Sexual Ethics Flashcards
what question does the topic ask?
why do people have sex?
who are the scholars related to this topic
Bentham, Aquinas, Mill, Fletcher and Kant
what is the biblical background?
Genesis 1:27-28
-sex is a blessing from God
- it happens between a man and a woman
- it is for the purpose of reproducing offspring
Genesis 2:18-24
about unity between a man and a woman (becoming one flesh)
Matthew 19: 3-10
-marriage joins two together into one flesh
-“what God joins together, let no one seperate”
what are Augustine’s three goods of marriage
1)children
2)fides (permanent commitment to one another)
3) sacrament; matthew 19
Aquinas: Natural law and premarital sex argument 1
who and what? in a attemt to christianise aristotelian thought, Aquinas developed natural law theory which emphasises on the 5 primary precepts that direct us to our telos (eudaimonia )one of which being reproduction meaning that Aquians thinks sex should always be aimed at reproduction and should always retain the possibility of offspring.
why? his argument folows;
1)sex should respond to the primary precept of reproduction
2)if sec should respond to the primary precept of reproduction, then it should always retain the possibility of offspring.
3)So: sex should always retain the possibility of offspring.
Aquinas: Natural law and premarital sex argument 2
who and what? same who and what as argument 1 + should happen between a married couple.
why? his argument followed;
1) sex should respond to the primary precept of education of children. this is plausible because because for aquinas all our actions should allign with the primary precept and so with sex comes the possibility of offspring and so eventually leading to the education of children and overall the fufillment of our telos ( euidaimonia)
2) if sex should respond to the primary precept of education of children, then it should happen between a married couple. this is plausible because for Aquinas being a traditional theologian he thought that it was better for children to be brought up in a nuclear household rather than a single household familly and so it is better for sex should be between married couples to uphold the precepts.
3)So it should occur between a married couple.
`Barth
who? Neo orthodox theologian that wanted to return to traditional views/ practises after liberal theology attempts to make religion acceptable within modern life using our reason.
what? thought that sex should be had in the context of heteresexual marriages.
1) sex should bind together two very different people into a stable union. This is plausible because it naturally lends to one of augustine’s three goods of marriage (fides) as the very different people refer to man and woman creating a community and union as mentioned in genesis 2.
2)If sex should bind together two very different people into a stable union, then sex should only be had in the contect of heteresexual marriages. this is plausible because for Barth sex should eb between two very different people so a man and a woman, meaning that if it were a homosexual couple for example they would be too similar and it would be an unstable union.
3)So sex should only be had in the contect of heterosexual marriage.
Ruether
Who and what? feminist catholic theologian, who thought that most of the bible is God inspired partly however, most is just legitimising theology due to humans she used a golden thread to find out which parts of the Bible are truly from God, focusing on the central
theme: all humans are made in the image of God, so God would want all humans to be treated
equally.
Why? Her argument follows;
1) The genuine God inspired view is that all humans are made in the image of God
2) If 1, then any view that beliwves homosexuality is wrong is not the genuine God inspired view
3) So, (2)
Dawkins
Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and atheist, thought that evolution makes it seem as if all things have a telos when, in fact, this is untrue and instead is a result of natural selection. His argument followed: telos does not exist. This is plausible because natural selection is a random process that has no purpose, meaning that there is no purpose (telos) to anything. If so, then the primary precepts do not govern sex. This is plausible because the primary precepts aim at telos, but telos do not exist, so humans do not have to follow any rules to get us to telos, including sex. So, the primary precepts do not govern sex.
Ruether
Ruether, a feminist catholic theologian who took a liberal approach to Christianity, thought that the bible was partly God inspired and used the golden thread all humans are made in the image of God to decide which parts are from God. Her argument follows; the genuinely God-inspired Christian view is that all humans are made in the image of God. This is plausible because humans possess unique qualities like rationality and morality that reflect the nature of God. If so, then any view that says homosexuality is immoral is not the genuine God-inspired Christian view. This is plausible because restricting sex to heterosexual couples would be unequal treatment, and if we are not made in the image of God, Barth’s view is a legitimising ideology.
Phillipa Foot response to Dawkins
Phillipa Foot, a neo-Aristelian philosopher naturalist, would agree with Dawkins and instead think that science gives us an idea of telos since it is observable what is good for living beings, and this is what leads to telos. For example, what is good for an oak tree is an observable thing: water, sunlight, etc. Likewise, what is good for humans is an observable thing: charity, friendships, etc. Dawkins is wrong to dismiss the whole notion of telos, and sex does have a purpose, which is to follow and fulfil the five primary precepts which aim at telos.
Fletcher 1
who and what? liberal theologian that believed that sex should not b governed by legalsitic theories such as from Aquinas or Barth as this leads to ethical idolatry which results in a lack of personalism and instead should be be based on principled relativism and a focus on agapeic love.
why?
1. in the case of sacrificial adultery, Mrs Bergmaier should have slept with the prison guard. this is plausible because in the case of Mrs Bergmaier, she had the choice to return home under the conditions she has extramarital sex with the prison guard to impregnate herself and then return home to her family. Our basic moral intuitions agree with this choice.
2. if so, then situation ethics correctly explains our moral intuitions about sexual ethics and so can be used.
this is plausible because a good ethical theory is one in which correctly explains our moral intuitions and situation ethics accurately does this.
SO:
Fletcher 2
who and what? liberal theologian that believed that sex should not b governed by legalsitic theories such as from Aquinas or Barth as this leads to ethical idolatry which results in a lack of personalism and instead should be be based on principled relativism and a focus on agapeic love.
why?
1. utility is the only intrinsic good. this is plausible because utility is the only thing we seek, so it is the only thing we value and is the only thing that has value.
2. if so, then no (sexual) act is intrinsically good or bad. this is plausible because utility is the only intrinsic good as shown above meaning that no (sexual) act can be intrinsically good (in itself) but only in the sense of the amount of utility it bring about.
Bentham
Bentham
no sexual act has value intrinsically because the utility is the only thing that has intrinsic value. So a sexual act can only be good or bad in terms of the utility it brings about.
Why ?
1.Utility is the only thing with intrinsic value. This is plausible because utility is the only thing we seek and so it is the only thing that has value and so is the only thing we value.
2.If so, then no sexual act can be intrinsically good or bad. This is plausible because only utility is intrinsically good as shown above meaning that any (sexual) act cannot be intrinsically (in itself) good but only in the sense of the amount of utility it brings about.
3.So: no sexual act can be intrinsically good or bad.
Barclay
Barclay
1.Situation ethics lack of rules can lead us to make self-deceptive decisions. This is plausible because humans have akrasia due to the fall, as Augustine argues, which leads to flawed reason and judgement that doesn’t allow us to fully be able to make the right moral decisions.
2.If so, then it is not a good ethical theory to use for sexual ethics as it would lead to anarchy. This is plausible because of the example of adultery. Due to the lack of rules it means that one is left alone and can wrongly convince themselves that adultery is okay under the basis it creates ‘love’ and utility.
3.So, situation ethics is not a good ethical theory to use for sexual ethics as it would lead to anarchy.
