 Hello everyone. Today we will talk about in the section of applied ethics about this notion of sexuality. Now, when we have talked about ethics and about various philosophical way of looking at morals, their foundations, we have discovered that there are many theories and ways of decision making. Then we came out to see how or do these theories get applied in day to day lives. How are decisions, how human beings make decisions and consciously or not so, they are dependent upon the theories that we implicitly or explicitly assume. Today we will talk about an issue which is considered immensely moral by a large majority of people which is the issue of sexuality and that is why it also brings about the notions of taboo and there are perhaps in most cultures there are do's and don'ts about sexuality which are, which do not originate perhaps from the physicality of sexuality, but from the morality associated around sexuality. We will primarily look at, I will recommend you to go through these two say that is recommended to have a preliminary understanding of the issues that we are talking about of course, this does not, today's session is not limited to these articles, but these two pieces will definitely give you a very good idea about what we are talking about. Now, the first one is Vincent C. Punzo's morality and human sexuality. It is a part of reflective naturalism. These and the second one is Alan H. Goldman's plain sex or published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1977. The first one, Vincent P. Punzo proposes a non-reductionist view of sexuality and Alan Goldman proposes a reductionist view of sexuality and you can guess it from the name when it calls it, when Goldman calls it plain sex and Punzo of course talks about morality and human sexuality. If you are institution or if you are subscribed to Jester you will also be able to find the second article on Jester and both these articles should be freely available on the internet if you search them out. So, my citations are primarily to these two articles, however they are not limited to these two pieces. They are also an expression of my views and my understanding of the subject. Now, sexuality has been very strongly connected to morality in most cultures. Perhaps it is a single natural function surrounded and most moral dictates. So, we find that we have many natural functions regarding eating, various natural functions that we perform as physical beings and of course all of them confront or are surrounded with behavior restrictions from which may be termed from etiquettes to moral guidelines, but sexuality in particular perhaps in most cultures is the single most is the natural function that single natural function that confronts the most moral dictates. So, to start with we need to analyze this notion that what is this notion of sexuality, how we conceive this notion crucially determines our moral opinions on the issue. We shall proceed in these exercise in this exercise from two perspectives, the reductionist and the non-reductionist view. Now, considering sexuality laying the background there, let me say we make judgments about people, we make judgments about relationships, we make judgments about dressing, about so many things that surround sexuality. Let us start with a few examples that what is it that makes sexuality of moral issue and why is it that so many morals confront it and how is it that we find various decision making and various questions surrounding this domain of sexuality. Let us think of some of the sexual debates of our times. If you are coming from more conservative societies you would find that the way men and women dress and how physically revealing it is seems to be an objectionable matter because it seems to exhibit sexual intent. If you are coming from more liberal societies it still does not mean that you are away from sexuality because then it performs, it comes around in various other forms say what should be a legal stand on homosexuality, whether homosexuality is something which needs to be legislated out or which seems to be legislated in. What about this institution of marriage? Why is monogamy necessarily also tied up with fidelity? Why is sexuality with more than one partner's moral dilemma? What does the act of sexuality convey? There are various problems on the surface that appear but which all crucially boil down to how we conceptualize sexuality and sex. How do we conceive or what do we understand that sexuality entails? Let us think of more problems and I am sure you can come up with even more problems from your immediate environment or from a more global perspective. What kind of clothes young people should wear? What kind of time young people should spend with each other? What is the level of intimacy? Is sexuality a measure of intimacy or does intimacy or any sexuality or any act of sex that does not correspond to intimacy? Does it make it tabooed or something morally incorrect with it? Let us think of more examples. Let us think of does human emotive abilities connect with this physicality that we have around sexuality as human beings? How far should sexuality govern the interaction between people? It varies in various perspectives that what kind of clothes people should wear, what kind of intimacy people should display, what kind of intimacy people should have, what kind of intimacy people should display in public and various other issues that surround the core area of sexuality. We find that there can be so many problems that arise around sexuality and legislations that take place according. In India recently homosexuality