Are easy women immoral or unethical?

No, nothing unethical about such a viewpoint in and off itself.

Seems reasonable to believe they are opperating acording to some ethic . . . .which leaves us with immoral. Agreed nothing unethical, just not in accord with Christian religious morals.

I think it would depend on why they were easy.

And it might not have much to do with morality as such, but with low self-esteem or other issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

As they say, the definition of an easy woman is "A woman with the sex drive of a man"

Unless you can show how someone is harmed by a woman who chooses to engage in casual sex with single consenting adults, then you cannot cry foul.

Autumnleaf said:

What if they really like sex and that is just the way they are?

Click to expand...

What if someone really likes money, and that is just the way he is? Would you buy this excuse for greedy or envious behaviors?

Or, are people called to behave themselves according to a certain standard since we have free will and are not mere animals.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Or, are we animals with a consciousness deluding ourselves into believing we have free will when we are as stimulus/response oriented as an amoeba?

Click to expand...

No.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Autumnleaf said:

Or, are we animals with a consciousness deluding ourselves into believing we have free will when we are as stimulus/response oriented as an amoeba?

Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding

Autumnleaf said:

What if they really like sex and that is just the way they are?

Click to expand...

Yes, what to it? Fine with me. I don´t think, though, that this would be a general justification for any behaviour.

Could it be argued God made them that way so they're doing what they are made for?

Click to expand...

Yes, some god concepts would suggest that conclusion. Others don´t.

Or, are people called to behave themselves according to a certain standard

Click to expand...

How´s that an "or", necessarily?
I think it´s a good idea to behave yourself when it comes to harmful options. If you want to apply this to sex, you would first have to show that being "an easy woman/man" is inherently harmful.

Or, are we animals with a consciousness deluding ourselves into believing we have free will

Click to expand...

Yes. Doesn´t mean we can´t be determined to hold certain ethical stances and even to strive to behave accordingly, though.

when we are as stimulus/response oriented as an amoeba?

Click to expand...

No, we aren´t as stimulus/response oriented as an amoeba. Our stimulus/response system is way more complex.

They're hot.

Eudaimonist said:

What if someone really likes money, and that is just the way he is? Would you buy this excuse for greedy or envious behaviors?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Having money is not immoral, nor is being good at gaining it. As such, greed by itself is not immoral.

The issue is that greed is often associated with actions where one takes advantage over another in an unfair way to get money such as making crooked contracts or selling broken merchandise.

If a person just really loves money and stuff, what is immoral or unethical about her spending her life getting it as long as she does not harm or take advantage of others?

yasic said:

If a person just really loves money and stuff, what is immoral or unethical about her spending her life getting it as long as she does not harm or take advantage of others?

Click to expand...

I agree that having money is not immoral, nor is being good at gaining it immoral. I'm a free market capitalist. It would be very strange if I thought such things immoral.

Greed is about more than harming or taking advantage of others, although that's certainly a part of the vice. It is also about harming or misusing oneself. One can love money too much for one's own good, because money can be distorting one's priorities (making one value some things too much, and other things too little), or that love of money can be a symptom of a deeper problem, such as filling a void with material things that really should be approached in some other way.

So, I ask, why is this "easy woman" prioritizing as she does? Does she have it right? Does she see correctly how to grow as the unique individual she is?

I'm not, btw, claiming omniscient knowledge that all "easy women" are wrong to be such. Maybe some have it exactly right for them. I'm merely asking a philosophical question here. I'm also challenging the modern view that morality is exclusively about how we treat others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

Greed is about more than harming or taking advantage of others, although that's certainly a part of the vice. It is also about harming or misusing oneself. One can love money too much for one's own good, because money can be distorting one's priorities (making one value some things too much, and other things too little), or that love of money can be a symptom of a deeper problem, such as filling a void with material things that really should be approached in some other way.

Click to expand...

I would like to replace the "should be approached" by "would be more successfully approached".
Of course, the same questions can be asked about a person whose approach is extreme modesty.
On a sidenote I think, though, that such questions are best to be asked by the person herself - or IOW, we would be well advised to ask such questions primarily about our own approaches.

So, I ask, why is this "easy woman" prioritizing as she does? Does she have it right? Does she see correctly how to grow as the unique individual she is?

Click to expand...

Indeed, I think these are highly important questions for the person to ask herself. These are also highly important questions for persons who prioritize celibacy or anything in between being "easy" and celibate. It´s also an important question for a woman who seeks marriage and family to ask herself.

I guess, what I am always wondering is: Why do people even start asking these questions (and more often about others than themselves) about certain approaches and not about others, in the first place.

I'm merely asking a philosophical question here. I'm also challenging the modern view that morality is exclusively about how we treat others.

Click to expand...

That´s merely a semantics issue, isn´t it?
For me, the question "How do I learn what my existential needs and desires are, and what´s the most successful approach to make sure they are met?" is one of the keyquestions (if not THE keyquestion). I am not comfortable with calling this "morality", though.


eudaimonia,

Mark[/quote]

Nothing immoral or unethical when it is all safe and consentual.

If she has self esteem issues, that does not make it unethical. And no less safe unless it making her take risks that she shouldn't. Even then it's not "unethical".

quatona said:

I would like to replace the "should be approached" by "would be more successfully approached".

