Sexual Ethics Flashcards
What is premarital sex?
- Can range from promiscuous sexual relations to sex within a committed, but unmarried, relationship.
- Thus, opinions on this have changed over time as there has been an increase of cohabiting couples, from about 5% in the 1960s to about 50% now.
- Increased availability of contraception means that casual sex has a lower risk of pregnancy or STls.
- And, finally, we live in a more secular society, so the aforementioned points about sex within marriage are less relevant.
- Yet the topic is still very ethically contentious, especially in religious circles.
What is extramarital sex?
• Sex beyond the confines of marriage, typically used to describe adulterous sex.
• Religious scripture is generally staunch in its opposition to this: ‘Do not commit adultery’ - one of Ten Commandments.
• Valid marriage cannot be dissolved therefore anyone remarrying after a divorce is engaging in extramarital sex.
Certain ethical issues surrounding it:
- Abraham has a mistress/concubine (Hagar)
- Both David and Solomon had multiple wives
What is homosexuality?
• Sexual attraction to people of same sex.
• Law on rights for gay people has changed considerably over the last 60 years (2005 civil partnerships, 2014 full marriage rights).
• The 1957 Wolfenden Report recommended that homosexual acts between consenting adults shouldn’t be illegal. Supported by Mill’s Harm Principle.
• 1960s Hart-Devlin debate: two lords disagreed over the above. Devlin: homosexuality should remain illegal as it was part of society’s common morality. Hart disagreed, stating that society should only enforce a ‘minimal morality’ to prevent harm to others. Hart’s argument won and homosexual acts between consenting adults were decriminalised in 1967.
• Supposed religious opposition: ‘clobber passages’ - Leviticus 18:22 - City of Sodom is destroyed with one of the crimes listed being homosexuality.
What would Situation Ethics say about premarital/extramarital sex?
• Sought to ‘demythologise’ the hypocrisy, puritanism and romanticism of Christian legalism.
• 4 working principles: emphasis on pragmatism and relativism. For Fletcher, marriage was not an intrinsic good, as it suits some but not others.
• Emphasis on agape: selfless, unconditional love. If in a loving, caring relationship, premarital sex is permitted.
• 2nd proposition - Love is the ruling norm in ethical decision making and replaces all laws.
• 3rd proposition - Love and justice are the same, justice is love distributed.
• Discusses practical reasons why EMS may occur and encourages a nonjudgemental attitude. Couples may find marriage expensive and may not know if they are compatible etc. Pragmatism - Adultery generally causes unhappiness but could be justified as a means to get out of abusive relationships.
• Ideals of intrinsic right/wrong are discarded: offers example of Mrs Bergmeier sacrificial adultery (prisoner of war camp, only way she could escape was to have sex with a guard). Without absolutes, it is possible to rationalise an affair. The situation and context comes before legalistic rules.
What are the criticisms of Situation Ethics’ view on extramarital/premarital sex?
• Built on a liberal approach to the Bible: focuses on the most prevalent theme of the Bible - love. Teachings of Jesus are principally founded on love: avoids the polarisation and confusion arising from conflicting teachings in the Bible.
- Situation ethics is flexible but avoids cheapening sex or allowing sex to be casual. This avoids the potential pitfall of other relativist theories such as utilitarianism, where pleasure becomes more important than the unitive aspects that are present in loving relationships.
- Focus on golden rule: applicable to all major world religions - not just a Christian ethic.
- TAKES LIBERTIES WITH Bible and Church teachings: 10 Commandments = do not commit adultery. Absolute teachings.
- Love alone may not be the best guiding principle when measuring ethics. Should decisions about what is most loving include children who are affected, families who may disapprove of the relationship, etc.? Extramarital sex may not be the most loving consequence for the families and children involved - knock on consequences.
- Gustafson: Fletcher was light on substance and method, and vague on the details of love and the specifics of how situations magically revealed the right thing to do. Wagner: Fletcher was vague in discussion of commandments.
- Situational and pragmatic approach is actually an advantage: in modern society, sexuality has evolved so much that sexual practises differ so greatly. An absolutist, deontological approach cannot take every situation into account in a compassionate way, unlike SE.
- Also, EM/PM does not necessarily mean adultery.
