The Meaning of Sex

Christian Ethics and the Moral Life

Hollinger, Dennis P.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781441204295
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Ética y religión

Our culture is not only sex-crazed but also deeply confused about sex and sexual ethics. Unfortunately, Christians seem equally confused, and the church has tended to respond with simplistic answers. The reason for this confusion is that the meaning of sex has been largely lost. Dennis Hollinger argues that there is indeed a God-given meaning to sex. This meaning, found in the Christian worldview, provides a framework for a biblical sexual ethic that adequately addresses the many contemporary moral issues. The Meaning of Sex provides a good balance between accessible theology and engaging discussion of the practical issues Christians are facing, including premarital sex, sex within marriage, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and faithful living in a sex-obsessed world.

PART 1

FRAME WORKS

1

ETHICAL THEORIES AND SEX

When asked about sexual patterns among friends, one teenager said, “Now that it’s easy to get sex outside of relationships, guys don’t need relationships.”1 In such a setting, ethical theory is likely the furthest thing from a young person’s mind. Indeed, whenever people of any age engage in sexual activity, they rarely think explicitly about ethical theories to guide them. Most act in accordance with cultural mores (traditions passed on from the culture) or simply according to feelings, which frequently are driven by their hormones. For those who do take stock of what they ought to do with their sexual impulses, they are frequently guided by moral regulations that are merely accepted as true and right. They ask few questions as to why they are right or good.

But those who want to be ethical in behavior and character do well to raise some foundational questions. What makes my actions good or bad? What are the standards I should use for determining my moral judgments? And, from where should I derive such moral guidance? Such questions push us beyond cultural mores or hormones to ethical theories and foundations. This is true for any sphere of activity in life whether business, medicine, politics, community involvements, or sexual activity.

Historically there have been many theories of ethics—the study of the right, good, just, and virtuous in human action and character. These theories have been applied to a wide variety of issues faced by individuals and society. But the primary theories or foundations for ethics can be broken down to essentially three main categories: consequentialist ethics, principle ethics, and character or virtue ethics. This chapter explores each of these families of theories as applied to sexual behavior. I will not attempt an exhaustive overview of each theory or the thinkers who have used these paradigms for addressing sexual issues. Rather I will take a selective sampling of both Christian and secular thinkers who have utilized these approaches in making moral judgments relative to sex. Some of the thinkers are ethicists, others are not.

My goal is to see if the ethical theories can provide help in finding our way in the contemporary moral maze. Do these theories resonate with human experience and the wisdom of time? Are these theories consistent and coherent? How do they match up to biblical teachings and a Christian understanding of reality? What are the implications for sexual behavior today? In the end I will suggest that the three families of theories each contain some rich insights, but also some significant problems for grounding and guiding our moral lives. Thus, in subsequent chapters I will suggest that we move in some different directions to find a framework for our sexual lives and the issues we face in our time.

Consequentialist Theories and Sex

Many people make moral judgments on the basis of the consequences that accrue from their actions. Ethics, in this understanding, is not an attempt to find universal principles or virtues, but rather the attempt to calculate the results of one’s behavior. Here there is no inherent right or wrong, for morality is grounded in and determined purely by weighing the consequences of actions.

Of course immediately questions emerge. What sorts of consequences are we examining, and consequences for whom? As to the sorts of consequences, most ethical theorists in this family of ethics say that the primary results revolve around happiness or pleasure, because these are among the things that people pursue as ends in themselves. This is a natural pursuit for humanity and is thus deemed an amoral criterion for judging morality, not dependent upon any religious or philosophical framework. There have been some moral thinkers who do suggest other kinds of consequences, but all agree that moral judgments are made on the basis of results. Thus, the morality of any sexual act is determined entirely by what flows from it.

And as to the question, “consequences for whom?” we get two primary responses. Some argue that morality comes from the results that follow the individual moral actor, and this theory is usually called ethical egoism. Others, and clearly the majority of consequentialist thinkers, argue that it’s the consequences for all who are impacted by the action. This is generally called utilitarianism, and its mantra is, “The greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Both forms of consequences have been frequently employed, either implicitly or explicitly, for judging and guiding sexual behaviors.

