You know, when people talk about sexual morality, the word "perversion" comes up almost 100% of the time. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about:
Nah, not at all simple, because no one has yet taken the time to define what a perversion really is, or what makes it morally wrong. The word "perversion" is so ambiguous that it doesn't actually describe anything at all, yet its used all the time to describe the wrongness of certain behaviors.
We have to understand that in order to talk about "perversion" in any morally meaningful sense, we have to satisfy at least two criteria: first, we need to state exactly what we mean by the word; and second, we have to be sure that the implications of the word actually form a rational basis for our moral decisions. If we define a perversion as a sexual practice which deviates from the norm, then we've satisfy the first condition, but not the second, because we all know that we can't derive any "ought" from an "is" (so that we can't say that something being a "norm" implies that is the way things ought to be). But if we talk about perversion in the way it negatively affects people, then we're no longer talking about perversion anymore, but we've shifted the focus over to negative consequences without actually defining perversion in the first place, so we've satisfied the second condition but not the first. I don't believe that I've ever seen perversion defined in a way that satisfies both conditions at the same time, and I'm not sure if it is even possible in principle.
Lets take the word "perversion" itself, and lets ask "what does the word 'perversion' mean, what criteria must a behavior meet to be considered 'perverted'". I can't find the word in any of my philosophy dictionaries, so please don't mind that I'm using mundane online dictionaries:
The word perversion hardly has a definition at all, its a rather abstract term that is defined by intuition at best. However, intuition rarely reveals the truth about any moral truths, because intuition isn't subject to the rules of logical inference, and no two people have the same intuitions; this means when two people have contradictory ideas based on the same intuition, theres no way to determine which intuition is the "correct" one.
Let me show the problem of intuition by creating a list of certain fetishes, and putting them in the order of "most perverted" to "least perverted":
Although it wasn't hard to put that list together, the list was put together by intuition alone, and in fact there is no criteria at all used to guage which behaviors are perversions, much less which behaviors are more or less perverted than others. So, the list means nothing, and we can't provide rational reasons to distinguish perversions from non-perversions.
Another problem with "perversion" is the nature of morality itself: almost always, something being morally wrong has to do with its actual consequences or the way it affects people. The interesting question is, on what basis is perversion morally wrong; because as far as my understanding of perversion goes, many behaviors are called perverted even when they don't harm any people at all (homosexuality, sadomaschism, foot fetishes, hardcore pornography, etc.). Those kinds of things that people call perversions harm people neither directly nor indirectly*, so on what basis are they morally wrong at all?
* I understand some people have objections to pornography on the basis that it leads to certain kinds of abuse, but their is very little evidence for that. At worst, porn could lead to an addiction, but for now I think its safe to say that the vast vast majority of porn consumers are perfectly harmless.
Of course, you might have an automatic response to me, "FSTDT, pedophiles are perverts, and they are obviously being immoral". Of course, I agree, but what makes them immoral is not the fact that they have a perverted state of mind, but has a lot to do with sexually manipulating and exploiting children. Its the consequences of the behavior itself that makes pedophilia immoral, thats all that matters. Similarly, perversions like voyeurism are wrong because they violate people's right to privacy and autonomy.
So now, back to the mundane, harmless perversions like homosexuality and fetishes: lets say that we agreed that these things are perversions (however that word is defined). On what basis can we say that the perversion is morally wrong, or go even further to say that we should regulate these behaviors? I'd LOVE to see an answer to that question, but I don't think there is one. These kinds of perversions just refer to states of mind outside the culturally accepted norms, but the states of mind actually don't have any moral consequence; and I would say that trying to regulate the inconsequential states of mind quite literally embodies the Orwellian concept of "thoughtcrime". I don't know about you, but I find the idea of criminalizing states of mind to be frightening.
Because the word "perversion" is so ambiguous, the criteria for distinguishing between perversions and non-perversions is undefined, and no one has been able to provide an explanation for why something being a perversion is morally wrong (go ahead, take a stab at the question "what makes something perverted"), I'm not convinced the word "perversion" has any meaningful place in moral discussions at all. When someone says a behavior is perverted, it doesn't mean anything.
Its really surprising that for all the years people have been using the word "perversion", it has never been defined. The word "perversion" is not moral terminology, and in fact I think its inadvertantly used as a way to bypass the rigors of moral scrutiny altogether; because after all, if you can dismiss an act as a perversion, then you don't have to provide any moral reasons yourself to base your objections. In this way, talking about sexual perversions as if it were a moral term is positively anti-moral, because it destroys the capacity for any moral discourse that can actually provide reasons for the rightness and wrongness of actions.
As far as I'm concerned, the word "perversion" means nothing, and it cannot be used to weight the actual rightness or wrongness of actions. Anyone who says an action is wrong because they've labeled it a perversion is saying nothing at all, they aren't making a moral statement of any kind.
This isn't to say that theres no constraint on people's behaviors, there certainly ARE good reasons to constrain a lot of actions. However, labeling a behavior a perversion doesn't provide one of those good reasons, its morally irrelevant.
I have filled my "challenge our moral intuitions" quota for the day, and I hope you have enjoyed my short discussion
The word "perversion" is a pretty nasty word, isn't it? Apparently, it has moral implications such that something being a perversion makes it morally wrong. Simple, right?
Nah, not at all simple, because no one has yet taken the time to define what a perversion really is, or what makes it morally wrong. The word "perversion" is so ambiguous that it doesn't actually describe anything at all, yet its used all the time to describe the wrongness of certain behaviors.
