This page contains A*/A grade level summary revision notes for the Sexual ethics topic.

Find the full revision page here.

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics

Christian teachings (Bible & Augustine) on homosexuality, pre-marital sex & extra-marital sex
The Bible is against all three.
‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ – adultery is sex outside marriage, whether pre or extra. Homosexuals can’t get married, so all homosexual sex is adultery and thus not allowed.
Homosexually:

“Man shall not lie with man as he does with woman, that is an abomination, they shall both surely be put to death, their blood is upon them.” – Leviticus 20:13
St Augustine on sexual desire and original sin:

Augustine thinks that our sexual desire is one of the key features of original sin.
In Genesis, after disobeying God, Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and covered up out of shame.
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 our inability to control it 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 – as the bible commands reproduction and Jesus recommends marriage (between man and woman).
This means that homosexual sex is not allowed.
Anything else is just giving in to original sin in a depraved and disordered way.

AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics

Freud’s rejection of Christian approaches to sex as overly repressive.
Freud himself was quite conservative regarding sex in many ways, but nonetheless he was very influential on secular liberal views on sex.
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.
This has influenced liberal secular theories like utilitarianism to take a view of sexual ethics that the focus should be on enabling happiness for individuals.
They don’t think public legislation and norms need to control people’s behaviour in this domain to anything like the traditional extent.

AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing

Augustine’s insistence that lust is shameful seems absurd if it results from evolution rather than original sin.
His sexual ethics appear repressive and puritanical: an unhealthy obsession with self-control rooted in insecurity over a mythical fall from grace.
Stephen Fry argues that the pedophile priest scandals are explained by repressive ‘unnatural’ and ‘unhealthy’ sexual ethics, e.g., requiring celibacy from priests.
Echoing Freud and Nietzsche, Fry claims repressed desires can erupt destructively.
The Catholic Church can’t lecture humanity about sex while facing scandal over the worst sexual crimes.

Counter

However, secular society seems concerningly oversexualised.
Sexual imagery is ubiquitous in advertising and people can have an unhealthy, superficial fixation on appearance.
Bishop Barron argues that secular culture reduces sex to a meaningless act.
Sex outside marriage treats something deeply personal and meaningful in a superficial way.
Natural law claims this is damaging to psychology and relationships.
Flourishing is only maintained by harmony between the human will and its telos of following God’s law.

Evaluation:

Modern sexual culture does risk oversexualisation, but this doesn’t justify returning to the shackles of medieval Christian ethics.
Fry claims that overall, secular culture is healthier: sex is natural and enjoyable, even if potentially addictive and harmful.
Our nature is not so corrupted that we need draconian norms or laws.
Nonetheless, the hippie throwing off all sexual restrictions went too far.
The MeToo movement is secular culture recognising that norms are necessary, since absolute freedom can encourage selfishness, addiction and disregard for consent.
The liberal approach has made consensual adult sex no business of the state and little business of public norms.
Augustine and Barron are right that sexual behaviour can become disordered, but wrong that the solution is confining sex to heterosexual marriage.
Sexual flourishing is better grounded in secular values like autonomy, consent, respect and psychological health.
This keeps the liberal insight that sex is natural and not shameful, while avoiding the naive assumption that freedom alone guarantees flourishing.

AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics

Application to homosexuality, pre-marital sex & extra-marital sex

The telos of sex is children.
Children are best raised within marriage.
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.
So, all sex outside marriage is wrong – whether pre, extra or homosexual.
Furthermore, homosexual sex cannot lead to children.

AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)

J S Mill claims the divine law of the bible, especially the old testament, was only relevant in an ancient more barbaric time.
We can also apply this critique to Natural law ethics:
Its precepts reflect the medieval socio-economic conditions it was created in.
Application:
Sex outside marriage could be a death sentence because sex led to children and single mothers struggled to survive.
Reproduction required emphasis because so many children died.
Homosexuality went against the perceived social need for a nuclear family and reproduction.
Today, these conditions are significantly changed. We have contraception, overpopulation, lower crime, and children born outside wedlock are not doomed to starve or lack education.
Aquinas’ precepts made sense in his time but are now outdated.

