condensed: sexual ethics

• 

introduction

fletcher’s example of a woman seducing a married man for espionage shows the power of human sexuality. it shows how sex is used to exploit, express love, define identity or be the foundation of family and society.

christian teachings on pre and extramarital sex

traditional teachings on sex focus on marriage, as the main purpose is children. the best place for children is marriage, for love and safety. it is a societal norm. for christians, it is also a union in the eyes of god that gives rights and responsibilities.

christian teaching on marriage

marriage in the west in based in aquinas’ natural law. couples have a primary purpose and the good are as follows:

• procreation
• nurturing and loving environment for the good of children
• keeping sex inside marriage to prevent unhappy children. monogamous, heterosexual and permanent

this basis alone is not religious, but the idea is that it is a covenant with god.

marriage as a sacrament or a covenant

traditionally, a sacrament is a significant religious moment. a ceremony showing inward spiritual commitments by god grace. it is a paper contract but also a moral and spiritual one. this has implications for divorce.

jeuss says ‘they are no long two, but one flesh’ in the gospel of mark. it shows a transformation by god of two people into life long fidelity, not seen in the OT. he does allow divorce but condemns remarriage.

companionate marriage

historically marriage served the purposes of property exchange, treaties between countries, and producing heirs in family bloodlines. women needed to be married to have a home an income.

through women’s rights movements, contraception and new attitudes, the emphasis has shifted to happiness. successful marriages are companionate, loving and friendly.

premarital sex

traditionally premarital sex is forbidden, as it is only for marriage. the new testament consistently teaches this.

while this is still taught, modern perspectives have changed due to contraception and losing the idea that sex passes original sin. cohabitation is no longer seen as living in sin.

permarital sex and cohabitation

cohabitation is a new norm, and with women having sexual and financial autonomy, marriage is less important. cohabitation shows modern informality and lack of premarital sex being taboo:

• casual cohabitation, not a long term commitment, sharing of a common sexual and social life
• trial marriage, living together before is almost essential to test compatibility, short term before marriage
• substitute marriage, long term commitment possibly due to inability to divorce or ideological disagreements

christian modern responses to cohabitation

mainstream opinion is that marriage is most stable for family and sex, cohabitation does not suffice. trial marriage is an accepted part of the process from engagement to children. the church must develop secular views and stay in touch but marriage is still ideal.

extramarital sex

extramarital sex has always been regarded as grossly immoral. includes adultery and use of prostitutes. it often has severe penalties and social consequences.

biblical teaching

the OT has death penalties for adultery. but punishments for women showed them as the temptresses. a man was not punished for an extramarital affair but a woman could be immediately divorced.

jesus considered death too harsh, but condemned adultery. he stops an adulteress from being killed but does not condone it.

modern christian responses

churches still view it as a serious breach of marriage vows but discern equal blame. adultery is grounds for divorce.

church do understand forgiveness and understanding are needed as to why it occurred. liberal christians would allow remarriage, but others would never.

christian teachings on homosexuality

traditional teachings

traditional teachings condemn all forms because it breaks covenant with god:

• sodom and gomorrah condemned and destroyed for homosexual rape
• leviticus states “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
• st paul states that homosexuals are wrongdoers who will not enter heaven

another argument is that marriage is the place for sex and the purpose is for children which can’t happen in homosexual sex. sex must be unitive and procreative. this is why the roman catholic church regards it as contrary to scripture and improper use of sexual organs. homosexuals are called to chastity. the church declares it immoral but says homosexuals must be treated with respect and compassion.

the church teaches the place of single life such as that of a priest’s celibacy for commitment to god.

liberal teachings

two arguments shape this. first, scripture is historical contextual and gay relationships are more than sex. second, that christianity values justice and supports the marginalised. it is right to value all human relationships of god’s creatures. being gay is not a choice and should be valued.

