Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:20:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
> But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter.
> This is why sex outside of marriage is morally
> wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and
> confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the
> article). It is not considered wrong because some
> want to limit the pleasure of others - it's
> wrong because innocent people get hurt, sometimes
> devastatingly and irreparably so...My only motivation
> behind the remarks above is to illustrate why extra-
> marital sex is deemed immoral - because it hurts
> people. Period. Sex is far more than physical and
> should be respected as such.
>
> Bill
Bill,
I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I want to make
a distinction as to its primary wrongfulness. It is not - as I understand
the problem - primarily wrong because of any contingent circumstances that
may or may not arise, as you seem to be leaning towards in your note. To
see this, I might ask you this question: if all (my language is
unfortunately imprecise here) of those conditions we take to be hurtful
consequences of promiscuous sex were ruled out (say, through technology or
some other means), would the behavior _still_ be wrong?
For example, say a man is sterile and he only engages in sex with those
women who are sterile and equally committed to the behavior (i.e. not an
innocent bystander), so that the problems noted in the article would never
come to pass. Would their action still be wrong? And if we could eliminate
AIDS and all the other sexually transmitted diseases, so that the millions
of people now suffering as a result would not be suffering, would it still
be wrong? And if X, Y, Z...would it still be wrong? We could, in
principle, go on eliminating these contingent factors, and yet I believe
that we could still ask the moral question.
Now I'm not saying that we can realistically eliminate them, nor do I think
that such considerations are unimportant. Nevertheless, if you put those
things aside for a moment, my guess is that you would agree with me that the
behavior in question would still be wrong, even if we could somehow manage a
controlled environment that removed the danger of fallout.
The question we should ask, instead, is this: Why is sex outside of
traditional marriage (in the fullest sense) _intrinsically_ or _necessarily_
wrong, regardless of those circumstances that may or may not obtain in any
particular case?
The simplest answer, in the affirmative, is to affirm that sex outside of
marriage is contrary to our nature or design as human beings. In that case,
the behavior would be wrong in principle, and would necessarily constitute a
(moral) harm to the participants involved, regardless of the contingencies.
Of course, this is a bit broad and relatively unconvincing to the skeptic,
and rightly so without additional evidence.
I believe that there is a compelling case to be made as to the intrinsic or
necessary wrong of sex outside of marriage. Perhaps I'll invite Mr. Weeks
to think through one or two arguments with me (in another post or thread),
if he's interested. ;-)
As to the contingent effects, I do think one should be held accountable for
damages (morally, if not legally) to other persons based on what we know
(informed consent, right?) of the consequences of sex. We do this already
with drunk drivers; we take their recklessness into account in considering
the harm they bring about. Or, if I bat a ball through a window - even by
mistake - I take responsibility for it. Why not with decisions regarding
sexuality? That being said, I think the case may well be stronger if the
initial action is wrong in itself. For example, if a man A tries to kill
man B with a knife but accidentally ends up killing B's 3 year-old daughter
(which was unintended). That seems different to me than if A was cutting
bread at B's house for dinner, and the knife slipped, and athe child was
killed.
Thanks and take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| "Steve Thomas" <steve_thomas_2000_n...tmail.com> wrote in message news:G6nK8M.5ny@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) daughter (...) I'll add that if the consequence and the initial action are teleologically related (as are sex and procreation), then the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I've been waiting to see the new thread. Did I need to respond to get it? If so, then shoot. (Bad choice of words given the other thread :-) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not considered wrong because (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
