Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Sexual Ethics - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Augustine claims it is ‘just’ that we feel shame about our naked bodies, since it is just that we feel shame over having lust because it being beyond our control is the result of our fallen state
        
        Augustine argues this is universal – people of all cultures cover up their genitals, and sex is done in private, which Augustine suggests is due to the shame associated with it
        
        This all shows the connection between sex, sex organs and the shame of original sin which caused Adam and Eve to feel shame and wear clothes
        
        Augustine concludes that sex must be confined to marriage for the purpose of having children
        
        This means that homosexual sex is not allowed
        
        Anything else is just giving in to original sin in a depraved and disordered way
  - - - Liberal Christians do not view the Bible as the perfect word of God
        
        They point out that it is full of errors and contradictions
        
        This means it is merely the product of the human mind – it is not the perfect word of God
        
        The Bible is a human record of divine events – humans who met Jesus wrote down what they learned and took from him
        
        This means that the Bible was affected by the cultural attitudes of ancient society
        
        It is full of moral views that would now be considered outdated and even barbaric
        
        1 more item...
- - - - 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
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Sexual imagery is used as advertising everywhere
        
        People have an unhealthy superficial fixation on their appearance
        
        Bishop Barron agrees with this point – arguing that the superficial secular attitude towards sex has turned it into a meaningless act
        
        He argues this can be psychologically damaging for people
        
        God designed sex to be within a loving marriage
        
        Having sex outside marriage, engaging in what is meant to be a meaningful and personal act in such a superficial way is actually psychologically harmful
- - - - Education can only be fulfilled so long as children are born in wedlock
        
        Children born outside of marriage tend to be less educated
        
        So, sex must be confined to marriage to fulfil the primary precept of education
  - - - Today, these socio-economic conditions are no longer present. We now have effective contraception and support for single parents. We have overpopulation, and it’s no longer the case that children outside marriage are doomed to lack education. The reasoning behind Aquinas’ views on sexual ethics no longer applies. It is outdated. In Aquinas’ time, his reasoning made sense – but that was because of the dire situation society was in
  - - - If Hitler had won WW2, democracy would have come to be seen as ‘outdated’
        
        Counter-counter
        
        However – the Critique is not just that Aquinas is outdated in that popular opinion has changed – the best 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 figuring out what would have been good for people in his socio-economic condition. That the resulting principles actually came from God was only in his imagination
- - - - Homosexuality: if someone is in a very homophobic society which could threaten their life if discovered, Fletcher might be in favour of not acting on homosexual impulses in that situation – for their own protection
        
        However, if someone would not face violent homophobia, then it seems more loving to allow them to live like they want to
        
        Pre-marital sex: Fletcher would be against it if someone was pressured into it, either by others or by society in general
        
        However, if all people involved are happy and it’s a genuine choice, then Fletcher would say it had a loving outcome and there’s no ethical issue with it
        
        Extra-marital sex: Fletcher would be against it in most cases, because cheating on someone is not exercising agape love
        
        However, in rare cases, Fletcher would accept it. He gave the example of a wife in a prison who had sex with a guard to become pregnant so she could be released and go back to her family. That adultery had a loving outcome
  - - - The Bible is clearly against homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex, so Fletcher’s theory is not being true to Christian ethics
- - - - Homosexuality: generally good, except if in a homophobic society
        
        Pre-marital sex: good if people are ready for it and not pressured, bad if otherwise
        
        Extra-marital sex: good if it helps people leave abusive/unhappy relationships, bad otherwise
    - - As a Rule Utilitarian, Mill has a more blanket view – rather than saying things are something right and sometimes wrong, he would think following a social rule which maximises happiness is correct
        
        Mill’s favourite rule was the ‘harm principle’ – that people should be free to do what they want so long as they are not harming others
        
        Homosexuality: should be accepted – consenting adults should be free in their private life to do whatever they want. If society is homophobic, it should try to change so that everyone can be happy – this will maximise happiness long-term
        
        Pre-marital sex: consenting adults should be free to do what they want
        
        Extra-marital sec: consenting adults should be free to do what they want
  - - - For example, we can’t predict the future regarding allowing homosexuality or pre/extra-marital sex
- - - - Furthermore, the 2nd formulation claims that we must treat people as an end, never merely as a means
        
        Kant thinks that only sex inside marriage for the purpose of having children allows for the treatment of people as ends
        
        In all other cases, having sex for pleasure etc, involves both people using each other as mere means, which is therefore wrong for Kant
        
        Marriage involves a kind of contractual arrangement, where both people have the goal of having children
        
        n that context, it’s possible to have sex while respecting the other person’s end (of having children)
  - - - Outlawing homosexuality and pre/extra marital sex causes necessary unhappiness and prevents potential happiness
        
        Kant seems wrong to ignore the moral relevance of the consequences