4314752
Is sexual objectification always morally troubling? Explain and justify your ans
I will argue that sexual objectification is, in fact, always morally troubling. I fee
an instance of sexual objectification (SO) does not result in direct assault or h
psychological effects that result from the normalisation of SO in our culture ar
harmful and are too often overlooked. I will be focusing specifically on the rel
between female SO and the lack of female liberation in our society, which I fe
chance of the moral acceptance of objectification. When addressing whether
morally troubling we are looking at it in reference to whether it violates our p
right and wrong. Generally, we believe an act to be wrong if it causes unwarra
physically or psychologically. Therefore, when addressing the following questi
explore whether SO, in any form, will always lead to some kind of psychologic
harm, or if in fact, there can be forms of SO that do not result in harm.
In her paper on, Nussbaum explores 7 notions she believes can be involved in
objectifying a person. These are: Instrumentality, Denial of autonomy, Inertne
Violability, Ownership and Denial of subjectivity. Instrumentality relates to tre
as a tool for a purpose, whilst denial of autonomy means the subject is treate
independence and self-rule. Inertness refers to a passive quality or lacking in a
force, for example treating a person as if they were an inanimate object for th
, 4314752
owned by the objectifier. Finally, denial of subjectivity refers to the objectifier
the object has experiences or feelings of its own, that need to be taken into a
Nussbaum elucidates the distinction between treating a ‘thing’ as an object a
something that is not a ‘thing’ (i.e. a human) as an object, and that only the la
objectification. Langton adds three further items to Nussbaum’s list of what it
sexually objectified. These are: Reduction to body (treating a person as if they
their body) Reduction to appearance (treating or defining a person's worth ba
appearance only) and Silencing (not acknowledging that the person has a voic
worthwhile to say). Nussbaum states we must consider the circumstances and
possible objectification before jumping to conclusions about whether or not t
harmful objectifications.
I agree that the forms of objectification listed above are legitimate ones, how
there are several forms of objectification left out here by Nussbaum and Lang
there is something inherent about sexual objectification that means the objec
automatically up for scrutiny by the objectifier, or that the object is a lesser be
susceptible to or deserving of the criticisms of the objectifier. This is because
part of objectification is treating someone as if they are inhumane, or lesser t
an object. Thus, we perhaps need to consider this hierarchical outlook from o
‘object’ when deciding if something is objectification. To clarify, I do not mean
Is sexual objectification always morally troubling? Explain and justify your ans
I will argue that sexual objectification is, in fact, always morally troubling. I fee
an instance of sexual objectification (SO) does not result in direct assault or h
psychological effects that result from the normalisation of SO in our culture ar
harmful and are too often overlooked. I will be focusing specifically on the rel
between female SO and the lack of female liberation in our society, which I fe
chance of the moral acceptance of objectification. When addressing whether
morally troubling we are looking at it in reference to whether it violates our p
right and wrong. Generally, we believe an act to be wrong if it causes unwarra
physically or psychologically. Therefore, when addressing the following questi
explore whether SO, in any form, will always lead to some kind of psychologic
harm, or if in fact, there can be forms of SO that do not result in harm.
In her paper on, Nussbaum explores 7 notions she believes can be involved in
objectifying a person. These are: Instrumentality, Denial of autonomy, Inertne
Violability, Ownership and Denial of subjectivity. Instrumentality relates to tre
as a tool for a purpose, whilst denial of autonomy means the subject is treate
independence and self-rule. Inertness refers to a passive quality or lacking in a
force, for example treating a person as if they were an inanimate object for th
, 4314752
owned by the objectifier. Finally, denial of subjectivity refers to the objectifier
the object has experiences or feelings of its own, that need to be taken into a
Nussbaum elucidates the distinction between treating a ‘thing’ as an object a
something that is not a ‘thing’ (i.e. a human) as an object, and that only the la
objectification. Langton adds three further items to Nussbaum’s list of what it
sexually objectified. These are: Reduction to body (treating a person as if they
their body) Reduction to appearance (treating or defining a person's worth ba
appearance only) and Silencing (not acknowledging that the person has a voic
worthwhile to say). Nussbaum states we must consider the circumstances and
possible objectification before jumping to conclusions about whether or not t
harmful objectifications.
I agree that the forms of objectification listed above are legitimate ones, how
there are several forms of objectification left out here by Nussbaum and Lang
there is something inherent about sexual objectification that means the objec
automatically up for scrutiny by the objectifier, or that the object is a lesser be
susceptible to or deserving of the criticisms of the objectifier. This is because
part of objectification is treating someone as if they are inhumane, or lesser t
an object. Thus, we perhaps need to consider this hierarchical outlook from o
‘object’ when deciding if something is objectification. To clarify, I do not mean
