0,49 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 2,49 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 2,49 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
In "A Problem in Modern Ethics," John Addington Symonds engages with the complex intersections of morality, sexuality, and societal norms in the late 19th century. This seminal work is characterized by its analytical prose and philosophical inquiry, diving deep into the nuances of sexual identity and the ethical dilemmas faced by individuals grappling with societal constraints. Symonds utilizes a blend of historical context and personal reflection, situating his arguments within the broader discourse of contemporary ethical thought while challenging prevailing Victorian morals. John Addington Symonds was a pioneering figure in the exploration of homosexuality, often reflecting his own struggles and experiences throughout his work. Born into a restrictive society that condemned same-sex love, Symonds dedicated his life to advocating for a more compassionate understanding of sexual identity. His scholarly pursuits in classical studies and literature informed his views, enabling him to articulate a vision where ethics encompass the complexities of human desires and relationships. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the evolution of modern ethics and the discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ identities. Symonds' work remains relevant, prompting readers to reconsider moral frameworks and fostering empathy for those whose lives challenge traditional views. Engaging and thought-provoking, "A Problem in Modern Ethics" will enrich your understanding of the ethical paradigms shaping our current society. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
A Problem in Modern Ethics
Table of Contents
Introduction
At the intersection of personal affection, public morality, and the expanding claims of science, this work tests whether modern ethics will defend dignity through reasoned inquiry or entrench injustice by elevating prejudice into law; by tracing how terminology, jurisprudence, and medical judgment converge upon a vulnerable minority, it asks what kind of society we become when we punish conduct that harms no one and mistake difference for vice, and its central conflict is not merely about sexuality, but about the responsibilities of knowledge, the proper limits of the state, and the courage required to align moral theory with lived reality.
A Problem in Modern Ethics is a late nineteenth-century essay by John Addington Symonds, privately printed in 1891 amid the intense legal and medical debates of Victorian Britain. It belongs to the tradition of moral philosophy and social critique, engaging directly with questions that were pressing in its own cultural moment. Without staging scenes or relying on narrative drama, the work situates itself within the real-world setting of courts, clinics, and public discourse. Its publication context underscores both the sensitivity and urgency of its topic, reflecting an era in which the language of science and the force of law were reshaping private life.
The premise is straightforward yet provocative: examine how a modern society classifies, judges, and governs same-sex desire under the prevailing concept—then widely termed sexual inversion—and ask what justice demands of lawmakers, physicians, and citizens. Readers encounter an analytic, carefully reasoned voice that weighs claims and counterclaims with deliberate restraint. The style is measured and lucid, preferring evidence to invective and analysis to moral panic. The mood is sober, reformist, and humane, creating an experience that is more inquiry than manifesto, while remaining unmistakably committed to the ethical stakes of how we name, understand, and respond to intimate human variation.
Central themes include the relationship between harm and prohibition, the role of scientific authority in ethical judgment, and the power of language to shape both stigma and sympathy. The book probes how legal structures can amplify or mitigate cruelty, and how moral claims should be tested against lived realities rather than inherited anxieties. It asks whether individual liberty and social order must be antagonists, or whether a principled framework can reconcile them. Throughout, it challenges readers to distinguish between conduct that injures and conduct merely disliked, insisting that ethical clarity requires careful definitions and a sober appraisal of consequences.
Symonds builds his case by surveying contemporary discourse across jurisprudence, medicine, and history, setting competing interpretations side by side and assessing their coherence. He holds public arguments to standards of precision, interrogating assumptions that pass as common sense and separating observation from speculation. The treatise addresses both specialist and lay audiences, speaking to medical and legal professionals while remaining accessible to thoughtful general readers. Its method is comparative rather than dogmatic, mapping disagreements, highlighting ambiguities, and identifying where evidence runs thin. The result is a disciplined form of advocacy: not a plea for special treatment, but an appeal for consistency, fairness, and intellectual honesty.
The book’s relevance endures because it illuminates the fragile boundary where diagnostic language, moral judgment, and public policy meet the lives of real people. Contemporary readers will recognize debates about privacy, consent, and the state’s interest in regulating intimate behavior, as well as the risks of medicalizing difference. By showing how certainty can be manufactured from fear, it encourages skepticism toward sweeping claims and urges a patient, humane appraisal of social norms. It also models a way of arguing in good faith—calm, attentive to counterevidence, and grounded in shared ethical principles—that remains a valuable template for difficult conversations today.
Approached as both a historical document and a philosophical intervention, A Problem in Modern Ethics offers an exacting, quietly courageous examination of how a society justifies its judgments about sexuality. Readers interested in intellectual history, legal reform, and moral philosophy will find a concise yet layered analysis that rewards careful attention. Its enduring appeal lies in its disciplined tone, commitment to clarity, and insistence that compassion and reason are not adversaries but allies. To read it now is to engage a foundational moment in modern ethical reflection and to measure our own assumptions against an argument crafted to outlast its immediate controversies.
