The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
She would love to feel his body next to hers. She would love his hands all over her body. She had lost all need to use the toilet. She felt only the tingling electric greatness of a sexual yearning she had never felt, never allowed herself to feel. And she wanted to feel it. But she had to protect him from her dirty past; she couldn’t tell him about her herpes. Not now. Not ever. He was leaving tomorrow. What a horrible gift to attach to him and to send home with him to his love. He would hate her forever.
(Location 332 - Kindle Version)
A prostitute suddenly feels bad for the potential risk of her partner getting a STD from her, simply because he cares for her. But in the past she has slept with countless men and sent them home to their wives, probably with her illness.
Can this be an act of 'new-found' morality? Or is it merely a selfish thought? Or is it a way of repaying? What are your thoughts on this dilemma?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
She would love to feel his body next to hers. She would love his hands all over her body. She had lost all need to use the toilet. She felt only the tingling electric greatness of a sexual yearning she had never felt, never allowed herself to feel. And she wanted to feel it. But she had to protect him from her dirty past; she couldn’t tell him about her herpes. Not now. Not ever. He was leaving tomorrow. What a horrible gift to attach to him and to send home with him to his love. He would hate her forever.
(Location 332 - Kindle Version)
A prostitute suddenly feels bad for the potential risk of her partner getting a STD from her, simply because he cares for her. But in the past she has slept with countless men and sent them home to their wives, probably with her illness.
Can this be an act of 'new-found' morality? Or is it merely a selfish thought? Or is it a way of repaying? What are your thoughts on this dilemma?
Well let's be clear about what is happening, then an accurate evaluation can be made. What's going on is a momentary lapse in a previous rationalization of an unethical choice in behavior.
In order to put this lapse into correct perspective, we have to know if this change is a one-off (based on the status of the object) or if it represents a new adherance to previously ignored ethical standards.
She would love to feel his body next to hers. She would love his hands all over her body. She had lost all need to use the toilet. She felt only the tingling electric greatness of a sexual yearning she had never felt, never allowed herself to feel. And she wanted to feel it. But she had to protect him from her dirty past; she couldn’t tell him about her herpes. Not now. Not ever. He was leaving tomorrow. What a horrible gift to attach to him and to send home with him to his love. He would hate her forever.
(Location 332 - Kindle Version)
A prostitute suddenly feels bad for the potential risk of her partner getting a STD from her, simply because he cares for her. But in the past she has slept with countless men and sent them home to their wives, probably with her illness.
Can this be an act of 'new-found' morality? Or is it merely a selfish thought? Or is it a way of repaying? What are your thoughts on this dilemma?
Well let's be clear about what is happening, then an accurate evaluation can be made. What's going on is a momentary lapse in a previous rationalization of an unethical choice in behavior.
In order to put this lapse into correct perspective, we have to know if this change is a one-off (based on the status of the object) or if it represents a new adherance to previously ignored ethical standards.
Well, she stopped being a prostitute later, but it was not because of this particular incident. She was treated well by a man for the first time in her life and she felt some gratitude towards that particular man. So she did not want to repay him with Herpes. I think that goes towards selfishness.
Yet, she thought about that man's actual fiancee as well, towards whom she had no connection. And I think I have to give a point to the prostitute for morality as well. But if she only thought about the possibility of being the subject of his hatred, then again it goes towards selfishness.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
She would love to feel his body next to hers. She would love his hands all over her body. She had lost all need to use the toilet. She felt only the tingling electric greatness of a sexual yearning she had never felt, never allowed herself to feel. And she wanted to feel it. But she had to protect him from her dirty past; she couldn’t tell him about her herpes. Not now. Not ever. He was leaving tomorrow. What a horrible gift to attach to him and to send home with him to his love. He would hate her forever.
(Location 332 - Kindle Version)
A prostitute suddenly feels bad for the potential risk of her partner getting a STD from her, simply because he cares for her. But in the past she has slept with countless men and sent them home to their wives, probably with her illness.
Can this be an act of 'new-found' morality? Or is it merely a selfish thought? Or is it a way of repaying? What are your thoughts on this dilemma?
Well let's be clear about what is happening, then an accurate evaluation can be made. What's going on is a momentary lapse in a previous rationalization of an unethical choice in behavior.
In order to put this lapse into correct perspective, we have to know if this change is a one-off (based on the status of the object) or if it represents a new adherance to previously ignored ethical standards.