Counter

However, philosophically speaking, outdated doesn’t mean incorrect, just that popular opinion has shifted.
Aquinas would say the precepts come from God, so can’t be outdated.
If society thinks they are outdated, Aquinas would say society has gone wrong.

Evaluation:

However, this critique is not simply that popular opinion has changed, which indeed proves nothing.
The argument is 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, the fact that his precepts are so neatly aligned with the needs of his time is unlikely to be a coinscidence.
It’s a simpler explanation that Aquinas was simply figuring out what would have been good for people in his time period & socio-economic condition.
He then mistakenly attributed his insight to a rational intuition of the natural law in human nature designed by God.
His notion that the precepts came from God was only in his imagination.

AO2: Moral variation (applied to sexual ethics)

Aquinas claimed that conscience involves the ability of reason to know the primary precepts, to guide us towards our good end (telos).
This struggles because humans do not appear to share the same moral compass/intuitions.
The secular cultural conditioning explanation, e.g., of Freud, appears to have greater explanatory power than Aquinas’.
Application:
Some cultures accept pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexuality; others reject them.

Counter

Aquinas would point to the core set of moral views all cultures share, which is very similar to the primary precepts.
Cultures generally value life, order, reproduction and education.
This supports Aquinas’ view that synderesis recognises God-designed natural law.
Aquinas can explain disagreement through original sin and corrupt cultures turning us from telos
Application:
Traditionally, many cultures valued marriage, monogamy, restraint and family structure, despite later liberal challenges.
So there could be something universal and objective in human nature orienting us towards the traditional mode of sexaul ethics.

Evaluation

However, science provides better explanations of the core moral views found in all cultures.
Dawkins argues evolution programmed empathy and concern for life, order, reproduction and education because these aid a herd species.
And practically, any culture allowing killing and stealing would collapse.
Application:
Similarly, pair-bonding could be evolutionarily programmed, and marriage could simply be a practical social institutionalisation of that.
A sociological explanation is also possible: traditional sexual ethics may be cross-cultural because patriarchy is cross-cultural.
Mill argued that men turned biological strength into social power, creating norms around marriage, chastity and female sexual restraint which served male interests.
Presenting these norms as natural, divinely ordained and discovered through synderesis functions to add authority to encourage compliance.
So, no supernatural explanation of cross-cultural moral codes in sexual ethics is needed.
It’s better explained by nature and nurture than God directing us towards telos.

AO1: Situation ethics on sexual ethics

As long as homosexuality or pre/extra-marital sex has a loving outcome, Fletcher thinks it is good.
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.

AO2: Fletcher vs sola scriptura

Traditional Christian approaches to the Bible often regard situation ethics as incoherent.
They see Fletcher as ignoring most of the commands in the Bible, focusing only on Agape.
Application:
The Bible condemns homosexuality, pre/extra-marital sex, adultery and murder, without allowing love or situation to override such commands.
Traditionalists would accuse Fletcher of letting secular liberalism determine Christian doctrine.

Counter

Fletcher defends his liberal view of biblical inspiration.
This rests on the Bible containing scientific, historical and moral errors.
E.g., subordination of women, condemnation of homosexuality and tacit endorsement of slavery.
Fletcher points out that no one actually manages to live like a literalist.
Mill too points out that Christians tend to just follow the prevailing cultural interpretation of the bible even though they know it makes demands they never meet.
Rejecting the traditional assumption that the bible is the word of God resolves all these issues.
The Bible is then better understood as Fletcher’s ‘paradigms or suggestions’.
Love being a general biblical theme justifies Fletcher’s prioritisation of it.

