Christian Morals in Todays World - Essay Example

Christian Morals in Today’s World Name Institution Tutor Date Moral Justification of Premarital Sex Introduction The Contemporary society is characterized by varying interpretation of morality is concerned. However, Christianity, rightly understood, provides us with the much answers for our questions. This paper is aimed at discussing the topic “sex before marriage” while embracing all views, regarding premarital sex. The starting point is a dialogue on right or wrong, followed by a discussion on premarital sex and finally a conclusion. A dialogue on the subject “right or wrong” Christian: "You know, I get so confused with all the different things people say are right or wrong; from now on I am just going to follow my conscience. Response: I believe you. Let me say I would also be confused in an environment characterizes by various myths and contradictory views regarding what is right or wrong. It can also be very confusing when “good" and "evil" deeds are used to achieve different goals or ends. Christian: Thank you very much for the sentiment, however, my question is how do we know what is moral? Which standard can used to decide on this? Response The answer to your question is very simple; the bible. We know very clearly that evil is wrong, no exception or excuses. Every believer knows this. It is also true that there exist various views regarding what is considered but despite this, the bible still remains the ultimate authority for truth. It is a divinely inspired word of God and for this reason; it should be a standard for our belief and behavior. Christian; is there a verse that precisely illustrates God’s instruction about ethics? Response: Yes, there is indeed. The bible has out rightly condemned all kinds of evil. Christians are commanded to do good things. The bible says in Philippians 4:8 "fill your minds with those things that are good and that deserve praise: things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable. This is clearly a direction towards what is right or good. Christian: I do agree with you but I must confess that there are some Christian beliefs which are still confusing. Take for-example, the need to baptize a child because of the original sin. What is your stake on this? Response; It is not right to condemn one as inherently a sinner instead one should strive to directing others to their full actualization of their potentials as opposed to always feeding them with unending sense of guilt. Let alone compromising their confidence. Christian: (indicating approval) Response; if I may continue. Parent have a greater role to play in nurturing their children; inculcating in them virtues that please God so that they can get to a point a personal relationship with God, and be able to fully differentiate between what is good and bad according to the bible, God's standards. Christian What about premarital sex? Response Well there have been a lot of controversies but I want to believe sex relationship manifest the most intimate of all interpersonal relationships, carrying with it unity of total commitment, such a unity cannot be outside marriage. Otherwise it would be considered as sexual immorality, a sin more serious because it affects the individual more deeply and permanently than any other sin. It is sinning against the human body which is also the temple of God. According to me, there is no harm waiting until marriage. However, let me say that one is not condemned permanently but God is always faithful and just to forgive Christians so long as they confess their sins. Christian: Thank you very much for taking your time in spite of your tight schedule to share with me. Thank you once again and may God bless you Response Well, I must say am also very grateful for this opportunity. Don’t hesitate to call me in case of any other questions. God bless you. Premarital Sex Closely linked to the debate about what is right or wrong, is sex before marriage which quite a number of people have either opposed or justified with respect to what they consider well or evil/right. From a moral point of view, premarital sex should be discouraged. My point of arguments is based on different philosophies particularly, Aristotelian, Utilitarian, Kantian, Relativist, as well as the Christian views on the same as discussed below: Aristotelian View The line of reasoning in Aristotle philosophy is based on the principal of human nature, i.e. anything human being might do or became is “natural’. Reason or natural law should be applied in our day to day life. Aristotle looks at how a person can achieve something that could be considered a "happy life." He says, "The happy life for a man is a life of the conscious following of a rule"1. The principle advocate for the use of good judgment to know what the right rule is. Again, to be able to follow the right rule, one must exhibit two types of goodness; moral goodness and goodness of intellect. The former is Goodness of an objective thing which be inculcated into a person's being. In a separate review of Aristotle work, Fulvio believe goodness can be facilitated by training2. Fulvio and his collogues have argued that it is possible to train people things like endurance, self-mastery, and fair dealing, which even becomes pleasing to practice these things on a continual basis. Through repetition of morally correct acts, we acquire the right kind of character. Aristotle goes on to say that the morally weak are aware of the correct rule but do not possess the fortitude to follow it. The wicked, on the other hand, deliberately choose the wrong rule. Aristotle also believes that all things should be done in moderation in a bid to balance in our soul leads to goodness3. This is guided by our natural instincts that help us establish what is morally right. It is in the same vein that Dyson4 assert that sexual appetite listens to reason which is natural to human nature. The same is true for the instinct to procreate which leads people to engage in sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of having children. Sex outside marriage is obviously wrong since it contradicts the natural purpose of sex which is procreation. One of the shortcomings of Aristotle principle is the basis of his ethics which Douglas5 thinks is too indefinite and insufficient. He also argues that reason alone is inadequate to determine what is compatible with human nature or otherwise. The second criticism or shortcoming his principle is on the practicability of his ideas; his views are not practical in the modern society where sex is mostly seen to serve other purposes apart from procreation. For instance, it may be geared towards a natural purpose of strengthening a married couple’s relationship. The same is true for committed couples who are unmarried. Kantian View Kant’s basis of argument is termed as categorical imperative where actions are wrong when they disrespectfully treat people as mere things. Thus, one should act with great respect to others’ humanity. Therefore sexual conduct that degrades a person’s humanity is wrong. For Kant, this occurs when sex is inclined for another’s sex, instead of preference a person has for another as a human. Often, premarital sex is associated with personal gratification and not founded on true love. In addition, in this sexual conduct, one uses the body merely as personal gratification instruments. Emmanuel Kant had very good ideas however; it may not work in the modern society as opposed to his time. Today, there is a lot of compromise to premarital sex. Besides, the marriage institution is quite different and the line between the married and unmarried has become very thin. While it may be morally wrong to treat people as mere things, as argued in the Kantian philosophy, it is not true for all the unmarried. Utilitarianism According to the utilitarianism principle, an action is morally right if it elicits beneficial consequences than harmful ones. In order to assess whether premarital sex is morally wrong, one must consider all its negative consequences for instance unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, divorce for the married among others. The more these harmful factors are relevant to one’s situation, the more the conduct becomes wrong6. Utilitarianism is an excellent method for determining morals .However, it is not clear and does not necessarily side for or against premarital sex, but only gives a formula for answering moral questions when faced with the situations. Again, one may be faced with dire consequences depending on his or her cultural context or environment. For instance in some societies, premarital sex is a serious moral crime whereas in other societies such practices are socially accepted. Furthermore, Utilitarianism does not only offer inadequately help in decision about right and wrong but also does not present the underlying moral status of a particular sexual practice. Relativism Relativism is a general departure from aforementioned philosophies. This principle holds the view that situations are so diverse and complex that it seems unreasonable and unrealistic to hold them to universal moral norms. The argument is essentially this: Morality is determined by situations, and situations are relative; therefore, morality is relative7. In the context of sexual relationship, it is arguably true that nature has granted us the widest possible range of sexual freedom, which therefore is a strong ground for justifying premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, among others. Descartes in A discourse On Method notes that there is no idea so strange that some philosopher has not seriously taught it." Similarly, there is no practice so strange that some society has not legitimized it; for instance, genocide, or cannibalism. Or, so innocent that some group has not forbidden it; for instance, entering a temple with a hat on, or without one. So anyone who thinks values are not relative to cultures is simply ignorant of the facts, so goes the argument. This can be applied for the argument of premarital sex. It is quite clear that relativism guarantees freedom unlike other philosophies which threatens it. It is from this argument that Josephinum8 posits people are free to create their own values. So the argument is essentially that morality is determined by motive, and motive is subjective, therefore morality is subjective. One major criticism of relativism is that it can be a lee-way to justify out such antisocial behaviors like murder. Again, this philosophy essentially acts against the validity of any moral code that restricts one’s behavior. This is not practical since majority of humans embrace the basic concept of morality. On the same note, various cultures and societies invariably weave together the values of sex, love, marriage and family responsibility. This is the common ground9. Christian View As far as pre-marital sex is concerned most Christians see it as wrong, and so abstaining from sex would be morally better than having sex. Any type of sexual union, contact, and intimacy is for the marriage only between a husband and wife. The opposite of this is regarded as sin. As Christians, we are clearly instructed by God that we remain morally pure as illustrated in 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body, the temple of Holy Spirit. Again, in Ephesians 5:3, Christians are instructed against immorality. "But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints." Amongst all Christians, marriage is the only suitable arena for sexual activity however, in the contemporary society; this can be a great challenge. Sex is seen to serve other goals. Secondly, with technology, chastity has been compromised. Indeed, contraception seems to be one of the chief facilitators of the much sexual misconduct. It has made people feel secure that they can engage in sexual union apart from the obligations of marriage and child rearing10. Conclusion From the foregoing arguments it is clear there is a very strong case against premarital sex and this can be very useful especially in the modern era of AIDS/HIV. However, it doesn’t rule out the infection among the married. Reason and natural laws form the basis against premarital sex nevertheless, the biblical standard that link sex within faithfulness and security of marriage is most appropriate and should be applied as the best standard for protecting Christian values. References Annas, The Morality of Happiness, Oxford, 1993 (Virtue, the Good Life and happiness Douglas B. Rasmassesn and Douglas J. De Ugyl (1991) Liberty and Nature: An Aristorian Defense of liberal Order, La Saile: Open Court. Dyson R. W (Ed) (2008) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica 95-4 in Aquinas: New York, Cambridge University Press, pg. 135 Fulvio De Blasi, Joshua P Hochschld, Jeffrey Langan, eds. (2008) Virtues end: God in the moral philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas 1st edition, St Augustine Press, pp13-26 Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London (1991), Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce, Journal of Marriage and the Family, November 1991, pp. 845-855. Josephinum (2002) Marital Acts without marital vows: Social justice and premarital sex, Journal of theology Vol9 (2) Summer/fall, 2002, pp310-319 Mark J. Zavodnyik (2003) The Aristotelian Philosophy on The Good Life. The Final Good for Man in Aristotle's Ethical Theory, University of Notre Dame, American Studies, a student in College Year in Athens' Spring 2003 Martin P, Godling (1984) The primacy of welfare rights, social philosophy and Policy Vol1(2), Spring,1984. pp 119-136 Martin P. Golding(1993) Aristotelian Ethics And Natural Rights: A Critique, Symposium On Liberty And Nature: An Arktotelian Defense Of Liberalorder By Douglas B. Rasmussen And Douglas J. Den Uyl, Duke Univenity, Reason Papers (Fall, 1993) Pp71-77, Mary Sokol (2009) Jeremy Bentham on Love and Marriage, the Journal of Legal History, 2009, Vol. 30). Read More