Well, she stopped being a prostitute later, but it was not because of this particular incident. She was treated well by a man for the first time in her life and she felt some gratitude towards that particular man. So she did not want to repay him with Herpes. I think that goes towards selfishness.
Yet, she thought about that man's actual fiancee as well, towards whom she had no connection. And I think I have to give a point to the prostitute for morality as well. But if she only thought about the possibility of being the subject of his hatred, then again it goes towards selfishness.
Ok, then it was a one-off, based on her atypical feelings to this one guy. I'll give her a point, but only one.
A prostitute suddenly feels bad for the potential risk of her partner getting a STD from her, simply because he cares for her. But in the past she has slept with countless men and sent them home to their wives, probably with her illness.
Can this be an act of 'new-found' morality? Or is it merely a selfish thought? Or is it a way of repaying? What are your thoughts on this dilemma?
Well let's be clear about what is happening, then an accurate evaluation can be made. What's going on is a momentary lapse in a previous rationalization of an unethical choice in behavior.
In order to put this lapse into correct perspective, we have to know if this change is a one-off (based on the status of the object) or if it represents a new adherance to previously ignored ethical standards.
Well, she stopped being a prostitute later, but it was not because of this particular incident. She was treated well by a man for the first time in her life and she felt some gratitude towards that particular man. So she did not want to repay him with Herpes. I think that goes towards selfishness.
Yet, she thought about that man's actual fiancee as well, towards whom she had no connection. And I think I have to give a point to the prostitute for morality as well. But if she only thought about the possibility of being the subject of his hatred, then again it goes towards selfishness.
Ok, then it was a one-off, based on her atypical feelings to this one guy. I'll give her a point, but only one.
So towards which side of her that you are granting a point; her selfishness or her morality? Why?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Well let's be clear about what is happening, then an accurate evaluation can be made. What's going on is a momentary lapse in a previous rationalization of an unethical choice in behavior.
In order to put this lapse into correct perspective, we have to know if this change is a one-off (based on the status of the object) or if it represents a new adherance to previously ignored ethical standards.
Well, she stopped being a prostitute later, but it was not because of this particular incident. She was treated well by a man for the first time in her life and she felt some gratitude towards that particular man. So she did not want to repay him with Herpes. I think that goes towards selfishness.
Yet, she thought about that man's actual fiancee as well, towards whom she had no connection. And I think I have to give a point to the prostitute for morality as well. But if she only thought about the possibility of being the subject of his hatred, then again it goes towards selfishness.
Ok, then it was a one-off, based on her atypical feelings to this one guy. I'll give her a point, but only one.
So towards which side of her that you are granting a point; her selfishness or her morality? Why?
Her morality. But one moral act in a career of immorality is the reason for the single point.
As I've often told my children, "Every one makes mistakes. It's what you do after that mistake that makes a difference." I have started the book, and have read the section quoted. I have gotten a chuckle out of the conversation above, but I think that I must call it a one-off for morality against her history......so far. I am going to wait to see where she goes from here. She has made a step in the right direction but I have a lot of book left to read and only the author can tell me which way she will go.
Well, she stopped being a prostitute later, but it was not because of this particular incident. She was treated well by a man for the first time in her life and she felt some gratitude towards that particular man. So she did not want to repay him with Herpes. I think that goes towards selfishness.
Yet, she thought about that man's actual fiancee as well, towards whom she had no connection. And I think I have to give a point to the prostitute for morality as well. But if she only thought about the possibility of being the subject of his hatred, then again it goes towards selfishness.
Ok, then it was a one-off, based on her atypical feelings to this one guy. I'll give her a point, but only one.
So towards which side of her that you are granting a point; her selfishness or her morality? Why?
Her morality. But one moral act in a career of immorality is the reason for the single point.
But she had thoughts of being at the receiving end of his hatred, and avoiding that was among the reasons for her restraint. Why should we put that towards morality since she clearly had selfish thoughts?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Webco1577 wrote: ↑January 19th, 2023, 9:23 pm
As I've often told my children, "Every one makes mistakes. It's what you do after that mistake that makes a difference." I have started the book, and have read the section quoted. I have gotten a chuckle out of the conversation above, but I think that I must call it a one-off for morality against her history......so far. I am going to wait to see where she goes from here. She has made a step in the right direction but I have a lot of book left to read and only the author can tell me which way she will go.
Well, you have a point. Since this is fiction it is up to the author to fabricate his characters. And being immoral for the most of the life does not make anyone to unable to be moral for atleast once. But here she liked that guy and was afraid of letting him know her true past. Wasn't that selfish instead of being moral?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”