read slides and answer the questions
usf1414
Q3.pptxNormality and Sexuality
Considering Moral Relativism
Ruth Benedict, The Abnormal
Benedict draws on anthropological research to challenge the idea that we can demonstrate universal rules of morality.
The empirical study of different societies, she claims, proves that moral rules are cultural constructed and very flexible.
She contrasts “higher cultures” and “simple peoples” are holds that the morality of then former defines “normality.”
This is, for Benedict, a clear instance of cultural imperialism, i.e. one culture presupposing itself as an exclusive standard.
Moral theorists, however, are bound to inform themselves of anthropological diversity and accept the truth of moral relativism.
“Abnormal” states of mind
One area where Benedict seeks to prove her thesis is certain psychological conditions, such as ecstatic or mystical trance.
She points out that such conditions are seen as legitimate in many indigenous cultures and also, historically, in religions.
Whereas in these contexts people prone to these states of mind are honored, in industrial society they are seen as ill.
As well as American Indian practices, Benedict cites the role of shamanistic practices in traditional central Asian cultures.
Honoring the “abnormal”
“One of the most striking facts that emerge from a study of widely varying cultures is the ease with which our abnormals function in other cultures.”
Sexuality
A second set of illustrations is drawn from sexual behavior.
Benedict points out that homosexuality – considered abnormal in industrial societies – is not seen negatively in other cultural contexts.
She cites the example of ancient Greece. Plato’s Symposium demonstrates the normality of homosexuality.
Plato’s representation also challenges another taboo: the idea of older men having sexual relation with youths.
Benedicts point is that Plato shows no negative moral attitude towards sexual relations between men.
Conceptions of Justice
A final example regards relations to others. Benedict cites a number of cases.
A first example is from Melanesia, where an extreme form of distrust seems to regulate community norms.
A second example, of Pacific Northwest Indians reveals a justification for sacrifices that appears arbitrary.
The conclusion to draw from these “abnormal” moral codes is: “Normality is culturally defined.”
This implies that, from an anthropological perspective, there is no set standard of right and wrong in morality.
Benedict’s Conclusion
“We do not any longer make the mistake of deriving the morality of our own locality and decade directly from the inevitable constitution of human nature. Morality … is a convenient term for socially approved habits.” (318)
Vincent Punzo (1969)
Sexual relations should not be seen as parallel to economic transactions.
Sex is the most intimate way one can relate to another person and involves the core of my personal identity.
The commercialization of sex in our society can blind us to the fact that sexual relations are of an entirely different kind.
The liberal ideal of non-harm is not adequate for sexual relations, where people’s essential identity is at stake.
Sexual relations have long-term effects on the people involved and also symbolize a lasting commitment to another person.
The problem with casual sex
Punzo claims that extramarital sex lacks “existential integrity” even if all parties are aware of the circumstances.
This really just amounts to mutual exploitation with consent. Being agreeing to use each other doesn’t make it right.
Sex between two persons with a clear and credible commitment to get married is morally unproblematic.
Marriage is not simply an empty convention, it is a public commitment to care for another person long term.
Goldman (1977)
Against the “means-end analysis”: there is an external goal or purpose to sexual activity (e.g. reproduction, love, etc.)
“The goal of sexual desire and activity is the physical contact itself, rather than something else it might express” (283).
Sex may (and in many cases does) express other things, but the essence of sexual desire is desire for physical contact.
Difficult cases: a) contact sports; b) infant drive for affection; c) pornography.
“Traditional writings were correct to emphasize the purely physical aspect of sex, but wrong in condemning it.”
Sex and Love
If sexual desire is simply a desire for physical contact, if differs from love as a long-term commitment to another.
Successful long-term relations should acknowledge this distinction; sexual attraction to others does not endanger love.
“Any analysis of sex which imputes a moral character to sex acts in themselves is wrong.”
“Just as a sexual act is never in itself wrong, so no wrong act can be excused because done from a sexual motive.” (287)
Even pedophilia is wrong not because it involves sexual desire, but because it disregards concerns for the future well-being of those abused.