Click to expand...

To my mind, these are equivalent statements. If one can successfully achieve a needed goal through method A, but find it difficult or impossible through method B, then one should choose method A. Should, for me, implies something like "most suited" or perhaps "well suited".

It's like asking how one should design the house one will live in. Since the point of having a house to live in is in having a useful shelter which won't crash down around you while you live, then you should design the house with good engineering principles in order to accomplish that goal. Of course, there are many sturdy homes that one could design, and any design that reasonably fulfills your needs is a legitimate option. Which design you finally choose could depend on taste (which might not be as trivial a consideration as it sounds.)

Of course, the same questions can be asked about a person whose approach is extreme modesty.

Click to expand...

Yes! Vices of excess often have a complementary vice of deficiency.

On a sidenote I think, though, that such questions are best to be asked by the person herself - or IOW, we would be well advised to ask such questions primarily about our own approaches.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm just being philosophical here. I normally do not assume that I know enough about the lives of other people to pass judgments of this sort. Even if I did have an opinion about someone else, I would treat it as her business, not mine. And I think that such examination is far more usefully directed inward.

These are also highly important questions for persons who prioritize celibacy or anything in between being "easy" and celibate.

Click to expand...

Yes.

That´s merely a semantics issue, isn´t it?

Click to expand...

No, since the implication of the statement "morality (i.e., shoulds) is about how we treat others" is that there are no other "shoulds" in life.

If one can give a different name to self-directed shoulds, that would be fine. Then I would have no problem. But I get the impression that some people really do think that there are no self-directed shoulds at all -- that how one treats oneself is entirely optional.

For me, the question "How do I learn what my existential needs and desires are, and what´s the most successful approach to make sure they are met?" is one of the keyquestions (if not THE keyquestion). I am not comfortable with calling this "morality", though.

Click to expand...

Can you name the source of your discomfort?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Fin1234 said:

Nothing immoral or unethical when it is all safe and consentual.

Click to expand...

What does "safe" mean here? Safe in what ways?

If she has self esteem issues, that does not make it unethical.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't it? (I might agree with you, but I want to know how you approach this issue.)

And no less safe unless it making her take risks that she shouldn't.

Click to expand...

What risks do you mean? What sort of risks should one not take?

Even then it's not "unethical".

Click to expand...

Hold on... Taking a risk one should not take is ethical?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

No, since the implication of the statement "morality (i.e., shoulds) is about how we treat others" is that there are no other "shoulds" in life.

Click to expand...

Maybe it´s just me, but I find it much easier to do something when I learn that I want it rather than when I am conceptualizing it as something I "should" do.

If one can give a different name to self-directed shoulds, that would be fine.

Click to expand...

Why not call them something from the realm of "wants", "needs", "desires" - in any case something that emphasizes the difference between a prescription determined outside myself, and a process that´s completely my own making?

Can you name the source of your discomfort?

Click to expand...

Not entirely, I am afraid.
I guess, to me the term "morality" is loaded with the idea that we owe something to external standards. Notwithstanding the question, whether there are such standards or not, the question "What´s best for me?" is best dealt with without implicit or explicit reference to such standards.

yasic said:

As they say, the definition of an easy woman is "A woman with the sex drive of a man"

Unless you can show how someone is harmed by a woman who chooses to engage in casual sex with single consenting adults, then you cannot cry foul.

Click to expand...

What about, if unprotected, the high potential for eventually contracting and disseminating an STD, and likely sooner rather than later?

You did indicate you wanted to identify any potential negative consequences. And that is not said as any sort of moral judgment but as an objectively likely consequence of concern.

I know I should properly address the ethical implications of promiscuity vs. casual sex vs. sex between unmarried couples vs. adultery, the Scriptural stance and the ethical implications of each. But I have absolutely no desire to get into another interminable argument with people who are firmly convinced their cultural values are what God handed down on Mount Sinai, and like a tree that's planted by the water, will not be moved by logic, Scriptural exegesis, or any sense of compassion for others.

Eudaimonist said:

What does "safe" mean here? Safe in what ways?

Why doesn't it? (I might agree with you, but I want to know how you approach this issue.)


What risks do you mean? What sort of risks should one not take?

Hold on... Taking a risk one should not take is ethical?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

1. She is using contraceptives and protection; if she doesn't use protection or contraception she has to at least make sure her partner knows she is sexually active and aware she is not using any protection. On top of that, tp her knowledge no one will be mentally harmed.

2. I use to have self esteem issues thanks to acne, I as a result bought alot of needless products to get rid of it. I also constantly looked for ego gratification. I wouldn't call my action un-ethical. Annoying, yes and stupid, definatly. But not un-ethical.

3. Actually scrap that, she can take whatever risks she wants, as long as no one else is being affected.

(NOTE: Going home with a stranger who she knows very little of and does not trust may be un-ethical if she has family who would prefer not so see her dead.)

4. I'm a free runner, I just got back, about 45 minutes ago. I was one mis-placed foot from a relatively serious injury.

Is that UN-ethical? It could be argued, irresponsible, or maybe pointless by some people. But I think it would be quite a stretch to say we were acting un-ethically today.

Autumnleaf said:

Or easy guys for that matter?

Click to expand...

At the very least they are naive or desperate. I don't know which is worse...