Evaluation

However, liberal biblical interpretation risks a crisis of authority.
If the bible derives purely from human minds, it can’t have unique authority.
People following their own subjective reading leads to the chaos of unlimited interpretations; people ultimately follow human ideas rather than God’s.
Fletcher cherry-picks Christianity through secular liberal standards, pushing situationism towards antinomianism.
This leaves the grounding of the theory unclear.
It would be more coherent to either accept traditional Christianity or simply abandon the faith entirely.
Application:
Fletcher critiques traditional Christian ethics well, but offers no coherent liberal alternative.
So, we would be better off following a secular account of sexual ethics than Fletcher’s.

AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (applied to situation ethics)

William Barclay argues that situation ethics grants people a dangerous level of autonomy.
He denies humanity has progressed beyond needing the protection of strict laws.
Under situation ethics, people will not reliably choose the loving action, but may act selfishly or cruelly.
Application:
People might pressure others into sex out of selfishness.
Someone might kick their gay kid out the house, believing it to be loving.
Adultery would be encouraged, because people could tell themselves it’s justified.
This reflects the fact that human moral judgement is often distorted by self-interest and rationalisation, rooted in a sinful or flawed human nature.

Counter

J. A. T. Robinson defends situation ethics, claiming that humanity has ‘come of age’ (influenced by Bonhoeffer concept of the ‘world come of age’).
This means that humanity has become more mature since medieval times.
In the past, people were less educated and self-controlling. They needed fixed, clear rules to follow.
However, now people are more civilised and can be trusted to think for themselves more.
Giving them more autonomy (a person’s ability to act on his or her own values and interests) will increase love without risking stability of society.

Evaluation

Robinson’s defence is unsuccessful against Barclay, because of the evidence for the corrupting influence of power.
People are more civilised, but only because of the careful legalistic system of rules built around them to ensure being civilised is in their self-interest.
When we take away laws, people behave terribly.
This can be seen during failed states when governments collapse, or when police go on strike as seen in Canada in 1969.
Zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment also shows how power can corrupt people.
So, without external supervision of legalistic morality, humans become corrupt.
Fletcher’s theory would lead to antinomianism if implemented.

Application

So, completely removing the guardrails of legalism would encourage selfishness and even cruelty in sexual ethics.
Fletcher overly-optimistically thinks social progress could continue purely on the back of the autonomy it’s produced.
Autonomy can be used for good or evil, so safeguards are still required to direct it morally.

AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics

Application to homosexuality, pre-marital sex & extra-marital sex
Act:
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
Rule:
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

AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)

Bentham thought all pleasures were equal, whether from poetry or children’s games.
Only the quantity of pleasure over pain matters: quantitative utilitarianism.
This faced two criticisms:
Carlyle called Utilitarianism fit only for “swine”: debasing life into hedonism rather than virtue, culture and creativity.
The calculation issue: pleasure is a private mental state, difficult to quantify or measure.
Application:
In sexual ethics, prioritising pleasure leads to addiction and selfishness, harming relationships and virtue.
As Aristotle argued, valuing pleasure above all can blunt appreciation of deeper goods through addiction to short-term pleasures.

Counter

To address this, Mill distinguished between types of pleasure.
Higher pleasures come from mental activity, e.g. philosophy or music.
Lower pleasures from bodily activity, e.g. food, sex or drugs.
Mill claims ‘competent judges’, who have experienced both, prefer higher pleasures.
People will suffer or be deprived of lower pleasures to get a smaller quantity of higher pleasure.
This shows we ultimately prioritise the quality of a pleasure, not its quantity (qualitative utilitarianism).

