Joshua asked:

Most people think that some sexual taboos (i.e. necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, incest) are not
morally permissible. However, it seems to me that under certain circumstances all of the above
examples are permissible. Could you please elaborate on this?

============

Your question is about the nature of morality. Are there rules of morality that strict and exceptionless
(Kant holds something like this view), or are moral rules more like rules of thumb, to be applied
according to the context and circumstances (Aristotle holds something like this view).

Tim Sprod

Sexual taboos might exist because we find certain practices distasteful, especially necrophilia, but
distaste is not regarded a well-substantiated moral ground. The legal position is based on the moral
principle that sexual practices are impermissible where there is no consent. Paedophilia remains
morally unacceptable because we do not suppose that children are able to give their full assent or we
don't suppose they really know what they are doing: Are we saying they don't know they're involved in
what we take as a perversion, or are we saying that they don't know that they should not indulge a
paedophile even if they enjoy it too? The notion of perversion is socially determined, but we could
claim a child should not indulge a paedophile because the child doesn't know the consequences of
gratifying a person whose habits can cause great harm to himself and others. If we mean the latter
and suppose that the child can't think in these terms, we can say his consent is not fully informed.

In the case of animals and dead bodies consent isn't really possible. That the animal or dead body
don't object isn't to be regarded as positive concurrence with the activity.

I can't think of any circumstances which would justify these practices since being overcome by
intensity of desire is not a justification. Justification should appeal to principles.

Rachel Browne

The general question here is: what is the basis of morality. The debate on how, specifically, to answer
that question has been going on for centuries. But generally,there is agreement on this issue. First, in
general (and this is just the first of many controversial claims I will make in this essay) no one who
has read and thought broadly on this subject maintains that morality is the following of specific
commands, that is, that there is an authority who can dictate specifics of morality to us. That
eliminates fundamentalist religions and similar creeds, who take one or another bible and/or set of
commandments, because their god, prophet, or "master" of one sort or another has spoken to them,
as literal guidelines for behavior and thinking.

What that leaves, then, are general guidelines. When these are boiled down, they amount to either a
kind of hedonism, i.e., do what makes you (and others) happy, or a kind of life-enhancement, i.e., do
what improves your (and others) lot, quality of life, and so forth. Of course, depending on
interpretation, those two can come very close. What makes people unhappy with the former is that a)
defining "happiness" is not easy, b) happiness, however defined, seems a rather short-term and
narrow goal. What makes people unhappy with the latter is that "quality of life" is even more vague.

Now, in my opinion, in ascertaining the basis for ethics, one must take what is termed a "naturalistic"
or "naturalized" stance. That is, one cannot use only pure reason to figure it out; one musttake the
nature of human beings, as determined empirically— and that's why it's termed "naturalized" — into
account. That means we have to pay attention to the studies showing a) territoriality, b)
dominance/submission behavior and hierarchies c) types of emotions involved in relationships (as
well as rationality), d) various aspects of aggression.

I will take the position that what is moral is what is life-enhancing, and not go into more specifics. I
think that by reversing one's perspective on this, one can arrive at reasonable, rough, answers to the
more obvious questions. We ask, then: what is notlife-enhancing? Generally, causes which produce
negative effects on someone's actual or potential life-enhancement. Thus, whatever prevents an
individual from living fully and from realizing their potential to do so, speaking very roughly. What
would do that? Unsolicited violence and humiliation — in general, unsolicited dominance behaviors,
causing submissive behaviors, and behaviors and feelings imposed on someone — would seem to
be implicated there, as a start (I'm starting with the obvious; solicitedviolence is not a good place to
start this analysis; and of course this is an incomplete, not a comprehensive list). This imposition, at
the very least,prevents the victim from choosing behaviors which they regard as the best (the most
life-enhancing, however they formulate that for themselves) in the circumstances. Given that, what do
we say about sex? Sex which is motivated by and/or results in control, dominance, humiliation, and/or
other suffering, with someone who has no or little choice in the matter is, I will claim, by all reasonable
standards, immoral. That would include those weaker, physically and/or emotionally, than another
person. Where would we find that? The clearest categories of sex which would be immoral would be
rape (and I'm using that term broadly to include emotional as well as physical force, even though that
fades into a gray area) and sex with children. Why the latter? Because in a sexual relationship with a
child, dominance is imposed,therefore choice is eliminated, and the relationship is violent (see below
also). What about S&M? By the reasoning above, another gray area. Are the partners willing? Is the
dominance/submission under control and voluntary? With all else equal (not easy to determine, mind
you), I am still somewhat uncomfortable with the reinforcingof behaviors which usually imply lack of
choice, but I can accept that in some cases S&M does not involve this, and so can be moral (insofar
as our rough analysis allows).

