Sexual ethics

• celibacy

  A voluntary vow of sexual abstinence.
• promiscuity

  Indiscriminate mingling: having many sexual partners.
• premarital sex

  Sex before marriage.
• adultery

  -sex outside of marriage, where at least one party is married to someone else

  -also known as extramarital sex
• sexual ethics

  What is ethical or morally permissible, based on sociological factors such as religious faith & shifting cultural expectations.
• procreation

  The production of offspring.
• contractarian

  The idea that moral rules or norms are based on an implicit mutual agreement i.e. not to harm other persons (found in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes).
• Catholic understanding of homosexuality

  'A tendency towards sin and a violation of divine and natural law.'
• consummation

  The action of making a marriage complete by having sexual intercourse.
• changing attitudes to sex and sexuality

  -historically, society in the UK has taken much of its moral thinking from Judeo-Christian ethics, which view premarital sex, extramarital sex & homosexual relationships as falling short of God's ideal

  --> but attitudes changing significantly

  -arrival of more effective forms of contraception has made premarital sex less risky than in previous generations, and the British Social Attitudes Survey 2019 found 75% saw no moral issues with premarital sex

  -gay marriage was legalised in England & Wales in 2014 & majority of people (68%) now don't consider homosexual relationships to be wrong (BSA 2019)

  -around 85% of people still consider extramarital sex to be wrong (Office for National Statistics Survey 2013)
• changing attitudes to sex and sexuality continued

  -one significant change in sexual behaviour has been the increase in couples who cohabit (live together) before or instead of marriage

  -most couples cohabit before marrying, although according to UK census data there is statistical evidence that when cohabiting couples do go on to marry, they are more likely to divorce than those who did not
• Foucault & feminism

  -2 further perspectives might challenge the thinking that sexual ethics isn't a topic where there are urgent debates

  -French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-84) challenges religious thinking on sexual ethics as it tends to categorise sexual behaviour in terms of normal & abnormal

  --> unhelpful way of seeing the world, so needs to be challenged & rejected

  -feminists would argue sexual ethics is an important topic of discussion

  --> gender inequality means women are disproportionately affected by sexual discrimination; women are more likely than men to be judged as promiscuous if they have had several partners

  --> #MeToo movement has also highlighted issues - including sexual abuse, assault in the workplace & threat of revenge porn - where women are significantly more likely to be affected than men
• applying Natural Law

  -for Aquinas, each person & each activity in the world has purpose or telos

  -primary precepts show one of the key purposes of humans is reproduction, & equally when the sexual organs are considered it seems obvious to Aquinas that their purpose is to reproduce

  --> any sexual act where reproduction is not possible does not achieve its telos

  -logically leads to secondary precepts that rule out homosexual acts, masturbation & artificial contraception

  -Aquinas believes marriage is fundamentally important; it is a means of achieving an ordered society

  -for Aquinas, there are 2 functions/purposes of marriage: 'generative' (bringing new life) and 'unitive' (bringing the couple together)

  --> these purposes cannot be separated

  -this has influenced Roman Catholic thought in particular & is key to understanding the Catechism & various papal documents, such as Humanae vitae
• applying Natural Law continued

  -due to the importance of marriage, both premarital & extramarital sex are rejected - even though reproduction is possible in these circumstances

  --> generation of new life should take place within marriage as this is one of its purposes

  -in the case of extramarital sex, the divine law through one of the 10 Commandments makes it very clear that adultery is morally wrong
• John Finnis

  -one modern natural law philosopher who has written on sexual ethics is John Finnis (1940-)

  -Finnis bases his NL thinking on the ideas of Aristotle rather than Aquinas & argues certain things in life are basic goods of human flourishing, such as reproduction, knowledge, work, friendship & spirituality

  -he argues marriage is also a basic good as it's only in marriage that both friendship & reproduction can be combined

  -on homosexuality, he argues the giving of life can't be achieved & so homosexual sex is instrumental & harmful

  -a petition by students at Oxford University sought to prevent Finnis teaching at the university as a result of concern over his writings on homosexuality
• Pope Paul VI quote


  "The fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life - and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman" ('Humanae vitae', Chapter 12)
• UK laws

  -Natural law ethics has had a significant impact on past UK laws on issues such as homosexuality

  -Alan Turing (1912-54), part of the group that cracked the Nazi Enigma code, committed suicide after being convicted of 'gross indecency' for his sexual relationship with another man, at a time when homosexuality was illegal
• Natural Law is not a helpful approach to sexual ethics strengths

