It is interesting to me how the virtue of not performing their desired pleasures when married or in a relationship is considered a vice of cowardice and rashness. Personally, this would still be considered a very immoral action even if it contributed towards cowardness because it also breaks the trust of loyalty, and the consequences would regularly be immense. It begs the question of how these types of immoral actions contribute to fulfillment and abides by the ethics.
I agree with your emphasis on hurting the integrity of trust within the relationship. And, it might be a little further from your response, but I also want to raise the question while on the topic of virtue; how is "for the right reasons" determined? what if both partners have pure intentions but are very contradicting in nature? for example: one partner wants to do it to show his love, and the other one wants to do it to start a family? would that cancel out the rightness of both reasons?
The cowardice discussed was about someone cheating on their partner out of FOMO. The rashness was about cheating on your partner without thinking about the consequences.
If temperance can be roughly interpreted as moderation, and temperance is the key virtue with regard to sex, who and/or what defines the limit? What if one persons "moderation" looks vastly different to someone else's? Is this the intent?
That is the beauty and primary complaint about Virtue Ethics. It will be different for everyone. An addict may want it constantly but will limit it to a few times perday with their partner so that they can go to work and do other things that are important, for example.
I don't know why I was surprised to know that becoming polyamorous in a marital status under the utilitarian perspective would be considered ethical when the whole essence of this theory is essentially more happiness = ethically correct. However, I can't help but think of up to what extent can it be considered? like in a covenant marriage in Christianity, wouldn't opening up the marriage undermine the principal doctrine of marriage thus leading to more negative reactions within their circle? per se family and (conservative) friends.
I was also surprised to find that the case. My answer would be I guess it varies between religion because there are some religions which actually allow that . Not to say any is better than the other. But at that point the rules just change whenever we want so we fall into an ethical dilemma
I think that the extent depends on the circumstance and who defines what is morally wrong within the religion. Polamry may be unspeakable, until it suddenly presents the religion with some sort of sense of righteousness.
One question I have would be that of the person who would be more happy with casual sexual interaction because his attention is to taken up by other things, is how long can a person do that before it becomes ethically impossible?
Does the utilitarian view support the idea that being temperate helps create the most happiness for the most people?
Good question! Based on the most recent psychological research, probably.
It is interesting to me how the virtue of not performing their desired pleasures when married or in a relationship is considered a vice of cowardice and rashness. Personally, this would still be considered a very immoral action even if it contributed towards cowardness because it also breaks the trust of loyalty, and the consequences would regularly be immense. It begs the question of how these types of immoral actions contribute to fulfillment and abides by the ethics.
I agree with your emphasis on hurting the integrity of trust within the relationship. And, it might be a little further from your response, but I also want to raise the question while on the topic of virtue; how is "for the right reasons" determined? what if both partners have pure intentions but are very contradicting in nature? for example: one partner wants to do it to show his love, and the other one wants to do it to start a family? would that cancel out the rightness of both reasons?
@@ga5vin that sounds like two rights making a right.
The cowardice discussed was about someone cheating on their partner out of FOMO. The rashness was about cheating on your partner without thinking about the consequences.
If temperance can be roughly interpreted as moderation, and temperance is the key virtue with regard to sex, who and/or what defines the limit? What if one persons "moderation" looks vastly different to someone else's? Is this the intent?
That is the beauty and primary complaint about Virtue Ethics. It will be different for everyone. An addict may want it constantly but will limit it to a few times perday with their partner so that they can go to work and do other things that are important, for example.
If sexual abundance is not virtuous, is it unethical? If so or if no, why?
What about within a marriage?
From what I gather I'd imagine that as long as it's not excessive or causing negative outcomes it's ethical. Same for if its within a marriage.
I don't know why I was surprised to know that becoming polyamorous in a marital status under the utilitarian perspective would be considered ethical when the whole essence of this theory is essentially more happiness = ethically correct. However, I can't help but think of up to what extent can it be considered? like in a covenant marriage in Christianity, wouldn't opening up the marriage undermine the principal doctrine of marriage thus leading to more negative reactions within their circle? per se family and (conservative) friends.
I was also surprised to find that the case. My answer would be I guess it varies between religion because there are some religions which actually allow that . Not to say any is better than the other. But at that point the rules just change whenever we want so we fall into an ethical dilemma
I think that the extent depends on the circumstance and who defines what is morally wrong within the religion. Polamry may be unspeakable, until it suddenly presents the religion with some sort of sense of righteousness.
If someone is a utilitarian, their ethics are guided by utilitarianism, not necessarily their religion. I hope that helps.
One question I have would be that of the person who would be more happy with casual sexual interaction because his attention is to taken up by other things, is how long can a person do that before it becomes ethically impossible?
If all parties are in agreement about having casual intercourse, it seems ethical. It may not be virtuous though.
Maybe it can be done indefinitely and remain ethical. I think people call it "ethically non-monogamous."