Till now we have talked about the reductionist view of sexuality. We were looking at philosophical way of understanding this domain of sexuality, particularly in the context of ethics that we are seeing this as an exercise in applied ethics that we are taking real life issues or and real life decisions and from an ethical perspective or from a philosophical perspective. The objective of going into this issue and topic of applied ethics but in general and sexuality as an example of this is to let to explore how we as philosophers and thereby ethicists delve into the issues of applied ethics. Now imagine this deliberation taking place and this deliberation ought to take place on any decision that takes place that takes is taken by the representatives of a collective. So that could be that could be a government, a parliament, a board of representatives or college council or an institutes in it anywhere where decisions about collective policies are taken ought to have a deliberation in this fashion. So these are examples of applied ethics. So particularly with the notion of sexuality say when a school is or an educational institution is trying to come up with a dress code or trying to do away with an existing dress code what is the thinking that goes behind it. So to make it articulate and instead of just not depending on the preconceived notions of the decision making authority it is trying to verbalize and articulate and thereof reason and argue about what is the what would be the best thing to do. So for many it seems to be a very implicit decision and which there is nothing much to communicate, share or even discuss about well that is definitely not a philosophical attitude and that is definitely not an attitude for arriving at a consensus in a fair way. So even if because as representatives one is supposed to represent every or try to take into account every possible view that every possible member whose representative one is and therefore whenever such decisions are taken we what particularly happens in parliaments or should happen in parliaments is a philosophical deliberation because when we are concerned with the most general things which affect all the members of a collective and yet are to be decided upon in a fashion that is objective at least for the period of its implementation does require to be delved debated from all perspectives. So this is such an example so in this we say deciding on cases like euthanasia or mercy killing or whether the legality of suicide now these are major benchmark decisions that are taken and most of us are born into societies or collectives where there are established opinions about these acts but well as human opinions and human beliefs are constantly challenged and revised and an open society always is open to newer views. So we are all born into societies with certain ethical or moral values and we do accept them as the default mode but where we make an error is by considering that these values are for the final values. So this process of revision this process of arriving at delving into the context and arriving at what is most possible what is the most possible or which is the best policy to bring about the most desirable society is essential to human deliberation by representatives and if deliberation does not take place it does mean that there is something that it is a society which is not engaging in a fair way of arriving at values for the collective. So applied ethics are the most visible places or visible space where we find that philosophy enters real life and real life enters philosophy although I would hold that philosophy cannot be there cannot be a more practical subject than philosophy because philosophy is the way you lead your life. So but anyway for those who are seeking the practicality or the connect of philosophy with the world out there perhaps the most visible perceptible domain would be applied ethics and in applied ethics we talk about various issues like we are talking about sexuality today we are talking about two perspectives or we are trying to build two little theories about sexuality that well let us say this particularly targets a question like is premarital sex wrong or is sexual intercourse without a commitment to be together between two individuals morally reprehensible should a society permit homosexuality should homosexuality be criminalized or is there something morally wrong about it and therefore it ought to be shunned. So these are questions for the answers to which are not so easily available in the empirical content that we find in the world out there and thereof we need to debate discuss and there is scope to debate and discuss because for many of us these values seem to be so ordained from our upbringing that we are unable to see a parallel or another way of looking at it but we need to go ahead if we do want to live in a society with multiple people or many multiple ways of living to arrive at a way of living which is mutually agreed upon or at least attempts in that direction have to be made to reach whatever sort of agreement we can reach. So anyway this was just a little bit of recapitulation of what are we doing when we are doing philosophy we are doing ethics and we are doing applied ethics we have talked about various moral theories we have talked about moral theories in various traditions in Indian tradition particularly and now we were for the past few sessions we have been talking about applied ethics. So now we are coming to the non-reductionist view of sexuality if you look at the slide right now in the non-reductionist view the non-reductionist view begins by exploring that how did the reductionist view perhaps