Swingers -- an ethical situation
An interesting scenario was placed before me the other day to which I instinctly responded, "That's wrong" until I got to thinkin' about it a little further. But here is the scenario:
Two married couples make their own vows at marriage but vow not to cheat or lie to each other, as would be custom for a western marriage. After marrying, the two couples get to know each other really well, and decide that they will have 'swinger parties' where each couple will switch sexual partners for the evening under the same roof. The couples are close and commit to living with and supporting each other.
What is wrong with this scenario? Is anything wrong? With a Christian lens, of course this is considered to be libertinist and wrong, but ethically, how is it wrong? The couples are not cheating on each other, they are not lying to each other, and they are in agreement as to their actions. Depending on their marriage vows, the covenant they make with their spouses (which I like to call spice [mouse = mice]) may actually accomodate the couples' actions and so in their eyes they are not actually doing anything unethical.
Utilitarians may have trouble deciding on the greatest good. What about kids, the effect on society? Do the effects on society outweight the benefits? If the couples were to conceive and orgy of kids, how would the situation look under the law? What would the psychological bills look like every month for the children trying to understand the situation? Clearly, this would be new territory. It may have more of a beneficial result on children having four loving parents instead of two. Would this upset society? Probably...because western society is culturally accustomed to monogamy, society might rouse in an uproar and protest. Thus a utilitarian might suggest that abstaining from swinger orgies is wrong. However, the act may contribute to more stability of the society and provide better care and nurture for children. Thus the utilitarian may agree with the act.
Kant might say that you couldn't will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, or he may say that you couldn't just use people as merely a means, but as an end in and of themselves. But are you using these people's as a means only, as 'merely means?' Perhaps the couples are life-long friends, a little community who shares in intimacy with each other (on each other's consent of course)...is this just treating others as means or as ends? Further, could you not will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, freely and rationally? If not, then way not? Is it because that is not the cultural paradigm you grew up in? Is there a conscious feeling that you are doing something wrong? Does that conscience only decide what is wrong within culture? Thus, is there such thing as a universal, absolute right and wrong to this scenario?
What has been enculturated into you, and what is innate? What role does experience play in a person's life versus a morality on a higher plane? What kind of rationale do you use in your decision-making? Does it derive from logic (which is ultimately limiting upon a person unless only searching for a certain kind of answer)? Does your reason derive from experience or from what you have been told by word of mouth, or in books your whole life?
Kant seems to rely too heavily on reason for his ethics. I find reasoning too limiting and a universal ethics too unrealistic. Utilitarian philosophy is philosophically dead. What about pragmatism? A good pragmatist would ultimately look at the consequences of the action. In this case, the consequences could 'swing' both ways and so pragmatists might be split on the action itself -- could be bad, could be good.
A value ethicist might notice a discrepancy between various virtues and the act. It would need to be asked, what is considered wrong in a marriage -- what is considered honest, what is considered aldutery, and rootly what is a marriage? After deciding on a definition, which may be nearly impossible depending upon how a definition is reached, then virtues and values must be used to analyze the situation. But how can a definition of marriage be reached when a conglomerate of marriages exists today in which different people take different vows of commitment? The commonality is the commitment, but the details vary depending on culture, religion, ethics, etc.
What is marriage I ask? Who has the right definition?
Two married couples make their own vows at marriage but vow not to cheat or lie to each other, as would be custom for a western marriage. After marrying, the two couples get to know each other really well, and decide that they will have 'swinger parties' where each couple will switch sexual partners for the evening under the same roof. The couples are close and commit to living with and supporting each other.
What is wrong with this scenario? Is anything wrong? With a Christian lens, of course this is considered to be libertinist and wrong, but ethically, how is it wrong? The couples are not cheating on each other, they are not lying to each other, and they are in agreement as to their actions. Depending on their marriage vows, the covenant they make with their spouses (which I like to call spice [mouse = mice]) may actually accomodate the couples' actions and so in their eyes they are not actually doing anything unethical.
