sexual ethics Flashcards
(13 cards)
what is premarital sex
sex before marriage
has grown steadily with in the 1960s fewer than 1 in 20 uk couples cohabitated, but that has increased to more than half of all couples today. the contraceptve pill in the 1960s has been credited for this social change
christian teachings traditionally view sex before or outside marriage as a sin. sex before marriage indicates a lack of moral discipline and poses a threat to marriage and family
Genesis 2:24 - That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
“Each of you must learn to control his own body, as something holy and held in honour, not yielding to the promptings of passion, as the heathen do in their ignorance of God.” 1 Thessalonians 4.
however churches have differing views
for the Catholic Church, premarital sex does not express fidelity,exclusivity and commitment so therefore it does not tolerate it
although some christian leaders have advocated looking at it differently - the Church of England published a book ‘something to celebrate: vaulting families in church and society’ 1995 which stated ‘cohabitation is, for many people, a step along the way towards that fuller and more complete commitment’
adrian thatcher argues that christians who believe all pre ceremoniall sex is immoral have wrongly assumed that the ceremony is a requirement of marriage (marriage after modernity: christian marriage in postmodern times 1999 )
thatcher suggests there is a long tradition that the key point of commitment is betrothal when promises are made not the marriage ceremony which happens later.
in western countries, social attitudes and laws do not follow the churches teachings. for instance, civil marriages now outnumber religious ones in the uk and people wait longer before getting married, during which cohabitation is increasingly normal.
28% thought premarital sex was wrong in 1983 this number is now 11%
what is extramarital sex
when a married person has sex with someone other than their spouse or when a single person has sex with a married person - basically adultary
the catholic church holds that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved - forbids divorce however since the time of Vatican II council 1962-5 there has been an increase in the number of annulments which has led some to argue that annulment is a tacit form of divorce
since the reformation protestant churches have to different degrees peritted divorce in exceptional circumstances
the catholic church believes that anyone remarrying after divorce is having extramarital sex
“Thou shalt not commit adultery” (10 commandments) Exodus 20:14
in ‘sex, gender and christian ethics 1996’ Lisa Sowle Cahill argues that christianitys stance against divorce originated in an attempt to limit ,ens ability to manipulate marriage, women and children in the interests of power and wealth. christianity ban on adultory made it impossible for men to have concubines (polygamy) and ban on divorce stopped them abandoning women
as society becomes more secular once again, social attitudes are more diverse. however, a study published in ‘the lancet’ in 2013 as part of a national survey of sexual attitudes reported the people having sex under the age of 16 had not increased over the previous 25 years and the proportion of people who disaproved of adulttry increased men - 45 - 63% women - 53 -70%. therefore people have more conservative attitudes to some traditional parts of sex in particular to commitment and exclusivity - which are central to christian views of marriage
another area christian and social attitides agree is with consent. consent has been long important in christian marriage eg couples are asked serparately by a catholic priest if they are entering the marriage free;y. consent is also a key concern in society
situation ethics on sexual ethics
situation ethics -
long as pre/extra marital, homosexuality sex involve consent and those involved are happy, it seems that the outcome is loving and therefore those acts would be morally good. However, if manipulation was involved in persuading people into such acts, then the outcome would not be loving, and it would be wrong.
Fletcher points to the example of adultery, often thought absolutely wrong. He explains the case of a mother trapped in a prison work camp (mrs bargemier) during a war. The only conditions of release are either disease or pregnancy, so she asked a guard to impregnate her, thus committing adultery. She was released, her family ‘thoroughly approved’ of her action and loved the resulting child as their own. The implication is that wrongness is not absolute, it depends on the situation.
Fletcher was critical of legalism – the view that ethics must be based on rules which do not take the situation into account. It is up to the individual person to decide in a moral situation what would have the loving outcome. This suggests that sexual behaviour should not be subject to public norms and legislation – it should only be subject to the principle of Agape.
