RS

Augustine on Human Nature/ Sexual Ethics/ Pluralism Part 1

What is human nature

set of dispositions that humans are born with

How did Augustine see humans before The Fall

our rationality must have control over our bodies before The Fall sex was purely rational without being driven by desire

How did Augustine claim this original sin was passed down?'

‘We were all in [Adam]…we were all that man who fell into sin’,

When did Augustine say when it becomes impossible to be born without sin

we existed in a ‘seminal nature from which we were all begotten’, when that becomes ‘vitiated through sin’ it is impossible to be born without it therefore humanity becomes ‘massa damata - mass damnation’

Two types of love that controls the human will

• Cupiditas - selfish love of earthly things resulting in unhappiness

• Caritas - translation of agape selfless Christian love

Concupiscence

desires of the body overriding reason defining trait of original sin Augustine associates this the most with the sexual organs

R.Niebuhr

one ‘empirically verifiable’ Christian doctrine

How does Pelagius describe the effect evil has over us

‘seems to have acquired the force of nature’

Exclusivism

we are so corrupt that keeping geniune faith in Jesus is impossible

Pre-destined

God gifts his grace to people who will be saved (Romans 8 ) as humans do not have the power to acheive salvation themselves

Grace

gift of salvation from God which we should ‘not take credit’ (Ephesians 2:8)

Double Pre-Destination

God has pre-destined some for heaven and others for hell

Psalms 25:10

‘neither his grace be unjust nor his judgement cruel

What does Pelagius say about Augustine’s theory when applied to the idea of God’s moral commands

unmindful of human frailty and imposed commands upon man which man in not able to bear

Pelagius on free will

that we are able to do good is of God, that we actually do it is of ourselves

Augustine’s response to Pelagius

‘God’s love has been poured into our hearts’ Romans 5:5, without love we cannot do good without God we cannot love

What did Bishop Barron say about views on liberal sex?

‘almost complete lack’ of moral and ethical setting its purpose and meaning is gone

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about homosexuality Pope Benedict XVI

‘Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin it is more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder’

How does Hitchens respond to the Churches claim that they don’t condemn homos just homosexual acts

Hypocritical. ‘Revolting casuistry’, homosexual actions come from nature, gays are condemned by the church for their nature however, the Church has no authority to comment on sexuality because of the paedophile priest scandal ‘It’s obscene, and it comes from the clutch of a hysterical, sinister virgins who’ve already betrayed their charge in the children of their own Church. For Shame!’

JS Mill on Private vs Public

‘satisfied put an end to because it is a scandal to a persons some 1000 miles distant who have no part or concern in it’

J. S. Mill on private and public sexual acts

Harm Principle - as long as it consensual whatever is fine in private, in public people can persuade others of what they think is sexually ok but this can never be forced because our universal bonds is the wrongness in harming others

What is Devlin’s idea about impossible bonds of common thought?

links to the laws authority to employ moral law, loosening this grip is ‘often the first stage of disintegration’ society is held together by impossible bonds of common thought which needs to be reflected in law

What are the implications of ‘impossible bonds of common thought’

if the average persons feelings towards homosexuality are ‘intolerance, indignation and disgust’ it reflects the potential danger to society which should be respected by law

Mill’s response to Devlin

the harm principle is literally preventing society from dissolution, problem with the appeal to the disgust of the masses which promotes prosecution e.g. catholic prosecution of protestants in spain.

What is Mill’s ultimate argument about the harm principle?

only the harm principle can adaquately draw the line between individual’s private and public norms and legislation in a way which prevents prosecution and enables flourishing

Devlin’s Argument about public and private life

Legalising private acts of homosexuality etc will impact society in the negative way of impacting the traditional family

Mill’s final response to devlin

It has not harmed society to legalise homosexuality, change is necessary for society to flourish soemtimes private acts can harm society but it is for the greater good of human freedom bonds need to be freely chosen. Opposition is valid as long as it from a rational place and not a legalistic and moral law coerhsion

Using Kant’s Theory on Homosexuality/Pre-Marital Sex

Homosexuality - ‘follow your orientation’ is fine
Pre-Marital Sex - no contradiction arises
2nd Formulation using people as a means to an end marriage and sex within marriage is ok as it is for reproductive purposes and ‘life long possession of each others sexual attributor’

Hume’s Meta-Ethics

P1 - moral judgements are intrinsically motivating

P2 - reason is not intrinsically motivating 

C1 - therefore moral judgement not derived from reason alone

Hume’s Ideas on Reason

reason is ‘slave to your passions’ role of reason and rationality is to provide ‘ad hoc’ rationalisation mind more of a lawyer then a scientist

Kant’s Views as a reaction to his culture

Homosexuality - ‘there is no limitations whatsoever that can save it from being repudiated completely’
Children born outside of marriage ‘as it has as it were, stolen into the commonwealth… so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence…  And can therefore ignore its annihilation’

John 3:18

‘whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only son…people love darkness instead of light because their ideas were evil’

Anonymous Christians

receive his grace and respond to his revelation

Hick on exclusivism

‘Is it credible that the loving God and father of men has decreed that only those born within one particular thread of human history should be saved’

Universalism

Hick’s idea that everyone will be saved

John Hick on pluralism

‘human beings opening their minds to a higher, divine reality’

looks at the analogy for the blind men touching the elephant

How does Hick respond to Hume

particular theological details are part of the cultural lens that different cultures project onto reality

What criticisms of pluralism does Hume make

different beliefs in religions cancel each other out e.g. Jesus is either the son of god or not