come about well as stated earlier that this notion of sexuality and morality can be seen as the essential conflict between positive and negative liberty. So when one sees morality as an exercise of positive liberty denying morality as an exercise of negative liberties negative liberty or perhaps as more simplistically understood as the no harm principle that anything is right unless until it does not harm anybody else and this is being the bare minimum no harm definition of morality but for the non-reductionist well morality is essentially an exercise of positive liberty because if the minimum and the only level of morality seems to be in something which does not harm anybody else well then the entire non-reductionist domain falls to the ground. So the non-reductionist does surely start with morality as an exercise of positive liberty so what it refutes is that sexuality in purely aesthetic domain without any moral component. So it does not see sexuality as anything that it is purely aesthetic and without any moral component. So let us take an example let us read through the few points listed on the screen and then go ahead with the examples about it well human beings have various forms of relations. So when the third issue point reads that sexual relation vis-a-vis other forms of relations like employee, employer, colleagues, game partners, competitors and there are various kinds of human relations now transactory nature of these associations and they be extended to the sexual domain without the loss of dignity.  Now what essentially the author here or Vincent Ponzo is trying to put forth is that well if I in fact if this example is given that if a person asks another person out for a say as perhaps an example quoted in the essay itself for a game of tennis is it of the similar strain when one person asks another person for a sexual encounter. Now this is where logically of course the two demands or the two forms of statements are the same that both seek some kind of a human interaction and one is seeking the permission or one is seeking the other to join in the game. Now that is one way of looking at sexuality too and of course this is not the non reductionist way of looking at sexuality because they do make a distinction between any human encounter and a sexual encounter. So when I am making or when any person is making a claim that there are associations if we see in the third issue here that there are various forms of relations there is an employee and an employer. So if the employee is obliged or agrees to in a contract with an employer to do certain jobs of the employer for a remuneration. Colleagues do the same for each other maybe voluntarily game partners play together and to win and competitors play against each other to out with each other. Now these kind of relations also have some kind of a transaction that takes place. Now there seems to be nothing wrong when you pay your dentist for cleaning your teeth or there seems to be nothing wrong when you when a patient pays the surgeon for operating a tumour out of his or her body. But if the same transactory nature of this association is extended to the sexual domain and because here comes the very applied question of the moral stand on prostitution. That if just as the patient pays the surgeon for his or her skill and services a patient could pay the prostitute for his or her sexual services. Now this transactory nature is there a difference between these two kind of transactions just as a teacher is paid a salary for teaching the students and that is also kind of a transaction. If this transaction can be extended to the domain of the person and therefore the question rises that if there is anything at all that distinguishes sexual encounter from any human encounter that is there a category or a definitional distinction between the two. Now there can be many interesting examples that come up about this before we go on to read the slide. Let me put forth a few questions that could perhaps bring forth the issue better and make us think harder on this issue and why it is relevant. Let's say I am there is a person who is paying in fact I would not like to take myself as an example for that for obvious reasons. But let's say a person would like to play a game of say or would like to play Kabaddi or any game like that and the game requires few more people to play with and that person does not find people to play with. So he puts out an advertisement in the paper that well people who are willing to play Kabaddi or any other game may kindly contact me and you will be paid so much per hour and these are all your benefits and these are terms of contracts. People would agree maybe somebody would agree and they would come and you could play. Now he finds that this person also is lonely that he does not find people or she does not find people to speak to and has a sense of loneliness. Now if this person extends that Kabaddi group advertisement to an advertisement soliciting friends at the payment of a certain amount of remuneration per hour of time spent together. Now from this the person proceeds and goes ahead to put up on an advertisement seeking sexual encounter at an agreed remuneration. Now I see these as three different stages that well one is looking for the game partners and not finding one so a transaction is put out where a remuneration is offered for game partners and that seems to be perhaps fine to many and when it extends to putting an advertisement out for a transactory nature of friendship that seems odd and unusual because friendship is something perhaps that you have to earn that is not to be bought that is not a transaction that has to be not paid