On Shoring Around By Nicholas Halwani Summary
Casual Sex
In “On Fucking Around” by Nicholas Halwani, he asserts that casual sex is immoral because it objectifies one or both partners who engage in the act. According to Halwani, in a casual sex arrangement with two individuals, person A and person B, he claims that person A only has sex with person B for the purpose of A’s own sexual pleasure. He also believes that person A’s desire for sexual pleasure comes at the expense of being concerned about person B, and as such A is using B solely as a means to achieving sexual pleasure. Such treatment undermines B’s dignity and this is why casual sex should be considered morally wrong (449). This argument embodies Kantian-inspired “pessimistic view of sexual desire”, which is not rooted in any scientific evidence, by maintaining …show more content…
Halwani only uses the pessimistic view of sexual desire for the purpose of his argument, and by doing so fails to account for other motivations that are not about using another person for the sole purpose of achieving sexual pleasure and gratification. The “Pessimistic View of Sexual Desire” stems from Kantian ethics that stress not using other people as a means for one’s own ends because human beings possess a higher moral status than other animals. This view also portrays humans as victims of their own, seemingly uncontrollable sexual desires which compel them to use casual sex as a way to satisfy personal desires without regard for the other partner (445). Sexual desire is stripped to its fundamental and animalistic level where it overrides rationality and enslaves humans to their sexual desires (449). The nature of Halwani’s argument only holds up when constrained by this pessimistic view of sexual desire because in this case, casual sex involves undermining another’s dignity by only seeing the partner for his/her body
In “On Fucking Around” by Nicholas Halwani, he asserts that casual sex is immoral because it objectifies one or both partners who engage in the act. According to Halwani, in a casual sex arrangement with two individuals, person A and person B, he claims that person A only has sex with person B for the purpose of A’s own sexual pleasure. He also believes that person A’s desire for sexual pleasure comes at the expense of being concerned about person B, and as such A is using B solely as a means to achieving sexual pleasure. Such treatment undermines B’s dignity and this is why casual sex should be considered morally wrong (449). This argument embodies Kantian-inspired “pessimistic view of sexual desire”, which is not rooted in any scientific evidence, by maintaining …show more content…
Halwani only uses the pessimistic view of sexual desire for the purpose of his argument, and by doing so fails to account for other motivations that are not about using another person for the sole purpose of achieving sexual pleasure and gratification. The “Pessimistic View of Sexual Desire” stems from Kantian ethics that stress not using other people as a means for one’s own ends because human beings possess a higher moral status than other animals. This view also portrays humans as victims of their own, seemingly uncontrollable sexual desires which compel them to use casual sex as a way to satisfy personal desires without regard for the other partner (445). Sexual desire is stripped to its fundamental and animalistic level where it overrides rationality and enslaves humans to their sexual desires (449). The nature of Halwani’s argument only holds up when constrained by this pessimistic view of sexual desire because in this case, casual sex involves undermining another’s dignity by only seeing the partner for his/her body