Divine commands, ethics and same-sex relationships
by Martin Davie:
The aim of this paper.
An essay by James Harper entitled ‘Ian Paul and moral arguments against homosexuality’ was recently posted on the Thinking Anglicans website.[1] This paper is a response to that essay.
The aim this paper is not to defend Paul against the criticisms of him made by Harper in his essay. Paul is entirely capable of making his own response to these should he wish to do so. Its aim is instead to explore the fundamental issues raised by Harper’s paper and to show why, in the light of these, the case he makes for the moral acceptability of same-sex relationships is not convincing.
The heart of Harper’s case
The heart of Harper’s essay is the claim that those who believe same-sex relationships to be morally wrong have to either ‘show pretty clearly why homosexuality violates moral standards’ or ‘appeal to pure Divine Command theory’ and say that homosexuality is wrong simply and solely because God says so in the Bible.
According to Harper, in order to assess whether a form of behaviour violates moral standards we should apply the tests used in ‘modern moral philosophy.’ Applying these tests, he argues, involves: ‘weighing up the good and bad consequences of an act, considering rights and responsibilities of those involved, and applying rules and principles which we generally believe to be important.’
Applying these criteria, Harper contends that the good consequences of people being in homosexual relationships is that they obtain the benefits of ‘intimate loving relationships’ which he describes as ‘happiness, support, security, warmth, passion, zest for life etc.’
The bad consequences that have been suggested are, he says, ‘vague and unexplored correlations between being gay and higher incidences of mental health [problems] or IPV [intimate partner violence].’ In his view even if such correlations could be shown to exist:
‘….they do not on any reasonable moral view stand any chance of making homosexuality wrong. To do that, gay relationships would need to bring with them a profound and incurable risk of destruction, injury, death or abuse, to the point where it would simply be necessary to contain ones sexuality – to restrict one’s very humanity – in order to avoid severely harming oneself and others. I do not envy anyone trying to defend such a claim.’
In relation to responsibilities Harper argues that ‘Gay people choose to accept any risks there may be, just as straight people accept risks in their relationships and in other areas of life.’ Right come into the picture because human beings ‘have the moral right to realise their inherent capacities for love and happiness- and that’s a right which is very hard indeed to override.’
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