by money but has to be if again sticking to the transactory term has to be paid by effort familiarity or by association or common interests and going further where seeking a sexual encounter for a certain remuneration prostitution in simple words is a further requirement of pulling a sexual encounter from the personal domain to a transactory domain now that would perhaps upset many people and they would find them well it is something odd that these are some things that do not or should not be transactory but many of them would feel perfectly fine that well it is nothing it is not an act of deceit or coercion it is an open invitation left out and as long as two people agree one who is willing to buy sexual services and one who is willing to sell the same there is simply no moral issue about it well this matter is definitely not so simple and never resolution is waiting of hand it depends on what value do you value more to you value a person's liberty more than a person's dignity at least if not to himself or herself as how others would pursue this would again be seen as a classical case of debate between positive liberty and negative liberty. So is there anything about the sexual encounter which makes different from any other human encounter friendship as a human encounter seems to be the beginning of a personal encounter that it is not a professional association that it is not a transactory association at least not transactory in the in terms of money and sexual encounter seems to be the peak of a personal interaction and therefore definitely not a transactory association especially for money now these are these could be the views of a non reductionist reductionist on the other hand could be particularly be fine with purchasing friends as long as people are willing to sell and I am somebody is willing to buy it seems to be a transaction done and there is no reason why governments morals policies society or anybody should interfere well different nations right at this time also follow different philosophies of what is the good life and therefore they have different policies on this but let us see how the non reductionist continues to extrapolate the reason why it sees the rise of or the prevalence of reductionism about sexuality the understanding and this I particularly quote from Vincent Punzo is when he understands that sexuality has come to play such a prominent role in commercial transactions like advertisements sexuality is used to sell everything and anything that it seems perfectly natural to include sexuality itself in a commercial barter and now look at the gradations we can give think of numerous examples that well why are things sold by right beginning from good looking people to extremely sexually attractive or provocative people because that pulls in their attention and that sexual charm can be used to hold people's attention and they are often introduced products to these people to the audience and thereby have a greater chance of making a sell. So, this is an example of using sexuality as an asset as a natural asset now if so be the case what is the problem if we consider full-fledgedly sexuality as an element in the commercial barter in total this portrays a possible extrapolation of the current significant ethos of a moralizing sexuality and thereby enabling it to be included in the commercial framework. So, this widespread use of sexuality in as an instrument or an as an asset to enable commercial transactions definitely extrapolates into finally, a moralizing sexuality and just seeing it as an ability just as intelligence is an ability the surgeon's skill is an ability. So, the prostitutes sexual skill is an ability and therefore, it is sexuality is immoralized as the reductionist would want it to be or understand it to be understand it to be and thereby enabling it to be included in the commercial framework. This tends according to the non-reductionist this tends to cause the reductionist outlook to sex and sexuality. Now, what does the non-reductionist say well the argument as per punzo is human beings are not physical beings alone they have non-physical dimensions too for instance a historical dimension for one to the historical dimension is being aware of one's past it influencing our present decisions and the present decisions taken in the light of future consequences. This conscious linearity of lived time enables us to bond and associate with another uniting with another uniting our purpose and sharing our journey sexual intercourse is a way of asserting the totality of this mutual commitment and this is a feature of sex that the reductionist fails to fails or refuses to see. So, well this is now a classical case of an argument by a non-reductionist. Now, the non-reductionist is claiming that well what is a human person now consider look at it this way how an applied ethical question extrapolates into what one's metaphysical assumptions are. So, punzo goes ahead and which I take have taken as the an example of a non-reductionist arguing about sexuality. Punzo goes on to cite human beings as in a very non-debatable way allotting or allocating or talking about a non-physical component about the human person. Punzo could as well as talk about the human soul, but of course that is much more debatable what is much less debatable and empirically more easily demonstrable is the historical nature of human being or a human person that we are essentially physical entities yes, but we are also historical entities historical entities in the sense that we have memories that we remember our past that our past shapes are present and the decisions we can take today can be the decisions that affect