What are the basic evil and good of conjugal sexual morality? I answer by asking myself this question. The answer may be found scattered through out various authors over the centuries. I been influenced by other writers. But now I have to answer why I think conjugal sexual morality is the reasonable morality by which to live. And I force myself to answer in the framework I have specified: Theory of evil, theory of good. If others have answered along these lines better than me, they deserve credit. But I will engage in no scholarship. Here I sketch out conjugal sexual morality’s basic definite duties to avoid sexual evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sexual evil is satisfaction of a sexual desire<\/strong> which is a satisfaction contrary to that for which sexual satisfactions exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The basic principle for perfect duties holds: Do not seek sexual evil! Which means for sexual morality: Do not seek sexual satisfactions contrary to that for which sexual satisfactions exist<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note that sexual evil is not undesirable. Instead, it is explicit that sexual evil might be highly desirable for evil is satisfaction of a desire<\/p>\n\n\n\n What are sexual satisfactions for? Sexual satisfactions are for procreation, bonding of a man and woman in a lifelong monagamous union and temporary easing of sexual desires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note that the question was not “What are sexual desires for?” The question was “What are satisfactions of sexual desires for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n With this specification of what sexual satisfaction is for, we can sketch a stereotypical conjugal sexual morality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Condemnation of masturbation and homosexuality are immediate consequences. Adultery is contrary to monagamous bonding. Similarily, fornication is contrary to permanent bonding. Cohabitation is also contrary to permanent bonding. For cohabitation is for temporary bonding. Cohabitation is practice in a non-binding relation which is contrary to strengthening a permanent bond, Use of chemical or physical contraceptive techniques is contrary to reproduction. However, marital coitus only when conception is highly improbable is arguably permissible for nothing is done in attainment of the satisfaction which renders it contrary to conception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This sexual morality need not be puritanical or prudish, As I see it, sexual actions in an erotic episode of a married couple – a conjugal episode- are permissible as long as the episode ends in coitus open to conception. In this connection see, Sexual Morality & Conjugal Episodes.<\/a> See alsoErotic Episodes and Erotic Actions. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rather than write more about what the outlook condemns and permits, it is more important to characterise the assumptions about reality of this moral outlook. For the justification of the assumptions about reality are crucial for defense of the sexual morality built upon them. I brought out these assumptions in a fable about a society finally developing The Intercourse Theory of Conception<\/a>. Here I lay them out as principles. They need to be justified in subsequent posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Satisfaction of human desires are for the sake of human goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Humans can and do attain satisfactions of a desire which are in conformity to that for which the satisfaction is for. These are orderly satisfactions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Humans can and do attain satisfactions of a desire which is contrary to what that satisfaction is for. These are disorderly satisfactions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The outlook is based on a dread of disorderly satisfactions even if such satisfactions are by themselves desirable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Disorder satisfactions are evil<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note how there can be intrinsically disordered satisfactions. The satisfaction of an orgasm in masturbation is intrinsically disordered because there is no way it can be ordered to procreation or masturbation. However, the satisfaction in coitus is disordered in fornication but ordered in marital coitus. So, the satisfaction in fornication is not intrinsically disordered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A case needs to be made that disorderly satisfactions are undesirable. This will be an appeal to our moral aspirations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A case needs to be made that satisfaction have a purpose. this will be a metaphysical case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What are the basic evil and good of conjugal sexual morality? I answer by asking myself this question. The answer may be found scattered through out various authors over the centuries. I been influenced by other writers. But now I have to answer why I think conjugal sexual morality is the reasonable morality by which … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span> Conjugal Sexual Morality -Theory of Evil<\/h4>\n