rsrevision.com/applied ethics

KS3: Yr7-9 | KS4: GCSE | KS5: A level
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions

Ethical responses to Sex

small logo

This page was written by Jem, an A level student at Arnewood. [Comments in brackets are from the site editor]

Utilitarianism

Kant

Natural Law

Situation Ethics

Virtue Ethics

 

Utilitarianism

The consequentialist nature of utilitarianism and its focus on the pleasure/ pain which arises from an action, leads us to analyse sex in a way of merely considering how pleasurable it is. For example, traditional utilitarianism, Bentham’s quantitative outlook, may say it is ‘good’ for one to masturbate over a picture of a rape victim if it brings about pleasure as the victim will never know therefore she cannot feel any pain.

However, developments in the utilitarian movement have accounted for this flaw in the theory. For example, Hare’s focus on preferences in utilitarianism now considers what the victim's preferences would have been, thus forbidding the action which we clearly feel is ‘bad’ anyway.

When considering the issue of homosexuality the failings of Hare’s preference theory become evident. For example, in the deep south of America where conservative, prejudiced opinions are dominant, homosexuality would almost certainly be declared wrong if a cross section of beliefs were considered. However, if an opinion poll was taken in New York then the more liberal population would conclude that same sex marriage is acceptable or ‘good’. This is a fault in Hare’s theory as we view some people’s opinions as simply wrong, for example, should a paedophile’s preference be taken into account just as a heterosexual who was attracted to people his/her own age. [Some people would disagree with this analysis. I might feel that my views are more important than those of less-educated people, racist or homophobic people, but the idea of democracy is that everyone has a right to their own opinion. It may in fact be a strength of Hare's theory that it considers all preferences. What results is a relativist theory - homosexuality was unacceptable 50 years ago but is now acceptable.]

On the issue of consent, whether a person consents to sex does not seem relevant to a utilitarian. If one was to be involved in a sexual act without their consent but they got pleasure from this act, then consent was not necessary or ‘good’. However, this view is induced from Bentham’s theory and by using an act utilitarian stand point. For example, if one asked a utilitarian whether it was good to have sex with someone who has not consented then the overwhelming opinion would be that it was not. This is because utilitarianism has evolved and most utilitarianists are what we call rule utilitarianists as they support the formation of rules which bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.

In general utilitarians consider issues surrounding sex in a way which examines outcomes not moral imperatives. Although differences arise (in act v. rule utilitarianism, quantitative v. qualitative utilitarianism, preference v. traditional utilitarianism) the general principle of utility remains and we do not look at acts but their outcomes.

Kant's Ethical Theory

Kant believed that masturbation was satisfying an animal urge, and in doing so one would be using one's self merely as a means to an end. Similarly, having promiscuous sex would be using one's self and another person merely as a means to an end.

Kant would look for a universal law that could be applied to all instances of sex. Possibilities may include:

  • Only have sex with someone if you are prepared to have a child with them

This may run contrary to the will. Some people may be unable to have children, and yet would want to have sex as it deepens a relationship, bringing two people closer together. Other Kantians may suggest:

  • Only have sex in a commited relationship by mutual consent and not merely to satisfy lust

We're acknowledging here that people can have meaningless sex which can leave them feeling cheapened and used. However, some people have sex in a way that fulfils them and involves them on a spiritual level that is not merely using themselves as a means to an end.

Natural Law

The popular Catholic response to masturbation using natural law is that it is blunting God’s purpose and is using the penis or vagina in a way that God did not intend. This position can be maintained by Catholics as that every sexual act should have the possibility of ending in pregnancy (NB the church’s position on contraception). However, progressive Catholic theologians may point to the need for a structured society as a way of permitting masturbation and even contraception, as sex can be unitive as well as used merely for reproduction. The absolute nature of the secondary precepts drawn from the primary precept seeking reproduction, however, satisfies most Catholics that contraception and masturbation are evil.

Situation Ethics

When considering issues surrounding sex, Situation Ethics does not bring the rigidness of a Natural Law or Kantian approach. It recognises that, whilst rules can exist they are not deontological or immovable as 'love is the only norm (rule)' and is good in itself. In other words whilst rules can be broken in certain circumstances to do the most loving thing, the will to do the most loving thing cannot be.

In the case where a man is locked in jail and his wife comes to visit [Midnight Express], it would be considered by Situation Ethics absurd to forbid this man to masturbate and thus share a sexual experience with his wife simply because a rule would be broken. Clearly the most loving, positive thing to do is to allow masturbation and to break the rule forbidding it. This decision can be justified also by the pragmatic nature of the theory.

When considering homosexuality, situation ethics also provides a satisfactory answer as, for example, although it may be held that heterosexual relationships should usually be encouraged because of the reproductive possibility, to deny homosexual couples the right to build relationships, get married and have sex is wrong as in a situation where a man is gay, the possibility of him having a reproductive relationship is not great nor is it desirable. Personalism, which tells us you need to put the people first, Positivism, which means to do the most loving thing and the Pragmatism of the facts, which are Relative to the case, show us that love, not the rule, is absolute.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue theory focuses on our telos, purpose and how we should act to be useful and potent in society. For example, when considering masturbation we do not look out our telos in the same way in which natural law would. Instead of viewing that it is unnatural or against God’s will and our purpose, we view masturbation in terms of its virtue. For example, a person who does not masturbate is likely to become sexually frustrated and therefore may leap into a relationship with another when they are not ready or committed to this relationship; or alternatively frustration can lead to an uncontrolled desire, rape. However, someone who masturbates too frequently and does not lead a normal life or pursue a relationship because of this also contributes negatively to society, or does not contribute at all. What we may look for using virtue theory is a golden mean, one may use masturbation when one’s sexual needs are not being fulfilled in a relationship, however, masturbation should never be used as a substitute for the seeking of a committed, sexually fulfilling and child bearing relationship. 

When considering the issue of homosexuality the parallels between Natural Law and Virtue theory become evident. As both ethical systems were founded by Aristotle they have a focus on the telos of human beings, although this may seem to suggest that a conservative line may be taken to topic of homosexuality this is not necessarily the case. If a person is gay then they will not have children, taking this into account it seems that both theories would prefer it here for relationships between two men or two women to be allowed as this way the couples can play a role in society which is structured and similar to straight couples. Although Natural Law views reproduction as a purpose this is not going to be fulfilled under any circumstance then surely it is less evil to fulfill the primary precepts of achieving an ordered society than to condemn gays and outlaw or try to change them.
About Us | Site Map | Contact Us | ©2015 rsrevision.com