Does a "sex-saturated society" mitigate responsibility for sexual sin?

[John21652]

Thank you for your response. It’s the little things - anything - that matter as well. I constantly hear on TV about “public opinion” about this or that. If we don’t speak up then those who conduct such polls can honestly say: “No one complained.”

The past 40 years also saw a campaign to shut us up.

…

So pray, and politely object to offences regarding public decency, the dignity of women and the free expression of religion, including in the public square. For years, we were told, leave them alone, it’s private, it’s none of our business. Today, some of these same people are putting what they do in private right in front of us. Leaving them alone was step one in allowing immoral lifestyles to become mainstream, or common.

There is such a thing as modesty, human dignity and our right right to express our religious beliefs publicly and openly. The wrong approach is Indifference, something Pope Benedict spoke about recently. How are we to be the salt of the earth if we lose our savor? If we hide our faith under a bushel? Or limit our faith to one hour in the Church building on Sunday?

We need to express clear Church teaching to all.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, that’s a very sobering post.

Might I direct you towards one of England’s most famous jurists, Lord Patrick Devlin, former Lord Chief Justice of the British Court of Appeal. Apart from his magnificent legal career, he is famous for having written a book called The Enforcement of Morals. He famously asked a series of rhetorical questions, which went something like this - Does it matter if a man goes home from work each night and becomes blind drunk? Does it matter if a dozen men go home from work each night and become blind drunk? Does it matter if half the men of England go home from work each night and become blind drunk?

What he was illustrating is that there comes a point where private behaviour does indeed become a public issue. With his drunkeness analogy, it doesn’t require that one be a Rhodes Scholar to realise the effects upon a nation if half the workforce went home each night and became blind drunk. Similarly with what are considered to be other “moral” issues. There comes a point where the so called private behaviours of others becomes a public issue. Ed’s post illustrates the point perfectly.

In 1967 Britain’s Wolfenden Report was released. It represented the enquiry in to homosexiality and prostitution. On Wolfenden Committee was Lord Devlin and one H.L.A.Hart, a famous Oxford University Professor of Jurisprudence and a Utilitarian Philosopher. The two debated, from 1957 and well into the 1960s, over the the use of laws to enforce societal moral norms. At the time, most commentators thought Hart was the winner. Since then, most now consider that Devlin was right.

Professor Hart adopted an individualistic viewpoint, as it focuses on the rights of a person over the collective to do what they want rather than letting their actions be dictated by society. Hart used the typically utilitarian ‘harm principle’ to bolster his argument, stating that unless something is harmful to society the government has no right to interfere in the lives of individuals.

Devlin took the oppsite approach and one based upon Natural Law. He argued that without a “common morality”, society would fragment into diverse interest groups and evenutually break apart. He argued that uniform moral standards were what held cities and nations together.

“… that society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on
politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement a out good and evil they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. For society is not something that is kept together physically; It is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price… Any immorality IS capable of affecting society injuriously and in effect
to a greater or lesser extent it usually does; this is what gives the law its locus standi. It cannot be shut out.” Devlin: The Enforcement of Morality

Devlin quotes extensively from History to show that most nations and empires that have disintegrated have done so from within and that the loosening of the common moral bonds is the first step towards that disintegration. Therefore, he argues, society has a right to protect its common morality.

He further argues that every society must have limits to its toleration and that not everything is to be tolerated. * “No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust; they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice.”*

So, as Ed has written, if everyone just sits back and does not register their indignation, that the “feelings of society cannot be weighty enough” will be the inevitable conclusion drawn by legislators.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy. **

Who is the author of the above quote???
It is fantastic, actually.

It’s something I personally need to memorize, and repeat to mysellf over and over.
All too often, all throughout life (though not always), I have done what seemed easy.
Sometimes you can’t help losing, but to settle for it is another matter.
To accept it as a “penance,” is okay, but to settle for mediocrity,
especially my own, that’s not okay.
I never believed in cheating, I don’t recall ever looking over at the neighboring desk at school to get someone else’s answers to a test. But settling for far less than my very best? Oh yes, all the time, esp in my private life.
Thank you for posting the above bolded quote.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, that’s a very sobering post.

Might I direct you towards one of England’s most famous jurists, Lord Patrick Devlin, former Lord Chief Justice of the British Court of Appeal. Apart from his magnificent legal career, he is famous for having written a book called The Enforcement of Morals. He famously asked a series of rhetorical questions, which went something like this - Does it matter if a man goes home from work each night and becomes blind drunk? Does it matter if a dozen men go home from work each night and become blind drunk? Does it matter if half the men of England go home from work each night and become blind drunk?

What he was illustrating is that there comes a point where private behaviour does indeed become a public issue. With his drunkeness analogy, it doesn’t require that one be a Rhodes Scholar to realise the effects upon a nation if half the workforce went home each night and became blind drunk. Similarly with what are considered to be other “moral” issues. There comes a point where the so called private behaviours of others becomes a public issue. Ed’s post illustrates the point perfectly.

In 1967 Britain’s Wolfenden Report was released. It represented the enquiry in to homosexiality and prostitution. On Wolfenden Committee was Lord Devlin and one H.L.A.Hart, a famous Oxford University Professor of Jurisprudence and a Utilitarian Philosopher. The two debated, from 1957 and well into the 1960s, over the the use of laws to enforce societal moral norms. At the time, most commentators thought Hart was the winner. Since then, most now consider that Devlin was right.

Professor Hart adopted an individualistic viewpoint, as it focuses on the rights of a person over the collective to do what they want rather than letting their actions be dictated by society. Hart used the typically utilitarian ‘harm principle’ to bolster his argument, stating that unless something is harmful to society the government has no right to interfere in the lives of individuals.

Devlin took the oppsite approach and one based upon Natural Law. He argued that without a “common morality”, society would fragment into diverse interest groups and evenutually break apart. He argued that uniform moral standards were what held cities and nations together.

Devlin quotes extensively from History to show that most nations and empires that have disintegrated have done so from within and that the loosening of the common moral bonds is the first step towards that disintegration. Therefore, he argues, society has a right to protect its common morality.

He further argues that every society must have limits to its toleration and that not everything is to be tolerated. * “No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust; they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice.”*

So, as Ed has written, if everyone just sits back and does not register their indignation, that the “feelings of society cannot be weighty enough” will be the inevitable conclusion drawn by legislators.

Thank you for the references and kind words John. You may be interested in a book by evangelist Billy Graham titled Storm Warning. A brief quote:

“Who stands for truth? Does anybody care anymore? At the bitter end of an era of liberation - women’s lib, kids’ lib, animal lib, and everything-but-ethics lib - America has apparently been liberated from its moral foundations. But for too many, the good life has become a living hell.” p.p. 176-177

Peace,
Ed