CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL

Aquinas and most of the natural-law tradition support what we might call the “conservative view” about sexual morality. This view holds that genital sexual relations are morally proper only if they occur between husband and wife in a form of sexual intercourse that is open to the procreation of children. So oral and anal sex are morally improper, as are premarital sex, adultery, masturbation, homosexual relations, bestiality, and contraception. This conservative norm is often defended on the grounds that any other use of sexual relations perverts the natural, biological purpose of sex organs, which are intended (by God or evolution or both) for reproduction and for strengthening the life-bond between potential parents.

Critics object that it needn’t be wrong to use organs for something other than their primary biological purpose; for example, there’s nothing wrong in using our feet to kick a football. So it needn’t be wrong to use sex organs for something other than their reproductive functions. Although the “natural biological purpose” argument is often attributed to Aquinas, John Finnis claims that it’s better, and truer to Aquinas, to argue for the conservative norm based on the role that sexual relations play in a good human life; human life, and especially family life, will prosper better if sexual relations are limited.

The contrasting “liberal view” rejects special moral norms for sexual con- duct; sexual relations are to be guided only by ordinary moral norms, such as not to harm oneself or others, not to treat others only as a means to getting what one wants, to promote good consequences (including pleasure for oneself and others), to keep promises, and to respect the will of others. Such norms make a strong case against rape (which hurts others and violates another’s will) and most adultery (which hurts families and violates marriage vows). But most consensual adult sexual relations, including premarital and homosexual sex, emerge as morally acceptable, so long as these don’t harm others or violate other ordinary moral norms. Liberals disagree about whether casual (uncom- mitted) sex is morally proper; if it’s morally improper, then this must be because it harms people by trivializing sex for them, so that it serves more for immediate gratification than for building a deeper life-bond.

Critics object that the liberal “sexual revolution” has had bad social conse- quences: it has weakened the family and hurt children. Liberal sexual attitudes have brought massive increases in divorce, teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, date rape, and sexually transmitted diseases. Women are often deserted and forced to bear the entire burden of raising children; and children brought up without a father are statistically much more likely to suffer from psychological problems, poverty, doing poorly in school and dropping out, drug abuse,

criminal behavior, and furthering the cycle of fatherless families. Liberal sexual attitudes in practice (although not necessarily in theory) lead people to pursue immediate gratification and to use others as mere sex objects—instead of building deep life-bonds that help to nurture the next generation of children.

Some critics of liberal sexual attitudes argue for a “moderate view” using rule-utilitarian arguments. This moderate view says that people will live better if they follow fairly strict rules about sexual relations, which liberalism doesn’t provide; without fairly strict rules about sex, people will more often talk themselves into doing foolish things that harm themselves, their loved ones, and society. On the moderate view, the basic sexual norm is to follow those rules about sexual relations that are required, in one’s cultural situation, to promote the integrity of the family and the nurturing of children. Moderates on this basis accept many but usually not all of the conservative prohibitions; their challenge is to sort through the conservative prohibitions and determine which are needed for a well-functioning society and which can be dropped. While there are many empirical studies about the negative results of broken families on children, moderates stress the need for studies about which sexual norms are needed to promote healthy families and well-nurtured children.

Natural-law moderates largely agree on this approach but would talk more about the biological-psychological nature of humans and about their high ideal of sexual love. A striking fact about human biology is how weak a human baby is; while the newborn of most other species can almost immediately walk and assume a normal existence, a human baby is entirely defenseless. To survive and prosper, a human baby requires much help over many years—preferably from two parents who love one another and love the child. Both in the evolutionary jungle and in modern society, bringing up a child with only one parent tends to compromise the child’s future; as was mentioned above, empirical studies bring this out. It’s crucial for humanity’s future that children be brought up well. Evolution may have “hard wired” this concern into our psychology; so it’s not surprising that sexual attitudes that attack children and the family so often lead to a deeply unsatisfying existence.

Natural-law moderates often have a high ideal of sexual love, which is sup- posed to work in the following way. A man and woman become romantically attracted to each other, get to know each other, fall in love, and commit themselves to each other in a complete and exclusive way. They totally care for and often make sacrifices for each other; their sexual relations enrich and solidify their love. They sometimes struggle and fight; but then they work things out. Their love for each other extends to a love for their offspring; so their love becomes a family love. Later, as the man and woman grow older and weaker, they are there to help each other and to grow old together—and to be cared for by their children. This is the whole package—how it’s supposed to work—and sexual practices that attack this are to be avoided like the plague.