• sodom and gomorrah were condemned for wickedness overall
• leviticus condemns all that upsets natural order, not gay relastionships
• st paul’s list does not condemn gay relationships, but also condemns drunkenness

liberals see jesus as a liberator, for all people. the role of the church is to be inclusive and adjust to society. alan wilson argues the church should support same-sex marriage to enrich and develop the concept of marriage.

the middle way

there must be a middle way between chastity and full acceptance. the issue is amoral and spiritual challenge. on one hand, marriage is the place for sex but on the other it would be wrong to condemn gays because god loves all people.

the church’s bishops have become less content with ambiguity, and in the anglican report, issues on human sexuality, they go beyond tolerance but stop at ordaining openly gay people unless they are celibate. a priest may say prayers after a civil partnership ceremony but not bless the union.

there has been increasing pressure that the report is too vague and it contrary to a welcoming church. in 2017 bishops acknowledged attitudes have shifted but no changes have been made.

the impact of secularism on sexual ethics

secularism describes the non-religious world. the relationship between society and church has widened due to diverse beliefs and humanist ideologies. john stuart mill’s secular ethics and liberty principle have greatly impacted legal, moral and religious thought.

mill’s liberty principle

the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in out own way, as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.

on liberty

liberty can be defined as:

• positive liberty: freedom to fulfil potential by engagement with government
• negative liberty: minimal state involvement which restricts behaviour

mill’s position is negative liberty, especially with regards to sex, on the basis that:

• variety enriches society
• liberty allows for flourishing according to
• no one can have a monopoly on morality, people should be allowed to make wrong choices
• tolerance makes society happier

but there are responses:

• variety does not alway mean happiness, a community with shared values and purpose is better
• variety of sexual lives can lead to confusion, mistrust etc
• freedom of sexual behaviour does not ensure a richer and happier society
• negative liberty presumes people are their best judge, but we need a more competent judge, some sexual behaviours should be recognised as wrong by law

tolerance and harm

an example of use of mill’s liberty principle in revising law is lord wolfenden’s report leading to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. despite his christian objections, the liberty principle is the best way to judge the right of the state in this matter.

the question of whether homosexuality was a cause of harm was always about whether it was enough to make it criminal law. mill’s principle dictates that harming oneself is not a state matter. the only exceptions are children or the mentally ill.

public and social harm

harm may occur when it offends others’ moral values. this is difficult to define though, especially in terms of a public threat.

mill argued moral offence alone was not grounds to outlaw it. but what if a large number of people are offended? if it could be shown as a widespread offence, there is good reason.

can we really claim private consenting acts affect public morality? some argue all our actions do, e.g. if i watch hardcore porn, i may view society differently. this challenges mill’s private morality.

the longstanding view is that homosexuality causes public harm. due to contraception, premarital sex and cohabitation have become normal and not morally harmful. there is still an age of consent. adultery is less clear, but if both parties agree, the liberty principle would call it moral. many would still regard it wrong regardless of consent.

law and morality

around 5% of the population consider themselves homosexual. in 2000, private homosexual relationships were lawful for 16 and above. the basis of the law is again liberty principle. people today support homosexual rights, and basic human right including sexual freedom. there have been other law changes in regards to marriage and rights.

civil partnerships

in the uk civil partnerships became law in 2005, giving legal recognition to the same right of taking surnames and process of divorce. they have the same rights in tax, and employment and pension benefits. the difference is a lack of obligatory spoken vows.

same-sex marriage

civil partnerships are not socially equivalent for many, and in 2013 the marriage act gave gay couples the right to marry and have the same rights in england and wales. out of respect for religious traditions, clergy are permitted to not carry these marriages out if they wish not to.

application of theories

natural law

although a religious ethic is not necessary, natural law has largely taken form in christianity, particularly catholicism.

marital, premarital and extramarital sex

divine law is reflected in human relationships as god instructed ‘be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth’. the primary precepts argue marriage is the best place for children and sex. marriage is a sacrament with go supported by human law.

natural law does not condone extramarital affairs because it undermines divine, human and natural laws and is a misuse of sex.

