There is no right or wrong when adding pleasure to human needs. Single sex encounter to society has been more acceptable now than in the past. Presently, society is classifying this act as a sexual activity with no remorse due to the mutual neutral attachments that both parties have agreed. The conventional sexual morality, place one tonight stand sex as unacceptable, however, the moderate view argues that one-night sex encounter is a diversion that does not have any morals attachments and it should not be disciplined especially when mutual parties had agreed.
The act of one-night stand is a sexual pleasure that does not have any meaning, no emotions, and no justification but only an agreement to satisfy human needs. This brief pleasure only …show more content…
Kant’s theory is to apply categorical imperative and be followed regardless of particular wants and needs. During the act, one-night stand, both individuals is agreeing to satisfy and fulfill their needs with mutual understandings. If those individual are applying Kant’s theory, “means to end”, then those individual are accomplishing and fulfilling their duty to one-night stand. The one-night stand is being agreeing mutually and both individuals are accomplishing their duties. As Goldman …show more content…
We can speak of a sexual ethics as we can speak of a business ethic, without implying that business in itself is either moral or immoral or that special rules are required to judge business practice which are not derived from rules that apply elsewhere as well (Vaughn 420).
The act of one-night stand is not wrong as long as both parties are agreed and consenting to have a one night stand. The act is not immoral because it doesn 't have any moral value attached and itself and is seen as a simple act with no intrinsic value. The moderate view of sexual morality is being applying to one-night stand because both parties are consenting to the act. The act is being justified to the conservative society because the individual is acting with no morals.
In the other end, Kant and Mill will agree that this act can become morally wrong when adding individual moral values. The act is morally permissible as long as both parties do not add any individual value to the act. However, when one individual is not being satisfied than the other party involved becomes an object to the action. As humans, the impulse of sexual desire is a need to be satisfied but without being objectified by any party otherwise this act becomes
The act of one-night stand is a sexual pleasure that does not have any meaning, no emotions, and no justification but only an agreement to satisfy human needs. This brief pleasure only …show more content…
Kant’s theory is to apply categorical imperative and be followed regardless of particular wants and needs. During the act, one-night stand, both individuals is agreeing to satisfy and fulfill their needs with mutual understandings. If those individual are applying Kant’s theory, “means to end”, then those individual are accomplishing and fulfilling their duty to one-night stand. The one-night stand is being agreeing mutually and both individuals are accomplishing their duties. As Goldman …show more content…
We can speak of a sexual ethics as we can speak of a business ethic, without implying that business in itself is either moral or immoral or that special rules are required to judge business practice which are not derived from rules that apply elsewhere as well (Vaughn 420).
The act of one-night stand is not wrong as long as both parties are agreed and consenting to have a one night stand. The act is not immoral because it doesn 't have any moral value attached and itself and is seen as a simple act with no intrinsic value. The moderate view of sexual morality is being applying to one-night stand because both parties are consenting to the act. The act is being justified to the conservative society because the individual is acting with no morals.
In the other end, Kant and Mill will agree that this act can become morally wrong when adding individual moral values. The act is morally permissible as long as both parties do not add any individual value to the act. However, when one individual is not being satisfied than the other party involved becomes an object to the action. As humans, the impulse of sexual desire is a need to be satisfied but without being objectified by any party otherwise this act becomes