Evaluation

Mill avoids the ‘swine’ criticism by including higher human modes within happiness:
Socrates dissatisfied is better than a satisfied fool or pig because his potential pleasures are higher-quality.
Application:
This makes virtue necessary in sexual ethics as a component of happiness.
This focus on quality rather than quantity also helps with the calculation issue.
We needn’t measure pleasure quantities, only choose the higher-quality pleasure.
So, Mill’s qualitative rule utilitarianism is more practical and defends the dignity of human life compared to Bentham’s quantitative act utilitarianism.
Mill’s balance is ideal. He integrates the importance of virtue and rules to in sexual ethics, but ensures their value is determined by their production of happiness.
This lets ethics improve over time and prevents rules becoming outdated, arbitrary or detached from happiness.
So sexism, homophobia, and overly repressive puritanism, would have no place.
But neither does antinomian animalistic pleasure-seeking.

AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)

Utilitarianism is consequentialist, judging actions by utility, so it can conflict with human rights which seem deontological.
If slavery or torture maximised majority happiness despite minority suffering, utilitarian logic seems to justify tyranny of the majority.
No one would want to live in a utilitarian society if that’s where its logic leads.
Application:
If most people found homosexuality disgusting, utilitarianism might repress gay people to avoid upsetting the majority.
The same applies to pre/extra-marital sex if the majority finds its presence in society offensive.
Utilitarianism seems forced to follow majority prejudice.

Counter

Mill responds that we are the type of being for whom liberty enables happiness.
His rule Utilitarianism then allows him to assert liberty as a general rule which would maximise happiness long-term.
The harm principle protects freedom unless harm is caused, letting individuals discover happiness according to their unique character.
Application:
For Mill, if private sexual behaviour upsets the majority, society should change its prejudices, not repress minorities.

Evaluation

Maximal long-term happiness requires accepting that others’ private lives are not our business.
Victimising minorities produces lower pleasures, whereas virtue and care for others are components of higher happiness.
So Mill’s focus on quality allows him to overrule harmful majority pleasures regardless of their quantity.
So, Mill would not allow repression of a minority merely for the happiness of a prejudiced majority.

So, Mill has successfully countered the critique that Utilitarianism leads to a society where rights are violated.

AO1: Kantian ethics on sexual ethics

Application to homosexuality, pre-marital sex & extra-marital sex
Homosexuality is not universalizable, since if everyone were gay there would be no more children and then no one could be gay since no one would exist.
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.
In that context, it’s possible to have sex while respecting the other person’s end (of having children).

AO2: Kant vs consequentialism (applied to sexual ethics)

Kantian ethics violates our intuition that ignoring consequences can be wrong.
Benjamin Constant argues we should surely lie when faced with a murderer asking where their victim is.
This makes truth-telling situational, not absolute.
This issue suggests consequentialism is stronger than Kant’s deontology.
Application:
Kant was against homosexuality and pre/extra marital sex.
However, repressing sexual freedom causes unhappiness.
History shows us the how oppression of homosexuality caused great unhappiness, even driving some to suicide.
Banning pre-marital and extra-marital sex was less harmful, but it applies to more people, so the total amount of unhappiness is still significant.
Extra-marital sex can help people escape deadly abusive relationships.
Ultimately, most people aren’t going to be seriously harmed by having their sexual freedom restricted.
Mill is a consequentialist, and thought individuality and autonomy vital for happiness.
Humans do not all flourish in the same way, and must therefore be free to discover the mode suited to them.

Counter

Kant defends himself by presenting the issue of calculation as a strength of his deontological approach over consequentialism.
His point is that we cannot control consequences, so we cannot be morally responsible for them. They cannot be relevant to our moral decision-making.

Evaluation

However, Kant’s defence of himself is flawed because it assumes there is no matter of degree in knowledge and responsibility regarding consequences.
We can predict and control consequences to some degree.
So it can follow that we are responsible for them to that degree.
Kant doesn’t comment on the matter of degree, so his argument fails to address this inference.

Consequentialists like Mill accept we can’t always perfectly determine what’s morally right. Their claim is that our moral obligation is to do what we best judge to have good consequences.

So, although we can’t perfectly predict or control what the murderer will do, we can have what Singer calls a ‘reasonable expectation’ about them and lie.
Application:
So, the disastrous consequences seen throughout history of banning homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex are good reasons to think we should allow them.

