It was suggested (http://www.amherst.edu/questions/1368/) that, among other criteria, an incestuous couple would have to be infertile in order for their relationship to be considered morally permissible. This is presumably because inbreeding allows for the heightened expression of recessive, deleterious genes. What is the significant difference, however, between an incestuous couple, and a couple of unrelated individuals both of whom have family histories (i.e., genetic predispositions) to chronic illnesses?

Is homosexuality ethical? If so, what differentiates it from incest? More specifically an infertile incestual relationship that has two consenting adults.

Why does society consider it moral (as embodied in its laws) for a 60 year old man to be in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old girl, but considers it immoral for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl? Isn't that just ridiculous?!

Hello, I am just a concerned college student. I have read the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant and I am particularly convinced by Kant's Humanity as an End formulation. On this formulation, I refuse to randomly hook-up with girls at fraternity parties because I believe that would amount to using (and letting myself be used) merely as means and not as an end, which would violate the dignity of being a human. For the same reason, I deny to dabble in any sort of sexual contact unless I have a flourishing relationship with the person. My question is: Am I interpreting Kant in the right way? That is to say, does sexual contact of any sort or intensity (i.e. from making out to sexual intercourse) without a relationship amount to using someone as merely means?

Concerning the question about a definition of rape answered by Nicholas D. Smith and Alan Soble (http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/768), I have the following comment/questions. In all *legal* definitions of rape that I have seen, the main point of argument is not whether or not "sex" (which can generally be defined as a whole range of conduct outside of intercourse) was "wanted" or even "consented to" (as was inferred in the previous posting), but rather, whether or not specifically "penetration" (i.e. invasion of any bodily orifice by a foreign object) was "forced" against a person's "will". I don't see how there could be any argument here, though certain pedants might squabble over an acceptable generalized definition of "will". Here is my concern: I was attacked by a stranger who broke into my apartment late at night and roused me from sleep. He punched me in the face a couple of times, then placed my pillow over my face and threatened to smother me to death if I didn't cooperate with...

Was I morally correct in asking my (now) ex-wife to delay the divorce which she had initiated, in order to retain her much needed health insurance under my employer, until she had obtained such on her own? Or was she correct in her assertion that it would have been morally incorrect for her remain married to me, regardless of her health needs, due to the example shown to our children when she was meeting and dating others?

If someone (person A) was put into the position to consider someone (person B) as a possible romantic interest, is it ethical to consider person B's lack of physical attractiveness a kind of automatic off/no switch for person A's consideration? - Michael f

In Western culture, polygamy is generally considered immoral. Is there sufficient justification for this classification? Can it honestly be said that polygamy is wrong? I don't only mean one man/many wives but all the various possible arrangements of multiple partners, for instance one woman/multiple husbands, multiple husbands/multiple wives, etc.... There are some economic advantages to multiple adult partners living together. Take for example a situation where a man has two wives. The man works and so does one of the women. You now have a dual income household. The second woman does not work, but instead stays home and cares for any children and housekeeping duties. What would normally fall on one woman (working, housekeeping and child-rearing) is divided between two. It is assumed that all parties are consenting adults who consider themselves equal to one another. This has the added advantage of reducing the child day care costs so often frustrating for households with just two parents who...

Hello, I would like to ask a question about ethics involved when nudity is permitted in public places. I live in Sydney, Australia. At one of the most popular beaches here (which hosts tens of thousands of people per day and is freely available to anyone who wishes to go there), a man was arrested and fined $500. This was punishment because he had been on the beach with a camera, surreptitiously photographing women who were lying on the sand, with no tops on. He was discreet such that almost none knew at the time that he had photographed them - after they apprehended him, police went around with his camera, identifying people and approaching them with the images in hand. Many people using this beach choose to sunbathe disrobed, of their own free will. The man admitted that his actions were intended to further his own sexual gratification. Although I think the man's behaviour was in poor taste, using others as mere means to his own selfish ends, on consideration I cannot see why it should be held...

'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?