What about your cases ("necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, incest")? Zowie. Pedophilia: definitely,
without doubt, immoral. Children are not competent to decide whether they are willing or not, and are
naturally inclined (and I actually believe this is instinctive) to be submissive to adults (aside from
simply being physically weaker, smaller, and so easily intimidated). Aside from that, even if one thinks
that everything is happy and fun, there is no way to know, since the child is not competent to evaluate
and decide. Sex between adult and child is forced, one way or another, and the adult is on a power
trip. Period. I just don't see any situation in which this could be gotten around. Now sex between
children is a different matter, and much harder, in my opinion, to decide as far as morality goes. Is
childhood "experimentation" immoral? Probably not, but one would have to look case-by-case to
determine. And of course childhood pregnancy is almost certainly bad, for a variety of reasons, and
how can one have birth control for children without negative hormonal effects or the necessity for
vigilance probably beyond a child's capacity? Tie your little girl's tubes? Offhand I'd say that the lack
of choice, i.e., the violence, are inevitable and immoral. But, repressing my feelings of repugnance,
suppose that one could, with no side effects and with guaranteed reversibility (and of course no
suffering), create infertility in a child until they themselves chose (as adults) to become fertile. Would
that enforced infertility be immoral? My inclination would be to say no, but with reservations. I'd have
to think about it more. Would sex between children, in that case, be immoral (if it was without
dominance/submission)? We've reached the end of what I've thought about, with that question. I don't
know what to say about that one.

Necrophilia: Yuk. I don't see, however, that it is highly immoral, just insane (but see below). If
someone is so crippled emotionally that they can only have a relationship with a corpse, then it
seems to me that they're either saying something about their own self-worth, or they're screwed up in
some other major way. In addition, it's the ultimate power trip, isn't it? A corpse can't resist. But you
can't prevent the life-enhancement of a corpse, just of the person committing the act. An interesting
question, as to whether doing that hurts someone emotionally in some way, but my inclination is to
say that they have to be pretty badly damaged to initiate it in the first place. What kind of person
needs the feeling of power, sex, and a "relationship" that badly? But we should ask: is there a
difference between necrophilia and sex with a life-sized plastic doll? Yes. We do not see
(comprehend) a corpse as we see a doll. Not that I'm recommending the latter, mind you, just that I'm
saying it's probably the better of the two alternatives, if you've got to choose. When you think about it
that way, the symbolic intimacy with death does make necrophilia seem possibly immoral, because of
the further implications of that "intimacy" for the behavior (and thoughts/feelings) of that person
toward themselves and others.

Bestiality: similar in some ways to necrophilia, in my opinion. A power trip over an animal who can't
possibly resist, only perhaps not immoral (just very borderline in terms of sanity) because the animal
cannot (probably) comprehend any implications beyond the moment (and, we assume, it isn't
suffering). At least there might be some actual emotional involvement, say, if someone very isolated
and neurotic had sex with their pet dog, and there's no (I wouldn't think) symbolic involvement with
death. So is it immoral, or just very screwed up? My inclination is to say the latter, but again, it's hard
to say what effects that behavior could have on the person initiating it. Forced (either way) bestiality:
immoral, covered above.

Incest: the most borderline of your list, as far as morality goes, in my opinion. Genetically, a bad deal:
the reinforcement of (usually) masked recessives, and the problems that European royalty and other
inbred groups have had with this, in general, demonstrate this. But today we have birth control. Given
that, why not? As long as we're not talking about pedophilia again (fathers and daughters, mothers
and sons, or comparable), and the people don't have children (or have themselves carefully
genetically screened beforehand), I can't see any immorality here.

Steven Ravett Brown

If we take the view that acts of sex are physical acts like any other physical act then there is no
intrinsic feature of sex that makes it a moral issue. This means there is no sexual perversity.

There may be external factors however that make sexual acts wrong, but these will be derived from
general moral rules which. govern other aspects of our lives.

So while eating for example is not a moral issue, if we steal a the last piece of bread from a mother
and child just because we fancy a snack we have done something wrong.

Similarly while sex is not a moral issue it does place us in situations where moral rules apply. So
rape, paedophilia, necrophilia will be wrong, not because they are sexual but because they are
violations of moral rules prohibiting against harming others. Not just physical harming, the
necrophiliac does not physically harm anyone (there is no one to harm in a corpse) but I suspect that
few people would be happy to know that their granny's corpse had been interfered with.

Bestiality is a tough one, it is probably a bit strong to say that it is wrong unless we argue for full
blown animal rights (no pun intended).

Brian Tee