‘Religious Ethics cannot provide good answers to questions of sexual ethics – a rational approach is needed’ Discuss.
The ethical theory Natural Law is based on analysing the position and purpose of humans in the universe, e.g. to defend the innocent, live in an ordered society, learn, reproduce, worship God etc, therefore it appears to be entirely reasonable; in fact Aquinas, the theory’s founder, stated 'To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God. ' Considering the teleological thinking of natural law and analysing the purpose of the penis it seems rational to decide that using the penis for anything other than reproduction seems rationally wrong.
However, taking into account the consequences of the deontological secondary precepts which natural law imposes it becomes apparent that the end result of millions of Africans catching AIDs due to the banning of the use of contraception appears to show the system as irrational. The atheist ethical system of utilitarianism, for example, appears to show the flaws of Christian ethics. The principle of utility, greatest good for the greatest number, leads by definition to the most pleasure and least pain, this certainly seems more rational than condemning millions to suffering because of a certain understanding of the purpose of humans; indeed even if God exists and intends people to fulfil their purposes it could be argued that God would wish to contain AIDs by compassionately allowing the use of contraception. In the utilitarian’s eye the allowing of contraception would lessen the pain of AIDs and maintain the pleasure of sexual relations; this seems rational as a traditional utilitarian will always make a decision which will by definition result in the most pleasure and least pain possible in that particular circumstance.
However, the atheist theory and its scientific nature is not itself entirely rational when one considers the prefixes on which it is based. Understanding that there is no being higher than the self, i.e. God, and that pleasure is good, utilitarianism concludes that achieving the greatest good for the greatest number is the ‘right’ thing to do is irrational. If ‘God is dead’, as Nietzsche argued, and pleasure is the most important thing to be sought then rationally one should seek the greatest amount of pleasure which one can for one’s self. Although utilitarianism may hold that the group is the highest and most important body, realistically if there is no duty to serve the group and there is no reward to be sought in the afterlife then this is logically absurd; one should never sacrifice one’s pleasure for anything as according to utilitarianism it is ‘good’.
A religious approach which draws parallels with utilitarianism is Situation Ethics. Emphasising the primacy of humans (personalism), the importance of consequences (pragmatism) and the need to relativise the absolute (relativism) situation ethics appears rational. Considering the issue of masturbation situation ethicists would allow one to stimulate one’s self in a situation where frustration was building and where one was not in a committed relationship, the reason for this is because it is ‘loving’. Behind the term ‘loving’ stand the principles of the theory as situation ethics is pragmatic it accounts for the realities of the situation; whilst an adult, committed, reproductive sexual act may be more desirable it is simply not possible in this situation. Allowing masturbation, however, would bring pleasure and no harm to anyone else (personalism). This does not produce a rule that masturbation is permissible, for example, if police officers were to pass around pictures of a rape victim for stimulation then situation ethics would condemn them, despite the fact that no pain is resulting from their sordid pleasure. Whilst traditional utilitarianism would not be able to criticise the police officers as pleasure is good itself, situation ethics theistic nature means that it gives what appears a more rational argument.
Considering then whether or not a religious approach to sex ethics is adequate in terms of rationality it seems that both natural law and situation ethics commands on sex issues follow on from their foundations logically. Whilst one may consider the consequences of the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception as disgusting, when viewing the logic of natural law one can see that they are not without rational consideration about the purpose of humans; if we can induce the purpose of humans then surely to carry out this purpose is to serve God and to be ‘good’. This argument can be attacked with arguments against the existence of God, however, the conflict between believers and non-believers is far from resolved and belief cannot be described as irrational just as belief in a universe out of nothing cannot be. Analysing the logical thought behind utilitarianism, a theory seen to be greatly rational in terms of its view toward sexual ethics, it becomes apparent that to care for the many over the self is illogical and irrational thus to criticise religious ethics because it gives answers which are more concerned with morality/duty than with consequences seems incorrect as only a religious theory can be rational and also believe in morality. Situation ethics maintains belief in a deity thus credibility for morality, however, it also manages to answer criticisms of religious ethics which attack the consequences of teachings; thus it seems that it is the most suitable or acceptable theory which we have. All three ethical systems we have discussed seem to contain logic and rationality, although natural law’s stoicism about consequences, and utilitarianisms inclination toward looking after the many, could be seen as irrational, when one considers the prefixes which precede these facts it is possible to see rationality in them all.
Although Kantian ethics is not often seen as an example of religious ethics it is a system which relies on God and which also uses reason as the ultimate tool for discovering moral truths. Kant held that one could deduct universal moral laws by asking questions about: whether or not one could will that the action in question should become a universal law of nature, whether or not a person was being used as a means to an end, whether or not the act being a universal law would be contradictory to the will or self contradictory etc. The imperatives which are formed have been so without the consideration of variables and hypothetical deliberation as these factors can contradict absolute commands, for example, if it is decided that in one case murder can be justified because of circumstances then the imperative which results is that it is right to murder in case A but not in case B; this is absurd and does not give us imperatives at all but relative, hypothetical morality. Kant’s stance is rational as it views the obligation we have to act good and extends this to concluding that as not all good acts are lead to good there must be another way in which the good will is appreciated; although he holds that to follow the duty of acting according to moral laws should not be undertaken with personal gain in mind, rather it should be done as it is good in itself. Kant then offers a rational approach as he denies a-posterior arguments and evidence and concentrates on forming moral laws which are deduced and which thus hold authority.
By Jem, an A level student at the Arnewood School