Ethical Egoism

Although ethical egoism has not been a dominant ethical theory, it has been a significant popular impetus in the way people live their lives. Many humans pursue life and morals, including sexual morality, on the basis of what will bring them the greatest amount of pleasure and happiness. Their jobs, relationships, politics, and inward character are also shaped by such pursuits.

Ethical egoism as a theory has a long history going back to Epicurus, the ancient Greek philosopher. Epicurus (341–270 BC) was a hedonist who believed that pleasure was the highest good of an individual and the primary factor in our moral actions. He wrote, “For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. . . . And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life.”2 His hedonistic ethic was not an unbridled pursuit of pleasure at any cost, but rather a moderate hedonism which sought to curb any excessive actions that lacked self-restraint.

In modern times ethical egoism has found its way into the writings of various thinkers. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) was not known as an explicit ethical egoist in his philosophical writings, but when he dealt with sex he reflected this approach. Russell was a controversial British philosopher, mathematician, and social activist who came from a prominent family who for generations had espoused radical political and social causes that raised the ire of many. For example, his father was an atheist who had readily agreed to his wife’s affair with their children’s tutor. Bertrand Russell himself went through four marriages and various affairs along the way, and was often castigated for his atheism and social/political views.

Although Russell wrote frequently on ethical and social issues, he did not feel ethics was really a part of philosophy. In anticipation of the logical positivist movement, he believed that ethics was essentially emotivism, meaning that any ethical proposition was basically meaningless and merely an expression of preference. Ethical statements were subjective statements that could not be verified in the same way as science, mathematics, or logic.

Nonetheless, Bertrand Russell tackled major ethical and social issues (not as philosopher but as citizen) and among them were marriage and sex. In his book, Marriage and Morals, Russell argued against the intimate link between sex and marriage or even sex and affection, and his arguments seem to reflect ethical egoism. Russell said, “When we look around the world at the present day and ask ourselves what conditions seem on the whole to make for happiness in marriage and what for unhappiness, we are driven to a somewhat curious conclusion, that the more civilized people become the less capable they seem of lifelong happiness with one partner.” As Russell saw it, uninhibited civilized moderns are essentially polygamous in their instincts. “They may fall deeply in love and be for some years entirely absorbed in one person, but sooner or later sexual familiarity dulls the edge of passion, and then they begin to look elsewhere for a revival of the old thrill.”3

Russell believed that traditional morality was harmful to the well-being and happiness of individuals. “Love can flourish only as long as it is free and spontaneous; it tends to be killed by the thought that it is a duty. To say that it is your duty to love so-and-so is the surest way to cause you to hate him or her.”4 For example, he believed that most young men in early adulthood go through unnecessary struggles sexually due to societal and religious taboos placed upon them. “If a young man remains chaste, the difficulty of control probably causes him to become timid and inhibited, so that when he finally marries he cannot break down the self-control of past years.” Since a stable relationship with one person is difficult, Russell suggested that university students be temporarily married though childless. “They would in this way be freed from the obsession of sex which at present greatly interferes with work. They would acquire that experience of the other sex which is desirable as a prelude to the serious partnership of a marriage with children.”5 In all of these reflections Russell’s primary approach is to ask what is the greatest benefit for the individual’s well-being and happiness—the essence of ethical egoism.

A similar approach was taken by Albert Ellis, a power figure in twentieth-century psychology. He is often considered the founder of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, which attempts to help clients change their self-defeating beliefs and behaviors through new patterns of rational reflection. Ellis also wrote extensively on sexual matters and argued that religious restrictions on sexual behavior are usually harmful to one’s emotional health.

Ellis believed that the intimate connection between sex and love might be desirable but is not necessary. He observed, “I can easily see . . . even the most intelligent and highly cultured individuals spending a little time with members of the other sex with whom they have common sex and cultural but no real love interests. And I feel that, for the time expended in this manner, their lives may be immeasurably enriched.” He believed that though it is “desirable for human beings to have sex relations with those they love rather than with those they do not love, it is by no means necessary that they do so. When we teach that it is necessary, we only needlessly condemn millions of our citizens to self-blame.”6

Ellis contended that sex with and without love should be permitted legally and culturally within society. He was confident that allowing both would not negate affectional sex, but might even enhance it. “To ignore nonaffectional coitus when affectional coitus is not available would, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, be sheer folly. In relation both to immediate and greater enjoyment, the individual would thereby be losing out.”7 The language of self-interest, personal enjoyment, and individual mental health points clearly in the direction of ethical egoism.