Synopsis
Symonds frames the work as an inquiry into a problem in modern ethics arising from same sex desire, which he calls sexual inversion. He explains his aim to collect evidence from history, law, medicine, and social practice in order to inform moral judgment. He limits the discussion to adult relations and excludes force, exploitation of youth, and public indecency. He argues that English prudery has hindered clear thinking and that a calm, factual survey is needed. The opening establishes his method, defines key terms used by continental writers, and justifies the urgency of examining a persistent and controversial phenomenon.
He turns first to antiquity, tracing practices and ideals associated with male friendship and eros in classical Greece. Citing philosophers and civic customs, he notes traditions that honored disciplined bonds while condemning abuse. Roman attitudes, he observes, shifted across periods and classes, with later satire linking same sex behavior to luxury and decline. Medieval Christianity adopted strong denunciations, and Renaissance humanism revived classical language without removing legal penalties. Through this historical sketch, he seeks to show both the variety and continuity of the phenomenon, arguing that moral judgments have depended less on uniform nature than on changing social and religious frameworks.
The book then surveys modern legal regimes that regulate same sex acts. He contrasts continental codes that omit private consensual acts, notably in France and Italy, with German statutes and prosecutions under the Prussian influenced paragraph 175. English law receives sustained attention, from the older capital offense for sodomy to the later statute creating gross indecency between males. Symonds emphasizes how vague prohibitions, combined with social disgrace, foster blackmail, perjury, and police entrapment. He argues that criminalization of private conduct magnifies public scandal without preventing license, and that the fear of exposure prevents those affected from seeking guidance or living responsibly.
After law, he reviews medical and psychological literature that had begun to classify inversion as an innate condition rather than a chosen vice. He summarizes the claims of German and Austrian authorities such as Westphal and Krafft Ebing, and presents the terminology of Ulrichs, including the concept of the Urning. Case histories and statistics are used to suggest early onset, persistence, and diverse expressions. Symonds relays debates about pathology, heredity, and degeneration, but stresses the consistency of testimony that many subjects are otherwise healthy and productive. This scientific dossier, in his account, challenges purely punitive or theological explanations of the phenomenon.
The ethical section asks how responsibility should be assigned when impulse and character appear congenital. Symonds distinguishes between acts that harm others and private relations between consenting adults, proposing that the latter fall outside the scope of penal ethics. He rejects the confusion of inversion with corruption of youth, coercion, or public indecency, which he insists must remain prohibited. Moral judgment, he argues, should consider individual nature, the absence of choice in instinct, and the possibility of loyal and self respecting conduct. The aim is not to license indulgence, but to align ethical reasoning with facts rather than with inherited aversions.
Symonds also surveys the social effects of secrecy and repression. He records how fear of prosecution drives relationships into clandestine networks, where association with prostitution, blackmail, and exploitation becomes more likely. Public scandal, he suggests, springs less from the acts themselves than from the mixture of hypocrisy, panic, and law. Meanwhile, silence deprives individuals of guidance, leaving them to isolate or to learn from corrupt sources. He argues that open knowledge and private liberty would reduce temptation and abuse. In this framework, the ethical problem is transformed into the management of conduct, reputation, and mutual respect in an ordinary civic context.
To correct misunderstanding, the treatise distinguishes inversion from effeminacy, vice, and crime. Symonds compiles examples of men of courage, discipline, and achievement who exhibit the contrary instinct, as well as those whose lives show instability or excess, arguing that no single moral portrait applies. He notes gradations from exclusive to occasional attraction and the complex interplay with conventional marriage. The discussion stresses that inversion does not imply seduction of youth or preference for unripe partners. He urges that society replace general suspicion with particular evidence, judging persons by conduct and character rather than by a suspected disposition or rumor.
From these materials he advances practical recommendations. He favors repeal of statutes that criminalize consensual acts in private, while maintaining laws against force, fraud, corruption of minors, and public offenses. He calls for scientific study, candid education, and the protection of reputation through the discouragement of prurient publicity. Comparative law is invoked to show that decriminalization need not increase disorder. Ethical counsel is addressed to individuals as well, urging self control, discretion, and loyalty as the standards of honorable life. By redirecting policy from punishment to regulation of harm, he seeks a rational accommodation between instinct and social order.
The conclusion gathers the strands into a statement of the central message of the book. Symonds holds that modern ethics should be informed by history and science, and that justice requires tolerance for private conduct that injures no one. He emphasizes that frank discussion is the condition for reform, and that fear and shame cannot serve as guides to policy. While acknowledging difficulties and dangers, he argues that a humane settlement is both possible and necessary. The pamphlet thus attempts to reframe same sex love from sin or crime to a question of personal nature, civic liberty, and responsible moral self government.
Historical Context
John Addington Symonds composed A Problem in Modern Ethics in the late Victorian era, completing it in 1891 and circulating it privately in England while spending long periods in Davos, Switzerland, for his health. The work is rooted in the moral and legal climate of Britain under Queen Victoria, when anxieties about sexuality, public morality, and national character were acute. Universities such as Oxford, where Symonds had studied at Balliol College, and urban centers like London formed the intellectual and legal backdrops to his inquiry. The essay’s continental range reflects Symonds’s life between Britain, Switzerland, and Italy, and his comparative method matches a Europe divided between liberal and repressive penal codes on same-sex relations.