AO2: Kant ignoring the moral value of emotions (applied to sexual ethics)

Michael Stocker asks us to imagine a friend visiting you in hospital saying they came because it was their duty.
Bernard Williams argues such cases show how Kantian morality is unnatural and requires “one thought too many”.
This is Aristotelian: virtue aligns emotion with reason, so virtuous people need not always think about moral laws.
Stocker argues duty excludes virtuous motives like friendliness or love, which are vital to human ethical relationships.
Application:
Kant thought sex objectifies each person as a mere means.
However, when sex is motivated by love or affection, Kant’s view seems reductionist: sex can be objectifying, but need not be.
Virtue ethics better captures this nuance, valuing friendliness, generosity and magnanimity in sexual behaviour.
Romantic emotions are not always self-interested, so sex for romantic involvement or even just pleasure can involve mutual care rather than objectification.
So homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex can be consonant with virtue.

Counter:

Kant would reply that emotions are transient and fickle; too unreliable for ethical motivation compared to reason.
Barbara Herman interprets Kant as saying emotions only lead to a right action by luck.

Evaluation

However, Kant’s defence is unsuccessful.
Emotions can be unreliable, but Aristotle shows we can rationally cultivate reliable virtuous habits.
Stocker and Williams’ examples illustrate how reliable emotions like love can be when motivating us to help others.
Emotional habits can be the reliable result of the rational cultivation of virtue and thus have moral value. So, Kant’s views on emotion & moral motivation are unconvincing.
Application:
So, Kant’s basis for excluding emotions from moral motivation rests on underestimating human moral psychology.
Consequently, Kant has a warped view of human sexual behaviour as intrinsically objectifying.
Once we subtract this confusion, we are left with a more humanist and open sexual ethics.

Question preparation

Revision paragraphs:

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics
AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics
AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: Moral variation (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Situation ethics (religious) on sexual ethics
AO2: Fletcher vs sola scriptura
AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (applied to situation ethics)
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Kantian ethics on sexual ethics
AO2: Kant vs consequentialism (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: Kant ignoring the moral value of emotions (applied to sexual ethics)

I’ve designed each of the 4 theories to have 2 evaluation sections each, which could work whether asked to apply it to sexual ethics in general, or homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex in particular.

If doing three sections/paragraphs, you could then do the religious vs secular paragraph. Or, you could bring in another theory to criticise the one in question.

Question types:

Questions can focus on:

Natural law / Situation ethics / Utilitarianism / Kantian ethics applied to: sexual ethics / homosexuality / pre-marital sex / extra-marital sex.
The religious approach to sexual ethics (traditional religious teachings, natural law & situation ethics).
The secular approach to sexual ethics (the secular approach & Utilitarianism).
The morality, legality and tolerability of these areas of sexual ethics
Homosexuality
Pre-marital sex
Extra-marital sex

Application questions:

Should we follow Natural law’s approach to homosexuality? [40]

AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: Moral variation (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (minor AO1 – focused on homosexuality).
AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing

“Situation ethics has the best approach to pre-marital sex” – Discuss [40]

AO1: Situation ethics (religious) on sexual ethics
AO2: Fletcher vs sola scriptura
AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (applied to situation ethics)
- You could then bring in another theory, e.g.:
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (minor AO1 – apply util to pre-marital)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)
- Could argue rule utilitarianism is better because it retains some legalism/rules (which was the problem with situation ethics identified by Barclay)
AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing
- Could show general secular liberal ethics is better than situation ethics at improving on traditional religious ethics

Critically assess whether utility should inform our judgement regarding sexual ethics [40]

AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)
- Then consider whether another theory might be better:
AO1: Kantian ethics on sexual ethics (minor AO1)
AO2: Kant vs consequentialism (applied to sexual ethics)
- This one is nice because it directly critically compares Kant to consequentialism.
Or:
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics (minor AO1)
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
- This works because it compares Util to a traditional view, and evaluates that based on whether we need a more contemporary view (like Util!)

