The Instigator
captainfriend
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
That1User
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 74218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

captainfriend

Pro

I wish to make a strong argument against a lifestyle of casual sex, or a 'promiscuous lifestyle' (I will use the initials PL to refer to it throughout). I do not wish to argue that it infringes anyone's rights, nor that it leads to undesirable social or political consequences. I wish to argue that it is personally unethical to pursue such a lifestyle.

My arguments will be enumerated and placed in sections for ease of reference. I will assume heterosexual relations, to avoid complicating prior issues. I also am referring in the main to the uptake of PL by women.

SECTION A - THE SIGNS THAT PL IS UNETHICAL (PSYCHOLOGICAL)

1) The signs of emotional damage, such as: Engaging in PL after heartbreak and confusion. Putting up walls to intimacy. Talking about not being able to let your heart show.
2) The signs of having a superficial character, or a false stereotyped persona. The questions 'who are you?' and 'what is good about you' being met with the gesture to the openness and enjoyment of sex; that is, sexual validation by strangers.
3) Sex in PL is too exciting, leading to addiction and craving and associated personality traits: risk-taking and dangerous behaviour; lack of fidelity to a partner and lack of value given to a relationship. For men, sexual addiction means the destructive desire to invade other people; for women, the sexual addiction is related to the self-destructive desire for invasion.

SECTION B - REASONS WHY PL IS UNETHICAL (SOCIOLOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL)
1) Gender difference is real, and sex is different for men and women. The macho reasons women often claim to have sex are rationalizations, and PL therefore fails to have a narrative of 'liberation'. This is both a social observation and a physical one; see point A3 above.
2) Negotiations for PL take place in coercive atmospheres (clubs etc.) and within cultures of persuasion. This is a problem for the 'choice' that women often claim to make. Descriptions of sex in PL is always wrapped in the language of choice, however in order to make PL work people seek coersion and environments in which they and others are likely to lose restraint and inhibitions. (Coersion may be in small amounts over a period of time: becoming a part of a culture).
3) It's a man's world. Men dominate women and this is ingrained in culture. We should not look to PL environments to look for the liberation of women, but it's opposite. Women can be asked to allow men to use them for sex, and it makes enough sense to women dominated by a male culture to do so, that they do.

SECTION C - INTER/PERSONAL REASONS
1) If people love each other, they are identifying with their partner in a significant way; their partner is special to them. If their partner invites others to dominate them and threat them like flesh to be used, it necessary hurts the one that loves that partner, and leaves them in personal despair.
2) It is a problem that loving someone means feeling a deep tragedy, whilst that someone is desperate to avoid feeling the dehumanizing nature of their actions and the cost to themselves and those that love them.
3) It is also problematic that in order to have a steady relationship it must be one in which the person damaged by PL is not loved too much by their partner. Love is therefore kept very small in case trauma from the past causes fear in the present. The PL damaged person does not want to feel special, or to feel special only as a small secret, whilst they court indifferent and limited loving relationships.

I hope that on the weight of these points my motion can be passed. I look forward to any debate.
That1User

Con

Definitions
Ethical: What is right or wrong.
The Resolution: Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical.
For this my opponent has the BoP of proving PL is unethical, while I as con simply have to negate his position.
Arguments
My opponent has never justified that objective moral values exist, and since he is making an objective claim that the PL is unethical, he has to justify that objective moral values exist. In fact, ethical nihilism states that there is no objective ethical system, only one's subjective interpreation of ethics.
Debate Round No. 1
captainfriend

Pro

captainfriend forfeited this round.
That1User

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited. I extend my previous arguments and will expand on my previous arguments.

Section A. Moral Non-Cognitism and Moral Nihilism.
My opponent is making an ethical statement, which is not an empirical fact like "water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsuis", but rather an opinion regarding what is right or wrong. Since morality is not an empirical fact, it cannot be proven right or wrong, thus there is no truth value to ethical statements. It seems that since there are many ethical systems, such as consquentialism and dentology, whatever people think is moral is moral. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)

Section B: The Non Sequitur Fallacy
Just because there are negatives to the PL does not necessarily make the PL unethical as a whole. You are making an objective claim that the PL as a whole is unethical, where there are many unique expierences of PL that do not neccessarily entail those harmful things. Perhaps PL is harmful to some degree, but I fail to see how it is unethical, or violating what is right and wrong.

Section C. Consquentialism
According to utiltiarianism, something is ethical if it maximizes utility for all, which means maximizes pleasure and happiness and reduces suffering. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is well known fact that sex is a pleasurable expierence for human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and it is likely that the more sex one has, the more net pleasure and happiness one brings to others. According to egoism and hedoism, an action is moral if it benefits one's self and furthers one's own happiness, something that a PL is known to do. According to alturism, an action is moral if it results in pleausre or happiness for another person, which sex does.

Section D. Intentionalism
According to intentionalism, morality is defined as if one intended to do good. If one intends to do good with a PL, then it is ethical. In conclusion, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
captainfriend

Pro

captainfriend forfeited this round.
That1User

Con

Unfortunately, my opponet has once again forfeited, I once again extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by captainfriend 2 years ago
captainfriend
I guess I will never find a debate here.
Posted by captainfriend 2 years ago
captainfriend
SNP1 we can do this if you want. Define what you mean by 'problem'.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
You only pushed back the problem by appealing to "good" without defining what "good" means.
Posted by captainfriend 2 years ago
captainfriend
Hi Joe. I take ethics to be about reasoning about our behaviour with regard to the good, however construed. But I also use 'unethical' deliberately to avoid 'immoral', because its better to be philosophical about things than to argue moral authority etc.
Posted by joetheripper117 2 years ago
joetheripper117
What is going to be the accepted definition of unethical?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
captainfriendThat1UserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used sources, didn't forfeit and had better arguments.
Vote Placed by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
captainfriendThat1UserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF leads Conduct Con. Con cited the only sources available, leading sources to go Con. As pro never refutes Con arguments Con wins arguments