The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, and especially Henry Labouchere’s Section 11, was the single most consequential legal event shaping Symonds’s essay. Enacted on 14 August 1885 by the British Parliament, the statute introduced the offense of gross indecency between male persons, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment with or without hard labor. Unlike earlier buggery provisions, Section 11 reached private, consensual acts and enabled prosecution without proof of sodomy. It emerged from the social purity agitation that followed W. T. Stead’s 1885 Maiden Tribute campaign and passed with scant debate, added late at night by Labouchere as an amendment. The measure expanded the policing of male intimacy in homes, clubs, and boarding schools, and supplied a flexible instrument for blackmail and moral panic; it would be central to the prosecution of Oscar Wilde in 1895. Symonds, writing in the shadow of this transformed legal landscape, assembled historical, legal, and medical evidence to argue that criminalization of consensual inversion was neither necessary for public order nor consonant with modern jurisprudence. By contrasting Britain’s approach with jurisdictions that had decriminalized, and by invoking principles of individual liberty and the absence of demonstrable social harm, the essay sought to expose Section 11 as an illiberal excrescence on English law. Its private printing in 1891 reflected the risks the new statute posed to any open discussion of homosexual life, even at the level of scholarly inquiry.
The Boulton and Park case, better known as the Fanny and Stella trial, created an earlier template for public scandal and legal intrusion. Ernest Boulton and Frederick Park were arrested in April 1870 in London and tried at the Court of Queen’s Bench in May 1871 for conspiracy to commit sodomy and for outraging public decency. Despite sensational evidence of cross-dressing and surveillance by police, the jury acquitted them. The case revealed the state’s willingness to monitor private lives and the press’s power to inflame opinion. Symonds’s analysis mirrors this lesson, stressing how surveillance and theatrics distort justice in cases involving sexual minorities.
The social purity movement of the 1870s and 1880s, led by groups such as the National Vigilance Association (founded 1885), reshaped sexual politics in Britain. Campaigners first mobilized around the Contagious Diseases Acts (1864, 1866, 1869), which allowed compulsory examination of suspected prostitutes; a coalition led by Josephine Butler succeeded in obtaining full repeal by 1886, a landmark in civil liberties. Yet purity agitation also fueled punitive measures like the 1885 Act, raising the age of consent to 16 and enabling new prosecutions. Symonds’s essay engages this paradox: it applauds the humanitarian impulse that ended coercive medical policing while opposing the extension of state power into consensual adult relations.
The Cleveland Street scandal of 1889–1890, centered on a male brothel at 19 Cleveland Street in Fitzrovia, exposed links between working-class telegraph boys and elite clients. Investigations implicated figures such as Lord Arthur Somerset; rumors touched even royal circles. Several prosecutions proceeded, while others fled abroad, amid allegations of a government cover-up. The episode crystallized class-inflected moral panic and the use of the press to police masculinity. Although Symonds does not narrate the scandal, his 1891 argument is framed against precisely this culture of exposure and selective enforcement, urging legal reforms that would remove the conditions fostering blackmail, rumor, and sensational prosecutions.
Across Europe a new scientific discourse on sexuality emerged. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs published a series of pamphlets from 1864 and attempted to address the Congress of German Jurists in Munich in 1867 to defend the rights of Uranians. Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis appeared in 1886, cataloguing sexual varieties as medical categories. In the 1890s John Addington Symonds corresponded with Havelock Ellis; their collaboration informed Sexual Inversion (first published in English in 1897), though Symonds died in 1893 before its appearance. Symonds’s essay situates itself within this nascent sexology, mining historical and clinical materials to challenge criminal paradigms and propose a humane, empirical understanding of sexual inversion.
Comparative legal regimes supplied Symonds with a crucial evidentiary base. France decriminalized consensual same-sex acts in 1791, a policy continued under the Napoleonic Code of 1810 and exported to the Netherlands in 1811. Italy’s Zanardelli Code of 1889 likewise omitted prohibitions on adult, private acts. By contrast, the newly unified German Empire codified Paragraph 175 in 1871, criminalizing male homosexual acts; Austria retained similar provisions. Britain preserved severe penalties under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and broadened reach with Section 11 in 1885. In the empire, India’s Penal Code Section 377 (1860) criminalized sodomy. Symonds marshals these divergences to argue that civilization and public order do not require criminal persecution.
A Problem in Modern Ethics functions as a political and social critique by exposing how late Victorian law fused moral panic with selective class enforcement to regulate private life. By setting British statutes against continental examples and historical data from antiquity to the present, Symonds indicts the criminalization of consensual acts as incompatible with liberal governance and modern science. He highlights the injustices produced by vague offenses that empower surveillance, blackmail, and unequal prosecutions, and he contests the medical stigmatization that pathologized minorities. The book thus challenges the period’s conflation of morality with public order, urging a transition from punitive regulation to rights-based protections for intimate liberty.