Utilitarians may have trouble deciding on the greatest good. What about kids, the effect on society? Do the effects on society outweight the benefits? If the couples were to conceive and orgy of kids, how would the situation look under the law? What would the psychological bills look like every month for the children trying to understand the situation? Clearly, this would be new territory. It may have more of a beneficial result on children having four loving parents instead of two. Would this upset society? Probably...because western society is culturally accustomed to monogamy, society might rouse in an uproar and protest. Thus a utilitarian might suggest that abstaining from swinger orgies is wrong. However, the act may contribute to more stability of the society and provide better care and nurture for children. Thus the utilitarian may agree with the act.
Kant might say that you couldn't will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, or he may say that you couldn't just use people as merely a means, but as an end in and of themselves. But are you using these people's as a means only, as 'merely means?' Perhaps the couples are life-long friends, a little community who shares in intimacy with each other (on each other's consent of course)...is this just treating others as means or as ends? Further, could you not will a swinger orgy to be a universal law, freely and rationally? If not, then way not? Is it because that is not the cultural paradigm you grew up in? Is there a conscious feeling that you are doing something wrong? Does that conscience only decide what is wrong within culture? Thus, is there such thing as a universal, absolute right and wrong to this scenario?
What has been enculturated into you, and what is innate? What role does experience play in a person's life versus a morality on a higher plane? What kind of rationale do you use in your decision-making? Does it derive from logic (which is ultimately limiting upon a person unless only searching for a certain kind of answer)? Does your reason derive from experience or from what you have been told by word of mouth, or in books your whole life?
Kant seems to rely too heavily on reason for his ethics. I find reasoning too limiting and a universal ethics too unrealistic. Utilitarian philosophy is philosophically dead. What about pragmatism? A good pragmatist would ultimately look at the consequences of the action. In this case, the consequences could 'swing' both ways and so pragmatists might be split on the action itself -- could be bad, could be good.
A value ethicist might notice a discrepancy between various virtues and the act. It would need to be asked, what is considered wrong in a marriage -- what is considered honest, what is considered aldutery, and rootly what is a marriage? After deciding on a definition, which may be nearly impossible depending upon how a definition is reached, then virtues and values must be used to analyze the situation. But how can a definition of marriage be reached when a conglomerate of marriages exists today in which different people take different vows of commitment? The commonality is the commitment, but the details vary depending on culture, religion, ethics, etc.
What is marriage I ask? Who has the right definition?
posted by Timcom at 10:05 AM
8 Comments:
If you don't believe in sin or hell, Christ does not need to save you, does he? If you don't believe in the tenets of Christianity, why call yourself a Christian? I challenge you to actually read the Bible, with an open mind to its being what is claims to be-the inspired Word of God. You are treading on dangerous ground here, in this blog.
One of the assumptions that we westerners tend to make whenever there is a discussion about the ideas that make up cultures is that no culture has an advantage over another. Maybe I have missed something, but this notion seems far from self-evident.
At the time of the Crusades, Europeans and Muslims were approximately equal technologically--with the Muslims, perhads, holding a slight advantage. Since then, Europeans, in either the Americas or Europe, have essentially made every single discovery that can be credited to the human race in all fields of science and technology. In a very practical sense, this has given the West an enormous advantage over the East. I insist that ideas have consequences. With history in mind, no one can seriously challenge the West's superiority in science.
How did this inequality come to pass? There was a time when the East taught science to the West. There must be something about the ideological makeup of Eastern Societies that has hindered progress. The West could never have cynically exploited these primitives if there had been a level playing field. There has certainly been no shortage of natural resources or individual brillance in the East. Why has India struggled? Perhaps all the cattle wandering around in the streets and the rigid caste system that has stifled individual achievement has something to do with it. Perhaps Islamic countries fail because half of the population is not allowed to take an active role in society, and the other half is oppressed by corrupt goverment. Just because an idea originated in a particular culture does not mean it is equal to an idea that originated in a separate culture. Maybe giving women the right to vote and run for political office and obtain high-paying jobs results in a better society than keeping them confined to their homes. How can progress occur if good ideas never triumph over bad ideas? Please explain.
all contributions to science and technology have not been all western. Currently, Taiwan holds the largest city to implement a wireless internet city wide, paid for by taxes, accessible to all... (or all those who pay taxes... ) No other city in the world this size holds this. Taiwan has held it for 2 years. Contributions to science? China is currently working on marvelous genetic advances. most good technology companies are from the east..(EXAMPLE Samsung.) In part due to their ability to produce smaller chips than the US.
