I think it's fair to say that religion has been the binding force in nearly all, if not all. cultures. And religions have always been associated with origins, which means with ancestors and traditions. So, it seems odd in the light of that to refer to the link between religion and conservatism as an historical contingency, as though it could just as well have been otherwise.

Apart from that there's another logical connection religion has with conservatism, in that religions are usually concerned with the afterlife, with the spiritual world, which means that behaviors are not necessarily ethically neutral even when they don't impact on one's physical health or on the health or happiness of others. The spiritual effects on oneself of one's own behavior becomes an issue of authority insofar as one does not feel confident in one's own intuitions. And of course authority in these matters is conserved from one generation to the next by tradition, meaning that cultures governed by such preserved traditions to whatever extent, are naturally conservative to that extent.

So let me clarify: In the present world where today's posters live, whether you are religious and conservative, religious and progressive, atheist and conservative, or atheist and progressive, is to a substantial degree the historical contingency of from whom, where, and when you were born.

Whether being "religious" and being "conservative" has always gone together depends, to some extent, on the historical contingency of how you look at the past. I look at Jesus as someone who was (presumably) very religious (what with his being God and all) and was decidedly not a conservative (what with his overcoming death, and inaugurating the Kingdom of God, and all). Somebody else might look at Jesus and arrive at a different conclusion.

On the other hand... Most of the Pharaohs were presumably religious and conservative -- except for the revolutionary Akhenaten who was a monotheist in a long line of polytheists. The Vestal Virgins of Rome were both religious and conservative, they being servants of Vesta, the goddess of hearth, home, and family, and also the keepers of important documents, like the Emperor's will. Agustino thinks Islam was conservative from the get go. That may be. Others might not look at it that way.

But whether YOU are religious and paleo-conservative or religious and a left wing revolutionary is largely a historical contingency.

You think so? In developed economies, are high rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, and large numbers of children born outside marriage, not to mention epidemics of cybersexual addiction. This simply a kind of hedonic fantasy that equates pleasure and happiness. — Wayfarer

I think there are many factors involved here. First, though, I want to make it clear for anyone who hasn't read my previous posts in this thread that I don't personally adhere to this hedonistic view. I'm simply trying to grasp what the highest 'good' would be in a life which rejects belief in anything superior to our own physical and psychological well-being. I can definitely see Agustino's point regarding the compatibility of atheism and social conservatism, and I even admitted that atheism would not preclude a pragmatic conservatism in which social stability and personal happiness are valued as goods despite not being grounded in typical religious beliefs like an eternal soul, an afterlife in which rewards and punishments are doled out based upon our actions, or even a vague belief in something transcending the material aspect of existence.

That being said, I also think there are many people who do indeed view sexual gratification--or physical pleasures more generally--as the highest good (the only good) within an atheistic universe which isn't grounded in any sense of spiritual significance. I think there are quite a few out there who clearly envy the ability of a wealthy businessman, a famous rock star or a professional athlete to have sex with multitudes of attractive women whenever they like. If you use condoms or other forms of birth control then you can largely eliminate many of the unintended/undesirable consequences of living such a lifestyle that you pointed out. That way of life can obviously bring temporary pleasure and happiness. But it cannot lead to the type of deep and abiding contentment which accompanies knowing that while we could do whatever we choose (given our specific context) if we wanted to, we freely choose not out of the sake of higher principles (e.g. trust, loyalty, compassion, sacrifice, love).

There was admittedly a time in my life when getting laid was the primary motivation of my actions. I was fortunate enough to meet my future wife after this trial (mawkish, I know), and my values shifted significantly. This shift coincided with an openness towards 'spirituality' which had previously been lacking. My wife was much more than a clump of matter that satisfied my desire for physical pleasure. She was more than someone I wanted to have sex with. I actually cared about her in a way that I hadn't previously experienced. I went from being a selfish prick to being at least a less selfish prick. And then we had a child, and after that my perspective shifted even more radically. I worked jobs I hated to make them happy (or so I felt) and this sacrifice brought me more 'pleasure' than sex with random women ever did. This sounds like romantic twaddle, of course, but alas that's my disposition.