was decriminalized and then again the Supreme Court made a judgment that well it debunking the decriminalization dictated from the lower courts. So, this is again when we have legislation around this. I wish that we all lived in our own universes and where others views did not matter to us, but we do have shared space and that is what brings about the need for discussion on morality and ethics because we need to develop a consensus because we live in a shared space. So, over the various lectures on ethics that we have had, one thing perhaps crucially comes out that we need to engage in a debate to come around to as far a resolution as possible on whatever grounds we can arrive at them because we live in a shared space and the shared space entails absolute plurality of behavior as not permissible, not even logically permissible. Thereof there is a need to have a streamlining of permissible versus non permissible behavior. So, now let us come to analyzing this notion of sexuality that we talked about. We have talked about if you look at the slide we will see that what we have talked about right now is that sexuality is strongly connected to morality in most cultures and we will begin with an analysis of this notion. Now there is something, there is nothing new about it that philosophers can add, but of course it even we analyze this from a distance or from a philosophical perspective there are perhaps many of our hidden presuppositions and assumptions that are unknown to us which do surface when we engage in this activity of explicit analysis of this notion of sex and sexuality. So, because we start with the analysis of this notion of sexuality because this determines what kind of opinions we have on the issues. So, we shall proceed in this exercise from two perspective, the reductionist and the non reductionist view. Now we will start with the reductionist view before that a quick take on what is reductionism. In various contexts we have talked about reductionism and non reductionism which are philosophical positions about various phenomena. So, when we talk about as perhaps many of you would guess that reductionism is the act of reducing one phenomena in terms of the other without loss of meaning and non reductionism is perhaps is granting atomicity or axiomatic foundation to one phenomena which may be correlated with another phenomena, but which definitely cannot be understood in terms of the other phenomena with out loss of meaning. So, we can in example a classical example of reduction would be that well we can understand the color green as a certain wavelength, but the color green cannot be reduced to certain wavelength because when we talk about the wavelength we leave about qualia or the perceptual feel of color that we have. So, for the reductionist about an issue, the reductionist would like to understand an issue in terms of another baser and more fundamental phenomena which will be which will completely explain the other phenomena without any loss of meaning. So, simplifying it reducing it into building blocks whereas, the non reductionist would claim that well we cannot do such a reduction without the loss of meaning. We can have a correlation we say a non reductionist about the mind would say that we can correlate mental phenomena to the neural or physical activities in the brain or the nervous system, but we cannot reduce mental activities to brain activities without loss of meaning. So, there may be a correlation that yes every time when I get angry a certain part of my brain gets fired up, but my getting angry is not the same thing as the brain firing up or that portion of the brain firing up only when I get angry is something more than that portion of my brain firing up. It is that perceptual feel that cannot be understood or cannot comprehend in terms of that particular region of the brain firing up. So, this is basically the difference between reductionism and non reductionist on a metaethical theory when we talked about metaethics we also dealt upon, we dealt on how values were attempted to be reduced to facts and possibilities where values were non reducible and definitely not reducible to facts. Say for the utilitarian all values would were reducible to anything that promotes happiness or well-being of mankind which is a more empirical and physically measurable phenomena than say holding a value as intrinsically good because not because of its physical or perceivable consequences. So, non reductionist about values would say that well certain things are valuable in themselves and there we cannot reduce them to any further domain we cannot reduce them to facts at least to comprehend its meaning. So, a non reductionist about values would say that well if I follow my if I follow the principles of justice it may lead to welfare of the society but which is a fact but welfare of society is not the fundamental reason for pursuing justice and justice by itself perhaps has a an intuitive appeal which is not limited to the welfare that it brings along because there can be perceivable cases where even or there can be imaginable cases where the welfare of the society is not brought about by following principles of justice but again the reductionist would on the other hand argue that well considering a short term view or a long term view there can be a variation in the that values do ultimately reduce to a fact. So, these are two sides of a debate and perhaps to understand sexuality we will start with the these two perspectives on sexuality. So, now coming to the reductionist view as you see on the slide we talk about Goldman would be the classic case we take of sexuality in the reductionist sense. Goldman points out about the means and analysis of sexuality which views sexuality as the means to various hands to reproduce to love to communicate to express commitment and various other means. Now this kind of a means and end analysis ignores granting any force to the primal desire for physicality often referred as the animality animality of sex reaction so various trains may or may not ignore the above ascribed ends but are unanimous in granting the physicality component of sex as an undeniable motivation and unapologetically so. So what is Goldman saying over here? Well Goldman is trying to conceptualize that what do we consider or conceptually analyze this notion of sexuality. Now conventionally Goldman points out that we find that sexuality and sex undergo a means and analysis. So sex is never as an end in itself but is a means to something. It is a means to communicate with a partner, it is a means to convey affection, it is a means to love to express commitment, of course it is a means to reproduce also. So these seem to be the end for which sexuality is the means. Now this kind of a means and analysis where sexuality is seen as a means to various ends seems to leave out or underestimate if not leave out the primal physical component of sexuality that the pleasure emanating out of the act of sex is a fundamental motivation for sexuality seems to be left out by such a means and analysis. Now this is nothing new and this is nothing revelatory but this is trying to analyze why do we have so many moral notions around sexuality. Now for Goldman this kind of a and as he rightly titles his paper as plain sex he says that well this kind of means and analysis eliminates the immediate physicality or the animality as many would refer to of sexuality and this is as seen in the last bullet in the slide is this is what the reduction is argue against that well there may be many offshoots of sexuality which could include reproduction and to love to communicate to express commitment but fundamentally it is a physical act and the pleasure emanating out of it is the fundamental undeniable motivation and there is nothing to be apologetic about it. So reductionist of various trains except the effects may or may not except the ascribed above ascribed ends but what they are unanimous is that granting in granting the physicality component of sexuality as an undeniable motivation and unapologetically so. So now let us look at the argument what does the reductionist argue about the reductionist argues well for one conventionally all the ascribed ends to sex are taken as the rightful motivation for sex and anything else particularly physicality is considered as perversion. Now it is to be noted that well when it is mentioned that anything else apart from these ascribed ends is considered as a perversion. Now to the reductionist objects to this conventional conceptualization that the fundamental motivation is not only ignored in such a conceptualization but is also wrongly wronged. So that there is this big error that is being made in conceptualizing sexuality as a means to whatever ends as ascribed in the earlier slide at the cost of arguing out sexuality, arguing out the physicality of sexuality. So what the reductionist is trying to say that sexual desire is essentially a desire for sexual contact and the pleasure emanating thereof and ignoring this is a fundamental error in conceptualization. Now this is a very strong reductionist argument about sexuality that sexuality is fundamentally and ultimately physical and the pleasure emanating out of it is the primary and fundamental and the ultimate motivation of it. Now if you notice the entire taboo and the moral dilemmas and dictates and the entire plethora of moral engagement around morality depends on this fundamental conceptualization that we have that is sexuality, a physical act and nothing else or it is everything else and by the way it is also a physical act with physical pleasure coming in. So more Victorian morality would offer would consider sexuality as sin as especially when it is beyond the rules of the or established rules or custom of the social domain. Now sex and sin go together very often. So for the reductionist the reductionist brings back the physical element to sexuality and tries to explicate that well foundationally and fundamentally sexuality is physicality and it is a physical act and desired for the pleasure that comes out from it. Now if this is so now imagine this answers takes new direction or not new direction in the sense that it has not been taken before but this takes a different direction from established customs and moral flames about it that ultimately is it is coming on it hinges upon the libertarian principle that as long as nobody else is harmed it does not matter what kind of act it is and society or governance or politics has no business in entering into an act between people. Now for the reductionist what are the claims that we can see that come off that we can what the reductionist is saying what the reductionist is definitely not saying that sexuality is only a physical act for physical purposes as many would perhaps uncharitably condemn the reductionist. But what the reductionist is saying that sexuality is essentially a physical act and you may choose it to portray the various supposed beauties of human life of human associations of communication of love of affection you may choose it as an instrument to communicate so many things you may choose it as an instrument for love you may choose it as an