Also, consider this. The US currently holds the largest deficit in history... they are billions/trillions in debt. Currently, the dollar is not equal to the yen, at times in the last week or so, it has also fallen to the euro.
Currency
Last Trade U.S. $
N/A ¥en
1:37pm ET Euro
1:35pm ET Can $
1:37pm ET U.K. £
1:37pm ET AU $
1:37pm ET Swiss Franc
1:37pm ET
1 U.S. $ =
1 109.3450 0.8224 1.2299 0.5472 1.3008 1.2687
So, where is this going in response to this blog?
This was a theoretical ethical situation set forth for simple reasons of debate, thought, and interest. It does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the writer nor of his wife. Please, in the future, refrain from attacking the writer in this blog.
Hello all. Again I appreciate the responses...finally I get some feedback. Anyonymous, your point is valid, though I have addressed your concern in another blog entry entitled response to a response.
To Ben, I enjoy the comments thoroughly, very interesting. But I have a few comments:
First, I find that a person can learn from many cultures despite how developed or underdeveloped the country may be. Just because a country is richer, more technologically advanced, and oriented with an induction mindset does not make that country or that culture superior, nor does it necessarily exemplify progress. Progress for whom, what progress, a progression to what? Granted, many medicinal aids and other such progressions have been made to sustain human life. But to what end? For example, I read an article just a month ago written to report on the progress of the search for the growth gene. In actuality, the gene is what determines when the cells stop dividing. Within the next fifty years they predict that human beings should live to over 200 years old, and within the next hundred years humans may never die. Is this progress? In a culture of induction, yes...this is progress.
How has the human being progressed as a social being when western culture emphasizes the individual over community? When further comfort and security are what is implied by the term progress, then I would suggest that progress makes life easier, but how does that ultimately help humanity? I think the West can vastly learn from the balanced reciprocity, the redistribution of wealth, the more mystic incite, the emphasis on people more than comfort of tribal peoples.
Being able to blog like this is great, I must admit, but it is not altogether satisfying, nor comforting...speaking what I think or what I want people to argue with me about is only a part of life, while my deeds should exemplify this. What am I doing about the poor, the marginalized, the sick when I work day and night, blog, sleep, care for my wife? There are days when I feel very guilty for taking time out to write. I should be volunteering my time and effort towards something greater than myself -- people -- in the name of what I believe.
Ben, I must say (now I'm rambling but being honest) that the reason I believe that God is calling me to ministry is that he sees in me the will to serve in His name, to live a Christ-like life (that's clicheish) so that others might be inspired, might one day ask why I live the way I do. To live a life where my actions are in line with my heart is my goal in life so that I might minister.
To wrestle with issues of culture, religion, libertinism, messianic covenantal nomism or whatever, I need to be well-prepared for the reality of today's world. This blog is a preparation for that.
Sorry...this is not necessarily part of my response to you, Ben, but it's some real info for you about me.
Anyway, I went off on a bunny-trail...will write more later.
I really appreciate the responses...keep doing it. You're not offending me at all.
Ben -- I guess I would not pretend to preach on progress, but moreso on process. It seems to me, perhaps I'm looking too much into what you are saying, that you are speaking of fate? That the West has prospered for some reason other than historical circumstances and as such is progressing in a most certain direction. Fair enough. I share the linear view of history, though I would use caution when speaking of the West and progress. It seems miraculous enough, perhaps the hand of God that delivered Christianity through times of crisis in history. But just because Christianity is the dominant religion now within the West does not mean that it will always be so. As much as I would like Christendom to continue to grow, God does not specifically say that it will not falter at times.
Who knows, there may be another Babylonian captivity, a hindrance of Christian progress, but that does not make Christianity any less credible of a religion. I suppose I think the same way of a tribe in Africa.
If Christians were a tribe in Africa, just because we were less technologically advanced, that would not have a bearing on our beliefs would it? Just because one is 'not as developed' does not necessarily mean that it is not credible, nor as advanced as another. Because I am a Christian I choose to see the hand of God in history, but from a Muslim perspective, or a Buddhist perspective I will obviously see things differently.
Sorry...I'm have discombobulated thoughts and random bunny trails happening today...will write more later. It could be the meningitis shot I got today in my left arm.