13.6 Chapter summary

Natural law is a tradition that sees basic moral principles as objective, based on nature instead of convention, and knowable to all by natural human reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas was the central figure in the natural-law tradition. His moral theology, which was based on his Christian faith, sees morality as part of God’s governance of the world. Morality’s purpose is to lead us to our final goal, which is eternal happiness with God. We have two ways to know the basic moral norms: human reason and the Bible. Morality is possible because of how God created us, as rational animals with an intellect and a will.

Aquinas’s moral philosophy sees the basic moral norms (like the golden rule and the wrongness of stealing) as fixed and unchangeable, although they can be applied differently to different cultural situations. Human laws are set up to promote the good and must accord with natural law.

Good is that which all things seek after. The first precept of natural law is that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. We can know what is good by investigating our natural (rational) inclinations. John Finnis, a follower of Aquinas, suggests that there are seven basic goods (which include, for example, knowledge and life), that these cannot be measured on a common scale and totaled, and that it’s always wrong to choose directly against a basic good (for example, by taking the life of an innocent person).

Natural law is more a pluralistic tradition of doing ethics than a precisely formulated ethical theory. So thinkers in the natural-law tradition can take different sides in the debate over supernaturalism, naturalism, and intuitionism. The principle of double effect, which is part of the natural-law tradition, says roughly that under certain conditions it’s permissible to do something with a morally good intended effect and a morally bad unintended side effect.

Natural-law thinkers usually defend a conservative view about sexual moral- ity: genital sexual relations are morally proper only if they occur between husband and wife in a form of sexual intercourse that is open to the procrea- tion of children. Some natural-law moderates propose instead that the basic sexual norm is to follow those rules about sexual relations that are required, in one’s cultural situation, to promote the integrity of the family and the nurturing of children.

13.7 Study questions

1. Very roughly, what is natural law?

2. Sketch three important points about Aquinas’s moral theology. (13.1) 3. Sketch three important points about Aquinas’s moral philosophy.

4. What is Aquinas’s first precept of natural law—and what is it based on? (13.2)

5. According to Aquinas, how do we know what is good? 6. Give three examples of basic goods, according to John Finnis. 7. What is Finnis’s objection to consequentialism?

8. How does Finnis generate exceptionless norms?

9. Give two issues on which natural-law thinkers tend to differ. (13.3) 10. What controversy was raised by Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae?

11. Explain the principle of double effect, using the example of giving pain medication to a sick person. (13.4)

13. Advocates of the just-war doctrine say that a war can be just if it fulfills several conditions. Give three of these conditions.

14. Explain the conservative view about sexual morality. (13.5)

15. How do critics dispute the “natural biological purpose” argument for the conservative view about sexual morality?

16. Explain the liberal view about sexual morality.

17. What bad consequences do critics say come from the liberal view about sexual morality?

18. Explain the moderate view about sexual morality.

19. What two factors would natural-law moderates stress in defense of this moderate view about sexual morality?

20. Do you think that the premises of the moderate view would lead (as some have claimed) to conservative conclusions about areas like prema- rital sex and homosexual relations? If not, then what concrete norms do you think the moderate view would lead to?

13.7 For further study

To solidify your understanding, do the EthiCola exercise (see Preface) for “Ethics 13—Natural Law.”

The classic source of natural law is St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica; among other topics, he discusses natural law (Part I–II, Questions 90–7), double effect (Part II–II, Question 64, Article 7), just war (Part II–II, Question 40, Article 1), and sexual morality (Part II–II, Questions 151–6). John Finnis’s Natural Law and Natural Rights restates Aquinas’s natural-law ethics in contem- porary terms. For more on sexual morality by authors defending the conserva- tive view, see Finnis’s “The Good of Marriage” and Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility. For approaches to natural law by non-Catholics, see Samuel Pufendorf’s On the Duty of Man and Citizen according to Natural Law and Timothy Chappell’s Understanding Human Goods. The Bibliography at the end of the book has information on how to find these works.