  -in focusing on marriage & on reproduction, NL avoids cheapening the sexual act, which is a consequence of some more liberal modern views

  --> BUT NL derived from divine law & some primary precepts rely on the idea of God. If God doesn't exist then it can be argued there's no ultimate reason to follow the precepts on sexuality. Grotius, however, argues NL is built into the universe & would apply even w/ no God

  -focus on telos helpful provided it's disentangled from some of the more legalistic interpretations Church has placed on it

  -if 1 of the main purposes of sex is unitive, this can be a helpful moral principle to consider acts by

  --> BUT assumes persons have a telos & it's specifically the things that Aquinas suggests. There're assumptions about telos of sexual acts - that they're generative & unitive. Could equally be argued the telos of such acts is pleasure
• Natural Law is not a helpful approach to sexual ethics strengths continued

  -NL may be right to link marriage & production of children. Some statistical evidence suggests children of married parents are more likely to flourish in edu.

  -could be argued a stable environ. for raising kids is an important contribution that NL makes to this debate

  --> BUT NL argues these ideas are part of nature & are built in to us. While sexual urges may be natural, not everyone has hetero. inclinations. Homo. is part of some people's nature. NL commits naturalistic fallacy in assuming just because something is natural, it's automatically good

  -NL's focus on reproduction makes some sexual acts, such as sex between people who are infertile/elderly, pointless

  -NL, espec. when interpreted through Church teaching, is legalistic & hasn't moved with times, particularly where tech. exists to address some of issues highlighted, such as reproductive tech.
• the non-harm principle

  -a number of philosophers & ethicists don't feel that sexual ethics is a particularly significant ethical topic

  --> argue sexuality & sexual behaviour is personal & private, & that there're no genuine or important ethical debates to be had

  --> support for this comes from the work of John Stuart Mill

  -Mill's liberalism meant he believed governments should intervene in people's lives as little as possible

  -rules are needed only in order to prevent people being harmed & to take action if harm takes place (known as non-harm principle or contractarian view)

  --> means that provided people involved in the sexual behaviour have given consent & no one is being harmed, no further rules are needed

  -modern utilitarian John Harris supports this view; he argues sexual ethics as such isn't needed, since issues such as violence, abuse or pedophilia would be dealt with under other ethical debates
• Sexual behaviour may not be seen as just a private and personal matter strengths

  -contractarian view of sex argues that provided consent is present, there're no other ethical considerations that need to be satisfied

  --> would rule out actions considered abhorrent, such as pedophilia & rape, but would ensure freedom in other cases

  --> BUT sexual behaviour, like other areas of human life, affects people for better or worse. In the case of extramarital affairs, partners & children may be affected, hence it is not the case to say that there're no ethical concerns to discuss

  -Mill's principle on non-harm would also ensure neither politicians nor philosophers need to consider sexual matters

  --> BUT ethical theories offer a response to the contractarian or minimal view, which tends to cheapen & reduce the importance of sex. Fletcher's focus on love & Kant's respect for persons are important challenges to modern thinking
• Sexual behaviour may not be seen as just a private and personal matter strength continued

  -existentialists argue that the mistake in religious philosophy such as Aquinas' natural law is in assuming that all persons and acts have a purpose

  -when the idea of purpose is removed, it is possible to see sexual behaviour as purely free and personal choices

  --> BUT while there are gender inequalities as discussed above, there is a need to discuss ethical issues arising from the imbalance of power within sexual relationships
• applying situation ethics

  -for Fletcher, premarital sex & homosexuality are not morally wrong provided that the acts are based on love

  -even extramarital sex in some circumstances could be supported despite the specific commandment given in the Bible

  -Fletcher supports the decriminalisation of homosexuality, & one of his main issues with traditional religious ethics such as natural law is that its attitude to homosexuality is obviously incorrect

  -although Fletcher is relatively liberal in his approach, he warns of the danger of promiscuity

  --> when individuals behave promiscuously, they are ignoring the value & dignity of persons & are treating them as 'love objects'
• S.E. is a poor approach to sexual ethics strengths

  -S.E is person-centred, which is exactly the right approach for issues around sexuality

  --> important that people come before rules in this topic

  --> BUT S.E. overlooks the fact that there may well be absolutes in sexual ethics. Certainly from a religious perspective, the commandment 'Do not commit adultery' is clear & it is difficult to see how an exception can be made

  -S.E. is flexible but avoids cheapening sex or allowing sex to be casual

  --> avoids potential pitfall of other relativist theories e.g. utilitarianism, where pleasure becomes more important than unitive aspects that are present in loving relationships

  --> BUT in attempting to base its key principle on the ideas of Jesus, S.E. is guilty of selective interpretation of the Bible. Love is not sole teaching of Jesus, even if it is the most important. Jesus is very clear about issues such as divorce, e.g.
• S.E. is a poor approach to sexual ethics strengths continued

  -S.E. 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 & homosexuality

  --> BUT it's difficult to know how far to take the idea of love in terms of measuring consequences. Should decisions about what is most loving include children who are affected, families who may disapprove of the relationship, etc.?

