Beyond Consent: On Setting and Sharing Sexual Ends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments on this paper. I have addressed the question about the Kingdom of Ends, drawing on Korsgaard’s account of “relations of reciprocity” in Section 4, and I have restructured the opening of the paper in order to cede less space to Mappes, which also allowed me to center the feminist critique more prominently. I also drew on Bauer to complicate the relationship between consent and subjectivity, as you suggested, and discuss the relevance of Kukla’s work for my argument. Each of these points strengthened the argument significantly.

Reviewer 2 Report

This essay makes a valuable contribution to moral philosophy and philosophy of sex. It is extremely well-written and structured with nuance, clarity and great economy. Speaking as a philosopher with Kantian sympathies who has recently been working with a sexual assault service in relation to people with a disability, I found the author/s’ elucidation of the epistemic conditions for consent and the shortcomings of consent, to be utterly compelling. The alternative – setting and sharing sexual ends – was very clearly explained and well-defended, and will be applicable to other areas of life too. For example, the workplace and workplace relationships in the context of a theory of collective deliberative as found in the work of Dejours, Deranty et al in the psychodynamics of work. The argument for setting and sharing ends holds promise for a level of practical detail that can build on the (nevertheless vital) Hegelian-inspired role of mutual recognition.

The essay is a highly useful addition to debates in moral philosophy, including those concerned with practical identity. I recommend it for publication.

Minor comments:

I’m splitting hairs, but the abstract could benefit from a little  more clarity about the argument that is being presented, and a little more differentiation of the author/s’ views from the standard Kantian approach being critiqued. For example, the ‘remedy’ is the author/s’, although Kantian; it isn’t Kant’s actual, proposed remedy, I thought.

There are very  minor typos on: p.3 line 128; p.6, line 307; p.8, line 413

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments on this paper, and in particular for catching so many small errors. I believe I have addressed them all.