We have to understand that in order to talk about "perversion" in any morally meaningful sense, we have to satisfy at least two criteria: first, we need to state exactly what we mean by the word; and second, we have to be sure that the implications of the word actually form a rational basis for our moral decisions. If we define a perversion as a sexual practice which deviates from the norm, then we've satisfy the first condition, but not the second, because we all know that we can't derive any "ought" from an "is" (so that we can't say that something being a "norm" implies that is the way things ought to be). But if we talk about perversion in the way it negatively affects people, then we're no longer talking about perversion anymore, but we've shifted the focus over to negative consequences without actually defining perversion in the first place, so we've satisfied the second condition but not the first. I don't believe that I've ever seen perversion defined in a way that satisfies both conditions at the same time, and I'm not sure if it is even possible in principle.
Lets take the word "perversion" itself, and lets ask "what does the word 'perversion' mean, what criteria must a behavior meet to be considered 'perverted'". I can't find the word in any of my philosophy dictionaries, so please don't mind that I'm using mundane online dictionaries:
The Dictionary.com definitions are useless because they use words like "aberrant", "abnormal", and "deviant" without providing any indication as to what criteria distinguish "deviant" behavior from "non-deviant" behavior. The Wikipedia article links to a page on paraphilia, which is a little more specific, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the word perversion in quite the way paraphilia is used in the DSM-IV.
The word perversion hardly has a definition at all, its a rather abstract term that is defined by intuition at best. However, intuition rarely reveals the truth about any moral truths, because intuition isn't subject to the rules of logical inference, and no two people have the same intuitions; this means when two people have contradictory ideas based on the same intuition, theres no way to determine which intuition is the "correct" one.
Let me show the problem of intuition by creating a list of certain fetishes, and putting them in the order of "most perverted" to "least perverted":
Code:
Most perverted: Scatological fetishes
Furries
Exhibitionism
Sadomasochism
Being aroused by sex involving more than two people
Sex without committment (e.g. swinger / playboy lifestyles, or the
"friends with benefits" we sometimes hear about)
Homosexuality
Sex outside of wedlock
Being aroused by lingerie
Being aroused by "attractive" hair (e.g. think Anna Kournikova or some peoples
fixation on redheads / blondes / certain hair styles)
Least Perverted: Sex between consenting couplesAnother problem with "perversion" is the nature of morality itself: almost always, something being morally wrong has to do with its actual consequences or the way it affects people. The interesting question is, on what basis is perversion morally wrong; because as far as my understanding of perversion goes, many behaviors are called perverted even when they don't harm any people at all (homosexuality, sadomaschism, foot fetishes, hardcore pornography, etc.). Those kinds of things that people call perversions harm people neither directly nor indirectly*, so on what basis are they morally wrong at all?
* I understand some people have objections to pornography on the basis that it leads to certain kinds of abuse, but their is very little evidence for that. At worst, porn could lead to an addiction, but for now I think its safe to say that the vast vast majority of porn consumers are perfectly harmless.
Of course, you might have an automatic response to me, "FSTDT, pedophiles are perverts, and they are obviously being immoral". Of course, I agree, but what makes them immoral is not the fact that they have a perverted state of mind, but has a lot to do with sexually manipulating and exploiting children. Its the consequences of the behavior itself that makes pedophilia immoral, thats all that matters. Similarly, perversions like voyeurism are wrong because they violate people's right to privacy and autonomy.
So now, back to the mundane, harmless perversions like homosexuality and fetishes: lets say that we agreed that these things are perversions (however that word is defined). On what basis can we say that the perversion is morally wrong, or go even further to say that we should regulate these behaviors? I'd LOVE to see an answer to that question, but I don't think there is one. These kinds of perversions just refer to states of mind outside the culturally accepted norms, but the states of mind actually don't have any moral consequence; and I would say that trying to regulate the inconsequential states of mind quite literally embodies the Orwellian concept of "thoughtcrime". I don't know about you, but I find the idea of criminalizing states of mind to be frightening.
Because the word "perversion" is so ambiguous, the criteria for distinguishing between perversions and non-perversions is undefined, and no one has been able to provide an explanation for why something being a perversion is morally wrong (go ahead, take a stab at the question "what makes something perverted"), I'm not convinced the word "perversion" has any meaningful place in moral discussions at all. When someone says a behavior is perverted, it doesn't mean anything.
Its really surprising that for all the years people have been using the word "perversion", it has never been defined. The word "perversion" is not moral terminology, and in fact I think its inadvertantly used as a way to bypass the rigors of moral scrutiny altogether; because after all, if you can dismiss an act as a perversion, then you don't have to provide any moral reasons yourself to base your objections. In this way, talking about sexual perversions as if it were a moral term is positively anti-moral, because it destroys the capacity for any moral discourse that can actually provide reasons for the rightness and wrongness of actions.
As far as I'm concerned, the word "perversion" means nothing, and it cannot be used to weight the actual rightness or wrongness of actions. Anyone who says an action is wrong because they've labeled it a perversion is saying nothing at all, they aren't making a moral statement of any kind.
This isn't to say that theres no constraint on people's behaviors, there certainly ARE good reasons to constrain a lot of actions. However, labeling a behavior a perversion doesn't provide one of those good reasons, its morally irrelevant.
I have filled my "challenge our moral intuitions" quota for the day, and I hope you have enjoyed my short discussion