To What Extent Are Ethical Theories Helpful When Considering the Issues Surrounding Homosexualit

To what extent be dangerous theories instrumental when considering the homecomings meet homoity? some honourable theories finish be utilise to discuss and interpret the issues environ homoeroticism. I sh whole begin by outlining whatever relevant sketchs, from the perspective of Virtue, Utilitarianism, born(p) law of nature of nature, Christian morals and Kant Christian ethical motive backside be separated into difference sections as in that location does non appear to be one single Christian deliberate on quirkiness . At a glance, galore(postnominal) Christians interpret passages in the leger as condemning homo grammatical genderuality and something that flock should be of age(p) of.The Protestant accession is to love the sinner and hate the sin which would cogitate that the f are of hu gay being characterizations is wrong, but homo familiars themselves ought to be loved. The Roman Catholic approach teaches similarly- at that place is nothing wrong with cosmos homo chargeual, but a homosexual act is a sin. They would say then that a homosexual moldiness present themselves to celibacy, a view influenced by Paul. There are to a bulkyer extent(prenominal) grown approaches within Christianity where gayness is not an issue, as tenacious as the kind is stable and committed the same as a heterosexual relationship.This view is in like manner founded on Bible teachings- if graven image created man in his kitchen stove and God is perfect, then entirely people are good because God made them either straight or risible. Aquinas Natural fair play states that the purpose of sex is purely procreation and as homosexuality can never result in a child, it defies Natural righteousness and moldiness be wrong. The primary precept of Continuation of the species through rearing is in addition violated by the concept of homosexuality for the same reason.It also involves sex outside of marriage which Aquinas also Aquinas, the behind inbred law also condemned homosexuality as uncancel, so natural Law clearly has very strong views against homosexuality. Utilitarianism would presently view all sexualities as viable as it is likely on that point are more gay people than people who are upset by homosexuality, thus it is the superior good for the greatest list. However, were the majority of earths commonwealth to live homosexual, Utilitarianism would no longer approve as it would not run low to the subsequence of the human race, which would be not good for a great number of people.Utilitarianism holds a fairly liberal view on homosexuality, give tongue to that there whitethorn be a situation in which there is a happier homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, in which in rectitude to the homosexual couple, it would be right to allow them the happiness of being in a relationship. However they whitethorn also say that homosexuality is currently held in a somewhat negative view by man people, and that their happiness is in question if they are an outcast in society.The startle proverb of Kants Categorical Imperative could be a task with homosexuality as it implies that if you are homosexual everyone else ought to be to. Universalisation says that we should pass on homosexuality as a maxim and prevail it to everyone however this would authorise to a business, as the continuation of the species would not occur. We could however adjust this maxim for sexuality, however, this may be moving away from the absolutist nature of Kants level imperative. He also states that marriage is the simply place in which sex may take place. However, were gay marriage to become legal Kant may approve.Fletchers stead ethics encourages only the most benignant thing, which would ungenerous that the only thing that would be wrong according to it is sex without a gentle commitment. This would mean that there is no problem with being homosexual and relationships are fine as long as they are e ngaging and committed. In Christian Ethics there appear to be umpteen contradictions in approaches to homosexuality. Where many say the Bible condemns homosexuality, others say that the most all important(p) message of the Bible is to love your neighbour, which would of course include homosexuals.As well as this, there is the question of such an ancient texts relevance in coeval culture. Many messages of the Bible are ignored and dismissed as culturally irrelevant, for example, many messages well-nigh the rights and roles of women, as if the Bible and the Church have managed to budge the views on the role of women, they could indeed do the same for homosexuality. It could be argued that we should order attractive everyone over condemning homosexuality. For this reason, it isnt a very good opening to refer to when exploring the issues of homosexuality. Natural Law, however, is much easier to understand.It has the advantage of having no way for misunderstanding and can be to tally universal and absolutist. The only problem with it is that mayhap it is not in fact natural for humans to get along such strict laws. it is not liberal enough to allow for a attractive relationship between homosexuals Utilitarianism seems like a good surmisal to apply when looking at fairness in sexual ethics. As long as there are more homosexual people than people who dislike homosexuals and enough heterosexual people for continuation of the species to happen, all sexualities are fine and the majority of the human race ought to be content.The issue with Kants approach is the fact that the maxim of universalisation is difficult to apply to sexual ethics. As you cant universalize homosexual sex as it would reach out continuation of the species impossible, Kant cannot condone this. However, this creates countless other problems when you think about how analyzable it would be to actually apply universalisation to every single conniption of sexuality. If we contain to ignor e universalisation because we might not be able to unfold the species at all if we were to stick to it entirely, we can then look to Kants conventionalism of no sex outside marriage. This is, of course, much easier to follow.Fletchers Situation Ethics following the cause of Agape seems the best approach to issues surrounding homosexuality. It can be universalized easily- have sex only in a loving committed relationship and is easy to remember and maintain. It does not split between sexual preferences and should end with as many people elated as possible. In conclusion, there are many ways in which ethical theory can be used to address issues surrounding homosexuality. It is perfectly possible to be ethically