Sexual ethics & applied ethics

Homosexuality

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." 

"sexually immoral", "they will not inherit the kingdom of God", "a perversion"

Christians who take the Bible literally  will often cite events such as the destruction of Sodom in Genesis as punishment for homosexuality.

A Christian homosexual group have  responded to several of the above quotes with reasons why the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality - e.g.  "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" could be interpreted to attack the culture at the time, whereby male prostitutes were used frequently. The group argues that homosexual relationships must be loving, and that the Bible is only knocking the use of male prostitutes, not homosexuality in its own right. Bible arguably has no outright problem with homosexuality, only the way it is expressed: abusively or without love/commitment.

Criticisms of Christian view on gay ppl

The problems with the Biblical view on homosexuality:

• not applicable to atheists
• no empirical evidence to suggest a homophobic God in the first place
• the Bible is an outdated document written in an outdated time - humanity has moved on
• different interpretations of the Bible
• subjectivity/conflicting ideas of what love is

Sex and marriage

1) Early Christian views: Augustine said that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, not to be friends. He actually suggests that, if it were possible, two males would have made a better partnership in terms of procreation. Sex outside marriage = evil.

2) Middle Ages: Sex and prayers are a bad mix, so sex on holy days was strictly forbidden. Aquinas stated that the purpose of marriage is to procreate whilst allowing some lust. He also referred to women as defective males because they are subservient to men and they are passive in the sexual act. 

3) Modern Christian views: Marriage is about love, honour and (optional) obedience. Remain faithful. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Sex should also stay part of the emotional and personal commitment that marriage entails - the two shouldn't be separate.

When choosing a partner, Christianity often highlights the importance of permanence (the idea of a permanent companion for life), which is followed by making a covenant (consensual contract). Marriage is a gift from God.

Criticism of sex and marriage

Marx called marriage slavery, and Engels went one further and called it "concealed domestic slavery". Engels even called it prostitution.

In terms of Biblical views, Florenza explores the conflicting attitudes of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Jesus teaches of equality and aims to free women from oppression.

The introduction of the Church, Florenza says, sees Paul institutionalising women at a lower status than men, which criticises the hypocrisy and conflicting morals of the Bible.

Divorce and remarriage

A vow cannot be broken, and so many Christians would object to divorce. Because marriage is an eternal bond, remarriage may be viewed as spiritual adultery.

Certain Christians, however, argue that it is not adultery if the reasons for the original divorce were due to the adulterous activities of somebody.

Nowadays though, the usual CoE and situation ethics approach is that if remarriage is a loving option, it's acceptable.

Homosexuality

Aquinas doesn't like homosexuals. He outright states that any sexual act that couldn't result in pregnancy is wrong. After all, God created sexual organs in order to fulfil one of the primary precepts (reproduction). 

contraception, ****, homosexuality, prostitution and masturbation are all wrong.

Problems

1. conflicting precepts. E.g. homosexual adoption you are pitting two precepts against one another: rejection of reproduction but upholding an ordered society. So which is right?

2. Haemer argues that there may be over five million separate genes that come together in the human body to influence sexuality which may be a potential biological explanation of homosexuality. This severely knocks Aquinas's argument that homosexuality isn't natural - what if it is to some people? 

Marriage

The purpose of marriage is to procreate (primary precept of reproduction), and sex outside marriage is wrong.

Problems:

• Natural Law gives no flexibility
• there isn't necessarily one single human nature
• no use to atheists
• outdated theory and values

Homosexuality

"a slave to their passions", "beneath the beasts", "no longer deserves to be a person"

If Kant takes the 'end' to be the continuation of humanity, homosexuality blatantly disregards such a purpose. Surrogacy and adoption are alternatives?  but they aren't universalisable.

Problems

If the end purpose of humanity is to love, homosexuality is acceptable and should be treated just like heterosexuality. Who is Kant to decide what our purpose is? There isn't even any empirical evidence to suggest a purpose. 

It is always right to love someone in a consenting relationship' seems like a fair maxim which is universalisable. Unluckily for Kant, this allows homosexuality. Kantian ethics seems a bit conflicted here, and virtue ethicist MacIntyre argues that anybody can universalise anything for their own situation.

Marriage

Kant states that in marriage there is a sense of ownership. Kant really seems to hate sex, but refers to it as "a necessary evil" in the case of marriage. He allows it in marriage because marriage is the "unity of the will" Problem: A big problem with Kant's view on marriage is the sense of whether we really are all equal. Kantian ethics is supposed to be egalitarian, but in the case of domestic violence, for example, are both man and woman still equal? Modern society may argue that they are not.

Homosexuality

if homosexuality makes more people happy, it is acceptable.

Bentham (act util) would argue that homosexuality is acceptable because it presents little or no harm - of course if pain outweighs pleasure, it's not okay.  Mill (rule util) said in On Liberty that "[we should not] attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it."

He's talking about freedom of choice, and respects that sexuality is quite a personal thing and highlights the importance of  choice.

However, with Mill there's always the line between higher and lower pleasures. While love is included as a higher pleasure, sexual acts - pleasures of the body - would be seen as low pleasures. So homosexuality could be acceptable in Mill's eyes - so long as higher pleasures such as genuine love are upheld.

Marriage

Utilitarianism says what you'd expect - greatest happiness for the greatest number.

In terms of divorce, util would argue it is acceptable because it usually brings about more happiness. Following on from that, bigamy and polygamy are also acceptable because they make more people (in some cases many more people) happy.

Cohabitation

Philippa Taylor's view on cohabitation from the perspective of a Christian utilitarian. she says the following: you are six times more likely to break up if you cohabit before marriage - it inflicts more pain than pleasure, cohabitation leads to a greater fear of rejection, there is a higher rate of alcoholism and pregnant women smoking in cohabiting relationships, a higher rate of suicide among men, a higher rate of abortions, a higher rate of STDs

Other   Is prostitution acceptable? It provides pleasure for the person paying the prostitute but the pleasure is brief. The prostitute may be in such a position because he/she is trying to make a living as best they can in order to feed their children etc. - happiness is therefore possibly not achieved through prostitution, yet visiting a prostitute may lead to money being used to make more people happy. It's tricky, and you can argue that because of dilemmas like this util is a bad approach to sexual ethics.

Homosexuality

As an agent-centred ethic, virtue ethics asks how we should be virtuous when it comes to sexual issues. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong with virtue ethics because it's all about becoming virtuous and following those who display virtuous characteristics.

The virtue of commitment can apply to homosexuality just as it can to heterosexuality; so long as you're in a committed relationship, you're being virtuous.

However, do we all work towards the same goal? Is homosexuality technically virtuous? Some would say not. Some may say it's a vice of excess or deficiency; the problem, as usual, with virtue ethics here is that these things are subjective. In one country it may be virtuous, in another, less so.