- PS - Cannot protcet the vulnerable and young from exploitation so cannot clai to be about love and justice.
What is Situation Ethics’ view on homosexuality?
• As long as you are promoting agape and relationship is consensual, then homosexuality is acceptable.
• Love (2nd proposition) - two people who love each other should be able to do what they want.
• Love + Justice Same Thing (3rd propositions) - Fair to allow same rights to homosexual that heterosexuals have.
• Love Goal of Act (5th proposition) - Only the outcome can justify actions.
• PRAGMATSIM - Homosexuality is justified as it isn’t practical to marginalise proportion of society if they don’t cause harm.
• PERSONALISM - If two people want to love each other, then what they want us what is important.
What are the criticisms of Situation Ethics’ view on homosexuality?
- Aligns with liberalisation of society - gay marriage legalised. Enables decisions to be based on core religious principles yet still be flexible to the changing nature of society, particularly in terms of attitudes to cohabitation and homosexuality.
- Supported by Foucalt: no such thing as abormal sexual ethics.
- Situation ethics overlooks the fact that there may well be absolutes in sexual ethics. E.g Leviticus ‘man shall not lie with man’.
- Guilty of selective interpretation of the Bible. Love is not the sole teaching of Jesus, even if it is the most important. Jesus is very clear about issues such as divorce, for example.
- Bible itself is unclear - controversy surrounding Leviticus passages, may be to do with pedophilia. Hagar and Abraham. Appealing to a more broad, universal theme throughout the Bible - agape - avoids the controversies inherent within the legalistic text and allows for individual situations to be taken into account. Differs from NML.
What are NML’s views on premarital and extramarital sex?
Primary precepts: opposes ordered society - if people were constantly committing adultery with each other (as is implied by extramarital sex), society would descend into chaos.
Education of children: The only way for children to be provided for such that they can receive education is if they are born to married parents.
Robert George - “New Natural Law Theory”
To treat your body as a mere instrument for pleasure leads to the disintegration of a person.
‘Coitus is a unitary action in which the male and female literally become one organism…as a potential father and mother’
What are the criticisms of NML’s views on premarital and extramarital sex?
- In focusing on marriage and on reproduction, natural law avoids cheapening the sexual act, which is a consequence of some more liberal modern views.
- Outdated re sexual ethics: absolutist, strict rules e.g primary precepts made sense in medieval society (sex usually led to children which without married parents usually led to being underprovided for and probably death since society was in a more economically deprived state - made sense to restrict extramarital sex). Socioeconomic conditions have changed, contraception which disconnects sex from pregnancy and our society has more resources for helping single parents.
- May be right to link marriage and the production of children - statistical evidence that suggests the children of married parents are more likely to flourish in education. Stable environment for raising children is an important contribution that natural law makes to this debate.
• John Finnis argues certain things in life are basic goods because they cause human flourishing. Marriage is a basic good where both friendship + reproduction can be combined.
- Fletcher: there is no natural law - no empirical evidence. Cross-cultural moral disagreement: clear cases of different moral views on sexual ethics between different societies. If we all had a natural reason instilled in us to discover God’s natural law, we would expect more consensus on sexual ethics issues.
- We can argue adultery can help fertility e.g. Abraham has his first child with a servant girl, Hagar, when his wife Sarah was infertile. This was demonstrated in Bible teachings, which NML is reliant upon.
What are NML’s views on homosexuality?
The focus of Natural law is not merely on following God’s commands in the Bible (the divine law) but also on comprehending and maintaining the purpose (telos) of our natural desires as part of the natural law.
Primary precepts: one purpose is reproduction. Thus, any act involving sexul organs that does not allow for reproduction is not possible (aka homosexuality).
Thus a range of secondary precepts can be deduced which call into question the moral standing of acts such as homosexual sex and masturbation.
• Paul Weithman - homosexual acts, like contraception, impede the true purpose of the sex organs, which is to reproduce.
What are the criticisms of NML’s approach to homosexuality?
• John Finnis is a contemporary NML philosopher, he draws on Aristotle and Aquinas across his writings. Argues in society there are ‘basic goods’ and these contribute to the development of ‘human flourishing’ E.g life, friendship, reproduction and marriage.