Situation ethics claims that love is the basis for ethical judgement. However, it is subjective, meaning a matter of opinion. Someone might find it loving to try and prevent their homosexual child from expressing or acting on their homosexuality, or even to disown them. They might also think it loving to disown their child if they engaged in pre-marital sex. Someone might find it loving to manipulate/pressure someone into or out of pre/extra marital sex.
defence - love is subjective, but agape is not. Agape is much more specific than love, it means selfless love of your neighbour. Pressuring others into sex or disowning them for sexual behaviour is not selfless love of your neighbour.
counter defence - Agape is subjective. The way you love your neighbour when loving them as yourself depends on the way you love yourself, which is subjective. A parent who disowns their child for sexual behaviour might indeed think that if they had behaved similarly as a child then they should have been disowned too.
situation ethics ignores the bible - The Bible is clearly against homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex, so Fletcher’s theory is not being true to Christian ethics. -
Leviticus 18:22 - “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable”
‘thou shall not commit adultury’
however Fletcher doesn’t think the Bible is the perfect word of God that we can follow literally. The most we can get from it is general themes and Fletcher thinks that Agape is an important theme in the Bible.
william barclay -situation ethics grants people a dangerous amount of freedom -
People are not perfectly loving so if given the power to judge what is good or bad, people will do selfish or even cruel things. People’s loving nature can be corrupted by power.
- Defence of Fletcher: Fletcher & Robinson argue that mankind has ‘come of age’, meaning become more civilised and educated.
homosexuality
in recent decades western liberal democracies have witnessed a radical change in the legal frameworks relating to homosexuality.
sex between men was a crime in the uk in the first half of the 20th centuary and homosexuality was considered a crime in which appauling treatments were prescribed. however in 1957 the wolfenden report recommended homosexuality be decriminalised and then in 1967 the sexual offences act was passed which made it legal for men aged 21+ then lowered to 18 in 1994 and 16 in 2001
first same sex marriages in england in wales took place 29 march 2014
however changes in legality was not always mirrored in social attitudes. the 1999 nail-bombing of a gay bar in london showed the extent of hostiality felt by some. there is still some hostility with an underlying cultural prejudice
christianity and homosexuality
traditional teachings teach that it is wrong
no possibility of life so goes against natural law - ‘be fruitful and multiply’
Corinthians - ‘nor men who have sex with men…will inherit the kingdom of God’
Leviticus 18:22 - “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable”
there is however, disagreement over what these biblical passages mean and how they are to interpreted.
in the Ancient Greek world men commonly had sex with other men. the bible also has an absence of mentioning lesbian relationships- these acts may only be immoral due to consent or adultory as mentioned in the bible
other old testament rules are also not enforced by christians. gareth moore (‘the body in context: sex and catholicism’) writes that while christians are happy to follow the law against homosexuality in leviticus they reject the passage later that advocates beheading as a punishment + leviticus 19:19 that forbids wearing garments made of 2 different materials. moore argues that we ignore the laws that are inconvenient to us- moore believes that scripture is being used inconsistently to reinforce prejudice.
anglican church/church of England and homosexuality
opposes same sex marriage and requires gay and lesbian clergy who are in same- sex marriages to remain celibate - position defined in ‘issues in human sexuality’ 1991 but divisions in church were later aknowledged ina ‘report of the house of bishops, working party on human sexuality’
the church of england is divided on the topic
gene robinson was elected bishop of the diocese of new hampshire in the episcopal church in the USA in 2014 and was the first preist in an openly gay reletionship
in engalnd in 2003 jeffery john become the first person in an openly same sex relationship to be nominated as a church of england bishop but he withdrew his acceptance of this due to the controversy.
overall 2017 declared that a minister of the Church of England may not conduct a same sex marriage but may pray with the couple after a state ceremony.