instrument for various other supposedly higher ascribed ideals. But it nevertheless is foundationally fundamentally sexual or physical and that it cannot be done away with and we need to take into account that before we put this act in an give it a moral color to this. So, the extreme reductionist could of course come and say that well there is no business of any value assignment or value assessment on this particular issue that morality is that sexuality is definitely and fundamentally a sexual issue physical issue sorry and thereof it does not at all come in the domain of morality and what you may think or what society may propose is just a subjective value creation around sexuality. It is interesting to see how issues are intertwined together because this I understand it is also as a conflict between the two versions of liberty of freedom as positive liberty and negative liberty that well for from the non reductionist perspectives which we will talk about later in detail. But that justifies or that tries to explain that there are values surrounding sexuality and we must educate and guide our generations through these well trodden paths for them to realize the full beauty of life and the association that they have together. So, the non reductionist on the other hand would like to say especially the one who is very firm about the moral component of sexuality is that we need like positive liberty we need to get people to go to them into rules or these customs around sexuality so that they can reach the full potential and celebrate or reach the higher ideal which they would perhaps not ordinarily reach if negative liberty would be followed where they would say that it is our fundamental drive and if we are not cultured or cultivated into it we collapse into the default mode that is in us. Let me repeat an example which I have perhaps given in one of the earlier lectures that the positive liberty areas say that well freedom about anything say even about sexuality as I given analogy with depends on how one is cultured to appreciate it. The classical analogy of the example that I am referring to is one I talked about classical music. So, unless one is trained in the syntax of classical music perhaps one cannot enjoy classical music. Now, if I were following negative liberty I would say that well let me play a piece of classical music versus a piece of popular music to the untrained listener perhaps most often it will be the popular music that would appeal rather than the classical music. Now, the negative libertarians would say that well the final choices with the individual and let the individual choose. The positive libertarians on the other hand would say that well if I if we do not cultivate or we do not enlighten a listener about the nuances and the syntax of the grammar of classical music it is simply unfair for the listener to make an informed choice between the two pieces of music played. The popular music is bound to appeal more to the untrained listener. So, positive liberty would say that we need to culture and certain or we need to train the listener which does involve an infringement of the listener's liberty, but which ultimately makes the listener make an informed choice. So, basically many moral and philosophical issues can be understood under this great division between positive liberty and negative liberty. So, sexuality could be one further instance because the non reductionist would say that to not goad people by into moral customs around sexuality we allow the default mode in us which is essentially biological to overrule us or to take over and till we do not this default mode would given negative liberty would take over and one would perhaps not benefit from the wisdom of the ages. So, the positive libertarians on the other hand would say that we need these moral customs around sexuality or anything for that matter to let us reach the epitome of sexuality or any act for that matter. So, this is how of course we can understand the debate between the reductionist and the non reductionist between the ones who affirm positive liberty which says that well to realize freedom one needs to surrenders one's freedom at the beginning to evolve to learn and then to realize one's freedom whereas negative liberty would perhaps argue for freedom right at the beginning and that the individual is rational enough to choose that to surrender his or her own freedom to reach that level. So, this essentially brings about the dilemma between these two strains of thinking of positive liberty, negative liberty of reductionism and non reductionism. So, for now when we are trying to understand reductionism or the reductionist view of sexuality we see point number 3 that sexual desire is essentially a desire for sexual contact and the immediate pleasure emanating thereof and ignoring this is a fundamental error in conceptualization. Let us look at some other features of if you read the slide right now let us look at some other features of the reductionist view of sexuality. It says it talks about physical acts and the role that is not a day that is the role they play in survival. So, just as hunger plays a role in nourishment. So, this is contiguous with the understanding that sex as a pleasurable for evolutionary reason or for furthering species. A desire for sex is not the same as the desire for reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestation that it has become. Self-consciousness and technology bring in choice. We will talk about the last issue later, but let us just take the first three points together. There seems to be quite a popular