Tim, it appears that we agree about the proper relationship between cultures. Ideas must be shared between cultures. Hope remains for the West if we are able to learn from our mistakes. This arrangement can certainly go both ways.
Mysticism and the redistribution of wealth have a rich heritage in many cultures, particularly the West. The two parties in our own governing body are divided over how much and where the wealth should be redistributed. Karl Marx was very European.
Progress is indeed a vague word that I have grown to dislike because of its popularity among various political movements in the twentieth century. One man's progress is another man's regression.
Because America may learn from India, it is also true that India may learn from America. Cultural Relativism insists that one culture cannot be measured against another. According to this position, the Imperialism of Europe and America was wrong because they pushed their culture upon others. All the missionaries from various Western countries to should never have been sent to Asia and Africa.
Whether it is evil or not, Western culture is now a dominant presence all over the world. As-kian mentioned the impressive achievements of Tiawan and China. While not belittling these nations, in any way, computers and genetics both originated in the West. These two and many other nations have been westernized to a significant extent. In the future, it may very well be the case that China, India, or the Muslim world becomes the most influential force on earth, but right now, it is definitely the West. The West was to blame when communism swept the world. Both world wars were largely initiated and carried out by the West.
I would argue that that Western Civilization has strayed from its Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian roots. I do believe that God is the author and creator of history. In my mind, history is what has actually occured through time. Often we get history wrong, but there always exists a correct account of events. There is no question that any accout of history one is likely to read will be full of biases, but Waterloo did happen, and the truth does exist.
Of course, the issue of Determinism always raises its ugly head when one thinks about history. I suppose I can afford to be humble for once and say that I do not know how God operates upon the physical world. Clearly though, every cause has an effect, and circumstances have favored Western culture. What interests me is what those circumstances were, and whether it is possible to obtain truths from history. I am a firm believer is doing what works, so I want to know whether it is better to redistribute wealth through a free market or a human institution. As you have pointed out, a person's ultimate goals for himself and society will determine what he even thinks will work. Perhaps, as my economist professor is fond of saying, we all want to live like refugees. It almost seems to me (without a significant amount of experience or research) that if a culture places more importance on community instead of individual comfort, that culture struggles to even provide for community. In my opinion, a man should always provide for his family first, before he ever thinks of community.
I do not believe that Western Civilization is necessarily fated to rule the world. I am rather enamored with an idea or two that has its origins here, but my allegiance rests with words, ideas, and persons more than a geographical orientation.
Here's a really haphazard response to ya Ben...been piecing it together when I've had time:
Karl Marx was very much an idealist with an idealist notion. His methods of redistribution have proven fairly ineffective. I would agree that the political attempt to redistribute wealth is a reality, though is that redistribution necessarily for the good of people or for the satisfaction of the nation’s people. It looks better on a political agenda when the candidates are given. It is really hard to tell what is done selflessly for the good of mankind and what is done because of a possibility of re-election.
Amen on progress.
India better learns from American success which derives from its industrialized technologically advanced, rich nation. This could fit within the scheme of social Darwinism though. Survival of the fittest. If the nations do not adapt to western standards, then ultimately they will fall. Having actually witnessed other South American cultures, the diffusion of American standards is quite frankly sad to witness – the destruction of a historical way of life. I am in agreement with you, that ‘one culture cannot be measured against another.’ Though because most Americans are wealthy, (in the eyes of the whole world) it is important to analyze the actions of Americans where a superiority mindset is advertised and marketed. The media attempts to assure America that it does not discriminate, but it does. Our wealth makes us more responsible. Our military’s actions in the Cuban hold for Iraqi prisoners makes me disturbed and honestly ashamed to be associated with this country. Is going to war to destroy terror world-wide a sign of western culture working well? Concerning missionaries, I do think that the missionary endeavors in Asia and the Middle East and Africa were historically irresponsible on the part of the culture, but only because they imposed culture upon others.
Yes, the West is the dominant presence in the world as of now, though many historically great ideas have come from other countries, though the West claims credit. Many profitable ship components from India allowed ships the ability to sail further from shore, Chinese medicinal findings have greatly influenced medicine. However, the reason for the West’s success is very much do to its wealth and time to intellectualism, invent, etc. There are many great ideas credited to the West that were invented in the East do to its current status and the way in which history books are written. After just finishing Chrysanthemum and the Sword written by anthropologist Ruth Benedict, I have a very different idea about the East.