catholic church and homosexuality
views summarised in the catechism of the catholic church
maintains that their is no sin involved in an inclination towards a member of the same sex as its not chosen but is a trial
pope francis has confirmed that he considers there to be no grounds for considering the recognition of homosexual unions - ‘there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogos to gods plan for marriage’
in their book ‘catholics and sex: from purity to purgatory’ kate saunders and peter stanford argue that the words of some catholics about homosexuals have fuelled intolerance. for example in 1991 the polish cardinal glemp referred to homosexuals as ‘backyard mongrels’
simarely the italian gay rights group arcigay has linked the churches teaching with violent expressions of intolerance. arcigay estimates that each year between 150 and 200 gay men are murdered in Italy because of their sexual orientation however pope francis says ‘if a person is gay and seeks god and has good will, who am i to judge’ and says the church should apologise for the harm it has done to gay people - gay people ‘should not be discrimated against. they should be respected’ - said by him in the gardian 2016
changing christian moral thought on homosexuality
some churches have sought to explicitly welecome homosexual people.
the united methodist church instructs that - ‘we affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of god’
‘we implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members’
some christian churches have gone further , challenging the traditional condemnation of homosexuality. maintain that the quality of the relationship is what determines its moral value
draw on the teachings in genesis that all are made ;in the image of God’
in his book ‘the body in context: sex and catholicism’ gareth moore argues that there is christian basis for an inclusive attitude towards homosexuals because christianty is a religion that positively seeks to make room for the marginalised and outcast in society
BA Robinson notes that liberal christians within the methodist church consider gay ordination and same sex marriage as civil rights issues. if human rights are for all then ordination and marriage should be available to gay people as well as heterosexual people.
on Saturday 9 july 2016 the general assembly of the united reformed church of the Uk empowered its ministers to conduct and register marriages for same sex couples
secular thinking on sexual ethics
in time, the social protections provided by the christianisation of marriage laws came to be viewed as social restraints on freedom by some,
in ‘on liberty’ (book byy JS mill and his wife Harriet Taylor Mill) argued that individuals should be protected from unnessary legal oversight and from the social attitudesof the masses and should be free to behave as they choose to as long as no one else is harmed.
mill questioned ‘the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately excercised by society over the individual’ and argued individuals who are different should be protected
‘protection, therefore against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion’
mill envisaged a free and liberal society and was concerned of the extent to which religion forbids certain behaviours eg mill wanted to make artificial contraception available to the poor, something prohibited by christian churches at the times + still catholic church today
Freud himself was quite conservative regarding sex in many ways, but nonetheless he was very influential on secular liberal views on sex. He thought that traditional Christian attitudes towards sex resulted in a feeling of shame about sexual desire which led to unhealthy repression and mental illness.
The liberal secular attitude towards sex is influenced by Freud. It claims that sex is a natural biological desire which shouldn’t be a source of shame but of well-being. Augustine’s insistence that there is something shameful about lust is absurd and pointless once you understand it is the result of evolution, not original sin. Conservative religious attitudes towards sex are therefore unnecessarily repressive and puritanical. They become an unhealthy and pointless obsession with self-control borne from insecurity over a mythical fall from grace.
Arguably Christianity’s repression of sexual desire made more sense in ancient times when humans were more animalistic, less socialised, less domesticated. Strict laws and harsh penalties might have been needed then, because humans were less self-controlled and thus needed greater external pressures to keep them behaving adequately. However today, arguably humans have developed to the point where they can be trusted with more freedom. This suggests that our nature is not cursed with original sin such that we need draconian sexual norms and legislation.
Catholics/natural law would argue that God designed human life to be lived a certain way, and if you upset that balance you cause social problems. 21st century youth culture is sexualised to a degree many Christians find concerning. Hook-up culture influences young people to regard sex as an opportunity for higher social status. Devaluing a personal intimate act into a superficial sign of social status harms people psychologically. Sex is commodified and people feel pressured into it. They obsess unhealthily about their physical appearance. This is harmful, and makes creating meaningful relationships difficult.
