AO1: Christian views on sexual ethics
- Christian approaches to sexual ethics vary depending on how morality is grounded: in the Bible, natural law, or more liberal approaches like situation ethics.
- A traditional biblical approach treats scripture as the direct word of God and the primary authority on sexual morality.
- Sex is understood as a gift from God to be expressed only within heterosexual marriage.
- This leads to condemnation of pre-marital sex, adultery, promiscuity, and same-sex relationships.
- Teachings such as the commandment against adultery and Jesus’ claim that even lust is sinful show a strict moral framework.
- Marriage is seen as between a man and a woman, often linked to procreation, which also shapes views against contraception and childlessness.
- Natural law develops this further by grounding sexual ethics in human purpose (telos).
- Thomas Aquinas argued that sexual activity should align with natural functions such as reproduction, family life, and social order.
- Sex outside marriage is seen as wrong because it disrupts these purposes.
- Similarly, same-sex relationships and contraception are criticised for separating sex from procreation.
- Natural law therefore supports traditional sexual ethics, but through reason and human nature rather than just biblical command.
- In contrast, liberal approaches like situation ethics focus on love (agape) rather than fixed rules.
- Joseph Fletcher argued that actions are right if they produce the most loving outcome in a given situation.
- This allows for flexibility on issues like pre-marital sex, adultery, or same-sex relationships if they are loving and consensual.
- For example, Fletcher defended adultery in a case where it helped a woman escape a prison camp.
- Overall, this approach prioritises compassion and context over strict rules, leading to more permissive sexual ethics.
AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics
- Secular approaches to sexual ethics are largely shaped by liberal culture and theories like utilitarianism, which prioritise freedom, well-being, and consequences rather than religious rules.
- A key influence is Sigmund Freud, who argued that traditional religious attitudes create unhealthy repression.
- He claimed sexual desire is a natural biological drive, not something sinful, and that treating it as shameful can lead to guilt and mental illness.
- This helped shape modern liberal views that see sex as a normal part of human well-being.
- As a result, practices like pre-marital sex, same-sex relationships, and contraception are often accepted, provided they contribute to happiness and do not harm others.
- Utilitarianism develops this further by judging sexual behaviour based on consequences.
- Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism would support any sexual activity that maximises pleasure over pain, regardless of traditional rules.
- This could justify consensual pre-marital sex, same-sex relationships, or non-traditional relationships if they increase overall happiness.
- John Stuart Mill adds a strong emphasis on liberty through his harm principle.
- He argues individuals should be free to pursue their own lifestyle, including sexual choices, as long as they do not harm others.
- This supports acceptance of diverse sexual practices, including contraception and childlessness, as personal choices.
- More broadly, liberal secular culture reflects these ideas.
- It tends to reject fixed moral rules about sex, instead focusing on consent, autonomy, and well-being.
- Promiscuity or adultery may still be criticised, but usually on the grounds of harm (e.g. betrayal or emotional damage), not divine command.
- Overall, secular views prioritise individual freedom and happiness, seeing sexual ethics as a matter of personal choice within limits of consent and harm.
AO2: Whether Natural Law is outdated (sexual ethics focus)
- Natural Law may be outdated because it reflects medieval conditions, especially in sexual ethics.
- John Stuart Mill argued biblical morality suited a more “barbaric” time.
- Aquinas’ views on sex and reproduction reflect this context.
- Strict rules against pre-marital sex, contraception, and homosexuality made sense when survival depended on high birth rates and stable families.
- Sex outside marriage could lead to poverty and disorder, so limiting sex to reproduction supported society.
- Today, contraception, welfare, and social change mean these conditions no longer apply.
- So, the reasoning behind Natural Law’s sexual ethics may no longer be relevant.
Counter
- Aquinas would argue Natural Law comes from God, so it cannot become outdated.
- The primary precepts reflect human nature and our purpose, not changing social conditions.
- So, if society accepts contraception or same-sex relationships, this shows society is wrong, not the moral law.
