Sexual Ethics Flashcards
1
Q
Premarital sex
A
Sex before marriage
2
Q
Extramarital sex
A
Sex outside of marriage, where at least one party is married to someone else
3
Q
Contractarian
A
The idea that moral rules or norms are based on an implicit mutual agreement
4
Q
Histroicals attitudes to sex and sexuality
A
- premarital sex, extramarital sex and homosexuality are a falling short of God’s ideal
- UK has a Judeo-Christian ethical view
5
Q
Why have attitudes to sex and sexuality changed
A
- effective use of contraception has made premarital sex less risky
- 75% see no moral issue with premarital sex
- 68% do not consider homosexual relationships to be wrong
- 85% find extramarital sex always wrong
- increase in cohabitation (more likely to divorce if you cohabit)
6
Q
The non-harm principle
A
MILL
- rules are needed only in order to prevent people being harmed and to take action if harm takes place
- provided the people involved have given consent and no one is harmed then no further rules are needed
7
Q
Support of the non-harm principle
A
JOHN HARRIS
- sexual ethics as such is not needed, since issues as violence, abuse or paedophilia would be dealt with under other ethical debates
8
Q
Michel Foucault
A
Challenges religious thinking on sexual ethics
- categorises sexual behaviour in terms of normal and abnormal
- unhelpful way of seeing the world = should be rejected
9
Q
Feminist view on sexual ethics
A
- gender inequality disproportionately affects women by sexual discrimination
- MeToo movement highlighted this issue - sexual abuse, assault at work, revenge porn
- women are more judged if they have had several partners
10
Q
Applying natural law - Aquinas
A
- each person and each activity has a telos
- the primary precept of human beings is reproduction
- sexual acts without reproduction does not reach your telos - no masturbation, contraception, homosexual acts
- marriage is fundamentally important - premarital and extramarital rejected
11
Q
John finnis
A
Based on natural law theories
- certain things in life are basic goods of human flourishing eg reproduction, knowledge, work
- only in marriage that both friendship and reproduction can be combined
- homosexual sex is instrumental and harmful
12
Q
Fletcher’s view
A
- key to christian ethics is agape
- it applied to individual situations
- agape is the middle ground between legalism ad antinomianism
- premarital sex and homosexuality is not morally wrong as long as they are based on love
- extramarital sex can sometimes be supported depending on the circumstances
13
Q
Fletchers view on dangers of his view
A
- there is a danger of promiscuity
- people are ignoring the value of dignity of persons and are treating them as ‘love objects’
14
Q
Fletchers difficult cases surrounding extramarital sex
A
- Mrs Bergmeier
- patriotic prostitution
15
Q
Christianity and sexual ethics
A
- biblical material, Jesus says very little about sexuality
- Paul said that christians should remain celibate
- RC, equal weight to church teaching, natural law and biblical material
- liberal, value the bible but feel that there is a need to interpret and apply Paul’s teaching literally
- evangelical, may take the biblical teaching in a moral literal sense
16
Q
Kant - persons and marriage
A
- persons have desires but also rationality to make decisions regarding our desires
- main concern is that sexuality can reduce us purely to acting on desires
- marriage helps us to avoid degrading us as a person because the couple has freely and rationally chosen to enter into this contract
- sexual relationships are based on will and desire
17
Q
kant’s view on premarrital sex
A
opposes premarital sex
- it is not based on a mutual promise-making that is offered in marriage
- sex risks being based on animal instincts and lust
- especially the case around one night stands and casual encounters
18
Q
kants view on extramarital sex
A
oppose extramarital sex
- it breaks the promises made in marriage
- the promise breaking cannot be universalised
- it is impossible to engage in extramarital sex without treating at least one if not both parties as a means to an end
19
Q
Kant’s view on homosexuality
A
opposed to homosexuality
- sees it as a degradation of human nature based purely on desire
- it is not possible to treat other persons as an end
- it cannot be universalised so would lead to human race dying out
20
Q
modern Kantian views on homosexuality
A
DO NOT agree with Kant
- someone’s sexuality is part of their identity
- homosexual relationships should be permitted as this allows the persons involved to be treated ‘as an end’ rather than a means to an end
21
Q
neo-Kantian view
A
- suggest that Kant is too dependent on marriage
- it may be possible if both parties are in agreement in almost a ‘contract-based way’ (allowing premarital sex, one night stands, prostitution)
- Kant would strongly disagree with this
22
Q
Mill’s view
A
- sex is a lower pleasure= - non-harm principle - governments should not intervene or make law unless someone is harming someone else
- tolerant of various sexual practices as long as there is consent
23
Q
Bentham act utilitarianism
A
- case by case basis
- whatever brings the most pleasure is the right action
- pleasure is the key purpose of sex, reproduction is rejected
24
Q
peter singer/ modern utilitarianism
A
- questioned if ethical discussion was needed
- no unique moral issue in sexual ethics
- there are greater and more important moral questions that arise from driving a car eg effects on the environment and harm to others (SINGER)
25
utilitarian view on premarital sex
- ordinarily have no issue
- better access to contraception prevents the negative consequences of sex
- strongly supported by Mill
26
utilitarian view on extramarital sex
- may have reasons to oppose on the grounds that the pain and harm that it may cause outweighs any initial pleasure
- judged on a case-by-case basis
- Richard Taylor - passionate love is one of life's greatest goods and that there is nothing wrong in having affairs