  -S.E. treats people as adults & gives them the responsibility to make decisions for themselves on how agape is best served

  --> external authorities e.g. Church aren't required

  --> BUT while it may be good to some extent to place decision-making in the hands of the individual, this may prove too demanding for many people, who want to be given more guidance than S.E. seems to provide
• S.E. is a poor approach to sexual ethics continued 2

  -there has often been a lack of love & mercy in religious responses to sexual ethics

  -S.E. follows example of Jesus, who refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery

  --> BUT there's a sense that S.E. arrives at idea of agape because of difficult cases such as that of Mrs Bergmeier. These cases are rare exceptions and it may be unwise to use them to make general rules
• quote

  "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Whether any form of sex (hetero, homo, or auto) is good or evil, depends fully on whether love is fully served" (Joseph Fletcher, 'Situation Ethics: The new morality')
• ancient views on sexual ethics

  -Greek philosophers held varying views, with Pythagoreans & Plato viewing the soul as more important than the body and thus seeing sex as something corrupt

  -Stoic philosophers linked sex with reproduction & thus it was a necessary evil

  --> this line of thought influenced some early Christians such as Augustine

  -other philosophers such as the Cynics saw sex as something to be celebrated & public orgies were not uncommon

  -sexual acts were also at times used as part of ritual worship in some cults & religious groups

  --> debatable to what extent these philosophical ideas impacted the lives of the average citizen of Greece or Rome, however

  -society was patriarchal & homosexuality was not unusual among educated Greeks; indeed, a sexual relationship between an older & a younger man was encouraged
• Christianity and sexual ethics

  -in terms of biblical material, Jesus says very little abt sexuality

  --> only text with any relevance is his condemnation of divorce

  -the Apostle Paul, who writes much of NT, argues Christians should remain celibate - he believes the end of the world is imminent but that Christians can marry if they are unable to control their passions

  --> also seems to condemn homosexuality & adultery, however there is some debate as to whether the word translated as homosexual actually means this or whether it refers to male prostitution

  -how much weight should be attached to biblical material may depend upon the different approaches Christians take:

  --> RCs may give equal weight to Church teaching, NL ethics & biblical material

  --> liberals may value Bible but not feel the need to interpret & apply Paul's teaching literally

  --> evangelicals may take the biblical teaching more in its literal sense
• Christianity quotes

  -"I tell you anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery & anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Jesus in Matthew 5:32)

  -"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men... will inherit the Kingdom of God" (Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:10)

  -"Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4)
• homosexuality

  -for Christians, issues surrounding homosexuality are not just about gay sex

  --> extend to whether gay marriage, although legal, can be supported, whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children and how far Christians who oppose homosexuality can go in expressing legitimate criticism

  -a broad spectrum exists among Christians in terms of attitudes to homosexuality, from seeing homosexuality as an unforgivable sin, to fully supporting equality (believing biblical texts are outdated)
• religious ideas should continue to have an influence on sexual ethics strengths

  -society has changed in its attitudes both to religion & to sexuality

  -given that less than half the population believe in God, seems strange religious beliefs should dominate

  --> BUT religious ideas are a useful contrast to a modern culture that risks cheapening sex & approaching the topic with a consumer mindset rather than seeing the value of persons & relationships

  -Mill's non-harm principle & requirement for consent seem to address most of the difficulties that arise in sexual ethics (no need for any extra principles from religion)

  --> BUT historically, religious ideas have been enlightened when understood in their context. Jesus' teaching on divorce doesn't distinguish between genders, & teaching of Muhammad (PBUH) does much to challenge culture of his time in terms of attitudes to women & sex
• religious ideas should continue to have an influence on sexual ethics strengths continued

  -some religious attitudes, particularly NL with narrow focus on reproduction, are outdated & fail to understand importance of sex

  --> BUT marriage is valued in religion & there is statistical evidence marriage has benefits in terms of overall wellbeing & life chances of any children produced compared to those who aren't brought up within marriage