So circling back for a minute, I guess I could simplify my take on this as a contrast between practical and spiritual conservatism. I think the former is grounded in something much more precarious than the latter: I restrain my natural impulses out of fear of the possible consequences of my actions (shame, dissolution of my marriage through my wife's anger, STD's, unwanted children, bad for business and the like)--but I do so out of fear rather than out of the sublime sort of love that flows from a heart genuinely gripped by a firm faith in the inherent value of existence beyond it's brute materiality. Poorly articulated, perhaps, but that's the gist of it.

I think any real philosophy ought to recognize the perilous nature of existence itself. I was reading a summary yesterday of a PhD research programme concerning Western practitioners of Buddhist meditation - the working title being 'A Precarious Path'. It detailed how many difficulties and obstacles practitioners face. And that is as it has to be! Life is perilous and precarious, and a real philosophy has to acknowledge that. Whereas, increasingly, the 'philosophy' of the consumerist society is bent on making the world a safe place for the ignorant; the whole social order is based on encouraging 'consumers' by stimulating their demands for often useless products, or engaging in ridiculous escapist fantasies through screen entertainment and the internet. — Wayfarer

I definitely agree with this, but I also feel that philosophers are atypical in their (theoretical) desire to cut through the type of social and cultural conditioning which most of us uncritically adopt and use to form a stable sense of personal and collective identity. These illusions give us a sense of comfort and security (incidentally this is not specific to theists, IMO, as atheists too have their useful illusions) and relief from noticing the groundlessness of our existence.

I definitely have my comforting illusions (despite a half-hearted attempt to make my beliefs transparent)--for one, my 'faith' that we're something more than 'mere' matter--and I feel life would be overwhelming without them. Existence is enigmatic. Our consumer society is successful in the sense that, while debased, it does generally keep us distracted from the mystery of our existence. To acknowledge that mystery of ourselves, of our world, and of Being in totality, is to set out on a perilous path indeed. Only a small fraction seem cut out for it. I've supplemented my own life experiences by studying philosophy for 20 years now, and to be perfectly honest I feel like I'm just now beginning on the path towards something akin to 'wisdom'. I see arrogance and smugness and complacency and ego and ignorance all around, first and foremost in myself.

But, as usual, I'm making baseless claims and talking nonsense. In all sincerity I agree with Socrates that coming to grips with my own ignorance and tendency towards self-deception seems the highest form of honesty and wisdom possible. There's something elevated about this stance and, dare I say, something profoundly 'spiritual' about it too. It is not necessarily atheistic, as I see it, but neither is it 'religious' in the traditional sense of the word. I also think it's congenial to a form of social conservatism which finds the divine in even the mundane features of everyday life. Marriage, raising children, genuine friendships and other such supra-mundane things are perceived as even more sacred. I'm inclined to think that genuine wisdom and spirituality would go so far as to embrace even the darker elements of Being as somehow holy and divine. As Heraclitus noted, to God all things are good and just, but men think some things good, others evil..

Apologies for getting off track. I appreciate the input others have given here, including of course my friendly nemesis Agustino.

It is not necessarily atheistic, as I see it, but neither is it 'religious' in the traditional sense of the word — Erik

Bingo. That's the 'sweet spot' right there, if philosophy is anything, it's that.

There was admittedly a time in my life when getting laid was the primary motivation of my actions. — Erik