- BUT non-harm principle might lead to the opposite point that affairs cause more harm than good
27
utilitarian view on homosexuality
- Bentham and Mill, there is no logical reason for the law to make homosexual acts a criminal offence
- Singer, reject the idea that homosexuality causes some people offence; people should be free to pursue the things that bring them pleasure or joy as long as no one else is harmed
28
deontological approaches
- Kantianism
- Natural law
- EXTRA: finnis
29
teleological approaches
- situation ethics
| - utilitarianism
30
Utilitarianism is helpful
- it is modern and progressive (society has now caught up with utilitarian view)
- it is a secular theory that notes that the traditional way of thinking based on religion needs to be replaced
- it is flexible to the situation
- has minimal rules
- sex is mostly personal and private so good to have minimal rules
- does not allow acts where others are harmed
31
Utilitarianism is not helpful
- Bentham, the pleasure of majority which means that gang rape might not be counted as wrong
- basing decisions on pleasure is not a solid basis fro ethical reasoning as emotions change
- difficult to objectively consider pleasure and pain and weigh up the consequences
- ‘tyranny of the majority’ could lead to homophobic laws or the banning of religious criticism depending on what the view of the majority is
- consequences that are often outside of our control dictate whether something is wight or wrong - this does not make sense eg an affair is good or bad only if the other person finds out
32
Kantian ethics is a helpful approach
- respect for the person is useful as it ensure we treat people as persons not objects
- gives clear rules and also does not rely on religion
- it is based on logic and rational principles, important where emotions can cloud judgements
33
Kantian ethics is not a helpful approach
- universal law is hard to apply to sexual ethics, human race would die out if everyone is homosexual but is wrong that not everyone desires this
- optimism about marriage may be misplaced
- Kant’s rationality is oddly out of place, emotions and passion are at the heart of this topic and they should not be dismissed
- Simone de Beauvoir argues that the institution of marriage enslaves women and takes away their freedom
34
Religious ideas should not continue to have an influence on sexual ethics
- society has changed its attitudes to both religion and sex, strange that religious beliefs should dominate
- non-harm principle and the requirement of consent addresses the most difficulties, there is no need for religious principles
- some religious attitudes are outdated and understand the importance of sex
35
Foucault view on religion and sexual ethics
Religious ethics have introduced the unhelpful ideas of normal and abnormal into this topic
36
Religious ideas should continue to have an influence on sexual ethics
- religious ideas are a useful contrast to a modern culture that risks cheapening sex
- religious ideas have been enlightened when understood in their context
- Jesus’ teaching on divorce does not distinguish between genders
- marriage is valued in religion and there is statistical evidence that there are benefits to overall wellbeing in marriage
37
Situation ethics is a good approach
- it is person centred which is the right approach for issues around sexuality
- important that people come before rules
- it is flexible and avoids cheapening sex or allowing sex to be casual
- avoids pitfalls of other relativist theories
- enables decisions to be based on core religious principle yet is flexible to the changing nature of society
- treats people as adults and gives them the responsibility to make their own decisions
- there is often a lack of love in religious responses but this follows love
38
Situation ethics is a poor approach
- it overlooks the fact that there may well be absolutes in sexual ethics
- it is hard to see how an exception can be made for some rules eg ‘Do not commit adultery’
- it is guilty of selective interpretation of the bible, love is not the sole teaching of Jesus
- it is difficult to know how far to take the idea of love in terms of measuring consequences
- giving the individual the decision may be too demanding (more guidance will be needed)
- Mrs Bergmeier/ exceptional cases are rare exception are may be unwise to make them general
39
Natural law is helpful
- focuses on marriage and reproduction, it avoids cheapening acts
- focuses on telos which it is disentangled from some of the more legalistic interpretations that the Church has placed on it
- statistical evidence that the children of married parents are more likely to flourish
40
Natural law is not helpful
- natural law is derived from divine law and rely heavily on God
- telos is problematic; assumes that persons have a telos and there is telos of sexual acts
- sexual urges may be natural but not everyone has heterosexual inclinations, homosexuality is part of human nature
- commits naturalistic fallacies
- it focuses on reproduction rendering sex between old and infertile pointless
- it is legalistic and does not move with the times
41
Sexual behaviour is private and personal
- provided consent is given there is no other ethical considerations needed (rule out rape, paedophilia etc)
- non-harm would ensure neither politicians nor philosophers need to consider sexual matters
- natural law assumes that all persons and acts have a purpose, when this is removed sex is purely free and a personal choice
42
Sexual behaviours are not just private and personal
- sexual behaviour affects people for better or worse
- extramarital affairs affects children and partners - there are ethical concerns to discuss
- ethical theories often help to avoid cheapening sex eg Kant and fletcher’s theories
- there are gender inequalities, there is a need to discuss ethical issues that arise from the imbalance of power in sexual relationships
