Sexual Ethics - Arguments Flashcards
Give Aquinas’ argument that sex should respond to the primary precept of reproduction.
Who:
Aquinas
What:
Sex should respond to the primary precept of reproduction and therefore always retain the possibility of offspring. More specifically, sex should always respond to the primary precepts since they are inherent moral truths that we can universally access through our God-given ratio to fulfill our telos - eudaimonia with God.
Why:
1) Sex should respond to the primary precept of reproduction.
This is plausible since the primary precepts are inherent moral rules that we can universally access through our ratio to fulfill our telos - achieving eudaimonia with God. As such, sex, as all our actions, should respond to and obey these primary precepts so we may achieve eudaimonia with God.
2) If 1) sex should retain the possibility of offspring.
This is plausible by considering the negation. If you do not retain the possibility of offspring then the sex you have will not be able to lead to reproduction - violating the primary precepts and therefore being morally wrong. As such, sex should retain the possibility of having offspring so that it can respond to the primary precept of reproduction.
3) Thus, sex should retain the possibility of reproduction.
Example: Contraceptive sex, oral sex.
Give Dawkins argument that telos is unscientific.
Who:
Dawkins
What:
Telos is unscientific. More specifically, the theory of evolution reveals that there is no room for telos in contemporary scientific discussion; as such there is no room for telos in a discussion about sexual ethics.
Why:
1) Things in nature come to be fine-tuned through evolution.
This is plausible through an understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution occurs over time when the offspring of a species is born with a random mutation which, if it proves to be advantageous, will be passed onto offspring till a majority of the species carries the mutation. In this model, it is clear that advantageous mutations allow for fine-tuning.
2) If 1) then things in nature don’t have a telos given to them by God.
This is plausible because evolution leaves no room for telos. Since things in nature are able to flourish through random advantageous mutations there is no need for purpose - the evolutionary model fully works without it.
3) Then things in nature don’t have a purpose given to them by God.
Give Foot’s argument that we can empirically deduce telos.
Who:
Foot
What:
Telos is infact scientific. More specifically, the example of an oak tree highlights that telos is infact something we can observe empirically and therefore it is scientific and has room in discussions of sexual ethics.
Why:
In a nutshell, Foot replies claims that telos is unscientific by arguing that it is observable in a scientific context. Take an oak tree, by observing it over a period of time we can observe what things contribute to its flourishing, such as sunlight and nutritious soil. Therefore, it is clear that telos is scientific since telos can be observed in an oak tree - inclined to what enables its flourishing.
Give Barth’s argument that sex should take place in a stable heterosexual union.
Who:
Barth
What:
Sex should happen in stable heterosexual unions. More specifically, Genesis 2:24 speaks of men and woman as “one flesh”, indicating the that men and woman should join together in ‘one flesh’ to have sex - a stable union as God intended.
Why:
1) Sex should bind two very different people together into a stable union.
This is plausible because God states in Genesis 2:24 that we are joined in “one flesh”. This symbolism of the binding of two very different parts into a complete piece applies to us - a stable union comes from the binding of two very different people in “one flesh”.
2) If 1) then sex should take place in the context of heterosexual marriage.
This is plausible since men and women are sufficiently different and marriage provides the stable union demanded by God.
3) Thus, sex should take place in the context of heterosexual marriage.
Give Reuther’s argument that traditional Christian views are a legitimising ideology.
Who:
Reuther
What:
Teachings on sex from the Bible are a legitimising ideology. More specifically, we should only follow teachings that adhere to the golden thread of the Bible - to treat others as you would like to be treated since we are all made imago dei.
Why:
1) Teachings truly from God focus on the golden thread.
This is plausible since by being made imago dei is what differentiates us from the rest of creation - it makes intuitive sense that God’s teachings towards us should centre on the idea we are all made in his image.
2) if 1) then teachings that reject homosexual sex are not from God.
This is plausible since these teachings would imply God favours people that are heterosexual, which contradicts the golden thread since we are all made imago dei and thus we are all held equally before God and amongst each other. Instead, these teachings are put into place to uphold human power structures.
3) Thus teachings that reject homosexual sex are not from God.
Give Barth’s argument that the golden thread is arbitrary.
Who:
Barth
What:
Reuther’s objection relies on an arbitrary golden thread. More specifically, the Reuther does not justify her golden thread - there are many other biblical teachings that are repeated throughout the Bible; what stops men and woman being joined in one flesh from being a golden thread?
Why:
In a nutshell, Reuther’s golden thread - while an important theme in the Bible - lacks any grounding to justify it as the golden thread of the whole Bible. As such, a reductio argument can be made since any other teaching in the Bible can be taken as a golden thread just as easily.
Give the argument that sex is not inherently good or bad from a utilitarian perspective.
Who:
Bentham
What:
Utilitarianism gives the insight that utility is the only intrinsic good. More specifically, since utility is the only intrinsic good sex is not inherently good or bad; but rather its moral goodness is measured relative to how much utility it produces.
Why:
1) Love is the only intrinsic good.
This is plausible since it is taught to be God’s greatest commandment - we are told to go as far as to “hang all the law and the profits” in favour following the commandment to love thy neighbour.
2) If 1) then sex is not inherently good or bad.
This is plausible since it would only be good or bad insofar as it maximises utility.
Give the argument that utilitarianism agrees with our moral intuitions.
Who:
Bentham
What:
Is sensitive to the context of the situation. More specifically, more specifically in the case of Mrs Bergmeier, she is imprisoned in a POW camp and the only way she can return to her husband and children is to have sex with the prison guard - utilitarianism argues that she does the morally right thing, which agrees with our moral intuitions.
Why:
1) In the case of Mrs Bergmeier, utilitarianism would argue that she did the morally right thing.
This is plausible as her act is only measured as good or bad relative to how much utility is produced. Her escaping imprisonment at a POW camp to return to her family is the action that maximises utility in that context.
2) If 1), then utilitarianism is a good ethical theory to apply to sexual ethics.
This is plausible since it agrees with our moral intuitions in the case of Mrs Bergmeier. By being sensitive to the context of the situation, utilitarianism agrees with the morally intuitive answer that Mrs Bergermeier did the right thing by having extramarital sex to return to her family.
3) Thus, utilitariainism is a good ethical theory to apply to sexual ethics.
Give the argument that Kantian ethics agrees with our moral intuitions.
Who:
Kant
What:
Respects inalienable human rights. More specifically, Kantian ethics would argue that rape is always wrong because it uses someone as a means to an end, violating the second formulation of the categorical imperative - which protects our inalienable human right to not be exploited as a means to an end by others.
Why:
1) Rape is always wrong according to Kantian ethics.
This is plausible because it would be considering using someone, more specifically their sexual faculties, to an end which violates the second formulation of the categorical imperative.
2) if 1) then Kantian ethics is a good ethical theory to apply to sexual ethics.
This is plausible since it agrees with our moral intuitions By respecting inalienable human rights, Kantian ethics agrees with the morally intuitive answer that rape is always wrong.
3) Thus, Kantian ethics is a good ethical theory to apply to sexual ethics.