This sounds strange - to me. There never was such a time in my life. I did see it in others, but I've never been that way. I've had other sins, or what you'd consider base desires, but certainly not this one. In a way it is strange. Given theism, I can see why one is overly concerned about sex. It's seen as a sacred, and special act of bonding with the beloved person. But given atheism, why? Just why? If sex is something that all the other animals do, and sex serves just reproduction, why "get laid" instead of say, masturbate? What's the easiest way, least likely way to bring about consequences, to get sexual pleasure? Masturbation right? So if all one cared about was sexual pleasure, why not become like the Japanese who don't have sex anymore? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex) Seriously, why would anyone in their right mind go after something that requires effort, that involves other people, that has multiple ways it can backfire in serious ways (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc), when they could just masturbate - especially given all the technological advances and sex toys that must be available today? If sexual pleasure is all one cares about it makes no sense - sure, sex can be somewhat better than masturbation (however I think technology may be catching up, which is why the Japanese, which are very much into technology - don't have it anymore!), but the marginal benefit, is never greater than the potential marginal cost. So Epicurus is right - it can be a very rational option, given atheism, to avoid sex at all costs - run away from it like monks run away from the plague! >:O And indeed - I have met quite a few atheists who have that attitude towards sex - and it's impossible to convince them otherwise (they're not interested in love - they think love is a disease, they're interested just in friendship with the opposite sex). They're harder to convince than theists.

For me, before I ever had a girlfriend, it was never about having sex, so much as it was about having other girls interested in me. Having a lot of girls interested in me always gave me choice, but I never exercised it until I got a girlfriend. I only got very much more interested in having sex once I had a girlfriend, but that was because I loved her. If that wasn't the case, probably I wouldn't have bothered.

I guess I could simplify my take on this as a contrast between practical and spiritual conservatism. I think the former is grounded in something much more precarious than the latter: I restrain my natural impulses out of fear of the possible consequences of my actions (shame, dissolution of my marriage through my wife's anger, STD's, unwanted children, bad for business and the like)--but I do so out of fear rather than out of the sublime sort of love that flows from a heart genuinely gripped by a firm faith in the inherent value of existence beyond it's brute materiality. Poorly articulated, perhaps, but that's the gist of it. — Erik

I am not so sure. I don't restrain my natural impulses out of fear at all. I simply understand what my natural impulses are aimed towards (and I seek with all my strength to satisfy that). I don't have a natural impulse just to have sex for example (and I would doubt you have such an impulse). I have a natural impulse to have sex in such and such a circumstance and with such and such a person. So there's no question of restraining anything. My natural impulses are what they are because of intelligence - not because of love nor fear for that matter.

What happens to you if you ever end up in a position where you morally fail? What if temptation overcomes you? For me, there's no excuse of temptation overcoming me. Either something is intelligent, or something isn't. If it's not, then I probably won't do it. If I still do it, then I've made a mistake. You must, on the other hand, have some "firm faith" in some inherent value of existence beyond brute materiality - if your faith is shaken, is it fair to say, as Spinoza put it, that I will see you return to your natural dispositions? :P And if so, aren't your natural dispositions the real you anyway, and everything else a mask - a projection of who you would rather be?

including of course my friendly nemesis Agustino. — Erik

8-)

So if all one cared about was sexual pleasure, why not become like the Japanese who don't have sex anymore? — Agustino

That report is false.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/yes-japanese-people-still-have-sex/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/23/are_japanese_people_really_having_less_sex_than_anyone_else.html

I only got very much more interested in having sex once I had a girlfriend, but that was because I loved her — Agustino

Love =//= sex.

Love =//= sex. — Thorongil

Not necessarily. That doesn't mean that love can't include sex.

One could argue that, certainly, but I would disagree.

but I would disagree. — Thorongil

Why?

I should think the onus is on you to defend the claim. I will simply say that sex is an amoral act, whereas an act of love is intrinsically moral.

I should think the onus is on you to defend the claim. I will simply say that sex is an amoral act, whereas an act of love is intrinsically moral. — Thorongil

Fine, if sex is an amoral act, there is nothing contradictory in sex occurring during love. However, there is something contradictory when sex occurs outside of love, because the intention is always to use someone else as a means to your own end - your own pleasure - rather than an end in itself.

there is nothing contradictory in sex occurring during love — Agustino

"During love" doesn't make any sense. If one is having sex, there isn't anything one is doing in addition to that. And one does it because it brings one pleasure. Again, however, there's nothing moral or salvific about obtaining pleasure.

"During love" doesn't make any sense. If one is having sex, there isn't anything one is doing in addition to that. — Thorongil

Replace "during love" with "while in love". Certainly sex doesn't occur in a vacuum and it occurs within the framework of the entire relationship that's going on between the two people in question.

