Module 8: Klepper, "Sexual Exploitation and the Value of Persons"

Reject the interpret ion of Kant's second formulation

if the above cases are right, then we have to reject the categorical imperative that equates treating another person as a mere means with using coercion or deceit. Treating someone as a mere means includes treating the other as an object and not at the same time as an intrinsically valuable moral subject (not negated by the other's explicit consent to the treatment ex. entering slavery with consent doesn't morally justify it). Both Cases violate the Kantian imperative. Kant argued that a person's body is not property that can be disposed of however that person wishes and the body is an inseparable part of a person and because persons are priceless it cannot be treated as a mere thing that may be let out for hire. -Kant also said that mutual satisfaction of sexual desire with no idea of material gain is also morally unacceptable. He offers no justification for his claim that to have a right to use a part of a person is to have a right to use the whole person but his argument depends on this claim. -Kant's argument could extend implausibly to any agreement to sell one's labor to another so we can reject his claim that all sex outside marriage is immoral

Kant's second formation of the categorical imperative (the "Formula of Humanity") and Mappes paper

is often taken to be equivalent to a requirement that in our transactions with others we do not deprive them of the opportunity for voluntary informed consent to their own actions. -We treat someone as a means or an end if we induce another to act by coercion or deceit. Coercion and deceit are easier to define and detect than the notion of respect for moral personhood.This reduction of the Kantian imperative is incomplete and Klepper argues this by showing how a person may be treated as a mere means sexually and otherwise in the absence of coercion or deceit. The shortcomings can be illustrated by Mappes who considers what moral rules govern sexual behavior in the context of general moral principles by analysis of using another person sexually as a mere means. He defines the immoral use of another person, sexually or otherwise, as intentionally acting in a way that deprives the other person of voluntary informed consent. He further defines this as using coercion or deception to induce another to consent to an action. His analysis is useful and correct but the concept of using another person sexually as a mere means is much broader than what Mappes includes.

Kantian principles that can be used to argue that some kinds of prostitution relationships are immoral - Case 3

some prostitution agreements are cases of mutual exploitation. Case 3 he wants impersonal sex where he can use a body for his own pleasure. he meets a prostitute and they negotiate an explicit agreement for the performance of sexual acts (sex is like case 1) . She dislikes being used as his sexual object but performs according to their contract and considers her payment to be sufficient compensation. -a typical employment relationship (employee is paid to do work he or she may not enjoy doing) is not necessarily an instance of mutual exploitation or of mutual treatment of another person as a mere means. -What makes Case 3 different than most employer-employee relationship is that in Case 3 it was his objective to treat her as a mere means to his ends. -In case 3, he intends to treat her as a mere ends and hired her to treat her sexually as a mere object and not as an end in herself. He exploits her willingness to be treated as such and she has treated humanity in her own person as a mere ends by choosing without necessity to be treated as such by him. Kant says a rational will wouldn't voluntarily allow itself to be determined by the unfree animal will of another so she is acting irrationally by Kantian standards since in that view a choice must be motivated by serious inclination and hence be unfree. -Since she is aware of the purpose that she be treated as a mere means, her assent determines that she is being treated that way by him and herself and the exploitation is mutual. Her end is to obtain money and because his will is determined by irrational sensuous inclination he is unable to freely assent to her end so by a Kantian sense she has used him as a mere means to an end

Case 1: a person may be used sexually as a mere means during and after sexual acts as well

two people go on a few dates and are attracted to each other and she accepts his suggestion to have sex but during sex he makes no attempt to please her and ignores her after. Informed consent was made but he used her sexually and disregarded her value as a person and treated her as an object , a means to his end. Our moral obligations to our sexual partners just begins with voluntary informed consent (also need to be respectful and considerate of our partners needs). This applies to all relationships but increases with the intimacy of the relationship.