Bishop Barron develops this point, arguing that secular culture’s attitude towards sex is that there is an ‘almost complete lack’ of reference to the moral and ethical setting for sex, the purpose and meaning of sex or religious context for sexuality
Barron argues this is the reason for the ‘deep sadness’ that comes out of the hook-up culture.
Stephen Fry, a gay writer and broadcaster, argues that the paedophile priest scandal can be explained by the Church’s repressive attitude towards sex, pointing to “the twisted, neurotic and hysterical way that [the Church] leaders are chosen; the celibacy, the nuns, the monks the priesthood. This is not natural and normal.”
Fry is suggesting that the unhealthy sexual repressiveness of Church teachings causes its priests to become sexually perverted. Fry is applying the theory of Freud and Nietzsche – that repression of desires can be unhealthy as they can erupt out in negative ways.
Fry then responds to the Church’s claim that they are not repressed but that modern secular society is simply oversexualised:
“They will say we with our permissive society and rude jokes are obsessed [with sex]. No, we have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly.’
natural law on homosexuality
Natural law theory is based on the idea that God created all things, including us, with the potential to flourish if we live according to the natural law. The telos of human life is achieving ultimate happiness through glorifying God by following the natural moral law.
Aquinas regarded homosexuality as unnatural because it required a divergence from what he thought was the natural mode of sex.
The catechism of the catholic church claims that homosexuality is against the natural law as it divorces sex from the gift of life and is thus against God’s design.
Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) argued that “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”
Stephen Fry responded to Ratzinger that religion is repressive of homosexual feelings: “It’s hard for me to be told that I’m evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love … with 6% of all teenage suicides being gay teenage suicides, we certainly don’t need the stigmatization, the victimization that leads to the playground bullying when people say you’re a disordered morally evil individual.”
Augustine said ‘Love the sinner hate the sin’. Many Christians claim only to be against homosexual acts, since that is all the bible mentions, not the homosexual orientation. So Christians respond that they don’t claim Fry is evil only that his homosexual actions are evil.
Bishop Barron argued that 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 (secular) rejects the kind of arguments Augustine and Barron make as ‘revolting casuistry’ and claimed that this supposed separation of sinner from sin was absurd in the case of homosexuality since their homosexual actions come from their nature. He claimed that homosexuals are not condemned by the Church for what they do but for what they are and that the Church have no moral standing to criticise the sexual behaviour of others because of its complicity in the paedophile priest scandal. Hitchens denounces the homophobia of the Catholic Church: - “For condemning my friend Stephen Fry, for his nature. For saying you couldn’t be a member of our church, you’re born in sin”
Bishop Barron would respond that 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.
natural law on pre/extra marital sex
Aquinas thinks we have a natural desire to reproduce, educate, protect and preserve human life and live in an orderly society. All of these primary precepts are threatened by sexual immorality. The only way for children to be provided for such that they can receive education is if they are born to married parents. So, Aquinas thinks that to follow the primary precepts requires confining all sexual behaviour to marriage – so pre/extra marital sex is wrong.
Strength: Natural law ethics is available to everyone because all humans are born with the ability to know and apply the primary precepts. It is possible to follow the natural law even if you are not Christian or have no access to the divine law
however Aquinas’ Natural law ethics is increasingly seen as outdated. In ancient and medieval history, society was more chaotic. It made sense to create strict absolutist ethical principles, to prevent society from falling apart. This would explain the primary precepts. They served a useful function in medieval society.
ex 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.
Today, we have contraception which disconnects sex from pregnancy and our society has more resources for helping single parents. So, the primary precepts are no longer useful. They were designed for a different time and are now increasingly outdated.
aquinas could be defended that this doesn’t actually make his theory wrong. The fact that mainstream culture has moved on from natural law ethics doesn’t mean it was right to
- Counter-evaluation: A better version of the ‘outdated’ critique is to argue that Aquinas’ theory was actually a reaction to his socio-economic context and since that has changed, Natural law is no longer relevant.
