Universal Laws Ethics

Natural Law Ethics as a type of UNIVERSAL LAWS ETHICS An example of a universal laws morality: Catholic natural law sexual ethics. Below is a summary of an ethics textbook once widely used in Catholic colleges. Summary of Chapter 24, "SEX" by Austin Fagothy, S.J., in his textbooks on ethics for Catholic colleges, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 5th edition: 1972 [1st edition: 1953]), 265-75

LOVE AND SEX IN MARRIAGE Fagothy begins by noting that marriage is both an institution, part of the overall social order that must be regulated by civil authority for social good, and a profound personal experience and relation. Roman Catholic ethics used to distinguish between the primary and secondary ends of marriage. The primary end was the continuation of humankind by begetting and raising children. This included a responsibility for the development and education of the children. The secondary end was mutual aid and love between the parents. More recently, because of Vatican II, the two ends are usually united under the general goal of love, between the spouses and for the children that arise out of that love. Here is Fagothy’s description of that love: It is simultaneously self-fulfillment and fulfillment of the beloved. Each gives himself or herself to the other, so that in a sense the two lives are merged into one greater life. Together they share life’s joys and bear up one another in life’s sorrows. . . . Marriage at its least, as an institution, can exist without love, but at its best, as an ideal, it cannot." (266) Love includes both body and spirit, Fagothy continues. Although not all love will produce children. Nonetheless: "Since it is naturally fruitful, it should result in the creation of new life, in that permanent mingling of the qualities of the two wedded lovers in a new person who mirrors both." BIRTH CONTROL Even in marriage there are unnatural forms of love, Fagothy says. Artificial contraception is one of these. Birth control can be achieved, of course, by abstinence or by limiting intercourse to periods of infertility. But artificial contraception is "the use of mechanical, physical, or chemical means to make the sexual act possible without a resulting conception." Why is this unnatural? Fagothy offers eight reasons, which he acknowledges overlap somewhat. 1. It contradicts an essential end of marriage, which is "the begetting and rearing of children." It is against the very nature of marriage. 2. It is against the very nature of sex, the natural purpose of which is the begetting of children. One can abstain from sex, but one ought not to deliberately frustrate its purpose in nature. 3. "It is an unnatural vice of the same sort as homosexuality and auto-eroticism." [masturbation] It turns "nature’s instruments away from their natural purpose, the good of the race, to a mere means of individual satisfaction." 4. It is a way to seek pleasure even while avoiding the responsibility associated with that pleasure. 5. Artificial contraception "is a contamination of one’s bodily temple." The reproductive ability shares in God’s creative power; it is sacred. 6. It always involves an evil intention, of hindering the natural purpose of the sex act.

7. It is psychologically unsatisfying, creating a barrier to full openness between husband and wife. 8. Closely related, it diminishes the full surrender of the spouses to one another, in complete openness to the natural goal of their activity. But Fagothy lists counter arguments too, which also overlap somewhat with each other. The effect of these counter arguments is to undercut natural law, by making nature something that human beings have a right to adapt to their own purposes rather than taking it as normative. 1. Rearing children is part of the end of marriage also. Limiting the number of children makes it possible to do a better job at rearing those one has. 2. Even though the natural goal of sex is procreation, there is value in modifying some natural processes for the sake of greater human good. God’s design can be respected without turning it into an absolute set of laws. 3. Neither homosexuality nor autoeroticism is the issue here. The love between a married couple is. As long as they use contraceptives to aid their love and family, they are seeking unselfish good. 4. If sex results in children, certainly there is a great responsibility this entails. But to argue that all sexual acts must produce children for whom one is responsible begs the question at issue, whether every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. 5. Many acts in life have a sacred character, including the love between the couple and the love they have for their children. It is not the biological facts that are sacred in themselves. 6. The intent need not be evil. One can seek procreative good in diverse ways. Nature already places a limit on the fertility of women, showing that procreation is a variable goal about which humans may make reasonable choices. 7. Worrying about having more children than one can responsibly raise can also be a psychological problem, or having to methodically plan when to have sexual relations instead of being able to be lovingly open. 8. Even if a contraceptive act is imperfect in some way, real life is never perfect; there are always trade-offs that must be made for the sake of greater good. So Fagothy presents arguments on both sides. He notes that responsible parenthood does not mean having as many children as possible. The question remains whether artificial means can legitimately be used as a means for limiting the number of children. Marital continence is one means. Periodic continence, the rhythm method, is also a means. The anovulant pill is another means. It is clearly all right to use this pill to regularize a woman’s cycle, including for the purpose of making the rhythm method more sure. Because of the complexity of this issue, says Fagothy, many people will not rely on natural law arguments alone, but on the interpretation of natural law by the official leaders of their church. [In the 1972 edition of this book Fagothy is implicitly responding to the encyclical Humani Vitae, which Pope Paul VI had issued in 1968. Paul VI had reiterated the position of both Pius XI and Pius XII that artificial contraception is intrinsically wrong because it contradicts the nature of sex, which is to be open to the possibility of procreation.] The chapter continues with analyses of premarital sex, adducing several reasons why it is always morally illicit. The reasons center again on the nature of sex. Its purpose is the procreation and raising of children. Even if a married couple can engage in sex that will not produce children, as with the rhythm method, that sex still takes place in the larger context for which sex is intended. The justification of the use of rhythm or abstinence can only be to

reinforce the love between the married couple and thereby also to provide a loving context for raising the children they do have. To engage in sex without a formal state of marriage is either to selfishly direct sex away from its large natural context of family life, or to risk having children with less than a reliable and stable family in which to grow up. Many families do end in divorce, and the early death of one spouse has shown that a single parent can raise children quite well. Nonetheless these are difficult challenges for parents and children alike. To deliberately expose children to these problems is less than responsible.