This sounds strange - to me. There never was such a time in my life. I did see it in others, but I've never been that way. — Agustino

Maybe you're a bit low on the testosterone? People vary a lot in this regard. Look at poor old Augustine, the sex maniac!

The issue is more that it's frequently immoral to obtain pleasure because sex involves and interaction between two (or more) people. Without love (and I use that term sort loosely here), people are only interested in what they want, setting the stage for the abuse of others. Ethical sex (or perhaps avoiding unethical sex and the harm it causes people) always involves a deep concern for others.

Even causal sex, in a relationship which lasts no more than a night, needs "love" to be ethical. If it's not understood to be the mutual expression of people, it becomes destructive. People become content to use each other.

The idea sex is just "obtaining" pleasure is absurd. It's never just a presence of someone getting pleasure. By definition, it involves people who act towards each other, who care (hopefully) or do not care about other people. The atomism of sex exists only in pretence.

Maybe you're a bit low on the testosterone? — John

>:O Do you want to lend me some from your big sack then?

Even causal sex, in a relationship which lasts no more than a night, needs "love" to be ethical. If it's not understood to be the mutual expression of people, it becomes destructive. People become content to use each other. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Casual sex can't be ethical, because by default, by its very means of happening, it involves using the other as a means of obtaining pleasure. If you really cared about the other, you wouldn't forget about them the next day, and go on living your life as if they never existed.

The atomism of sex exists only in pretence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ehm... no, in practice, this is most often the case, for probably 99% of people, including, unfortunately, those who are married.

Aren't you assuming that I am highly sexed? I might be just like you. :P

In any case testosterone is not, as far as I am aware, fungible. :D

Aren't you assuming that I am highly sexed? — John

Yes, people have already been telling me about it!

In any case testosterone is not, as far as I am aware, fungible. :D — John

Ahhh, you want to keep it all for yourself - yes, I see, I understand how you're playing this ;)

For those who don't care about the other person, sure. This is not always the case. Sometimes casual sex is a mutual expression of a a short term desire. One doesn't forget about them the next day. The people involved just don't need to maintain a sexual or romantic relationship.

Ehm... no, in practice, this is most often the case, for probably 99% of people, including, unfortunately, those who are married. — Agustino

My point was the idea was an illusion. People who think sex is only the obtaining of pleasure are pretending. And, indeed, it is unfortunate.

Sometimes casual sex is a mutual expression of a a short term desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A short term desire cannot be love, love by its very nature is eternal. Thus, when sex is the result of whatever short-term desire you're talking about, it is merely another selfish act, which desires (temporary) possession of and pleasure from the other.

My point was the idea was an illusion. People who think sex is only the obtaining of pleasure are pretending. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But for most people sex is simply obtaining pleasure, or, in some cases, self-esteem. Many - perhaps most people - measure their self esteem by who they manage to have sex with or not. For most folk, sex is just some other activity one needs to do in order to be considered a good-standing human being, just like - I don't know - confessing your sins used to be considered an activity that everyone of good standing would engage in in the past. Most people, for example, can't even imagine there are people who aren't that interested in sex. They think people like me don't even exist! That's how ingrained it is in the cultural understanding - that life without sex is impossible. They cannot even think of themselves as existing without thinking of sex >:O and I just find that hilarious!

It's eternal. The expression of the one night when they were meant to have sex doesn't die because they don't continue a sexual relationship. Desire for each other may be shot-lived, but that doesn't take away the meaning of what happened.

Indeed, that's why it works. If a participant did desire an ongoing relationship, this eternal expression would be lost. Someone would be hurt badly and the night of casual sex would be unethical in one way or another.

But for most people sex is simply obtaining pleasure, or, in some cases, self-esteem. Many - perhaps most people - measure their self esteem by who they manage to have sex with or not. — Agustino

I think that's an image. People think and say that, but I don't think that's how most people behave. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people have sex for a social status, but they don't do it with just anyone. or everyone. Those people tend to try and possess particular people-- the attractive, the popular, the known, those people at the party or those they know will accept their advances.