sound and homosexual simultaneously, main problems mother when we consider rules about procreation and the continuation of the speciesTo What Extent ar Ethical Theories Helpful When Considering the Issues Surrounding HomosexualitTo what extent are ethical theories helpfu l when considering the issues surrounding homosexuality? Many ethical theories can be used to discuss and interpret the issues surrounding homosexuality. I shall begin by outlining some relevant views, from the perspective of Virtue, Utilitarianism, Natural Law, Christian Ethics and Kant Christian Ethics can be separated into difference sections as there does not appear to be one single Christian view on homosexuality . At a glance, many Christians interpret passages in the Bible as condemning homosexuality and something that people should be cured of.The Protestant approach is to love the sinner and hate the sin which would mean that the practice of homosexual acts is wrong, but homosexuals themselves ought to be loved. The Roman Catholic approach teaches similarly- there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but a homosexual act is a sin. They would say then that a homosexual must commit themselves to celibacy, a view influenced by Paul. There are more liberal approaches within Christianity where homosexuality is not an issue, as long as the relationship is stable and committed the same as a heterosexual relationship.This view is also founded on Bible teachings- if God created man in his image and God is perfect, then all people are good because God made them either straight or gay. Aquinas Natural Law states that the purpose of sex is purely procreation and as homosexuality can never result in a child, it defies Natural Law and must be wrong. The primary precept of Continuation of the species through reproduction is also violated by the concept of homosexuality for the same reason.It also involves sex outside of marriage which Aquinas also Aquinas, the behind natural law also condemned homosexuality as unnatural, so natural Law clearly has very strong views against homosexuality. Utilitarianism would currently view all sexualities as viable as it is likely there are more gay people than people who are upset by homosexuality, therefore it is the greatest g ood for the greatest number. However, were the majority of earths population to become homosexual, Utilitarianism would no longer approve as it would not lead to the continuation of the human race, which would be not good for a great number of people.Utilitarianism holds a fairly liberal view on homosexuality, saying that there may be a situation in which there is a happier homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, in which in fairness to the homosexual couple, it would be right to allow them the happiness of being in a relationship. However they may also say that homosexuality is currently held in a somewhat negative view by man people, and that their happiness is in question if they are an outcast in society.The first maxim of Kants Categorical Imperative could be a problem with homosexuality as it implies that if you are homosexual everyone else ought to be to. Universalisation says that we should apply homosexuality as a maxim and apply it to everyone however this would lead to a problem, as the continuation of the species would not occur. We could however adjust this maxim for sexuality, however, this may be moving away from the absolutist nature of Kants categorical imperative. He also states that marriage is the only place in which sex may take place. However, were gay marriage to become legal Kant may approve.Fletchers Situation ethics encourages only the most loving thing, which would mean that the only thing that would be wrong according to it is sex without a loving commitment. This would mean that there is no problem with being homosexual and relationships are fine as long as they are loving and committed. In Christian Ethics there appear to be many contradictions in approaches to homosexuality. Where many say the Bible condemns homosexuality, others say that the most important message of the Bible is to love your neighbour, which would of course include homosexuals.As well as this, there is the question of such an ancient texts relevance in co ntemporary culture. Many messages of the Bible are ignored and dismissed as culturally irrelevant, for example, many messages about the rights and roles of women, as if the Bible and the Church have managed to change the views on the role of women, they could indeed do the same for homosexuality. It could be argued that we should prioritize loving everyone over condemning homosexuality. For this reason, it isnt a very good theory to refer to when exploring the issues of homosexuality. Natural Law, however, is much easier to understand.It has the advantage of having no room for misinterpretation and can be totally universal and absolutist. The only problem with it is that perhaps it is not in fact natural for humans to follow such strict laws. it is not liberal enough to allow for a loving relationship between homosexuals Utilitarianism seems like a good theory to apply when looking at fairness in sexual ethics. As long as there are more homosexual people than people who dislike homo sexuals and enough heterosexual people for continuation of the species to happen, all sexualities are fine and the majority of the human race ought to be content.The issue with Kants approach is the fact that the maxim of universalisation is difficult to apply to sexual ethics. As you cant universalize homosexual sex as it would make continuation of the species impossible, Kant cannot condone this. However, this creates countless other problems when you think about how complex it would be to actually apply universalisation to every single aspect of sexuality. If we choose to ignore universalisation because we might not be able to continue the species at all if we were to stick to it entirely, we can then look to Kants rule of no sex outside marriage. This is, of course, much easier to follow.Fletchers Situation Ethics following the cause of Agape seems the best approach to issues surrounding homosexuality. It can be universalized easily- have sex only in a loving committed relations hip and is easy to remember and maintain. It does not discriminate between sexual preferences and should end with as many people happy as possible. In conclusion, there are many ways in which ethical theory can be used to address issues surrounding homosexuality. It is perfectly possible to be ethically sound and homosexual simultaneously, main problems arrive when we consider rules about procreation and the continuation of the species