Can contraception ever be ethical?: A hypothetical

[truthseeker32]

As I understand it, Catholic opposition to contraception stems from natural law philosophy, which states that to use contraception would be to interfere with the purpose, or end, of sexual intercourse. Because the opposition is based on natural law philosophy, consequence holds less weight in determining whether the use of contraception is ethical, and some studies have even suggested that the overall effect of contraception on society has been detrimental.

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy? Would the Catholic Church still advocate returning to a pre-contraceptive society, which in this scenario would be wrought with higher rates of STD’s, abortions, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies? In other words, If something has an impact that is overall positive, can it still be considered immoral, or must a thing clearly have negative consequences to be considered immoral?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Hmmm. Would the Church condone contraception in order to allow people to more freely engage in illicit sexual activity?

I’m gonna go with “no” on that one.

The “cure” for teen pregnancy, abortion, and STDs is not contraception, but for people to live the way the Church asks of us. There would then be none of these problems if people lived according to Church teaching.

 

[JimG]

Contraception has been overwhelmingly negative for society, adversely affecting women, men, marriage, and children. The results have been disastrous. The statistics are laid out in this book which I highly recommend.

 

[ccmnxc]

Whether or not contraceptives benefit society still doesn’t affect the fact that it is unnatrual to end or prevent a pregnancy in such way.

 

[Corki]

As I understand it, Catholic opposition to contraception stems from natural law philosophy, which states that to use contraception would be to interfere with the purpose, or end, of sexual intercourse. Because the opposition is based on natural law philosophy, consequence holds less weight in determining whether the use of contraception is ethical, and some studies have even suggested that the overall effect of contraception on society has been detrimental.

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy? Would the Catholic Church still advocate returning to a pre-contraceptive society, which in this scenario would be wrought with higher rates of STD’s, abortions, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies? In other words, If something has an impact that is overall positive, can it still be considered immoral, or must a thing clearly have negative consequences to be considered immoral?

One cannot do evil or advocate it even if good (hyporhetically) would result. That’s a core teaching.

Besides that, the objection to contraception is based on it being againt the natural order with regard to marriage. The societal harm (promiscuity, broken marriages, abortions, STDs) is a side effect of this disregard for the natural order but not the **reason **for the teaching about the immorality of contraception. So the premise falls apart from the beginning.

 

[truthseeker32]

The “cure” for teen pregnancy, abortion, and STDs is not contraception, but for people to live the way the Church asks of us. There would then be none of these problems if people lived according to Church teaching.

I concede that the ideal scenario would be one in which people abstain from sexual intercourse unless it can be done morally and responsibly. The problem is that in our fallen state, hoping to achieve such an aim is wishful thinking. In light of the reality that people will continue to engage in immoral sexual behavior, would a solution that minimizes suffering and death be a moral alternative?

I see it as follows:

1. The best scenario: People only have sex that is open to conception within the unity of marriage.
2. The worst scenario: People only have sex that is open to conception, regardless of whether or not they are married.
3. I believe there is a possible third way that, while recognizing that #1 is the ideal state, takes into consideration the sinful reality in which we live and acknowledges that in such a world the use of contraception can yield a more positive result.

Another way to phrase the question: Is a hypothetical world in which nobody uses contraception and is thus plagued with more cases of STD’s and abortions preferrable to a hypothetical world in which STD and abortion rates are lower, but contraception use is prevalent?

Contraception has been overwhelmingly negative for society, adversely affecting women, men, marriage, and children. The results have been disastrous. The statistics are laid out in this book which I highly recommend.

stephe1987:

Let’s see… around half of all marriages end in divorce. Compared to Just 1-4% of NFP-only marriages.

Since abortions have been legalized, the number of abortions have skyrocketed. Crime rates also increased roughly 18 years in each place after abortion was legalized.

A few years ago, I remember reading that 2/3 to 3/4 sexually active people between ages 15-24 have or used to have some form of sexually transmitted disease/infection.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate is around 40-50%.

I am aware that there are studies showing that contraceptives are harmful to society. My post is asking what if this wasn’t the case? What if we lived in a world where studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives reduced suffering and had no harmful effects on relationships? Would contraceptives still be considered immoral, or must there be a negative effect for something to be considered immoral?

I ask because when most Catholics defend the Church’s teaching on contraception they do not point to the moral philosophy behind it, but ralther the consequences as the two posters above have done. This seems to imply that while the original position is based on non-consequentialist argument, it is defended with consequentialist argument, which is inconsistent.

 

[stephe1987]

Let’s see… around half of all marriages end in divorce. Compared to Just 1-4% of NFP-only marriages.

Since abortions have been legalized, the number of abortions have skyrocketed. Crime rates also increased roughly 18 years in each place after abortion was legalized.