In practice, the abusive don't just seek to obtain pleasure. They seek to obtain others, to possess and mislead ignore them, to obtain them for only their own benefit. I would say that the idea that these people are just trying to obtain pleasure is part of the atomistic pretence that sex is this isolated from everyone else.

You say such people are trying to obtain pleasures if it is all they are seeking. It's not. They are seeking to use, possess, mislead, ignore and hurt others. Put it this way, "just seeking pleasure" isn't really what is wrong with their actions. Or at the very least, it doesn't do justice to what's happening.

I think that's an image. People think and say that, but I don't think that's how most people behave — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's their intentions that matter more than behaviour. Their intentions - like worms - grow in their heart, and give birth to immorality. However, for most, their immorality is restrained by elements of decency they have learned to respect from society. Because they never question such norms, their immorality can never truly manifest itself completely in their behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people have sex for a social status, but they don't do it with just anyone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never claimed they did it with just anyone, and in fact, if they are seeking it for status, this is exactly what we would expect. (Maybe they'd be morally better [but still immoral] if they did it with anyone than if they did it for status with select few people actually)

Those people tend to try and possess particular people-- the attractive, the popular, the know, those people at the party or those they know will accept their advances. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes.

In practice, the abusive don't just seek to obtain pleasure. They seek to obtain others, to possess and mislead ignore them, to obtain them for only their own benefit. I would say that the idea that these people are just trying to obtain pleasure is part of the atomistic pretence that sex is this isolated from everyone else.

You say such people are trying to obtain pleasures if it is all they are seeking. It's not. They are seeking to use, possess, mislead, ignore and hurt others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What you're describing here is merely something that is more immoral and outrageous than the immorality that most people practice. But just because there are worse people out there, doesn't mean that what most people are doing is fine. It's like comparing killing a child, with hitting a child. Both are immoral - it's just that one immorality is worse than the other.

Why is it, in fact, more immoral and outrageous? Because there is even less love in it - they don't only want to gain pleasure from others - and hence use them as a means to an end - they want to humiliate them, deceive them, dominate them, and so forth. This means they want to gain pleasure from others' suffering, not merely to gain pleasure regardless of others' well-being.

If I care for someone, I cannot just care for them for the 30 minutes we're having sex for, or for just the night we have met. That's simply impossible, and I would be deceiving myself if I thought I care about them. I may appreciate them, I may find them interesting people, and so forth - but CARE about them? Impossible. If I actually care about them, then I will go on caring tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, and so forth. That's what caring means.

It's eternal. The expression of the one night when they were meant to have sex doesn't die because they don't continue a sexual relationship. Desire for each other may be shot-lived, but that doesn't take away the meaning of what happened.

Indeed, that's why it works. If a participant did desire an ongoing relationship, this eternal expression would be lost. Someone would be hurt badly and the night of casual sex would be unethical in one way or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not eternal if it ends. Nor do they intend for it to be eternal, which is the even bigger problem. And the idea that they were "meant to have sex" is nonsense. There was no destiny compelling them to do it. It's their own choices that led to it. Furthermore, the fact that both of them will be hurt is inevitable - anything which is lost, will be - sooner or later, perceived as a loss. And even if this isn't so - it would still be running a Russian Roulette. One never knows if they, or their partner, may actually fall in love and hence end up hurt badly.

Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why? — Agustino

I'd suggest that its because religion tends to precede atheism. I'd also suggest that individualism, closely related, also evolves late in the game. To conserve is apparently to halt what might be a sort of "natural" movement away from religion as technology and the division of labor requires the increased differentiation of individuals.

Look at poor old Augustine, the sex maniac! — John

Eh not by today's standards. In his day, sure old Augustine used to have lots of sex as a young man, but it was mostly (perhaps always) with the same woman.

That's reportedly true. But he was very attached to sexual desire, and it caused him a great deal of consternation. One who naturally has very little sexual desire to begin with certainly has less to struggle with.

it caused him a great deal of consternation — John

He had a very sensitive morality about him, not to mention that he was conflicted because of his mother's views of his relationship.