  -Foucault argues religious ethics have introduced unhelpful ideas of normal & abnormal into this topic
• understanding Kant - persons & marriage

  -important to return to the idea of persons

  -as humans we are 'persons' due to our ability to make free & rational decisions

  -we have desires (as do animals) but we are unique in having 'will' - the ability to make rational decisions about our desires

  -although we may desire a portion of chips, we're able to make a rational decision that overrides that desire if we're dieting or have already eaten a meal

  --> a dog can't do this as they just have desires

  -Kant's main concern about sexuality is that it can reduce us purely to acting on desires; we're literally reduced to the level of animals

  --> can be avoided in marriage

  -marriage doesn't degrade us as persons as the couple has freely & rationally chosen to enter into a contract with each other (basically a giving & receiving of persons)

  --> here, a sexual relationship can be based both on will & desire
• applying Kantian ethics

  -would oppose premarital sex as isn't based on mutual promise-making that's offered in marriage

  --> sex risks being based on animal instincts & lusts (arguably particularly for 1-night stands & more casual encounters)

  -extramarital sex would break promises that were made in marriage ceremony & promise-breaking can't be universalised

  --> impossible to engage in extramarital sex w/o treating at least one party involved as a means to an end

  -Kant himself opposed to homo. (sees it as degradation of human nature based purely on desire, which means it isn't possible to treat other person as an end)

  --> could be argued homo. can't be universalised as would lead to humans dying out

  --> modern Kantians would argue that given someone's sexuality is part of their identity, homo. relationships should be permitted (esp. marriage) as allows persons involved to be treated 'as an end' rather than a means to an end
• developing Kant's ideas

  -while many modern supporters of Kantian ethics would agree with his views, other neo-Kantians would suggest his views are too dependent on concept of marriage

  -may be possible if both parties are in agreement in almost a 'contract-based way' to allow premarital sex including 1-night stands & prostitution as they wouldn't necessarily be treating the other as a means to an end

  -however, important to note that Kant himself would strongly disagree w/ such a development
• Kantian ethics is not a helpful approach to sexual ethics strengths

  -respect for persons useful feature

  --> BUT universalisation awkward to apply. Kant right humans would die out if everyone only had homo. sex, but wrong as not everyone desires this. Possible where less than 1/10 people will have homo. relationships

  -achieves rare combo of giving clear rules while not relying on religion

  -secular nature helpful in age when people less religious

  --> BUT Kant's optimism abt marriage misplaced. 40%+ marriages end in divorce & feminist writers such as Beauvoir argue institution of marriage enslaves women & takes away their freedom

  -based on logic & rational principles

  --> important where emotion can cloud judgement

  --> BUT Kant's rationality oddly out of place. Emotions & passions at heart of topic & to suggest an ethical system that dismisses these seems to dismiss a key aspect of humanity
• quote

  "Taken by itself [erotic love] is a degradation of human nature. But it can be expressed with reciprocity in the monogamous lifelong union of married life where it reestablishes the rational personality" (Immanuel Kant, 'Lectures on Ethics')
• understanding utilitarianism

  -act utilitarians would approach sexual ethics on a case-by-case basis

  --> whatever brings most pleasure right action

  -pleasure key purpose of sex & NL idea that sex for procreation rejected

  -Mill would identify sex as a lower pleasure compared to more important intellectual & social pleasures

  --> role of sex w/in a relationship of uniting couple may be considered

  --> liberal attitude towards sex & his non-harm principle applied (govt.s shouldn't intervene/make laws unless someone is harming someone else), which has meant utilitarians have been tolerant of various sexual practices

  -modern utilitarians, such as Harris & Singer, have questioned whether ethical discussion is required

  --> argue there're no unique moral issues in sexual ethics as moral issues that arise-honesty etc.-are dealt w/ elsewhere

  -Singer argued there're greater & more important moral questions that arise from driving a car
• applying utilitarianism

  -would ordinarily not have any issues with premarital sex

  --> particularly true now that better access to contraception prevents some negative consequences of sex, e.g. unwanted pregnancies & STDs

  --> Mill was an active campaigner for better contraception among poor as overpopulation causes more pain & misery

  -may have reasons to oppose extramarital sex on grounds pain & harm it may cause outweighs any initial pleasure, yet this would be judged on a case-by-case basis

  --> Richard Taylor, in 'Having Love Affairs', argues passionate love is one of life's greatest goods & that there's nothing wrong in either having affairs or concealing affair in order to prevent harm to another. Rule utilitarians may argue non-harm principle might lead to opposite point, as affairs would typically cause more harm than good