our future and we do have our future under our control. So, there is a kind of historicity to our existence that we are not our life is not a series of accidents held together or lived together whereas our life is a series of choices, choices which are influenced by our past experiences and choices that we make in light of our future desires and future and the place where we want to see ourselves in the future. Imagine this is such a simple and almost many of us would find it a trivial truth of life, but it is essential to articulate to verbalize it to make it conscious. So, as to go ahead and see what this could lead to. So, I mean we all know that we remember our past that and we learn from our past and we if we if we would like I would like to see my in see myself any thinner in the next year I would like to work hard for that. So, I would work hard because I have an idea or I have a desire to be thinner next year. So, it is a very simple goal, but what a being a historic being that means I can take decisions today in light of my requirements for tomorrow. So, if I want to see myself much thinner next year I would like to work hard or take some steps to reach that place. So, this does not seem so unique if you compare yourself with other human beings or human persons, but this seems unique when you compare yourselves with other forms of existence that we can have goals. We are goal seeking creatures that we have goals and we can modify our present behavior to attain future goals. So, this historicity or this historical dimension of a human person is essentially also a dimension of a human self and therefore, now human person now this is of course, we are not going into details of the model, but it will perhaps give you an idea how to theorize or how to build a model. So, what we are essentially working at is that what is a human person? A human person is not just the human body, but also this ability of making choices and this ability or this continuity of memory and historicity that a human person has. And as you see the point number 3 in the slide this conscious linearity of lived time enables us to bond and associate with another uniting our purpose and sharing our journey. So, this is the crucial premise that the non reductionist adds on that well we are definitely not only physical beings, but we are also have a historical dimension to our being and existence and this historical dimension is in our choice and we can and this conscious linearity of lived time gives us the choice to associate to bond with another uniting our purpose and sharing our journey.  So, when we choose to share our journey and unite our purpose with another person, we are making a choice, we are trying to combine the historicity of two people. So, if two people are making a choice to live their lives together, so they are making a commitment to make choices that will keep them together, that will keep their purposes united and that their journeys will be together, journeys to life will be together and being historical beings we have this ability. We are not like two parallel lines running together. In fact, we can choose to be choose the direction that the lines would take analogically speaking. So, punso puts forth that sexual intercourse is actually way of asserting the totality of this mutual commitment between two people and this is a feature of sex that the reductionist or the fails or refuses to see. Now punso also talks about this notion of existential integrity. Now having known the having having put forth the notion of a person as a historical being and not just limited to a physical being punso uses the notion of existential integrity as the cornerstone to explicate a non-reductionistic inception of sexuality. A holistic notion of human personhood incorporates the physical and at least the historical. It could be much more, but punso has very if I may say wisely or very cleverly chosen a criteria or non-physical criteria of human existence which is obvious without any metaphysical presuppositions. So, which is empirical which seems to be commonsensically or empirically obvious. So, a holistic notion of human personhood incorporates the physical and at least the historical uniting on one plane of the physical sexual and not doing so on another plane which is the historical plane is a violation of the integrity of existence for we exist as a unitary. The human body is the locus of the human self and if considered as the unitary the body and the self are to act in unison. To disregard this integrity is to give up on existential integrity. Now, when punso talks about existential integrity. Now imagine these are attempts of theory building of where concepts are being taken together, knitted together and the knit is justified or the justification is being put forth to the reader or the audience and a theory is being built. What punso is saying that well we are physical beings that is empirically perceivable, but we are not just physical beings. We also have a historicity attached to us. A very well chosen non-physical criteria which is easy to demonstrate and to experience and to hold as true. So, if I say that we have a non-physical self or soul to us well many of us will dispute that at the current level of understanding and rightly so. But if we say if I say that well many of us are or that we are historical beings and we remember and we have the ability to make choices for our future perhaps there will be a much larger number of people agreeing to it because this is a part of the current make up of the human psyche or at least the majority of the people would agree with this. However that does not concern us that how many