A few years ago, I remember reading that 2/3 to 3/4 sexually active people between ages 15-24 have or used to have some form of sexually transmitted disease/infection.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate is around 40-50%.

 

[1ke]

As I understand it, Catholic opposition to contraception stems from natural law philosophy, which states that to use contraception would be to interfere with the purpose, or end, of sexual intercourse.

Yes and no.

The Churches teaching is not based solely on natural law, but also on the moral teaching given to us by Christ.

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy?

Not relevant to the morality of the act.

Would the Catholic Church still advocate returning to a pre-contraceptive society, which in this scenario would be wrought with higher rates of STD’s, abortions, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies?

Contraception is an intrinisc evil. The Church can only teach the truth regarding that fact.

The rest of your statement is a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow your premise at all. The Church would advocate what she has always advocated: chastity appropriate to your state in life, which of course would result in none of these things existing at all.

In other words, If something has an impact that is overall positive, can it still be considered immoral

Yes of course.

I suggest reading the Catechism section on the fonts of morality.

 

[thewanderer]

As was pointed out, the Church holds that the ends do not justify the means. So no, the Church would not allow something that is immoral for the sake of attaining some good.

 

[1ke]

Another way to phrase the question: Is a hypothetical world in which nobody uses contraception and is thus plagued with more cases of STD’s and abortions preferrable to a hypothetical world in which STD and abortion rates are lower, but contraception use is prevalent?

The only thing that can be preferrable is that which is moral.

 

[truthseeker32]

The only thing that can be preferrable is that which is moral.

What is interesting is that in every case where something is deemed moral it can also be demonstrated that the end result of abiding by such moral rules is the most preferrable consequence. Thus perhaps moral action and the most preferrable outcome are inseperable, and if something is not the most preferrable outcome it cannot be moral, and vice versa. We deem things as moral because we can see why they are good, and we deem things immoral because we can see why they are bad, so ultimately consequence does seem to play a part in morality.

It could then be argued that contraception is immoral because it is impossible that its use would ever yield the best possible result, and thus my hypothetical situation is an impossibility and its consideration is futile.

Man, I get so embarrassed when I end up arguing against myself, but I guess it shows that I am honest.

 

[R_C]

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy?

Don’t take this personal, but such hypothesis is ludicrous. That will never be.

What if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that murder have a positive impact on society?

The truth is that only responsibility can have a positive impact on society, and responsibility comes by respecting life and living up to the moral code which is engraved in all human hearts.

It could then be argued that contraception is immoral because it is impossible that its use would ever yield the best possible result, and thus my hypothetical situation is an impossibility and its consideration is futile.

No, it is immoral because it is immoral. We are not moral relativists: we know that there is such thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic evil, and that the latter can never possibly lead to the former. To disrespect life can never preserve life, it can only lead to greater disrespect of life.

Trust me, we hear similar arguments all the time, and they get very, very subtle, because people forget that God is simplicity and, having built an intricate maze of logical arguments, they get lost in it, see no light, and assume therefore that their argument is solid, while the only result achieved was to be blinded, to a lesser or greater extent, from the truth. And inside the maze they will ask, like Pilate before Christ: "quid est veritas?"

 

[R_C]

What is interesting is that in every case where something is deemed moral it can also be demonstrated that the end result of abiding by such moral rules is the most preferrable consequence.

This proves that this is not a valid conclusion.

As the people prophetically spoke about Christ: “he did everything well”.

But who can say that what He had to endure was the most preferable consequence?

To adhere to a moral code that springs forth from divine law, to “do the right thing”, to promote intrinsic good and eradicate intrinsic evil, not always leads to the most preferable consequence. We do the right thing for the sake of righteousness, and especially regardless of the consequences. Keeping in mind that this life is not the true life, and that justice is not of this world.

 

[truthseeker32]

No, it is immoral because it is immoral. We are not moral relativists: we know that there is such thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic evil, and that** the latter can never possibly lead to the former. To disrespect life can never preserve life**, it can only lead to greater disrespect of life.

Is the bolded essentially different than what I said? That immoral actions can never have the most optimal result?

But who can say that what He had to endure was the most preferable consequence?

Is it possible that God can do other than what is best? Did Christ not act in the most optimal way given the situations he encountered? Is there a point at which he could have done better?

 

[RPRPsych]

As I understand it, Catholic opposition to contraception stems from natural law philosophy, which states that to use contraception would be to interfere with the purpose, or end, of sexual intercourse. Because the opposition is based on natural law philosophy, consequence holds less weight in determining whether the use of contraception is ethical, and some studies have even suggested that the overall effect of contraception on society has been detrimental.

