Ethical Issues in Marriage, Sexuality and Family - Essay Example

Ethical Issues in Marriage Sexuality and Family Introduction Ethics can be summarized as the practical science of the good life touching on the issues of what a person has to do so as to live as a noble person within a given society. It’s a guideline to what is expected of people and what is not expected of them in terms of morals. Ethics does not necessarily base on ones happiness or with virtue of ones character but rather with performing ones duties as a responsible person within the society. Generally, ethics is about determining and differentiating the good acts from the bad acts, developing good and accepted characters among people and fostering social order (Robin 20). Ethical issues Within the social structure, ethics is very much linked to marriage, sexuality and family. Ethics gives a guideline on what is expected of the contract union between husband and wife. Traditionally, marriage has been perceived as a lifelong committed relationship between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation and upbringing of children with allowance of divorce only where any progeny have reached their maturity (McNeil, 198). However with introduction of new technology, this definition has been challenged and is loosing its meaning in the ethic. The universal acceptance of the contraceptives as a morally legitimate option that facilitates reproduction of children to be an optional choice for the married couples has brought a new face to the traditional marriage (Gallagher, 34). Marriage is no longer based on procreation achievement only but rather on ones happiness, pleasure and gain. Marriage has lost its ethical value in the society and adopted the contract perspective where couples can stay together and divorce or part ways at the will of either of the contracting party. Today, marriage is not necessarily a contract between people of the opposite sex but rather even people of the same sex (Cleves, 48). Homosexual and lesbian unions do as well qualify as marriages since today marriage is simply a contract between two parties that want to live together and not necessarily with the aim of procreation. This situation has been encouraged with the introduction of the new technologies that has seen people of the opposite sex using contraceptives to avoid procreation. At the same time, the scientific methods have made it possible for people of the same sex like the lesbian to also procreate and bear children (Allsopp & O’Keefe 78). Although this trend is highly gaining popularity, it is still seen as in ethical for people of the same sex neither to marry nor to reproduce through the modern technologies that are seen as away of offending God who created human beings and advocated for opposite sex marriage as well as procreation. The sexual differentiation issue brings the debate of doing the good or bad in human being as per the ethics that do exists. The moral of doing well as in regard to sexual differentiation and reproduction is of importance since sex is a biological characteristic that is based with procreation. However sexuality faces ethical threat due to the fact that at the moment, developments in science and technology has made it possible for people to have sexual intercourse without necessary aiming to conceive a child (Aertsen 65). Also contemporary reproductive technologies have made it possible for people to conceive without necessarily engaging into sexual intercourse. This has witnessed severed relationship between the link of sexual intercourse and that of procreation since they no longer depend on one another but they can be achieved independently of one another. Today people engage in sexual activities without the concern of being a father and mother but as personal preference to meet their desires (Gallagher 40). Naturally, men are supposed to be sexually attracted to women and women should be attracted to men. Today, men are attracted to follow men while women are attracted to fellow women and this has led to sexuality loosing its ethical standards and acceptance within the society. Sexuality has always had two major importances in human beings, for procreation and for self pleasure of the parties involved, this aspect is highly threatened by the increasing cases of the same sex sexual intercourses that mainly has only one objective which is sexual satisfaction. Like in the case of homosexuality, there is no chance of procreation since a man cannot conceive hence sexuality is merely for the purpose of pleasure alone (Theology Digest 45). Family on the other hand is the fundamental basis of a human being; it’s the family that shapes a person to being good or bad through the upbringing, its beliefs and culture. It’s the family that initiates an individual’s personality that eventually determines the type of a person he or she is. In the traditional setting, the family consists of a husband, wife, children and members of the extended family that might include uncles, aunts amongst others (Foster & Humphries 56). Today family has attained a total different outlook especially with individuals marrying people of the same sex. With the new technologies, it’s possible for people involved in lesbian to conceive and give birth but still the child’s upbringing which is very sensitive requires the parentage of both the mother and the father. Both parents play a very important role in the child’s upbringing which eventually determines the child’s future personality. Ethically, it is normal for a family to constitute a wife and a husband of the opposite sex and so it would be in a bad taste to have a family that is based on the same sex marriage (Gerard 59). In a homosexual marriage, there is no conceiving hence there is no formation of a family in the first place, it will be a marriage based on two men who merely enjoy pleasure together but cannot form a continuation of a family. On the other hand, the extended family also plays a social role in the family upbringing and social relation which is important to ones personality creation. In the case of same sex marriages, the extended family is rarely available on the fact that there is no continuity or extension of the family relation hence it’s a small family that is limited in procreation (Grabowski & Michael 90). Ethical issues on the concept oh Utilitarian emphasized the teleological aspect of the moral reasoning and human behavior. It eliminated the notion of moral obligation because if the good is found only in moral then the obligation disappears. Utilitarian emphasizes on social harmony, peace and prosperity if people are to live in a social society (Gallagher R. 80). This can be further seen where in a day to day life, people do not appeal to rules and principles but to own inner sense of wrong or right. Here moral obligation can only arise from within one’s subjectivity. This concept also believes in reliable guide to what the majority would want although one is also obliged to respect the intentionality of other conscious subjects. This could be a challenge though where section of the society do not agree on important and fundamental values and one or both sides of the debate may feel that the others values are being imposed on to them (Glaser 71). The concept advocates for common good for the modern liberal society in a more reasonable, peaceful, prosperous and comfortable survival for all its members. Here it is believed that even if one practices a bad habit like homosexuality in the sexuality aspect and it does not harm the rest of the society, then