As I approach my 100th post since beginning this blog, I wish to turn my attention to a serious of topics that I hope will culminate in an exceptional 100th post. With that said, I would like to turn our attention towards the topic of the rightness of our actions. Simply put, whether our actions can be judged morally correct or wrong in relation to their ends, or the action simply. The famous expression taken out of context from Niccolo Machiavelli is that, if the ends justify the means then they are morally acceptable. However, at what point does the end of our actions because judged solely on our means of attaining that end? This statement presupposes that there is nothing else by which to judge our actions. Can this, though, be the case? Friedrich Nietzsche supposes that there is nothing by which we can judge our actions, rather it is up to the Uebermensch to impose his own variety of morality. This question was brought to me through the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager. As some of you know, I watch that show as well as others including fellow ABC Family show Greek.
To provide some background, a few episodes back the main character Amy went on a date with a boy, named Jimmy, who she met at the beginning of this part of the season. Amy, fearing that things may become sexual and not wanting to take chances of becoming pregnant yet again acquired condoms. One thing lead to another and Jimmy found those condoms after him and Amy spent time discussing how they did not want to have sex until marriage. Amy was unaware that Jimmy found the condoms, and so when Jimmy stopped calling her she began to worry. Enter her “friends” who suggested that Jimmy didn’t like how Amy kisses, which upset her. The father of her son John, Ricky, attempted to reassure Amy before offering to let her “practice” kissing with him. She accepted the invitation. In the episode three weeks ago, Adrian, who is dating Ricky, found out that Amy was carrying condoms and began to suspect she was having sex. She immediately jumped to the conclusion that Amy and Ricky were having sex, which prompted Adrian to have sex with Amy’s ex-boyfriend Ben. Two episodes ago Adrian and Ricky confronted each other, and she informed him that she had sex with Ben to get back at him for having sex with Amy. Ricky responded by admitting, finally, that he and Amy had simply kissed.
Adrian’s belief is that the sex she had with Ben, the simple act of sex, is in itself not wrong. She also admitted that her having sex with Ben as a way of getting back at Ricky and Amy for allegedly having sex was also not wrong in of itself. Finally, she struggled with admitting that it was wrong even after finding out Ricky and Amy only kissed. This is what lead me to ponder the question of whether or not our actions simply must always be morally right, and whether or not our ends justify the actions we do take. In this instance, whether or not Adrian is correct in assuming that sex by itself is morally wrong, and whether sex as a means of getting back at someone for hurting you is itself wrong.
There are some actions that are themselves not morally wrong in and of themselves. Rather, we must look at the motive behind the act in order to find whether or not that act was acceptable. In this situation, we must look at the kind of sex rather than simply stating sex as sex itself is not morally wrong. However, sex outside of marriage is generally looked upon as being wrong and this is the kind of sex that Adrian and Ben engaged in. This leads to our general quandary, by what means can be determine that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and if we can determine what causes sex out of marriage to be wrong then we can determine if other actions can be judged based on the same principle.
By what measure can we determine sex outside of marriage to be wrong? Our first investigation must turn to the conventional law, often refered to by the Greek word nomoi. These are those laws created by man in his particular political situation. And since, at least in the United States, sex outside of marriage is not classified as illegal it cannot be wrong in accordance with American law. However, some acts are wrong based upon the assumption of the nomoi and therefore those actions can be judged solely based on whether or not the law prohibits them such as murder. The second source by which we can judge actions is through the revealed Law. That Law given to us by God. Since there are three Laws, the Old Law, the New Law and the Law of Islam, we must investigate whether any permit or prohibit premarital sex. Since it is commonly accepted by followers of the Law that premarital sex is in fact wrong, then we can assume that they receive this from the Law itself. This is the same for those things which the Law also explicitly prohibits.
Yet, what of those who are not followers of the Law? Those of non-revealed religions or those lacking faith all together. By what means can they determine the rightness of their actions? It would appear as though parts of the revealed Law are not only found in the books of religion, as there are those nations not followers of the Law that have nomoi akin to the Law. By what means was the Law revealed to them? Accordingly, there are two prime manners in which the Law is revealed to man and that is that it is implanted on his very soul or through his observation of nature. Since according to the revealed Law all things are created by the same God, it must be assumed that all living things are subject in part to the same law. It is found often in nature that some animals mate only with one partner for their entire life. Many pack animals have one male, with multiple females and often times only one female for procreation. In particular with wolves, there is an Alpha male and Alpha female, both are solely responsible for the continuation of their species with each other. Other animals, such as the Emperor Penguin, mates for life similar to the method by which humans have traditionally mated. Therefore, if we may find examples in nature of the revealed Law then we must assume that it is revealed to all. We may therefore find whether or not our actions are right, not by their ends, but by the Law.
But what then of those people who will state, “But those animals were not married, they simply have sex with each other; can I then mate with only one person the rest of my life as they do?” But what is marriage except the act of procreation? God said unto Adam and Eve, “Go forth and multiple” signaling that they were bound together as man and wife. So to, according to both the nomoi and the Law, when two people get married they are not married until they consummate the marriage. Similarly one might state, “There are examples of animals who have sex with multiple partners, how then can we say that as humans we are expected to remain with only one person?” All living things have an impulse inscribed on their hearts to continue their species through the act of procreation. That impluse exists in human beings, but what makes us different than those animals is that we have the faculty of reason. Our reason controls our passions, and leads us to our right actions. Those who deny that there are overruling laws by which all living things must adhere are denying their reason in favor of their passions. As humans, we are called to advance our species in it’s highest form; quality rather than quantity. This is why God only created Adam and Eve, for if it was intended that man should procreate with multiple females then it would have been proper for God to create multiple females.
It is therefore clear that our actions are not judged only by whether they right or wrong in relation to their ends, but that there is a standard by which we may judge our actions simply either through conventional law or the Law revealed to us either by religion or through nature, rather than in relation to their ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment