No sex outside of a lifelong monogamous marriage of a man and a woman. That’s the gist of conjugal sexual morality which many love, many hate and most violate. The “sexual revolution” was a revolt against this type of morality. There are many variants of conjugal sexual morality since sexuality includes courting, bonding and genital activity in Erotic Episodes. Adherents of conjugal sexual morality may different on permissible acts and degrees of severity in these three dimensions. For instance, with respect to bonding some may find marriage at thirteen impermissible, with respect to courting some may impose severe constraints are women’s’ style of dress and with respect to genital activity some may regard contraception permissible. So, I will not try to characterize conjugal sexual morality in detail. I am an adherent of the conjugal sexual morality taught by the Roman Catholic church. My examples will reflect that variant of conjugal sexual morality

This admission of variants in a morality is not acceptance of some sort of theory of moral relativity. Consensual sexual morality also has variants. The various circumstances in which a morality is to be applied often require different decisions of what ought to be done. There is good sense supporting a degree of moral relativity. However, any consistent moral theory has to have some core teachings which they hold applicable always and everywhere. For moral thought is universal in the sense of searching for fundamental action guides for all people everywhere at any time. In my comparison of consensual and conjugal sexual moralities, I hope to isolate these fundamental teachings. My strategy for isolating these fundamental teachings come from their stances on the fundamental law of morality: Do good, avoid evil. This fundamental teaching requires a moral outlook to take a stand on what is evil and what is good. Avoiding evil gives rise to what are frequently called definite or perfect duties. Definite duties are frequently expressed as negative categorical imperatives as “Thou shall never do such and such!” Doing good gives rise to what are frequently called indefinite or impertect duties. However, as seen in exposition of consensual sexual morality the perfect duties can be expressed positively as protections against evil. Athough we ought to promote what is good, there is no precision about when, where and how. Thus they are labelled “indefinite” or “imperfect duties”

The practice of calling a moral outlooks basic perfect duties its theory of right and its basic imperfect duties its theory of of good produces an ambiguity.

There is ambiguity with the term “right” when I call specifying what a moral outlook regrads as the basis of obligation – definite obligations as its theory of right but also call consensual sexual morality a rights theory of sexual morality. The ambiguity is using “right” to stand for what ought to be done – the right thing to do – and using “right” to stand for a condition of a person which it is never right to inhibit or remove. To avoid circularity in the definition it is necessary to change the meaning of “right” when it is used in the defineins from that in the defineindum. Sexual pleasure is the sexual good. Personally, I do not find this switching the sense of “right” confusing.

Before moving on to the theory of right for conjugal sexual morality it is helpful to review consensual sexual morality in accordance with this strategy for recognizing the fundamental principles of a moral outlook. Consensual sexual morality holds the following about good and evil on sexual matters. Disregard for sexual autonomy is evil. The evil is manifested in the degradation felt in non-consensual sex. Evil is lack of sexual autonomy. But sexual autonomy is not a good in the sense of being desired. For sexual satisfaction may be enjoyed in both dominating and being dominated. People may find sexual satisfaction in both degrading and being degraded. For consensual sexual morality the sexual good is satisfaction of sexual desire.

We now turn to answering. What is the basic evil for conjugal sexual morality? What is the basic good for conjugal sexual morality?