The second criticism or shortcoming his principle is on the practicability of his ideas; his views are not practical in the modern society where sex is mostly seen to serve other purposes apart from procreation. For instance, it may be geared towards a natural purpose of strengthening a married couple’s relationship. The same is true for committed couples who are unmarried. Kantian View Kant’s basis of argument is termed as categorical imperative where actions are wrong when they disrespectfully treat people as mere things.

Thus, one should act with great respect to others’ humanity. Therefore sexual conduct that degrades a person’s humanity is wrong. For Kant, this occurs when sex is inclined for another’s sex, instead of preference a person has for another as a human. Often, premarital sex is associated with personal gratification and not founded on true love. In addition, in this sexual conduct, one uses the body merely as personal gratification instruments. Emmanuel Kant had very good ideas however; it may not work in the modern society as opposed to his time.

Today, there is a lot of compromise to premarital sex. Besides, the marriage institution is quite different and the line between the married and unmarried has become very thin. While it may be morally wrong to treat people as mere things, as argued in the Kantian philosophy, it is not true for all the unmarried. Utilitarianism According to the utilitarianism principle, an action is morally right if it elicits beneficial consequences than harmful ones. In order to assess whether premarital sex is morally wrong, one must consider all its negative consequences for instance unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, divorce for the married among others.

The more these harmful factors are relevant to one’s situation, the more the conduct becomes wrong6. Utilitarianism is an excellent method for determining morals .However, it is not clear and does not necessarily side for or against premarital sex, but only gives a formula for answering moral questions when faced with the situations. Again, one may be faced with dire consequences depending on his or her cultural context or environment. For instance in some societies, premarital sex is a serious moral crime whereas in other societies such practices are socially accepted.

Furthermore, Utilitarianism does not only offer inadequately help in decision about right and wrong but also does not present the underlying moral status of a particular sexual practice. Relativism Relativism is a general departure from aforementioned philosophies. This principle holds the view that situations are so diverse and complex that it seems unreasonable and unrealistic to hold them to universal moral norms. The argument is essentially this: Morality is determined by situations, and situations are relative; therefore, morality is relative7.

In the context of sexual relationship, it is arguably true that nature has granted us the widest possible range of sexual freedom, which therefore is a strong ground for justifying premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, among others. Descartes in A discourse On Method notes that there is no idea so strange that some philosopher has not seriously taught it." Similarly, there is no practice so strange that some society has not legitimized it; for instance, genocide, or cannibalism. Or, so innocent that some group has not forbidden it; for instance, entering a temple with a hat on, or without one.

So anyone who thinks values are not relative to cultures is simply ignorant of the facts, so goes the argument. This can be applied for the argument of premarital sex. It is quite clear that relativism guarantees freedom unlike other philosophies which threatens it. It is from this argument that Josephinum8 posits people are free to create their own values. So the argument is essentially that morality is determined by motive, and motive is subjective, therefore morality is subjective. One major criticism of relativism is that it can be a lee-way to justify out such antisocial behaviors like murder.

Read More