theory or a popular belief that sex is required for reproduction and evolution of or for the transmission of species and for species to grow and propagate and that is why this intense physical desire has been as a part of our biological makeup. But, for the reductionist here he would perhaps not like to succumb to this argument that the physicality of sexuality is only because of reproduction. Because continuing with the means and analysis the reductionist did say that well these are perhaps the various ends that sexuality serves, but it is definitely not confined to these ends as the motivation for sexuality and it could be intrinsically valuable because of the pleasure it emanates. So, things like that the popular evolutionary example, if you look at the slide the second issue, the popular evolutionary example or evolutionary reason given for furthering species that is evolutionary reason for sexuality is simply because in order to further species. Now, for the reductionist if you look at the third issue it is the desire for the sex, desire for sex is not the same as desire for reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestations manifestation that it has become. Now, there are many manifestations about psychology, there are many psychological manifestations about sexuality and that seem to become the ends for which sexuality is serves as means, but the reductionist makes a clear distinction that well the desire for sex is not the same as the desire for any of these be it the biological or evolutionary reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestation that it has become. So, this is making a clear epistemological difference between the desire for sex itself and the desire and all the other consequences that come along with it. Now, coming to it on a little further note when the last point raises in the slide that self-consciousness and technology bring in choice and more to choose from social and moral revelation finds its roots here. So, if you look at this well this is a crucial issue that or a shift that is being made that well the very fact that human beings are as a form of entity in this world are unique because of their ability to be self-aware and this self-awareness clubbed with technology is able to wedge these supposed ends to sexuality from the very act itself that it is no more required that reproduction necessarily follows from sexuality. So, this is the choice that technology has brought in with various forms of contraception and self-consciousness gives us this choice to choose the technology and to choose what we ought to do in this domain and this is where social and moral regulation come in and they find the roots here because of the implications of being self-aware and also having the technology to separate these supposed ends from the means as the means and analysis holds it. Now, it is in this space that is created that religion intervenes in this choice and choosing that primarily self-awareness and secondarily technology entail the premise being that the above two that is the choice and the ability to choose or the spread of the choice or the end the ability to choose allow for enormous exhaustion of our natural appetites which is ultimately detrimental. Now, that is the contestation here. So, when very often when religious and moral institutions or proponents of religious and moral dictates attack the reductionist using their own tools of empirical or scientific evidence they would claim that in a newer scenario in a scenario when human beings are self-aware primarily and secondly the technology has entailed the ability of separating the means from the ends and the ends are of regarding sexuality and the ends regarding sexuality are not a necessarily do not necessarily follow from the means that is when we have an element of choice and widespread to choose from. Self-awareness giving the power of choice is perhaps longer ability with the human race and technology may be over the past two or three centuries has enabled or has enhanced the spread of choice in this field. So, these two factors being combined there seems to be a possibility of enormous exhaustion of our natural appetites which is ultimately detrimental and that is the contestation. If you would find that many enthusiasts would perhaps analyze that well we now produce more food than what we need to have and we have the ability to enjoy food as a delicacy or as a aesthetic desire rather than for nourishment and primarily the aim of hunger was to ask the animal in us to consume food to nourish its own self. But this hunger and the pleasure that this hunger and the pleasure that came out of the satiation of which is now abused because of one of our self-awareness and now and secondarily as technology or as affluence enables for us to have a wide choice and this leads us to emphasize on the means which was just a signal for getting a nourishment into the creature now becomes a source of pleasure and therefore keeps on repeating and therefore chronic problems of medical problems regarding the excesses of food consumption do come into existence. Now that is what is contested that many enthusiasts would find the justification from this perspective. Religious regulation of sexuality finds its authority in such an appeal a case of positive liberty, goading individuals via moral dictates away from excesses and its eventual detrimental consequences. So, this is where religious regulation of sexuality comes into being that it seems to be a paradigm case of positive liberty where because of the possibility of self-awareness and the enormous