premarital sex may be acceptable if the intention is the primary precepts, but only in a long-term context. traditionally, cohabitation is an apparent good because it lacks true commitment.

homosexual relationships

nl takes a rejective approach, but this is shifting. there is more than one telos os sex as humanae vitae suggests. procreative and unitive purposes are not mutually exclusive.

a challenge to this position comes from michael foucault who claims there is only sexuality, not norms. as control of the church weakens, homosexuality is freed.

nl can also provide a basis for gay relationships, because humans are more than procreators. norman pittenger says it is unloving and unchristian to condemn it saying it is “asking someone to reject something basic to his or her nature and hence to live an inhuman life.”

other argument in favour of homosexuality are thus:

• notion of telos is ambiguous, sex can be just unitive or procreative as well
• other sex acts are non-procreative, and should not be condemned on this basis
• modern science doesn’t regard it as a deviant pathology

kantian ethics

view are based on the categorical imperative, based in good will and treating each other with respect.

marital, premarital and extramarital sex

marriage is based on promise-keeping and duty, two fundamentals in kantian ethics. kant says sex should be freely given and consenting to preserve dignity or we are just animals. marriage must be for companionship and sex, because sex alone is no reason for the commitment of marriage.

cohabitation lacks commitment to kant and there is a danger of using each other as a means to an end. children must have a stable and committed environment.

premarital sex is not based in mutual respect but lust and using each other as a means to an end.

adultery breaks marriage promises and is a reason for divorce.

homosexual relationships

because kant says sex is for marriage, homosexual sex does not fit and falls into the same category as premarital sex. however, kant also says homosexual sex ‘demeans man below the beasts.’

is this true? homosexuals are still rational autonomous beings capable of moral law, so it can be loving, exclusive and committed.

utilitarianism

thoroughly secular in its approach, the basic maxim is the greatest good for the greatest number. a strength is its ability to question law and tradition and push for reform if it is outdated. it shares in much of the liberty principle’s ideas.

marital, premarital and extramarital sex

no normative view of marriage. it would be better judged by quality of relationship. it is up to the couple to decide if they cohabit or not.

from a preference and rule utilitarian view sharing interests is important. marriage may be better for its formality, but for others a flexible and informal cohabitation might be. are those who cohabit happier than those who marry?

a utilitarian does not consider adultery wrong but leaves it to the couple to decide. an open marriage may work for some but not for others. a rule utilitarian might say a rule prohibiting adultery would make sense if monogamy brought greater happiness.

homosexual relationships

the key thing for utilitarians is consent and avoiding harm. rejecting homosexuality is often done on irrational grounds, which do not consider happiness.

a foucault argued, satisfying satisfying preferences for sexual expression does not cause societal collapse. the liberty principle says people should have the choice. a diverse society is better as it allows greater expression.

some consider it socially harmful and that it damages children but counter arguments are that there are sex acts done in both straight and gay sex and they would not be condemned. there is also no evidence suggesting same-sex parents’ children suffer. it is about quality of relationship.

situation ethics

based in liberal christian ideas. needs of people should be placed over rules in the judgement of agape. new morality allows for autonomy and freer lives.

marital, premarital and extramarital sex

sit eths does not want to undermine traditional marriage teachings but questions absolutes. it is not an intrinsic good. it matters more how they treat each other. sit eths also questions if sex is really sacred, as premarital sex is an exploration of self and cannot be wrong as long as it is respectful.

in an example of fletcher’s, a woman escapes a concentration camp by becoming pregnant by a guard and sent home to her husband and children. it is justified as follows:

• pragmatism: end justifies the means, benefit of being with her family outweighs the bad
• relativism: the situation says the most loving thing is return to her family. the commandment to not commit adultery is realtive
• positivism: no intrinsic law against adultery, with a positive motive is is not harmful
• personalism: the child born of this adultery was loved, the wife acted out of sacrificial love

homosexual relationships

according to the principles of sit eths, the bible is not a set of commands. there is also contemporary context. so while homosexual acts are condemned, homosexual relationships are not. it is also more loving to accept people.