Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6057839" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=6667464]Aurondarklord[/MENTION], I mentioned to philosophers - Finnis and Dworkin - who don't begin their discussion of sex from the proprosition either that it is sacred or that it is evil.I'm conscious of board rules, and don't want to break them. But here's another way in via a bit of a tangent. Karl Marx denies that labour is a commodity, but does not think that labour is either sacred or evil. Rather, this characteric of labour is (according to Marx) a consequence of the role of labour in expressing the fundamentally creative nature of both the individual human being, and the species as a whole.Most people who think that sex is not a commodity are going to begin from some comparable area of reasoning (like Finnis, Marx's reasoning is influenced by natural law ideas; and like other radical feminists, Dworkin is influenced by Marxist theories of exploitation; so the resemblances here in patterns of argument are not coincidental).As I said upthread, you may not agree with those who say that sex is not a commodity. I haven't indicated whether or not I agree with them (and don't intend to). But the position is a fairly standard one, and (as I also said upthread) I'm not surprised that the Book of Exalted Deeds tends to take it for granted.</blockquote>