One who naturally has very little sexual desire to begin with certainly has less to struggle with. — John

I'm not sure because for me at least, I've found that sexual desire doesn't happen regardless of context - it's context dependent. Like I don't just have some vague sexual desire that makes no reference to a context in which it would occur, and latches itself on whatever person is present. I never had such a desire. After I broke up with my second girlfriend for example (because the first and the second were too close in time, so virtually no time in-between) - I did have sexual desire which troubled me, but it wasn't sexual desire in the sense of I just want to have sex. It was sexual desire in the sense of I want to have sex with a her who loves me and whom I love - not otherwise (and the "her" in question wasn't at the time any of my two previous girlfriends, they stood merely as symbols for her, or as Plato would say, as shadows for her - mere intimations). And that's in some regards more painful, because it can't be satisfied at any time and anywhere, and with just about anyone. I couldn't just find some girl and have sex with her, because that wouldn't do. So I spent quite a few months afterwards just languishing with little interest in anything else except finding someone to love and who would return my love at the same intensity. So it took me quite a bit of wrestling with that desire before I could subdue it and return to living peacefully. All in all, I don't think I've eradicated that desire - as Napoleon said, once one has tasted of romantic love, it's hard to give it up - it's there, only that it's dormant. It's the sleeping dragon as the Chinese say >:O

It's a funny thing, how much it used to trouble me, and how little it troubles me today. There is a certain growth of acceptance in there - that's I think most important, acceptance of your circumstances, and yet unyieldingly holding onto the desires of your heart. It's always the one who is prepared to walk away who closes the deal. And I've become like this in quite a lot of aspects of my life, whereas before I was impatient and wanted quick results. Now I want certain results, but not necessarily quick. Time is no longer a concern. Nor is achieving things a concern. To be on the certain path of achievement though - even if one never achieves, for whatever reason - that alone is sufficient. So nowadays, the question of sex rarely, if ever arises to my mind. I had one more girlfriend afterwards, and never even had sex with her, nor was interested in having it before marriage (to the point I had to refuse her). So the desire is quite context-sensitive for me, especially nowadays. In my experience, there is no blind desire for sex - so I find it a bit strange that others have a blind desire to have sex - for the sake of sex.

I confess I've always been suspicious of Confessions of the kind written by such as Augustine and Rousseau. Suspicious in the sense that that I suspect their confessions are exaggerated in certain respects, for rhetorical reasons or reasons less purposeful. Some of us take a weird delight in confessing our sins--mea maxima culpa as we were required to say when the Church was somewhat less jolly than It is today.

There's a kind of exhibitionism involved in it, I think. Also, I believe, a sort of perverse self-aggrandizement. "See how wicked I was, and now by the Grace of God and my own efforts and by acknowledging my sins, I'm the Bishop of Hippo!" I'd have found Coleridge's Ancient Mariner very annoying if he confronted me, especially if he did so while I was on the way to a wedding, and wouldn't have stayed to listen to his tale of sin and redemption.

It's not eternal if it ends. Nor do they intend for it to be eternal, which is the even bigger problem. And the idea that they were "meant to have sex" is nonsense. There was no destiny compelling them to do it. It's their own choices that led to it. Furthermore, the fact that both of them will be hurt is inevitable - anything which is lost, will be - sooner or later, perceived as a loss. And even if this isn't so - it would still be running a Russian Roulette. One never knows if they, or their partner, may actually fall in love and hence end up hurt badly. — Agustino

All relationships end in the sense of the world. Our lives are not eternal. Life-long love in the sense is only transfinite— a continuing series of finites states where two individuals are in a relationship. Here the eternal never appears. It’s in the expression of states that the eternal is found, in the meaning which cannot be overcome or destroyed within the passageof finite states. The eternity of a life-long relationship is not in lasting forever, but an expression of a particular series of states that end— a world of particular meaning.