back to the cases

Case 1 involves a norm within contemporary Western culture that sexual partners will be mutually concerned with each other's pleasure and feelings and their agreement to have sex will include an implicit agreement to attend to their partners sexual satisfaction (failure to do so is deceit therefore using another as a mere means). Two other possibilities 1. one of the parties is unaware of the norm but if one is aware of the others exceptions but has no intention of honoring that , then it's deceitful. 2. one is unaware of sexual normals and that unawareness is reasonable so there is no implied agreement. (but in the second possibility he still used her sexually because using a person as a mere means isn't a culturally relative notion and in that culture the norm is men using women). Even if she was aware he had different norms or is a part of his culture, he still used her which shows that there is a difference with moral and legal notions. Cultural conventions may determine the content of a lawful agreement but they don't morally legitimize it. -Even if she knew he was a selfish lover in Case 1 or that he kisses and tells in Case 2, it doesn't change the fact that he used her as a mere means and uses her sexually.

Case 1 and 2 are instances of deceit

Case 1 there was an implicit agreement for him to be concerned with her pleasure and satisfaction. Case 2 there was an implicit agreement to not make public intimate information that is conventionally considered to be private. Mappes said coercion presents the more difficult and interesting instances of using another person sexually but once we take into our account the ways in which a person who has voluntarily consented to sex may be used sexually during and after the sexual acts, we have moved into an area in which the more difficult and interesting questions are those of deceit.

Thesis/Summary

Klepper agrees with Mappes about the centrality of voluntary informed consent in sexual ethics, but he denies that obtaining such consent from another person prior to sexual relations is morally sufficient. According to Klepper a person can be treated as a mere means in a Kantian sense even if they have provided voluntary informed consent to have sex. Morally proper sexual relations also demand that one be considerate of and respectful towards one's partner during and after sex. Klepper uses several Kantian ideas in responding to Mappes but goes on to criticize Kant's views on marriage and prostitution.

Kant "Lecture on Ethics"

Much of what he says seems irrelevant and puritanical to the modern reader (he condemn all sex outside marriage, calls masturbation an abominable crime against nature) Klepper doesn't address this but uses his discussion of the wrongfulness of using another person as a sexual object to help explain the wrongfulness of some kinds of sexual relations to develop a Kantian account of sexual exploitation and suggests how to apply it to other exploitative relationships.

source of the implicit agreements in case 1 and 2.

One's party's unspoken expectations don't make for an implied agreement. For them to be implied means that both parties were aware of norms or standards of conduct and that absent any explicit exclusions of these norms, it was reasonable to assume that they were incorporated into the parties agreement. For these agreements to be binding they can't be expected by one party, but the expectation needs to be legitimate in a relevant sense. -Not only an implicit agreement but also an explicit, voluntary, and informed agreement may be insufficient to justify behavior that amounts to using another person sexually by treating that person as a mere means to an end.

conclusion

These conclusions are drawn from cases of sexually using another as a mere means but can be applied elsewhere ex. dwarf-throwing contests where people still thought the dwarfs were being treated as mere things even though they freely chose to do this. If they knew the knew the purpose was their wrongful treatment, then they were wronging themselves and exploiting their exploiters -- explained by his interpretation of Kant's injection against treating any person, including oneself, as a mere means to an end.

Case 2: a person may be used sexually as a mere means during and after sexual acts as well

a couple begins a sexual relationship but both are generous and affectionate lovers. The next day though he brags to his friends of his seduction and gives them a lurid and detailed account of her sexual technique. -This is another example of using another person sexually even though it takes place after the sexual acts. The privacy of a person's sexual acts is a legitimate end for that person to seek and to disregard that end does not respect the value of that person as an end in herself or himself.

generalizations

a person may be treated as a mere means not only by coercion and deceit but also by any conduct intended to achieve the purpose of treating that person as an object and not at the same time an intrinsically valuable moral subject. The intention determines the treating as a mere means, not the success of the method by which it is carried out. -A person treats himself or herself as a mere means by voluntarily agreeing to be the object of conduct by which another intends to treat him or her as a mere means, where that intention is known. -such a relationship is mutually exploitative; a person who wishes to use another as a mere means can't by acting from reason, in a Kantian sense, and therefore is in turn used as a mere means by another who consents to being so used.