I find God to be within nature, still creating as well in and through history. He is a clandestine whisper in my ear in all of my decisions. Am I totally depraved, or is there some good working through me? My conscience does not appear bad to me. Getting back on point, history is never cut and dry. We know of historical events second handedly and yes we know they did happen. So I would agree there is some truth there. But which source is more credible, is closer to truth is a bigger question. Truth will never actually be actualized in this life-time because history, experience is limited to individual perception, which is then perceived again and again.
On the quantum level there is unpredictably in the midst of order. Random atoms break barriers randomly that shouldn’t be broken and no one has been able to tell me why yet. Dr. Siefken, the physics professor here at GC has not been able to give me an answer. It could be that there is a deterministic answer, though how far can a person really reduce something into parts to determine the cause and effect relationship. Determinism could challenge the notion that human beings do have the freedom to make choices. David Hume provides an interesting incite on cause and effect as our perception of the world. Though a metaphysics of perception does not necessarily pan out for me. Pragmatically, cause and effect seems to be a reality. In fact, the West uses their knowledge of this to its advantage using induction to solve all problems. But can it? I am also a firm believer in what works, at times. But when what works is contrary to my ethical stance, to my beliefs, to positive relationships then perhaps it is not necessarily the right course of action. Your distinction of being concerned with the community at large and with the self in smaller communities is key. Sometimes, a person cannot change the world on his or her own, but can live his or her life according to what he or she thinks. But to actually have a mindset of changing the world is not such a bad thing.
Perhaps what I said in my response to you was more disjointed than I thought. One of my strengths is adaptability. I do not necessarily have any real long-term goals and I tend to live day at a time as if each day could be my last. So my goals are very plastic. So I cannot exactly sponsor the idea that my goals will determine what I think will work because what I think will work changes with knowledge and time. That view sounds much like determinism, to which I still find dangerously seductive. Further though, my goals for society now, or for myself now, will ultimately change with time. There is a certain plasticity to how a person may think at any given time. One of my other strengths is belief. There are certain core values that I do have, which are predominantly biblically based. But then scripture itself can accommodate different perspectives within its tenets. Ha…I love arguing with myself.
But to move on, Amy and I are individuals with our own goals (short and/or long-term) and family is very important to both of us, but so is Christ who called us to marry, who called us to minister in different ways to different peoples. Amy is very important to me; she has helped me to understand covenant, love and Christ much more so than I ever had. But together we have found a calling to care for people. There are times when we fight, argue, and stress out because God is calling us to minister separately to many different peoples apart from each other. People are first, even those we may despise.
Culturally, family first is not necessarily the case anymore. As our society becomes more scientifically-oriented (what works), technologically advanced, and more mobile the nuclear family as a primary unit breaks down.
Amen to an allegiance with words, ideas, and persons. Categorizations, such as geographical orientation only lead to complex western dualism and its ramifications.
I am responding to the same thing the first anonymous person pointed out. I wouldn't call myself a universalist in that everyone is 'saved,' but I do consider myself open to different interpretations of the Bible. Do I believe in inherent evil in the world? Yes. Do I believe everyone sins? Yes. The Bible is the Word of God, but the Word of God through a flawed medium called humanity. I am open to interpret elements metaphorically as well as literally in some cases.
My experience with the 'devil' has been a difficult one, in that many churches tend to use him as a scapegoat. The language used in some of these services actually tends to pass the blame off of people and onto a 'devil.' In my observations the devil is a figure that people put their blame on. The ideology is, 'The devil made me do it." It is a way to get out of resposibility for those things we do wrong; our sin.
I believe in an omnipotent, triune God, and in doing such I am admitting that I don't have all the answers that he does. Whether or not there is an actual devil or if the devil is just a personification of evil that lies within mankind after 'The Fall' I don't know for sure. All I know is that we do sin and there is evil in the world, but I rebuke the fact that people blame it on an ultimate evil being rather than themselves. To me if there is a devil then why confess. Confession is taking resposibility for our choices. If there is a devil always at fault, then what do we need to confess?
Anyway, I am just rambling on....I think I stated my point, but I've only spent about 5 minutes so if I need to clarify, let me know by responding in this blog entry
Post a Comment
<< Home