All ethical theories have their own beliefs about contraception, but many contradict one and another. They all provide guidance for a person’s decisions. Thus, knowing which one to follow can become a strenuous task.
Natural law believes the use of contraception is wrong. It opposes primary precepts of preservation of life, and reproduction. Augustine argues that the final cause of sex is reproduction and so to use it for pleasure would be to go against its telos. So any sexual act which frustrates that natural end is wrong. But, if a using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS, is it not using it as a contraceptive? The doctrine of double effect would suggest that contraception is permissible, if it helps to preserve one’s life. Even though …show more content…
We must preserve life, thus contraception is wrong. To universalise contraception would be self-contradictory as there wouldn't be anyone around to use it. But, Kant did say that ‘it is not requisite for human beings who marry make procreation their end’. Thus contraception is okay within a marriage as ‘enjoyment in the reciprocal use of the sexual endowments is an end of marriage’. The use of contraception is tolerating, as it abides by the maxim of ‘treat others not as means to an end’. People are valuing the person that they are having sex with rather than seeing them as a ticket to have a baby.
An issue arises with Kant’s comments which link with his idea of personal autonomy. A rational person would be able to make their own decisions on contraception. They wouldn't need to rely on ethical theories. A more basic weakness would be Kant is also ignorant of the situation. Kant would argue that the one child policy is unforgiveable as it is opposing an intrinsic duty. So although its main purpose was to provide support for its large population, it still meant people could no longer fulfill the purpose of …show more content…
We are not robots that fit into nice, square boxes where every moral decision is right or wrong. We are people in a struggling world, having to make decisions that seem right to us at the time which it is happening in. We shouldn’t feel guilty for wearing contraception to avoid disease. We shouldn’t feel guilty to help economic growth. We shouldn’t feel guilty for wearing contraception because we don’t feel ready to support another human being. For such a sensitive subject, we need ethical theories that allow us to make decisions that are right for us.
Virtue ethics is a more helpful ethical theory compared with Natural Law. The most important virtue, phronesis, will recognise that people will have sex regardless. Thus it is only in the best interest to provide free condoms, and to educate people on how sex affects us, helping them to become wiser about sex. This means that people can make their own decisions about contraception. It becomes more applicable in a variety of situations. Some virtue ethicists say that if a person knows they won’t be a good parent, then they have a duty to use
Natural law believes the use of contraception is wrong. It opposes primary precepts of preservation of life, and reproduction. Augustine argues that the final cause of sex is reproduction and so to use it for pleasure would be to go against its telos. So any sexual act which frustrates that natural end is wrong. But, if a using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS, is it not using it as a contraceptive? The doctrine of double effect would suggest that contraception is permissible, if it helps to preserve one’s life. Even though …show more content…
We must preserve life, thus contraception is wrong. To universalise contraception would be self-contradictory as there wouldn't be anyone around to use it. But, Kant did say that ‘it is not requisite for human beings who marry make procreation their end’. Thus contraception is okay within a marriage as ‘enjoyment in the reciprocal use of the sexual endowments is an end of marriage’. The use of contraception is tolerating, as it abides by the maxim of ‘treat others not as means to an end’. People are valuing the person that they are having sex with rather than seeing them as a ticket to have a baby.
An issue arises with Kant’s comments which link with his idea of personal autonomy. A rational person would be able to make their own decisions on contraception. They wouldn't need to rely on ethical theories. A more basic weakness would be Kant is also ignorant of the situation. Kant would argue that the one child policy is unforgiveable as it is opposing an intrinsic duty. So although its main purpose was to provide support for its large population, it still meant people could no longer fulfill the purpose of …show more content…
We are not robots that fit into nice, square boxes where every moral decision is right or wrong. We are people in a struggling world, having to make decisions that seem right to us at the time which it is happening in. We shouldn’t feel guilty for wearing contraception to avoid disease. We shouldn’t feel guilty to help economic growth. We shouldn’t feel guilty for wearing contraception because we don’t feel ready to support another human being. For such a sensitive subject, we need ethical theories that allow us to make decisions that are right for us.
Virtue ethics is a more helpful ethical theory compared with Natural Law. The most important virtue, phronesis, will recognise that people will have sex regardless. Thus it is only in the best interest to provide free condoms, and to educate people on how sex affects us, helping them to become wiser about sex. This means that people can make their own decisions about contraception. It becomes more applicable in a variety of situations. Some virtue ethicists say that if a person knows they won’t be a good parent, then they have a duty to use