Critically Assess the View That Natural Law Is of No Use When Discussing Sexual Ethics Essay

I gestate that innate(p) legal philosophy is of no use when discussing sexualityual ethics as it is very vague and doesnt take into beak specific situations. internal legality says that everything has a purpose, and that mankind was made by divinity fudge with a specific conception or objective in mind. It says that this purpose passel be known with reason. As a result, ful fill uping the purpose of our design is the only good for humans. The Primary Precepts of native Law require us to live in an ordered society to reproduce, to educate our young, to protect the innocent and the or so important to hero-worship God.The more or less relevant of these in this subject is reproduction, and if you look at it as a duty to continue the re-population of Gods peck than of course sex posterior be understood as a good and object lesson action. In fact there are many biblic references to sex and Gods vox populi on it, in Genesis He says be fruitful and profit in number and th rough-out it shows that sex is necessary. The problem for a Natural Law supporter comes when sex is only done as an efficient draw, e. g. or pleasure and enjoyment, this is not following Gods final ingest of re-production.Contraception is seen as immoral in Natural law and for most Catholics. If contraception is used it splits the efficient practice of sex from the final cause of reproduction this goes against that actions purpose and makes it wrong as not what God intended. thus far some Natural Law supporters would plead that sex is not slightly what humans gain from it but what God in truth intended it to be more or less, which could be unity and love etc.Other philosophers/philosophies who argue that this sort of thinking about contraception and sex can leadership to situations of surplus suffering. For example, a utilitarian approach would assess how pain and pleasure can be maximised in a situation and so would probably crisply contrast with Natural Law. Another thin g to flip over when thinking about natural law and contraception is that they dont take into ac number third world countries, for example, and how not using contraception provide lead to a spreading of aids and children the parents cant afford to switch a good life.Homosexuality is another sexual issue that Natural Law calls immoral for the same reason as contraception, because it doesnt fill in sexs final cause and reproduction and so homosexual sex cannot produce any children it is not ethical. The Catholic church service has long supported this view and have declared that homosexual taste is not in itself immoral but just like the unimpregnated couple sex without the possibility of children makes it wrong.However another thing to consider as part of the living in an ordered society teaching is not being judgmental of other people. Pre-marital sex could be seen as either good or bad by natural law followers as if the couple is reproducing and being good nurturing parents t hen theyre fulfilling most of the primary precepts and that is good. However they arent fulfilling the main one, worshiping God, as the countersign teaches that sex should be saved for marriage, so a lot of natural law followers would say it is wrong.Something to consider in this is if theyre actually planning to get married at all? Does it still count as pre-marital? Extra marital sex is also a battleful issue for Natural Law followers. In a wedding ceremonial occasion promises are made before God to love and to cherish and most importantly forsaking all others to stay married until death do us part. As a vow before God, this cannot be broken and still be part of the primary precept worship God.The ultimate aim of life is to be united with God through our moral actions, as society where immorality and deception are judge is not a place where God is being worshipped effectively. trip out should be about reproduction and families and therefore bringing you closer to God not a vi olation of a sacred vow. To conclude, I would argue that Natural law is an overly harsh method of making ethical decisions. It does not take into account the most loving action for people and nor does he make any exception for circumstance or what will benefit the majority of people.