In defence of mutuality as an ethical standard in sexual relationships: A Reply to Michael Hand and Michael Reiss.
Saved in:
| Title: | In defence of mutuality as an ethical standard in sexual relationships: A Reply to Michael Hand and Michael Reiss. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lamb, Sharon1 Sharon.lamb@umb.edu, Gable, Samuel1 |
| Source: | Journal of Philosophy of Education. Oct2022, Vol. 56 Issue 5, p695-706. 12p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Secondary education, *Young adults, Sexual ethics |
| People: | Hand, Michael, Reiss, Michael |
| Abstract: | Our 2021 article in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice argued that mutuality, defined as 'loving attention' towards a sexual partner, should be a moral standard for ethical sex. We specified that this loving attention should occur in the form of attempting to know what could be knowable about the other person and taking a 'thick' view of the other in their particular social and psychological contexts. We contrasted this orientation with the comparatively 'thin' view of people from a rights‐based ethical perspective that claimed that individuals would have fulfilled their moral duty by acquiring free and informed consent from a partner. Michael Hand and Michael Reiss have responded to the article, and here we respond to their critiques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Philosophy of Education is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Our 2021 article in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice argued that mutuality, defined as 'loving attention' towards a sexual partner, should be a moral standard for ethical sex. We specified that this loving attention should occur in the form of attempting to know what could be knowable about the other person and taking a 'thick' view of the other in their particular social and psychological contexts. We contrasted this orientation with the comparatively 'thin' view of people from a rights‐based ethical perspective that claimed that individuals would have fulfilled their moral duty by acquiring free and informed consent from a partner. Michael Hand and Michael Reiss have responded to the article, and here we respond to their critiques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03098249 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1467-9752.12682 |
