Booty Calling

[KingZ]

I really don't see how you can consider it morally wrong?

The act itself wouldn't be immoral in retrospect. However, the decision (before the fact) to do it would be immoral because you are taking a risk that is likely to cause pain. You cannot have "good" casual sex without making an immoral decision to do so first. Therefore, casual sex is necessarily immoral.

[searock]

The person taking that decision would be wrong, not the act itself. I'm still not sure likeliness to cause pain is enough.

I still think everyone is responsible for themselves. If someone wants to have casual sex with a person they know they will likely develop feelings for, well let them have it. It's not the other person's responsibility, nor is it the other person's fault if they end up getting hurt: they should have known better. The other person is guilty only if he/she is aware that his/her sexual partner has feelings (or is developing feelings) for him/her, and uses this to his/her advantage (which includes simply continuing to have nsa sex with them). If s/he is unaware of it, and sincerely believes that they are both on the same page on not wanting anything more (no matter how unlikely this may be), s/he isn't morally wrong IMO.

It's kind of like when a guy falls in love with a girl but is too scared to do anything about it, and instead tries to "make friends" with her. If she is aware that he has feelings for her, it would be wrong of her to use those feelings to her advantage, she should simply keep away from him so that he can move on. If she isn't aware of it (it can happen), it's not her fault that he's hurting... he put himself in that position. (I used gendered nouns/pronouns for simplicity.)

[KingZ]

The person taking that decision would be wrong, not the act itself.

wat. How is a person immoral?

I'm still not sure likeliness to cause pain is enough.

Why not? Rape is pretty likely to cause pain. Murder is pretty likely to cause pain—or maybe not. Every immoral act is considered immoral because of the likeliness it'll cause pain.

[searock]

It's what I've been trying to say - morally right and wrong don't describe acts IMO, they describe persons. Only persons can have moral "values" in any given situation (the values being right and wrong, or equivalently good and bad).

Rape and murder victims don't volunteer. A guy that agrees to have regular nsa sex with someone is freely choosing to do so, and can withdraw his agreement at any time. It's up to him to keep his feelings in check. If the person he's having nsa sex with is sincerely convinced that he wants nothing more than what she wants (because he told her), then she isn't guilty even if he does end up getting hurt. If she becomes aware (or is aware) that he is hurting and yet still continues to have nsa sex with him, then (and only then) she is guilty/wrong/bad.

[KingZ]

It's what I've been trying to say - morally right and wrong don't describe acts IMO, they describe persons.

Can you logically assert how this works?

Is there a Wiki link for this or did you just make it up?

[searock]

It's morality based on intention rather than action... here's a pretty basic link http://rocket.csusb.edu/~tmoody/F05%20191%20kantian_ethics.htm

[KingZ]

It's morality based on intention rather than action... here's a pretty basic link http://rocket.csusb.edu/~tmoody/F05%20191%20kantian_ethics.htm

I like how, at the bottom, it clearly says:

to avoid “casual” sex, sex outside of marriage for Kant (though we may dispute this: what counts is whether in sexual activity one is merely using the other for sexual pleasure rather than engaging with him or her as a full human being. Kant thinks this kind of engagement happens only in marriage; we may differ with him on that.) See Sandel p. 129 ff.

My rightness just went up exponentially.

[michelle23]

Gawd I am not reading all that.. be rabbits OP. Nobody really gives a s**t. You were gonna go for it anyway before asking for advice so I dono what the point of this thread is..

[searock]

I like how, at the bottom, it clearly says:

My rightness just went up exponentially.

Eh, I don't agree with all of that. I was just providing an explanation for what I mean when I say that morality lies not in the act but in the person's intention. I agree with that part. I don't think it's wrong to "use" a person if that person has given you explicit permission to do so (which you sincerely believe), because in that case it wouldn't be using, it would be holding true to an agreement.

[MrLoyal]

My opinion is you are what's wrong with women today.

[KingZ]

I don't think it's wrong to "use" a person if that person has given you explicit permission to do so (which you sincerely believe), because in that case it wouldn't be using, it would be holding true to an agreement.

What about the dude in Germany who was given permission to kill and eat his victim? Was that ethical?

[Wakeup]

^^^^ substituted the inevitable Hitler reference.

[searock]

What about the dude in Germany who was given permission to kill and eat his victim? Was that ethical?

It depends: did the guy that killed and ate the other guy sincerely believe that the victim was actually okay with it? If so, his intentions weren't bad, so he wasn't morally wrong.

[KingZ]

It depends: did the guy that killed and ate the other guy sincerely believe that the victim was actually okay with it? If so, his intentions weren't bad, so he wasn't morally wrong.

Blows my mind how wrong this is. The Nazis were convinced that the Holocaust was a just, moral act. But clearly, concentration camps are immoral, no?

[Smila]

how did this thread morph into morality and perception?? #Amazing