One body but many kinds of sex and procreation: A liberal response

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

I contrast a liberal and a conservative approach to the morality of sex, endorsing the former with a concession as to the special nature of sex, and note Pruss' philosophical and theological endorsement of the latter. I criticize his argumentative strategy in three regards: first, he defends Christian love as equivalent to benevolence; second, he allows for only a moral evaluation of sex; third, he moves too quickly from some factual claims to others, and thence to normative conclusions. His account of the moral impermissibility of non-veridical pleasures trades on ambiguities in 'real' pleasure. I respond to three arguments Pruss offers against IVF: gamete donors can discharge their parental obligations; reproduction need not only be by coitus; and those who use fertility treatment need not thereby do wrong in treating any resultant child as an 'artefact'. I conclude with critical observations about the distance between Pruss' views and those commonly held by most people, including increasing numbers of Catholics.

LanguageEnglish
Pages75-85
Number of pages11
JournalRoczniki Filozoficzne
Volume63
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jan 2015

Fingerprint

Procreation
Pleasure
Morality
Concession
Benevolence
Moral Evaluation
Christian Love
Fertility
Artifact
Obligation

Keywords

  • Alexander R. Pruss
  • Procreation
  • Sex
  • Sexual Ethics

Cite this

@article{899b89f8b928496e896bb6b7373db032,
title = "One body but many kinds of sex and procreation: A liberal response",
abstract = "I contrast a liberal and a conservative approach to the morality of sex, endorsing the former with a concession as to the special nature of sex, and note Pruss' philosophical and theological endorsement of the latter. I criticize his argumentative strategy in three regards: first, he defends Christian love as equivalent to benevolence; second, he allows for only a moral evaluation of sex; third, he moves too quickly from some factual claims to others, and thence to normative conclusions. His account of the moral impermissibility of non-veridical pleasures trades on ambiguities in 'real' pleasure. I respond to three arguments Pruss offers against IVF: gamete donors can discharge their parental obligations; reproduction need not only be by coitus; and those who use fertility treatment need not thereby do wrong in treating any resultant child as an 'artefact'. I conclude with critical observations about the distance between Pruss' views and those commonly held by most people, including increasing numbers of Catholics.",
keywords = "Alexander R. Pruss, Procreation, Sex, Sexual Ethics",
author = "David Archard",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.18290/rf.2015.63.3-6",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "75--85",
journal = "Roczniki Filozoficzne",
issn = "0035-7685",
publisher = "Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego",
number = "3",

}

One body but many kinds of sex and procreation : A liberal response. / Archard, David.

In: Roczniki Filozoficzne, Vol. 63, No. 3, 01.01.2015, p. 75-85.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - One body but many kinds of sex and procreation

T2 - Roczniki Filozoficzne

AU - Archard, David

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - I contrast a liberal and a conservative approach to the morality of sex, endorsing the former with a concession as to the special nature of sex, and note Pruss' philosophical and theological endorsement of the latter. I criticize his argumentative strategy in three regards: first, he defends Christian love as equivalent to benevolence; second, he allows for only a moral evaluation of sex; third, he moves too quickly from some factual claims to others, and thence to normative conclusions. His account of the moral impermissibility of non-veridical pleasures trades on ambiguities in 'real' pleasure. I respond to three arguments Pruss offers against IVF: gamete donors can discharge their parental obligations; reproduction need not only be by coitus; and those who use fertility treatment need not thereby do wrong in treating any resultant child as an 'artefact'. I conclude with critical observations about the distance between Pruss' views and those commonly held by most people, including increasing numbers of Catholics.

AB - I contrast a liberal and a conservative approach to the morality of sex, endorsing the former with a concession as to the special nature of sex, and note Pruss' philosophical and theological endorsement of the latter. I criticize his argumentative strategy in three regards: first, he defends Christian love as equivalent to benevolence; second, he allows for only a moral evaluation of sex; third, he moves too quickly from some factual claims to others, and thence to normative conclusions. His account of the moral impermissibility of non-veridical pleasures trades on ambiguities in 'real' pleasure. I respond to three arguments Pruss offers against IVF: gamete donors can discharge their parental obligations; reproduction need not only be by coitus; and those who use fertility treatment need not thereby do wrong in treating any resultant child as an 'artefact'. I conclude with critical observations about the distance between Pruss' views and those commonly held by most people, including increasing numbers of Catholics.

KW - Alexander R. Pruss

KW - Procreation

KW - Sex

KW - Sexual Ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052826789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.18290/rf.2015.63.3-6

DO - 10.18290/rf.2015.63.3-6

M3 - Article

VL - 63

SP - 75

EP - 85

JO - Roczniki Filozoficzne

JF - Roczniki Filozoficzne

SN - 0035-7685

IS - 3

ER -