possibility from technology we can have the act without what were earlier considered as essential consequences of it and therefore there tends to be tendency to slide into excesses of this and which perhaps it has been shown to be eventually detrimental in its consequences. But again now for the reductionist well that would be an abuse of any natural appetite that we have and the responsibility for it rests with the person himself or herself. Now let us look at another commonly held view which the reductionist attacks that well sex has communication or the vehicle of love. Now this is an often eulogized feature of sex that seeks to be the very goal of it and anything bereft of this is alleged meaningless. So the reductionist would dispute this dismissal or downgrading of the physical pleasure component of sex meaning cannot be lost on eliminating the communicative function. If there is no communicative function the much eulogized communicative function of feature of sexuality that has turned out or as the reductionist's alleged that it turns out that this seems to be seen as the goal of it and that when communication is lost meaning is lost in that function. So that is where the reductionist disagrees and of course and as an exception and the reductionist often sides that love can be communicated in various other ways thus what philosophically the reductionist would like to establish is that love commitment loyalty are ontologically distinct from sex or sexuality and having this clear distinction does away with many troubles. In fact the last point very clearly communicates the philosophical stand point of the reductionist about sexuality citing the independence of these notions and the troubles and the moralization of sexuality occurs because we fail to make this distinction between love commitment loyalty and other such values and sexuality and this distinction is the source of many troubles. So well finally what is the reductionist saying let us bullet it point by point well for one the reductionist is arguing against any exclusively moral categorization of sexuality sexuality is as much and only as much in the purview of morality as any human interaction is nothing exclusive because of the nature of it. So it is definitely not that the reductionist is claiming that sexuality is beyond the purview of morality but what the reductionist is simply saying is that sexuality is only in the purview of morality by the nature of it being a human interaction and nothing not in the purview or not peculiarly in any peculiar purview of morality because of the nature of it. So a common retort to this has been by making people who oppose reductionist would like to claim that well what about sexual offenses they seem to be immoral and they are immoral and what is the justification of it but then the answer for this is very clear from the philosophical understanding that the reductionist propagates. In the second point it said that sexual offenses are offenses only because of the deceit coercion and violence in it there being sexual is a mere coincidence and this in no way affects the moral status of the actor offense. So any sexual offense is immoral not because it is sexual but because of the other value components in it. So a rape is immoral because it is an act of unauthorized violation of a person's body, it is an act of violence, it is an act of coercion, it is an act against somebody's will and thereby it is immoral and thereby it entails the consequences that it does. So but that it is sexual does not alter the moral standing of the actor offense and this is a crucial claim that the reductionist would make. So now going ahead this view contests many of the established views on morality governing sexuality. For instance there is no justification and this is how the third point brings about consequences of such a reductionist worldview that well we do not do away with morals regarding sexuality but there is nothing what it just goes on as a consequence of the ontology of difference between sexuality and other values is that there is nothing peculiarly moral about sexual acts by their being sexual. They are moral only by their being human by their being acts of human interaction. So what are the consequences that follow from this? Now the consequences that follow from this is that well the established views on morality or established views governing sexuality for instance there is no justification to associate fidelity with sexuality unless it is voluntarily agreed to. So this is a crucial conclusion that or a consequence of the claim by the reductionist. When the reductionist makes a claim that well when a court of law holds fidelity as or infidelity as a violation of commitment and therefore punishable or cognizable it is following the reductionist argument it is cognizable only if it has been an explicit mutual agreement between the partners and then it has been violated but if it is not and it is thereby just the reason that violation of any contract is punishable because all the parties in a contract mutually agreed to such an arrangement. So infidelity is something wrong only because or only if all the partners have agreed to it. So if all the partners have not agreed to pursuing fidelity then it does not automatically become incorrect. So associating loyalty with fidelity seems to be the failure to make or the ontological distinction between values like loyalty and commitment with sexuality. Now if you look further consequences of this we would see that confusing love with sex brings forth many unnecessarily many unnecessary unnatural and unjustified