Sexual Ethics

Biblical teaching on sexual ethics

• The Bible condemns homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and extra-marital sex.

• “Thou shalt not commit adultery” → adultery = sex outside marriage (Exodus 20).

• Since homosexuals cannot marry (traditional Christian view), all homosexual sex counts as adultery.

• Leviticus 20:13 explicitly condemns homosexual acts as an “abomination”.

Application of Biblical teaching on sexual ethics

• his approach provides clear moral rules, which avoids ambiguity.

• However, critics argue it relies on ancient cultural contexts and ignores developments in understanding sexuality.

• Many modern Christians reject literalist readings, weakening the authority of this approach.

Augustine on sexual desire and original sin

• Augustine believes sexual desire is a consequence of original sin.

• After the Fall, Adam and Eve felt shame about nakedness, showing disorder in human desire.

• Shame over sex is just, as lust reflects our fallen inability to control desire.

• Universality of modesty (covering genitals, sex in private) supports Augustine’s claim.

• Sex is only morally acceptable within marriage for procreation.

• Therefore, homosexual sex and non-procreative sex are forbidden.

Application of Augustine on sexual desire and original sin

• Augustine gives a coherent theological explanation linking sex, shame, and sin.

• However, Freud and secular thinkers argue this pathologises natural human desire.

• Augustine assumes original sin is true — a premise many modern people reject.

Freud’s critique of religious sexual ethics

• Freud rejects Christian sexual ethics as repressive.

• Sexual shame leads to repression and mental illness.

• Sex is a natural biological drive, not a moral failure.

• Sexual desire comes from evolution, not original sin.

• Influenced modern liberal secular attitudes to sex.

Application of Freud’s critique of religious sexual ethics

• Freud explains why strict sexual norms may cause psychological harm.

• However, Freud was personally conservative, weakening claims of sexual permissiveness.

• His theory may underestimate the social value of restraint and norms.

Secular freedom and consent

• Humans have developed enough to be trusted with sexual freedom.

• Consensual sexual behaviour is no one else’s business, especially not the state.

• Traditional fears of sexual liberalisation harming society appear unfounded.

Application of Secular freedom and consent

• This respects autonomy and consent, aligning with modern liberal values.

• However, critics argue freedom without norms risks exploitation and superficiality.

Evaluation – oversexualisation

• Modern society is oversexualised (advertising, image obsession).

• Bishop Barron argues sex has become meaningless and psychologically damaging.

• God intended sex to be meaningful within marriage.

Application of Evaluation – oversexualisation

• Barron identifies a genuine cultural problem.

• However, this doesn’t justify a return to medieval Christian sexual ethics.

• Secular thinkers can accept the critique without accepting Christian conclusions.

Natural Law approach

• Telos of sex = procreation.

• Children flourish best within marriage.

• Education (a primary precept) requires stable family structures.

• Therefore, all sex outside marriage is wrong.

• Homosexual sex is wrong because it cannot lead to children.

Application of Natural Law approach

• Natural Law provides a clear, objective moral framework.

• However, it assumes reproduction is the primary purpose of sex, which many reject.

Natural Law is outdated (counter)

• Aquinas wrote in a mediaeval context:

  • No contraception

  • High child mortality

  • Single mothers faced destitution

• Modern society has contraception, welfare, and overpopulation.

• Aquinas’ reasoning no longer applies.

Application of Natural Law is outdated (counter)

• Strong historical critique: ethics shaped by social need, not divine discovery.

• However, “outdated” ≠ “wrong” — moral truth isn’t decided by popularity.

Cross-cultural moral variation

• Fletcher argues if Natural Law were true, morality would be universal.

• Cultures disagree widely on sexual ethics.

• Moral views align with culture, not telos.

• Freud and Skinner support social conditioning explanations.

Application of Cross-cultural moral variation

• Strong challenge to Natural Law’s claim of universality.

• Aquinas’ response (sinful cultures) is unfalsifiable and weak.

Situation ethics and sexual ethics

• Moral rule: do the most loving thing (agape).

• Homosexuality: acceptable unless it causes harm (e.g. violent homophobia).

• Pre-marital sex: acceptable if freely chosen and loving.

• Extra-marital sex: usually wrong, but exceptions exist (prison pregnancy example).

Application of Situation ethics and sexual ethics

• Flexible and compassionate.

• Allows ethical nuance missing from rigid rule-based systems.

• Critics argue it lacks moral consistency.

Biblical critique of Situation Ethics

• Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and adultery.

• Mouw: why would Jesus give other commands if only love mattered?

• Pope Pius XII: Fletcher undermines Christ’s authority.

Application of Biblical critique of Situation Ethics

• Strong challenge to Fletcher’s Christian legitimacy.

• However, assumes literal biblical interpretation, which Fletcher rejects.

Fletcher’s defence

• Bible cannot be followed literally without disagreement.

• Best approach: follow core themes, especially agape.

• Jesus called love the “greatest commandment”.

Application of Fletcher’s defence

• Strong internal defence using Christian theology.

• Critics argue this allows subjective moral interpretation.

Barclay’s critique

• Situation ethics gives dangerous freedom.

• Humans are not fully loving; power corrupts.

• Example: homophobic parent believing cruelty is loving.

Application of Barclay’s critique

• Supported by real-world evidence (Stanford prison experiment, failed states).

• Suggests need for external moral rules.

• Situation ethics risks antinomianism.

Act utilitarianism

• Homosexuality: good unless it causes harm.

• Pre-marital sex: good if consensual and unpressured.

• Extra-marital sex: good if it reduces suffering.

Application of Act utilitarianism

• Flexible and outcome-focused.

• But struggles with predicting consequences.

Rule utilitarianism (Mill)

• Best rules maximise happiness long-term.

• Harm principle: freedom unless others are harmed.

• Accepts homosexuality and sexual freedom.

Application of Rule utilitarianism (Mill)

• Avoids calculation problems.

• However, long-term social effects are uncertain.

Minority rights problem

• Act utilitarianism may justify repression if majority benefits.

• Homosexuality could be suppressed if majority offended.

Application of Minority rights problem

• Mill avoids this by changing culture over time.

• Promotes tolerance to maximise happiness long-term.

Kant’s sexual ethics

• Homosexuality not universalizable.

• Sex outside marriage treats people as mere means.

• Only marital sex for procreation respects persons as ends.

Application of Kant’s sexual ethics

• Consistent with Kant’s system.

• But ignores emotional and relational realities of sex.

Kant ignoring consequences

• Repression of sexuality causes suffering.

• Kant dismisses consequences as unpredictable.

Application of Kant ignoring consequences

• Weak defence: consequences are predictable enough.

• Historical harm undermines Kant’s position.

Kant and emotions

• Kant distrusts emotions.

• Stocker: duty-only motivation is morally hollow.

• Love and compassion can motivate moral sex.

Application of Kant and emotions

• Virtue ethicists argue emotions can be trained.

• Allows more humane and tolerant sexual ethics.