Of course some could defend a traditional Christian sexual ethic (i.e., sex legitimate only in marriage) on the grounds of self-interest. They could argue that one might get hurt emotionally, get pregnant, or acquire a sexually transmitted disease through casual sex, and thus it is in their best interest to keep sex linked to the marital bond. Such arguments would be akin to ethical egoism.

But most ethical egoist arguments tend not to defend traditional sexual ethics. Bruce Weinstein is sometimes called “The Ethics Guy” due to his broad appearance in the media and in popular culture settings. He has a doctorate in bioethics from Georgetown University and taught at a medical school for several years. Now on the popular lecture circuit, Weinstein frequently asks people the question, “Why should we be ethical?” He finds the answer is almost always self-centered. He says, “I would have hoped that the common response was ‘because it’s the right thing to do.’ But I rarely heard that. . . . The most common responses were ‘so I can look in the mirror and feel good about myself ’ or ‘so I can sleep at night.’ The overwhelming majority of people referred to themselves, not to the inherent value of ethical conduct or allegiance to one’s deity.”8

Ethical egoism at popular and sophisticated levels inevitably points to one’s own happiness or pleasure when it comes to sex. It is a very thin framework for making ethical decisions in any realm of life. For sexual ethics, moreover, it lacks a larger grounding and sense of purpose other than, as one writer defending sexual experimentation put it, “Having sex makes you feel good, and increasing your erotic sophistication improves your self esteem.”9 It is not at all clear how it can be in anyone’s self-interest for all people to be self-oriented. Ethical egoism inevitably leads to a narcissistic culture.

Biblically, there is of course a proper kind of self-interest. Contrary to popular sentiments, biblical faith does not teach self-negation or self-hatred. The significance of the person and one’s holistic well-being is affirmed by creation in God’s image, the meaning of redemption, and various other biblical teachings. A proper kind of self-love is affirmed by Jesus when he calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). But this self-affirmation and self-love is always set in a larger context of love for God and love for neighbor. This is an entirely different framework than ethical egoism.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the more predominant form of consequentialism at the theoretical level. Its early proponents wanted ethics to be scientific, not dependent on any a priori religious or metaphysical commitments. They believed that a mathematical calculation of all the consequences for all people involved in a given act or sphere of activity would yield the ethically right course of action. The greatest good for the greatest number of people, when applied to sex, would mean that sexual acts are judged totally on the basis of the greatest amount of happiness for all persons who would in some manner be affected by the act.

The prime proponents of this movement in the nineteenth century, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocated utilitarianism primarily for social and political issues. They believed that the framework would yield a fairly traditional ethic at the personal level with issues such as sexual relations. As they saw it, the greatest good for the greatest number would yield a sexual ethic of restraint before and fidelity in marriage. But for contemporary advocates it frequently does not lead to such moral restraint.

One of the primary defenders of utilitarianism on the contemporary scene is Peter Singer of Princeton University. Best known for his strong advocacy of animal rights and infanticide of deformed babies in certain cases, Singer gives a slightly modified version of utilitarianism when compared to the original advocates. He suggests that we think of interests that accrue from our actions rather than pleasures or happiness. We are all interested in pursuing our own interests in life, which means we pursue those things that we desire. But for ethics to be universal, says Singer, it must also move beyond one’s own interests to the interests of others. Singer writes, “In place of my own interests, I now have to take into account the interests of all those affected by my decision. This requires me to weigh up all these interests and adopt the course of action most likely to maximize the interests of those affected.”10

As applied to sexual activity, “Actions that are right in one situation because of their good consequences may be wrong in another situation because of their bad consequences. Thus casual sexual intercourse may be wrong when it leads to the existence of children who cannot be adequately cared for, and not wrong when, because of the existence of effective contraception, it does not lead to reproduction at all.”11 This is not complete relativism, insists Singer, for there is...