Aquinas thought that he discovered the primary precepts through human reason, as God designed. However, arguably it’s a simpler explanation that Aquinas was simply intuiting what was good for people in his socio-economic conditions
Fletcher’s critique that there is no natural law, or our minds are unable to know it, as shown by cross-cultural moral disagreement. There are clear cases of different moral views on sexual ethics between different societies. This suggests it’s not true that we are born with the ability to discover the primary precepts.
However, there are cross-cultural similarities, such as the idea of marriage and the importance of confining sex to marriage.
However, again, those could be explained by the universality of practical requirements for the raising of children, especially since for most of history people have been economically deprived.
utilitarianism on sexual ethics
Act Utilitarianism would judge an action based on whether it produced the most amount of pleasure compared to other actions. If a sexual act, whether it is homosexual or pre/extra marital sex, maximised pleasure compared to the other option of not doing or allowing them, then it would be good to do/allow them.
Standard criticisms of Utilitarianism applies, including:
Issues with calculation and measuring pleasure
Issues with liberty/rights & justifying bad actions
utilitarianism on public/private debate
j.S. Mill, a secular liberal, argues that trying to make things illegal because they go against religious morality must be rejected because it has been the foundation of all religious persecution. He discusses what for most Christians is considered immoral extra-marital sex – polygamy, is allowed in the Mormon faith
Mill argues that even if some genuinely suffer due to their sexual practices, as long as there is consent amongst all those involved its ok.
Mill advocates the harm principle: that people should be free to do as they like as long as they do not harm others. This includes consensual sexual behaviours which are private. However people are also free in public to attempt to persuade others of which sexual norms to follow, though that persuasion can only take the form of argument, never force nor legislation. Mill’s conception of society is of individuals each pursuing what seems good to them, their only universal bond being the wrongness or illegality of harming others.
“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs”
Devlin argued that society has the right to protect itself; the purpose of the law is to guard against threats to the existence of the society. A society cannot survive without some moral standards of the sort which are imposed on all. He claims ‘history shows’ that loosening moral bonds is ‘often the first stage of disintegration’. A society is not held together ‘physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought’. Since a society has a right to continue existing it must therefore have a right to impose some moral standards by law.
If the feelings of an ordinary average person towards homosexuality are of ‘intolerance, indignation and disgust’ then that is an indication of potential danger to the social fabric should those feelings not be backed by law. Devlin claimed that society has the ‘right to eradicate’ vices so ‘abominable’ that their ‘mere presence is an offense’.
Mill is not impressed with the appeal to the disgust of the masses. He claims that humans have a tendency to increasingly encroach on the freedom of the individual and will appeal to the disgust of the majority to justify that. Mill points out that such a principle would justify (in his time) forbidding non-Muslims to eat pork in Islamic countries, since it genuinely disgusts the majority of those populations. . Mill’s point is that the only the harm principle can adequately draw the line between an individual’s private life and public norms/legislation in a way which prevents persecution and enables individual flourishing.
however lord Devlin argues that the private and public spheres influence each other too greatly for Mill’s liberalism to work. A majority has a right to defend it social environment from change it opposes. If homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex were not subject to public norms or legislation, the social environment, especially the nature of the family, would change. The private therefore affects the public, which gives grounds for subjecting private life to public norms or legislation if the private practice sufficiently threatens a public good
counter Legalising and normatively accepting homosexuality arguably has not caused the damage to the family that secular thinkers like Devlin and some religious leaders like Archbishop J Welby worried that it would. There is no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are worse off
Mill accepts that a person’s actions in their private life could still harm society. However, Mill claims that this harm is “one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.” Although the private sphere does affect the public sphere, it is still for the greater good to allow people freedom in their private life so long as they are not harming others
kant on sexual ethics
Homosexuality doesn’t seem universalisible, since if everyone were homosexual then the species could not continue and then no one would exist to follow the duty to be homosexual.
However, if the maxim is simply ‘follow your own orientation’, then that does seem universalisible.