But what if, hypothetically, studies clearly demonstrated that contraceptives have a positive impact on society, significantly reducing the spread of STD’s, abortion, and teen pregnancy? Would the Catholic Church still advocate returning to a pre-contraceptive society, which in this scenario would be wrought with higher rates of STD’s, abortions, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies? In other words, If something has an impact that is overall positive, can it still be considered immoral, or must a thing clearly have negative consequences to be considered immoral?

You raise an interesting question, but there are three strong counter-arguments:

1. Hypothetically, if that were true, we are still not permitted to do evil that good may come. For example, let’s suppose the head of a family beats his wife, gets drunk every night, and molests his children. Putting a bullet in his head would certainly reduce the rates of STDs, teen pregnancy and abortion in his family, but it would still be a grave sin if I were to go ahead and shoot him. Contraception, though not as evil as murder or abortion, is still intrinsically evil.
2. STDs and pregnancies do not lead a person away from God and to Hell. Sexual sins do. Therefore, even if a given intervention (say, the use of condoms) reduced the rates of a particular disease (say, syphilis or AIDS), it would maintain or even increase the rates of people committing mortal sins; and that is what God cares about the most. He desires all men to be saved, and Christ was particularly hard on those who cause others to stumble.
3. The hypothetical you raise is an impossibility. The experience of the past 50 years, both in the East and in the West, show that contraception cannot have the effects you describe; it would be like a hypothetical “dry rain” or “male pregnancy” I’ll leave commenting on the Western scenario to others, but in my own country, the widespread availability of contraception has led to far more problems than it creates; neither has it solved the problems of poverty, as our politicians claimed.

 

[slotty]

Ok you’re asking about moral philosophy and then saying that people are showing the consequences of such but your arguments are based on hypothetical scenarios which are based on consequences them self so it really seems like running around in circles but…

I concede that the ideal scenario would be one in which people abstain from sexual intercourse unless it can be done morally and responsibly. The problem is that in our fallen state, hoping to achieve such an aim is wishful thinking. In light of the reality that people will continue to engage in immoral sexual behaviour, would a solution that minimizes suffering and death be a moral alternative?

I’m going to rephrase your question to something more generic

“Because achieving the best possible outcome is difficult and many many people will not achieve the best possible outcome. Would the most moral solution be to erroneously state that something which is false as truth if it minimizes temporal suffering?”

I would think not. A lie no matter how blissful and enjoyable is still a lie and all lies goes against the truth.

Also temporal suffering in this life is nothing compared to an eternity of suffering in the next.

 

[R_C]

Is the bolded essentially different than what I said? That immoral actions can never have the most optimal result?

That is not the point, though. It’s not a matter of the most optimal result. The end does not justify the means.

Is it possible that God can do other than what is best? Did Christ not act in the most optimal way given the situations he encountered? Is there a point at which he could have done better?

No. First of all, because His human will was perfectly in conformity with His divine will. Second, because, as the Holy Spirit spoke prophetically and allowed to be recorded in the Gospel, “He did everything well”. God can only do what is best, because God, being the fullness of all goodness and wisdom, cannot possibly do something that would imply imperfect goodness or imperfect wisdom. It would be like fire not quite burning That being said, my point is not that your conclusion is wrong I agree that ultimately in eternity only doing what is good will lead to optimal result (salvation of the immortal soul, ours and of others), but as for this present life: not always Sometimes it’s just a lot of pain and desolation

 

[truthseeker32]

Also temporal suffering in this life is nothing compared to an eternity of suffering in the next.

So as Catholics, we are consequentialists, but in the grander sense that we do not just look towards the best option in a finite and temporal sense, but an ultimate, taking the afterlife into consideration sense?

 

[Equites_Christi]

The Catholic Church’s stance is to never use contraception and to not have sex outside of marriage.

Following this avoids completely all of the listed problems.

The crux of your question implies that the Church should be held responsible for the consequences of people refusing to take her advice.

This reminds me of a man who sued a woman because he injured himself while attempting to break into her house.

 

[slotty]

So as Catholics, we are consequentialists, but in the grander sense that we do not just look towards the best option in a finite and temporal sense, but an ultimate, taking the afterlife into consideration sense?

Well everyone has to be aware of the fact that actions they take or do not take will have outcomes. I don’t think that’s consequentialist i think it’s being human.

But as far as I know we Catholics are supposed to be primarily concerned with the state of our relationship with God not just the short sojourn here in this life. We’re called to Love the Lord with all our heart & mind first and love our neighbour as ourself.

If we’re to follow that calling then we would want our neighbours to love the Lord with all their hearts & minds.

My understanding is that contraception says no to the will of God by denying the natural order. To lead people away from God would not be loving as it would damage the eternal relationship for the sake of temporal convenience. It really isn’t ethical it’s selling a lie of short term convenience for long term suffering.