• He suggests that due to homosexual sexual activity being unable to produce life, that it is merely instrumental and thus not morally permissible.
- Stephen Fry: Aquinas' stance in natural law is repressive of homosexual feelings. Cites 6% all teenage suicides are gay suicides - don't need the stigmatisation. - Augustine: 'love the sinner hate the sin'. Only against homosexual acts, not the orientation/inclination. - Bishop Barron: if the first and only message gay people hear is that they are ‘intrinsically disordered’ then the Church has a serious problem. The first message is that gay people are a ‘beloved child of God … invited to a full share in the divine life’. - Christopher Hitchens: above arguments are a 'revolving casuistry'. - Bishop Barron: all humans have desires which God’s law prohibits. Homosexuals are not unusually singled out in that regard for being told to control their desires. - However, when the entire object of someone’s natural sexual orientation is defined as sinful, it seems homosexuals are especially condemned. Contradicts biblical teachings: 'love thy neighbour', all made in God's image etc. - Lots of sexual relationships cannot bring forth a new life as many women face infertility. If God is omnipotent, does it make sense that he instilled a God-given reproductive purpose in sex if it is biologically impossible for all to do this in heterosexual relationships? - Nonetheless, Aquinas' religious basis for his theory renders it void. Too many contradictions re. Homosexuality already in Bible/religious circles - e.g clobber passages in Leviticus.
What are Kant’s views on pre/extramarital sex?
• Humans are considered by Kant as ‘persons’ due to their ability to make free and rational decisions.
• Although we have desires, we are unique as we have the ‘will’ - the ability to be rational about our desires.
• Kant was concerned that sex could reduce a human’s will and leave them to act purely on desires i.e. become animalistic.
- 1st formulation of CE: Premarital sex breaks promises made in marriage which Kant is against - cannot be universalised; makes marriage meaningless. EMS also cannot be universalised - could lead to the spread of STIs which is not favourable.
- 2nd formulation of categorical imperative: ends in themselves - shouldn’t use others as means to an end since they are also autonomous. Golden rule.
- Depending on the parties involved, EMS (and PMS) could lead to people being used as a means to an end - merely vehicles to satisfy sexual desire.
- ‘The body is part of the self… the person cannot make of his person a thing’
What are the criticisms of Kant’s views on pre/extramarital sex?
- Ensures we treat people as persons and not an object.
- Kantian ethics achieves the rare combination of giving some clear rules while not relying on religion. The secular nature of Kantian ethics is particularly helpful in an age when people are less religious.
- Based on logic and rational principles. This is important in a topic such as this where emotion can cloud judgement.
- Absolutism is not a good approach to sexual ethics: such a personal topic and no situation will ever be the same.
- Strict deontological rules neglect human emotion - arguably should be at the forefront of this topic. To support an ethical theory that neglects this arguably dismisses our humanity.
- Not saying that emotion is not significant, just that reason is more important. High level ability that only humans possess; we all have it - basic human function. Using our reason we can assess that a society where adultery runs rife is not favourable.
What are Kant’s views on homosexuality?
- Homosexuality is based on desire and cannot be universalised as if everyone became homosexual, the human race would die out.
- Kant personally believed homosexuality was wrong - it degrades humans to the level of animals. He regarded sex outside of marriage as a means to an end (opposes 2nd formulation of categorical imperative).
What are the criticisms of Kant’s views on homosexuality?
- Respect for persons/not treating as means to an end is a useful feature of Kantian ethics - hard to disagree with. Promotes healthy relationships.
- The principle of universal law is an odd one to apply to sexual ethics. While Kant is right that the human race would die out if everyone only had homosexual sex, he is wrong in that not everyone desires this. It is perfectly possible in a society such as ours, where less than one in ten people will have homosexual relationships.
- Modern Kantians would largely disagree: Homosexual marriage and relationships should be permitted as they allow people to be treated as ‘ends in themselves’ - autonomy.
- Emphasis on reason is stunted: reason can be corrupted + influenced by various factors. Our culture determines our emotional feelings. Kant’s views on sexual ethics arguably show how his supposedly reasoned moral views were really just reflections of and rationalisations for his culture’s views. (Thought children born outside marriage could be killed or left to die). His reason was a slave of his culturally conditioned passions.
