-ethical analysis, the foundations of sexual morality are explored across two principal branches: metaphysical sexual optimism and metaphysical sexual pessimism. These two sets of arguments present opposing viewpoints, with pessimists challenging optimist concepts such as consent as the sole metric for assessing sexual morality. Different layers of argument lead to conclusions that fundamentally contradict one another. Metaphysical sexual optimism provides rational responses to pessimist concerns by emphasizing that sexual activity and its pursuit are not inherently wrong and are not responsible for perverse, manipulative, or selfish conduct, which stems more from other dimensions of human nature.

Meta-ethics proves to be a productive basis for analyzing morality because it probes the origins of moral principles — as seen, for example, in Nagel's secular theory, which clarifies the foundations of moral judgment. The challenge posed by Aquinas's Natural Law argument to Nagel's secular theory can be answered by Christine Gudorf, who observes that the presence of the clitoris in females serves no procreative purpose and exists solely for sexual pleasure, demonstrating that sexual activity is not designed exclusively for reproduction (Soble).

The emergence of diverse viewpoints — regarding whether sex objectifies its participants, whether it is rendered dangerous by impulse, and whether sexual arousal impairs rational thinking — has created a broad arena of philosophical inquiry. Many theories challenge the optimist view, but this does not necessarily render that view unreasonable as a philosophy of sexual morality. Understood through the optimist lens, sexual morality describes an act that is morally permissible and worthwhile, providing mutual benefit to both parties who engage 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 Practice.

Primoratz, I. (2013, February 1). Sexual morality. Wiley Online Library.

Soble, A. (n.d.). Philosophy of sexuality. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.