the society has no right to proscribe the act as evil. In terms of ethics, this concept clearly does not advocate for social obligations, instead it advocates for an individual to do what he or she desires so long as it does not interfere with other members of the society. Incase of an issue or difference in opinions, the society should be able to consolidate its members through a peaceful debate and come up with ethics that are more favorable to the majority (Gilligan 82). In Kantians ethicist, the realm of objective knowledge is that of phenomena and it is structured in categories of pure reason which include; quantity, quality, relation and modality. Kant emphasizes that scientific reasoning does not operate at all through the concept of end. Ethic is outside the realm of phenomena and here the good does not intrude upon the real of scientific knowledge hence it’s in the realm of freedom but should be governed by a priori laws of reason (Gilligan, 32). Anything that happens in the realm of phenomena should obey the laws of nature since the good has no power of governance in that particular phenomenon apart from the realm of freedom which however is treated by the science of morals and not by empirical sciences. In Kant’s views, there is no room for personal satisfaction in moral behavior, the moral demands flows from reasons that are socially accepted and not for an individual satisfaction (Allsopp & O’Keefe, 199). He emphasizes on moral good will that can be reflected in universal ethical principle orientation. This concept is based on the fact that it is efficient for one to decide something from own will, to decide to choose between good and bad as compared when one is commanded. To command is to violet what’s in most in the human self. It is based on freedom, dignity and autonomy of the rational subject although it is free with respect to the laws governing the phenomenal realm. In relation to ethics, Kant’s concepts argue that human beings should have the freedom to choose what they want so long as it’s within the general guidelines. The ethics should not necessarily be based on pleasing an individual but the society at large (Gerard 59). He believes human beings should not be commanded towards ethics but should use their goodwill to guide them through ethics. The same should apply in marriage, sexuality and family. One should use goodwill as Kant’s strategy to choose how to go about his or her marriage, sexuality and family. All this should also consider the general guiding ethics that should also play a major role in decision making. In Thomas concept of ethics, he recognizes that the soul has two powers which are of intellect and will. The ratio of good is defined through the correspondence of being with the will hence the good is defined as whatever the human will wants. He emphasizes that goodness of a thing is rooted in its innermost metaphysical core. The will is considered a rational appetite since it can be directed to whatever that is perceived to be good or desired. Just as in ethics, the human being is endowed with senses and internal desires which all present their respective objects like marriage, sexuality and family. However these desires do not constitute the will since the will is the rational appetite (Gilligan 82). On the other hand, the intellectual power should dispose rationally what it is that constitutes a thing as a good and what it is that is the real truth about a thing. In that case if certain human behaviors can be described as good or bad in relation to an action and there is a moral sense of good or bad, then it should be upon ontological sense (Foster & Humphries 51). However since the human will has orientation towards the good in general and the universal good, there is no thing that could satisfy the human will. This arguments is based on the fact that moral sense includes the notion of duty and the obligation to do what is right whether its benefiting one or not. Here the duty is kind of imposed on people where one has to play his or her duty irrespective of the outcome of the duty’s action. Ethically, this concept is seen as guiding people with particular duties and guidelines that have to be followed and not for self interest but the general interest (Cleves 83). They are obligations that have to be followed which if not there are consequences to follow. In terms of marriage, sexuality and family there are already laid down guidelines that are to be followed irrespective of ones personal desires and hence one is obligated to do things in a particular way that is ethically accepted within a society (Gilligan 82). Conclusion In regard to the above concepts, ethics can be summarized as the social deeds that are to be followed by an individual or the society at large since they act as guidance to a proper social integration of the entire society. In relation to marriage, sexuality and family, in Thomas concept the set down ethics are obliged to be followed no matter if they please an individuals desire or not. They are set to guide the society at large. On the kantis concept, the ethics are not forced but people are taught to choose wisely on good values in terms of ethics (Foster & Humphries, 51). Lastly, Utilitarian advocates for peaceful and more diplomatic way of debating on ethic issues that the society might differ on. It gives priority to the majority even if some people are displeased. In general, the ethic issues as much as they are for an individual to choose between good and bad, there are cases where it becomes a social issue where it’s the society that decides the fundamental guidelines to follow in terms of ethical issues. This is irrespective of personal desires of an individual; hence at times the society looks at the majorities desires (Robin 92). Works Cited Aertsen, Jan. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: The Case of Thomas. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Print. Allsopp, Michael E and John J. O’Keefe. Veritatis Splendor: American Responses. Kansas: Sheed and Ward, 1995. Print. Cleves, William. Personal responsibility and Christian Morality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University press, 1983. Print. Foster, Kenelm and Silvester Humphries. Aristotle's De anima in the versin of William of Moerbeke and the commentary of saint acquinas. New haven : Yale University press, 1951. Print. Gallagher, John. Time Past, Time Future: An historical Study of Catholic Moral Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1990. Print. Gallagher, Raphael. "Fundamental Moral Theology 1975-1979: A bulletin analysis of some significant writings examined from methodological stance." Studia Moralia (1980): 1891980) 147-192. Print. Gerard, Gilleman. The primary of Charity in Moral Theology. Westminister MD: The Newman Press, 1959. Print. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different voice: psychological Theory and Womens Development. Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1982. Print. Glaser, John. "Conscience and super ego: a key Distinction." Theological Studies (1971): 32(1971):30-47. Print. Grabowski, John S. and Naughton J. Michael. "Catholic Social and Sexual Ethics: Inconsistent or Organic." The Thomsis (1990): 445.print. McNeil, Brian. Christian Morality: The Word Became Flesh . Washington, D.C: Gill and Macmillan, 1987. Robin, Gill. "Moral Communities." Lecture Notes. Exter: University of Exter press, 1992. Print. Theology Digest. "Whoever hears you hears me': episcopal moral instruction." ." Theology Digest (1994): 41 (1994): 3-7. Print. Read More