La sexualite implique un engagement

Disponible uniquement sur Etudier
  • Pages : 12 (2757 mots )
  • Téléchargement(s) : 0
  • Publié le : 6 octobre 2010
Lire le document complet
Aperçu du document
The Concept of Using Another Person, by Mappes

This argument against using another person is Kantian. Mappes’
argument rests on the Kantian argument “Respect for Persons”. This is
also the only argument that Mappes provides as criteria for
determining morally permissible sexual behavior. On the basis of the
Kantian argument in favor of the intrinsic value of rational beings,
and therequisite duty not to ever treat such beings merely as a means
to an end, Mappes provides requisite conditions, which spring from

Mappes argues that if rational beings must be treated as ends in
themselves and if by this we mean that such beings are valuable
because they are autonomous and have the right to self-determination,
then certain conditions must be in tact for this to occurwhatever the
moral dilemma concerned. Here it is applied for the case of sexual

The conditions that Mappes outlines are known by the abbreviation VIC.
VIC stands for Voluntary Informed Consent. Mappes understands that
respect for rationality, and the right to self-determination which
this involves, can only be protected when decisions which are made are
established: (a) on the basisof all pertinent information, accurately
relayed, that could effect the outcome of the decision in question
(information); (b) the voluntary character of submitting to a decision
on the basis of which the decision constitutes a realistic choice; and
(c) that the consent of the individual follows from their rational
determination of the situation as described.

Mappes outlines ways in whichVIC can be violated. With respect to (a)
deception is obviously a violation. Here, of course, it is not just
outright lying that is a violation of the informed aspect of VIC, but
also the omission of pertinent information that you know would alter
or influence the outcome of the decision in question. Surely the point
regarding deception is that unless someone is fully informed the
decisionthat s/he will make will reflect his/her choice. For
instance, if you go to a bar one night and the person you attempts to
pick you up does not tell you that s/he has tested positive for AIDS,
this is a violation. It is a violation because had you known that this
person has AIDS you may have decided against sleeping with that
person. Think about all the relevant pieces of information thatmight
affect a person’s decision to engage in sex with another person
(married, kids, bisexual, etc.).

With respect to (b) a number of further distinctions are drawn. There
are occurent violations, which involves physical force (e.g. rape);
and dispositional violations, which are in turn subdivided into i)
threats and ii) offers. In the case of ii) a realistic choice is
presented, whereas inthe case of i) the choice is unrealistic. The
difference between the two is identified in the following way: if the
proposition is such that it would improve your present situation it is
an offer; if it is such that it makes your present situation worse,
then it is a threat. Mappes presents examples of both cases and ends
with a final example as an illustration of a “gray area”. The “grayarea” marks a case which is not a threat because it improves the
persons present situation, but it is not quite an offer because it
seems to resemble the exploitation of a desperate situation where the
person in question does not really have a realistic choice, hence it
may not be voluntary. Surely the point regarding voluntariness is
whether a decision actually reflects you. Your decision issuppose to
be an instantiation of your right to self-determination. That is, that
your actions somehow represent you, who you are, what kind of life is
a life that you see fit for pursuing, living. So a decision must be
arrived at without outside forces determining what you might decide.
For instance, if you are told that you can get an “F” in a course that
you are acing if you refuse to...