An eternity, in this sense, is expressed all states. A night of passionate causal sex no less has a meaning that’s etched into the history of the world. It just involves different states. The difference between a life-long relationship and night of casual sex is not in eternity, but rather in the world. One is the existence of a sexual and/or romantic relationships across a life time, the latter is the existence of a sexual connection for a night. What matters to you here is not eternity, but trying sure only states of the former expression exist. You aren’t trying to defend the everlasting over the finite, but rather the existence of life-long relationships over any casual sex.

What you're describing here is merely something that is more immoral and outrageous than the immorality that most people practice. But just because there are worse people out there, doesn't mean that what most people are doing is fine. It's like comparing killing a child, with hitting a child. Both are immoral - it's just that one immorality is worse than the other.

Why is it, in fact, more immoral and outrageous? Because there is even less love in it - they don't only want to gain pleasure from others - and hence use them as a means to an end - they want to humiliate them, deceive them, dominate them, and so forth. This means they want to gain pleasure from others' suffering, not merely to gain pleasure regardless of others' well-being. — Agustino

'

My point was in ethics, there is no hierarchy. Sometimes actions do less damage or cost less, but that doesn’t affect their discrete ethical value. The young man intoxicated with the idea of picking at women, whose not make his intentions clear and is content to pray on the naive, has no less dome something he ought not have than the rapist— in ethical terms, he has and is trying to “abuse” another.

In terms of causal sex without love or care, to say “They are just trying to have sex” does not do what is happening justice. In the above example, the man is not just trying to have sex at all. He is trying to possess the woman he’s interested in, to do what he wants regardless of what she thinks or desires. To think that such a man is only trying to have sex is to ignore the dimensions of how that man thinks about others and the way he deliberately acts towards them.

As an understanding of sexual relationships, it is a sibling of “seeking sex is only question of someone getting pleasure.” Just as that terms sex only in terms of the sexual desire of the self, to use the description “it’s only about sex” reduces the motivation an action to merely a person sexual desire. It fails to talk about how the person acts and thinks towards others, as sex were somehow isolated in it’s own world. Sex is still treated as an individual status symbol (the self seeking to fulfil their sexual desire), rather than grasped as an action and value involving other people. I'm saying you a letting people off the hook for how they treat others here.

If I care for someone, I cannot just care for them for the 30 minutes we're having sex for, or for just the night we have met. That's simply impossible, and I would be deceiving myself if I thought I care about them. I may appreciate them, I may find them interesting people, and so forth - but CARE about them? Impossible. If I actually care about them, then I will go on caring tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, and so forth. That's what caring means. — Agustino

No doubt, but the critical question here is whether that involves having sex with them. I mean must you have sex someone to care about them? Is it impossible to care for a woman without having sex with her? You appear to hold the position that if someone has sex with someone, then they must continue to do so for the rest of their life, if they are to care for them.

Suffice to say, your insistence you don’t care about sex is a pretence. You understanding it as an all consuming component of status. So much so much so that, if people have sex, they are bound to having sex for life, or else have no care for each other. The horndog holds their status depends on getting sex from others, you set your status by continuing to get sex from someone. For you the question of caring is not one of thinking about others, what they think and feel and what matters to them. Rather, it’s about maintaining your status of having a lifelong sexual relationship.

Could you care about the woman you fell into bed with in a night of passion? Only if you keep having sex with her, you say.

It's their intentions that matter more than behaviour. Their intentions - like worms - grow in their heart, and give birth to immorality. However, for most, their immorality is restrained by elements of decency they have learned to respect from society. Because they never question such norms, their immorality can never truly manifest itself completely in their behaviour. — Agustino

This is Erik’s argument that you (correctly) called out as not even worth considering in the context of ethical reasoning. Supposedly, people possess this “natural” inclination (intention) which means they are pre-determined to act immorally unless held back by a threat of rule. The spectre of original sin, which doesn’t take into account what sins are actually committed (that would be behaviour), but creates this image that one has sin irrespective of their behaviour, as if our choices and actions had nothing to do with acting immorally. Like Erik was, you are approaching ethics in terms of an image. You’ve imagined what humans supposedly are without reference to their behaviour and taken choice, responsibility and description out of the equation.