Issue-focused questions:

“Homosexuality is morally acceptable” – Discuss [40]

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (moderate AO1 – focused on homosexuality)
AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics (moderate AO1 – focused on homosexuality)
AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing
- This works well to evaluate the general religious vs general secular approaches.
You could then consider any two theories.
e.g.:
AO1: Kantian ethics on sexual ethics (minor AO1 – focused on homosexuality)
AO2: Kant ignoring the moral value of emotions (applied to sexual ethics)
Or:
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (minor AO1 – focused on homosexuality)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)
etc

“Pre-marital sex should be illegal” – Discuss [40]
Focused question: on pre-marital sex

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (minor – focused on pre-marital sex)
AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics (minor – focused on pre-marital sex)
- Questions about legality are always best answered by natural law and utilitarianism, since those theories more than others intended to inform our legal system, not just our moral culture.
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics (minor – focused on pre-marital sex)
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (minor – focused on pre-marital sex)
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)

Conclusion: pre-marital sex should be legal, as shown by the superiority of the secular approach to sexual ethics, especially in the form of Mill’s rule utilitarianism.

Weirdly worded questions:

Should choices in the area of sexual behaviour be entirely private and personal, or subject to societal norms and legislation [40]

This is asking: Is sexual behaviour (homosexuality & pre/extra marital sex) a private matter – no business of morality or law, OR is it actually a matter of public morality and law.

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (minor)
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics (minor)
- Natural law (Human law must derive from the natural law – so if the natural law says sexual behaviour is wrong, then our human law should reflect that).
- Traditional religious ethics would also argue it’s a public matter because the Bible says it is wrong.
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics (minor)
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (moderate)
- Utilitarianism (esp. Mill): sexual behaviour is a private matter; what people do in their private lives so long as they don’t hurt any one else is their business – we shouldn’t have morals or laws against that.
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)

Do religious beliefs about sex and relationships have a continuing role in the area of sexual ethics? [40]
General question

This question is really asking you whether religious approaches to sexual ethics are still relevant or if they are obsolete.

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (minor)
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics (minor)
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Situation ethics (religious) on sexual ethics (minor)
AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (applied to situation ethics)
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (minor)
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)

Conclusion: Natural law outdated – too repressive, situation ethics too far in the other direction. Mill’s rule utilitarianism the ideal balance!

“Secularism has had a negative impact on sexual ethics” – Discuss [40]
Focused question: on secular views on sexual ethics

AO1: Secular views on sexual ethics (full AO1)
AO2: religious vs secular approaches to sexual ethics and flourishing
- Great debate about whether secular or religious ethics is better.
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics (minor AO1)
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue (applied to sexual ethics)
- This suggests secular Util can be defended against making sexual ethics superficial pleasure seeking.
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)

Has religious ethics developed in a positive direction? [40]
Focused question: on religious ethics and its developments.

This question is probably best mostly answered as an inter-religious debate between natural law and situation ethics.

But you could bring in a secular theory like Util. If you argue that’s the best theory – then religious ethics technically has developed in a positive direction, even if it’s still not the ideal approach.

AO1: Traditional religious teachings on sexual ethics (moderate AO1)
AO1: Natural law on sexual ethics
AO2: Whether Natural law is outdated (applied to sexual ethics)
AO1: Situation ethics (religious) on sexual ethics
AO2: Whether situation ethics grants the right level of autonomy (applied to situation ethics)
AO1: Utilitarianism (secular) on sexual ethics
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority (applied to sexual ethics)

Conclusion: Traditional natural law fails, situation ethics good but goes too far – Mill’s rule-based consequentialism the ideal middle ground. But situation ethics did develop religious ethics in the right direction.