See also
Romy Eskens
Utrecht University
  1. Is Sex With Robots Rape?Romy Eskens - 2017 - Journal of Practical Ethics 5 (2):62-76.
    It is widely accepted that valid consent is a necessary condition for permissible sexual activity. Since non-human animals, children, and individuals who are severely cognitively disabled, heavily intoxicated or unconscious, lack the cognitive capacity to give valid consent, this condition explains why it is impermissible to have sex with them. However, contrary to common intuitions, the same condition seems to render it impermissible to have sex with robots, for they too are incapable of consenting to sex due to insufficient cognitive (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2.  29
    Other-Sacrificing Options: Reply to Lange.Romy Eskens - 2022 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 21 (2).
    In “Other-Sacrificing Options”, Benjamin Lange argues that, when distributing benefits and burdens, we may discount the interests of the people to whom we stand in morally negative relationships relative to the interests of other people. Lange’s case for negative partiality proceeds in two steps. First, he presents a hypothetical example that commonly elicits intuitions favourable to negative partiality. Second, he invokes symmetry considerations to reason from permissible positive partiality towards intimates to permissible negative partiality towards adversaries. In this paper, I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  22
    George Sher: A Wild West of the Mind. [REVIEW]Romy Eskens - 2022 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 25 (5):895-897.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
  4.  20
    Payback Time : Essays on Attitudes, Partiality, and Rescuing.Romy Eskens - 2022 - Dissertation, Stockholm University
    Does the moral quality of someone’s past treatment of us, or of other people, change how we are morally permitted or required to treat them? Many philosophers think so. They argue, for instance, that someone’s supererogatory or impermissible behaviour can permit or require certain positive or negative attitudinal responses, such as gratitude or resentment. They also argue that someone’s impermissible behaviour can justify harming the person, either defensively or punitively, and that someone who is imperilled as a result of impermissible (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Export citation