Evaluation
- The strongest version of this critique is that Natural Law may have been shaped by its historical context, especially in sexual ethics.
- Aquinas thought he discovered universal truths through reason, but he may have identified what worked best for his society, such as prioritising reproduction and traditional families.
- If so, rules against contraception, childlessness, or same-sex relationships reflect past conditions rather than timeless truths.
- As those conditions change, the justification weakens.
- So, Natural Law may not just be unpopular today, but based on the mistaken idea that historically shaped sexual norms are universal and divinely grounded.
AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (sexual ethics focus)
- William Barclay argues that Situation Ethics gives people too much freedom, especially in sexual ethics.
- Without clear rules, people may justify actions like adultery or promiscuity as “loving.”
- Traditional rules give firm boundaries, but situation ethics removes these.
- Human judgement is often biased by self-interest, particularly in relationships and sex.
Counter
- J. A. T. Robinson argues humanity has “come of age.”
- People today are more capable of making responsible decisions about relationships.
- So, freedom can lead to more honest and loving outcomes.
- For example, it may support contraception or same-sex relationships if they promote well-being.
Evaluation
- Barclay’s argument is more convincing because behaviour can worsen when rules are removed, including in sexual ethics.
- People may rationalise harmful actions like infidelity as “loving,” when they are self-serving.
- Evidence suggests humans often misuse freedom, especially where strong desires are involved.
- Sexual desire can distort judgement, even in otherwise rational people.
- Clear rules about fidelity and harm may therefore protect individuals from emotional damage.
- So, full autonomy risks self-justification rather than genuine love, suggesting Situation Ethics is too optimistic about human nature.
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & sexual ethics
- Bentham argued that all pleasures are equal, so only the quantity matters.
- This means sexual pleasure, like any other pleasure, is good if it increases overall happiness.
- However, this has been criticised for encouraging a shallow, hedonistic approach to sexual ethics, where promiscuity or casual sex is justified if it produces pleasure.
- Carlyle called this a philosophy fit only for “swine.”
- Peter Vardy develops this critique, arguing that reducing sex to pleasure ignores its deeper moral significance.
- He claims sex without love risks treating people as objects and can be psychologically damaging.
- So Utilitarianism risks encouraging an addicted and superficial sexual culture.
Counter
- Mill responded by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures.
- Higher pleasures involve the mind and relationships, while lower pleasures include physical satisfaction like sex.
- He argues that “competent judges” prefer higher pleasures, even if they are harder to achieve.
- This suggests that sexual activity in a loving relationship would be a higher pleasure than casual sex.
Evaluation
- Mill’s response strengthens utilitarianism by recognising that sexual ethics involves more than immediate pleasure.
- It supports the idea that loving, committed relationships are more valuable than purely physical encounters.
- This avoids the “swine” criticism and helps to absorb Vardy’s critique that sex should involve love.
- However, Mill still allows that different people may find happiness in different sexual lifestyles, including non-traditional ones.
- This means utilitarianism may still justify behaviour that Vardy sees as harmful or superficial.
- So, while Mill improves Bentham and makes utilitarianism more suitable for sexual ethics, it still risks reducing morality to subjective views about what brings happiness.
AO1: strengths and weaknesses of sexual ethics
- Weakness: Religious sexual ethics may be based on outdated historical conditions, making its rules seem irrelevant today.
- Strength: Religious sexual ethics offers fixed moral principles grounded in human nature and divine purpose, giving stable guidance across time.
- Weakness: Religious sexual ethics can fail to enable autonomy and be too restrictive, limiting personal freedom in relationships and sexual choices.
- Strength: Religious sexual ethics provides clear boundaries that protect against self-interest and selfish harmful motivations and behaviour in sexual relationships.
- Strength: Religious sexual ethics emphasises love, commitment, and dignity, avoiding a shallow or purely pleasure-based view of sex.
- Weakness: Religious sexual ethics can be too restrictive by rejecting pleasure as a sufficient guide, limiting personal freedom in relationships.