dilemmas. So in fact the entire idea of the Victorian ethos can be very well traced to this failure to make this distinction between what according to the reductionist are apparently very clear and distinct concepts. The concepts of loyalty, commitment and values like this versus the physical sexuality. So not being able to make this difference brings about many unnecessary unnatural and unjustified dilemmas. Reductionism about sexuality is not the same as reducing love. Now however making these claims it is not unexpected that many of us would perhaps feel strongly about reductionism as being something which is reducing human interaction to a pithy state. Well definitely know what reductionism about sexuality is saying is that sexuality is physical and that is it. It is not saying this it is not attempting to reduce love or the various other values of commitment and human interaction. The argument herewith only make sexuality independent of certain other values. So unless the agents themselves choose to associate them. So that this central point needs to be read carefully the second bullet that because it conveys the ethos or the philosophy to claim of reductionism about sexuality. So it is definitely not reducing any other values. What it says is that sexuality is sexuality and nothing else and associating anything else with sexuality is a matter of choice of the agents themselves. But intrinsically there is nothing associated with sexuality and making this or going further to the next point when a prolonged history of the majority making this above mentioned association may have led to this conceptual binding of what has been shown to be independent concepts. Continuing to hold this unjustified conceptual binding simply leads to unjustified moral judgments. So as I conclude from what comes from the reductionist view that well sexuality and other values are ontologically distinct. But we have a prolonged history for the majority of humankind making this above association. And this association or this conceptual binding of which what has been shown by the reductionist as independent concepts leads to unjustified moral judgments simply because the majority have been associating sexuality with morality. And that does not entail that we can always do this for everyone and as long as people choose to associate it with it they are welcome to do so. But finding an intrinsic association with the two domains of morality and sexuality and thereby making binding on everybody else is an unjustified moral judgment. So the pleasure well on a final note when the reductionist puts out well which is if we tend to have a view that well perhaps the reductionist is over emphasizing the importance of sexuality and under emphasizing the importance of human relations then we have misunderstood the reductionist. The reductionist equally cherishes the values of what may be called the higher values of human interaction. What the reductionist only does is that she or he separates the conceptual binding the unjustified conceptual binding between these higher values that we call on one hand and sexuality on the other hand. So we can have a sexual domain which is immoral which does not intrinsically connect with any other values. However if the agents choose to associate the two that is the agents choice and if it is mutually agreed to and then there is a violation of course that is immoral because it is a violation of human mutuality which was previously agreed upon and that is why it is a violation. Again the reductionist does not overemphasize the importance of sexuality if you look at the last but one point made over here that the pleasure associated with sexuality is non-cumulative and that is a reason why it cannot be held as a lasting value for a lifetime. Now these are Goldman's views and Goldman does temper down reductionism which may seem to have an air of overemphasis on sexuality. He does tone it down by saying that well the pleasure associated with sexuality is non-cumulative and repetitive and that is why it is a reason that it cannot be of lasting value for a lifetime and thus perhaps a feeble component of the good life. So Goldman does admit that without any compromise in his position of reductionism that the pleasure associated with sexuality is definitely non-cumulative and thereby it is not of a lasting value and thus perhaps does not necessarily associate itself with the component of good life. So this is perhaps a rational look at what a reductionistic or any view of sexuality or the physical component of sexuality takes in the larger domain of the good life. So as Goldman finally claims that sex affords us a paradigm of pleasure but not a cornerstone of value. So well yes Goldman does admit that well sexuality is definitely not of the kind of value that perhaps other human values like loyalty and friendship and commitment are. In fact sexuality is not a value at all and therefore we can what even Goldman would agree on a meaningful life or a value rich life would necessarily not include the pleasures of sexuality because they do not seem to contribute. In fact by making sexuality physical Goldman is doing away with any value implications for better or for worse for the domain of sexuality. So sexuality is no more being seen as a supreme value that adds to the good life rather it is being seen as a source of pleasure which does not add in the cumulation of a good life. So it is as he says by saying that it does afford us a paradigm of pleasure but it is definitely not a cornerstone of value. Now we come to the non reductionist view of sexuality.