do agree or do not agree. Now let us look at punso's model when he talks about existential integrity. So, what is human existence? Human existence now this is again laying down metaphysical assumption or not assumptions, but metaphysical presuppositions to put forth punso's own view. So, what is the metaphysical presupposition? That we are human beings biologically, physically, but as persons we are not only human beings we remember we are historical beings. So, we historical in the sense that we have a net through lived time experience or temporal experience. And being historical beings say we have two planes of existence that well as a physical being I exist on the physical plane, but as a historical being I exist on another plane or I exist in another way the way we interact. Now if I see that if I say give a smile of familiarity to somebody else whom I have been knowing for the past and liking for the past many years it is not a physical event that is taking place according to punso. According to the non reductionist or the various plane understanding of layers of human personhood it is not my physical body that is smiling at the physical body of the perception of the physical body of another person that is happening, but that is happening because we are historically linked that we have been perhaps a team that we have known each other and we have had some good moments together and therefore we like each other. Now these are not something which are physical. This is what punso puts as historical existence. So, when we live on these planes and human beings, but finally we are a single person that person who is smiling at the sight of a familiar person is not somebody else or not different from the body that is smiling. When I say that the person is smiling the person is smiling the body the lips are elongated and the teeth are visible, but that is the physical component that the person is smiling is another component that is an expression of joy that is an evidence of mental life that the physical reflects the elongation of the lips and the visibility of the teeth and the nod and the gleam in the eye are let us drop the gleam in the eye because that is not purely physical reading of it, but just reading it as how a machine would see or how a machine would see a person smiling would see that well the face muscle seems to be elongated and teeth are visible and the face gives a nod or the head gives a nod. That is the physical component, but surely when that is how perhaps a untrained machine would read the change in physical space, but what you as an observer with your knowledge background would see that well one of a person familiar with another is meeting and they seem to give a nod to each other which does indicate that they have had a general they have had known and perhaps even liked each other. So nothing very revealing about this unraveling this metaphysical presupposition, but what is interesting is the articulation of this. This articulation thus makes us or as per punzo the non reductionist brigade would put forth that well we are two different we are working over two different planes that the physical smiling and the mental joy of meeting are two different planes and historicity is just one plane like that there may be many other planes punzo takes the example only historicity as a another plane. So when we have these two planes of existence, but we are not existing in a binary we are finally the same person whose face muscles are elongating or whose lips seem to elongate and head seems to nod that body is same as the person which is conveying the greeting. So here punzo puts forth that well we have different planes yet we are a unitary we are the same person. Now coming back to sexuality well and existential integrity that well when on the physical plane a sexual encounter is the closest possible physical encounter with another human being is an encounter in one plane and whereas without having any mutuality commitment or affection on the historical plane or having any commitment to share the journey together is a violation of existential integrity that we are achieving maximum intimacy at a physical level, but being indifferent on a historical level or a mental level, but we are the same person. So that is what leads to a kind of violation of existential integrity that well we are making a physical intimacy and not making a historic or mental intimacy. Now that is what leads to a violation of existential integrity and that is why the non reductionist view of sexuality would see that sexuality also or a sexual encounter also entails a joining together of lives because it is both just as it is so integrated that the physical body smiling in the example just mentioned a physical body showing the physical correlates or physical features of smiling and the person smiling seems to be so correlated that we do not find that there is a space for binary and it seems so naturally integrated whereas Punzhu extends this integration to even the sexual encounter that a sexual encounter without a historical or a commitment to be together seems like a violation of existential integrity while the case of smiling is well when you could say another case of violation of existential integrity in the smiling example would be when the person smiles or physically displays all the features of smiling but does not feel that way so pretends or fakes a smile now that is again a violation of existential integrity so Punzhu is trying to put forth that as crucial to human existential integrity and just as one would greet a person with a physical smile but not feeling that smile is a violation of existential integrity because