‘Kant provides the best approach to sexual ethics’
Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory developed by Immanuel Kant during the
enlightenment period.Kant is considered to be a sexual pessimist, meaning that he argues that
our sexual desires and impulses and acting upon those impulses are undignified. The sexual
part of our nature is unbenifitting to how humans shoudl behave and threaten our proper moral
life.Through critical analysis, it will become clear that Kant does not provide the best approach
to sexual ethics as
Kant does not provide the best approach to sexual ethics rather his cold approach is harmful
and creates more harm than good, unlike rule utilitarianism. Kant argued that homosexuality
was wrong and that a homosexual person ‘no longer deserved to be a person” as
homosexuality debased human beings to animals - it is contra naturam, it is simply the result of
uncontrolled sexual desires. Kant devalues the humanity of homosexual persons and
diminishes and demeans their love/sexual acts down to uncontrolled sexual desires.
Additionally, Kant argued that our actions must be something that we could and everyone else
could do. Therefore he argued that our actions must be universalised. Actions must be
universalizable (good for all people in all situations) and these principles must be applied to all
relationships irrespective of the gender of the people in the relationship or whether the couple
are married are not. Universalizing reproduction as a requirement of sex would make
homosexuality unethical and bad in every situation regardless of whether it is an act that is
consensual and loving. Instead of following a harmful approach as such, it would be better to
follow J.S Mills rule utilitarianism, more specifically his non-harm principle as this doesn't
demean people’s love rather it encourages it, provided that it does not cause harm. Mills
convincingly argued that people should be free to do whatever they please to do in matters
concerning sex as it is a highly personal matter and ‘we should not attempt to deprive others of
their happiness or impede their efforts to obtain it’. Therefore all homosexual acts would be
permitted provided that they do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, Kant does not provide the
best approach to sexual ethics rather his approach devalues the sexual experience of
homosexuality and tries to create rules and laws concerning highly personal matters instead
Mills presents the better approach as his insistence of actions not causing harm is more loving.
‘Kant ignores the role of emotion and his duty obsession when applied to sexual ethics is
bizarre. Kant argues that our actions must be universalizable and these principles must be
applied to all relationships regardless of whether the couple is married or not. Marriage is a
lifelong commitment and we have a perfect duty not to break promises. Adultery involves
cheating on a spouse and it would thus be wrong as this involves breaking promises which can
destroy trust in a relationship and lead to resentment. Thus Kant argued that we cannot
universalise adultery as this would destroy the foundation and value of marriage and it involves
violating our duty. Yet ultimately sex is a highly personal matter and rules should and cannot be
be made to govern such a personal thing. Every situation is different and universalising rules
leaves no scope for situations where people are stuck in abusive and unhappy relationships.We
should not create strict rules concerning areas of sex rather we should follow an act utilitarian
Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory developed by Immanuel Kant during the
enlightenment period.Kant is considered to be a sexual pessimist, meaning that he argues that
our sexual desires and impulses and acting upon those impulses are undignified. The sexual
part of our nature is unbenifitting to how humans shoudl behave and threaten our proper moral
life.Through critical analysis, it will become clear that Kant does not provide the best approach
to sexual ethics as
Kant does not provide the best approach to sexual ethics rather his cold approach is harmful
and creates more harm than good, unlike rule utilitarianism. Kant argued that homosexuality
was wrong and that a homosexual person ‘no longer deserved to be a person” as
homosexuality debased human beings to animals - it is contra naturam, it is simply the result of
uncontrolled sexual desires. Kant devalues the humanity of homosexual persons and
diminishes and demeans their love/sexual acts down to uncontrolled sexual desires.
Additionally, Kant argued that our actions must be something that we could and everyone else
could do. Therefore he argued that our actions must be universalised. Actions must be
universalizable (good for all people in all situations) and these principles must be applied to all
relationships irrespective of the gender of the people in the relationship or whether the couple
are married are not. Universalizing reproduction as a requirement of sex would make
homosexuality unethical and bad in every situation regardless of whether it is an act that is
consensual and loving. Instead of following a harmful approach as such, it would be better to
follow J.S Mills rule utilitarianism, more specifically his non-harm principle as this doesn't
demean people’s love rather it encourages it, provided that it does not cause harm. Mills
convincingly argued that people should be free to do whatever they please to do in matters
concerning sex as it is a highly personal matter and ‘we should not attempt to deprive others of
their happiness or impede their efforts to obtain it’. Therefore all homosexual acts would be
permitted provided that they do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, Kant does not provide the
best approach to sexual ethics rather his approach devalues the sexual experience of
homosexuality and tries to create rules and laws concerning highly personal matters instead
Mills presents the better approach as his insistence of actions not causing harm is more loving.
‘Kant ignores the role of emotion and his duty obsession when applied to sexual ethics is
bizarre. Kant argues that our actions must be universalizable and these principles must be
applied to all relationships regardless of whether the couple is married or not. Marriage is a
lifelong commitment and we have a perfect duty not to break promises. Adultery involves
cheating on a spouse and it would thus be wrong as this involves breaking promises which can
destroy trust in a relationship and lead to resentment. Thus Kant argued that we cannot
universalise adultery as this would destroy the foundation and value of marriage and it involves
violating our duty. Yet ultimately sex is a highly personal matter and rules should and cannot be
be made to govern such a personal thing. Every situation is different and universalising rules
leaves no scope for situations where people are stuck in abusive and unhappy relationships.We
should not create strict rules concerning areas of sex rather we should follow an act utilitarian
