Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism is of no use when making decisions about sexual ethics.
Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism is of no use when making decisions about sexual ethics.
Sexual Ethics is a difficult topic to discuss due to the fact that there are no accepted code of Ethics when it comes to sex due to the fact people have different preferences in, what some consider to be, such a personal matter. Utilitarianism is concerned with establish the usefulness, the utility, of the subject in question. The utility of utilitarianism in regard to Sexual Ethics is ultimately down the evaluation of the people engaging in the act to decide. It is untrue to say that utilitarianism is ‘of no use’, as it does offer some advice and some do find it useful. However, it is can be argued that there are other Ethical Theories which offer a more clear cut approach to Sexual Ethics, like Natural Law and Christian Ethics.
The basis of utilitarianism, especially according to Mill, is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not forgetting the minority. This applies to Sexual Ethics, too; a utilitarian approach to sex would be to aim to maximise the pleasure and happiness gained, while minimising the hurt. This could be viewed as strength for utilitarianism for it allows people to gain happiness and pleasure from sex, without hurting others. In addition, the idea of ‘free love’ in utilitarianism does not mean to have reckless sex as that can result in unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of diseases and infection. From this, it can be concluded that utilitarianism promotes safe sex and the use of contraception.
Other ethical theories can be viewed as being more useful than Utilitarianism in regard to establishing the purpose of sex. Natural Law and Christian Ethics both make it clear that procreation, the unity of a man and his wife and the continuation of humanity is the purpose of sex. This conclusion can be reached by reading the Book of Genesis where it says [Adam and Eve] became one’ Genesis 2:12. However, after The Fall of Man, it is said that sex became a sin, which is a necessary evil for the continuation of humanity, but that it must never be enjoyed. In this way, utilitarianism is of more use that Christian Ethics and Natural Law in that is more applicable to twenty-first century life: Jeremy Bentham thought, provided there was mutual consent, sex cannot be wrong. This is especially wrong in today’s world where people have different preferences for what they like. To illustrate, the BDSM (abusive) acts carried out in the blockbuster ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ can be viewed by some as wrong as it teaches and encourages abuse in relationships, Bentham would argue that it is not wrong provided both parties are enjoying the act and are consenting.
In regard to contraception, it would of more use than other ethical theories because it, again, teaches that provided that no one is being harmed, it is acceptable to use contraception. This especially true in comparison to ethical theories like Natural Law, which teaches that the use of contraception is wrong because it goes against God’s plan and His will. However, utilitarianism would be more useful in that it would prevent unplanned pregnancies – and therefore less orphans, abortions and unwanted children – where as Natural Law would allow the potential for those things to happen. The usefulness of utilitarianism where contraception is concerned is further demonstrated in that the use of contraception can help prevent and/or limit the spread of disease. Furthermore, utilitarianism is more practical for today’s world, where it is unrealistic to ask people to abstain from sex, and to only engage in it for the purpose of procreation.
With regard to homosexuality, utilitarianism is more useful than most, thought it can be criticised on its approach. Utilitarianism teaches that homosexuality is acceptable, but it does not encourage it for it says that, should homosexuality to universalised, it would be harmful for humanity. This can be seen as a weakness in that it is not fully accepting of homosexuality: homosexuality can be universalised because people can now reproduce artificially and no longer need to be in heterosexual relationships in order to have children. A further criticism could be that homosexuals often adopt children, and the universalisation of homosexuality might result in a rise in adoption, thus decreasing the number of orphans in the world.
Weaknesses of utilitarianism lie in that it does not establish exactly what it means to give consent. For example, is a fifteen year old capable of making the decision to give consent to their twenty year old sexual partner? Would statutory rape be a crime in the eyes of a utilitarian? In accordance to Mill’s harm principle, would this be a harmful act or not? Furthermore, is an pleasurable act okay if it breaks the law of the land – statutory rape – and has legal repercussion? These are all questions which undermine the usefulness of utilitarianism when making decisions about sexual ethics.
Overall, the usefulness of utilitarianism is, as aforementioned, subject to opinion. I would argue that due to the nature of Western Society, it is a lot more useful than most alternatives, namely Christian Ethics. It teaches acceptance and the practise of safe sex and, most importantly when it comes to sex, consent. As a result, I would disagree with the statement.