having a physical smile and not having the corresponding feeling with it is breaking the integrity of our existence that at one level we are putting forth a promise of we are putting forth a symbol of I would not say intimacy but a symbol of friendliness whereas at another level the mental level we are not putting forth that so that is as much as a violation of intimacy or sorry which is a violation of existential integrity so what in the slide if you see the last point on the current slide Punzhu does say that the human body is the locus of human self and if considered as a unitary the self and the body the body and the self are to act in unison to act and to feel it that is what the non reductionist would say to disregard this integrity is to give up on existential integrity now what does this bring about this brings about this notion of depersonalization Punzhu goes on to regard there is a typo there Punzhu goes on to regard that sexual unions that take place without any mutual commitment and even if this lack of mutuality is stated and accepted by the partners it is still morally deficient because it depersonalizes their bodily existence for such an act segregates even though if in consent the body the most intimate physical expression of the self from the self itself this is using a part of an individual as a means for the individual and demeaning the part the body as a mere means so what is this notion of depersonalization that Punzhu is talking about well he says that well any notion in any sexual union that takes place which without mutuality is depersonalizing the individual because the individual is one is unitary and the individual uses or is attains intimacy at a physical level without an mutuality and intimacy at the mental level seems to be apart from a violation of existential integrity seems to depersonalize or downgrade the physical component of one's existence of using one's body as a means even if mutual consent that we use one's body as an instrument or as a means to transact and to attain pleasure so this using of as we find in the second reason that Punzhu gives that such an act segregates the body the most intimate physical expression of the self from the self itself and this is using a part of an individual as a means for the individual and demeaning the part that is the body as mere means so it depersonalizes the human being so as very commonly said that prostitution depersonalizes human beings that is the physical self is the closest physical expression of the human being of one as a person it does beg of a little bit of abstraction to fully appreciate this claim that Punzhu is making or any non-reductionist claim let us see I express myself and I am attached to the clothes I wear to the things I possess to a particularly particularly found of a fountain pen that suppose my grandfather gave it to me and I have enjoyed writing with it so I have a paraphernalia of physical things around me which make me feel like me which allow me to express myself see my moustache expresses myself my clothes express me my clothes express me my motorcycle expresses me and I choose things around me because they express me so having a fashion statement is when I choose things to express myself that well I would like this kind of clothes and I would not like that kind of clothes because I find that these kind of clothes express myself better or express me better than those kind of clothes these are physical things around me that help me express myself to others to myself preceding all these things that help me express myself is fundamentally my physical body it is the most intimate physical connect in fact the only perhaps physical connect to my self and this is in no way assuming or claiming that the self is something independent of the body or anything like that it is actually holding what is known as a holistic view that we are an individual and this individual has many components and of these components together make the individual so it is like an emergence of an individual from the various components or the individual supervenes on certain components but anyway that you need not worry about that right now so when I depersonalize myself when I lend my clothes to somebody else to wear or when I sell that fountain pen that I am very fond of and that has historical value to me because my grandfather gifted it to me and we have been using using it for generations I am in a way letting my personal domain away as a transaction but the epitome of my personal domain is my physical body and by engaging in a sexual encounter without any historical or mental correlate I am actually depersonalizing my body so it is going further and further ahead and the I am engaging the skill of a surgeon is a personal body further away to the surgeon than the body of the surgeon is to surgeon so when I am or when a person is using one's body as the means one is depersonalizing or removing that entity which may be as far as your clothes and your fountain pen to as close as your physical body the ultimate the most intimate the most intimate physical component that we have to a unitary person and as you see and then Tunzol is that this is the final justification in depersonalization that this is using a part of an individual as a means for the individual and demeaning the part or the body as the mere means so the body is no more seen as a component but is seen is seen as an instrument well one could look at it this way I am just drawing an interesting analogy which is purely mine and I take full responsibility for it cultures which seem to see mentality as essential and body as a means that or an or an animal burden on this mentality or this notion of self will perhaps be more comfortable on using the body as means for existence whereas the world view which would see human being as an unitary self or a unitary self combining the physicality and mentality would given equal status and dignity to the physicality of human existence and would find something wrong in using it as the as a means of anything else so well when then Tunzol says that means for the individual so when we use the body as the means for the individual we are actually demeaning it or depersonalizing it, Tunzol goes ahead and claims that and talks about chastity which seems to be a frequently ridiculed word as as something which is Victorian in origin which is a symbol of prudery Tunzol claims that well the chased man rejects depersonalized sexual relations as a reduction of man in his most intimate physical being to the status of an object or pure instrument for another he asserts that a man that man is a subject and end in himself not in some trans temporal non physical world but in the historical physical world in which he carries on his moral task and where he finds his fellow man he will not freely make of himself in his bodily existence a thing to be handed over to another's possession nor will he ask that another treat his own body in this way the total physical intimacy of sexual intercourse will be an expression of total union with the other self on all levels of their beings. Now, Tunzol puts forth a very high ideal and a claim that is intensely metaphysical to claiming that what is this notion of chastity this notion of chastity is or being chased is one who gives equal credence and value to once physicality as once non physicality and takes it all together the total and sexual intercourse will be an expression of the total union with the other self on all levels of their beings. So, yes, Punzol does raise the ideal and in fact talks about a sexual encounter being an encounter at all levels between two human persons and physical physicality being one of those levels equally respectable equally important and equally necessary isolating that or an engagement at the sexual physical level without the corresponding engagement at any other component level of a human person is a untraced act is an act wherein one is not being one is existential integrity is violated one depersonalizes one body and this is what perhaps was meant when we asked it to be chased or when tradition and when the notions of chastity were worked out. Let us look at this as a further example of theory building and see now that we have put forth the ontological claims of non reductionism. What does what are the consequences that follow what follows of marriage then well considering the just proposed model of understanding human sexuality marriage would mean a mutual and total commitment of two individuals to share the problems and prospects of their historical existence in the world it involves a full existential sharing on the part of the two beings of the burdens opportunities and challenges of their historical existence. So, having this interpretation of an existential connect let us look at one of the various consequences that follow and Punzol talks about marriage there is that considering this proposed model of understanding of human sexuality marriage is essentially mean a mutual and total commitment of the two individuals to share the problems and prospects of their historical existence in the world these are the two quoted from Punzol the key notions regarding a marriage where marriage is a mutual and total commitment of two individuals of their physical intimacy which also reflects in their historical intimacy their commitment to share the problems and prospects and of their historical existence in the world. So, it goes ahead to say that and I quote from Punzol that it involves a full existential sharing on the part of the two beings of the burdens opportunities and challenges of their historical existence. So, these were two perspectives on a philosophical analysis of sexuality they were attempt these were attempts to build a little theory of sexuality justifying the claims and following through some of the consequences. So, we take this as an example these two ways they are non reductionist and the reductionist understanding of sexuality and how these little theories that we have about sexuality would determine applied decisions. So, for instance let me just take a quick example that when it comes to say premarital sexuality it is for the sake of without any mutual commitment for the reductionist it would be fine that as long as both the people engaged in it are ok with it and are aware of each other's intentions there is no deceit it seems to be fine. But for the non reductionist view that well even if both of them are aware of each other's intentions and are ok with it there is something demeaning about the very act in which they are entering they are demeaning themselves by not fully engaging or living up to the possibility of a total union. So, anyway these were the examples of how metaphysics is also connected to ethics the kind of presuppositions that we have and influences the kind of opinions and decisions that we make. So, with this I leave you all to engage in your little theoretical enterprise and understand what are common nuances of the world from a philosophical outlook and not to give into not to give into understanding what comes to us which is embedded because of where and who and what we are. But also to question the embedded knowledge that comes to us and to articulate it to make it conscious and to understand it better. With this I would come to an end. Thank you.