is premarital sex bad? why?

[goout]

If you had said that people who are more likely to divorce have had more than one sexual partner, then all you can determine from that is that people who are more likely to divorce are likely to have had more than one sexual partner. Period. The one does not necessarily cause the other. It’s classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The title of the thread is a leading question in any case.
‘Objection m’lud’
‘Sustained.’

It should be worded ‘Could premarital sex be bad’. And the answer to that would be a definite ‘yes’ and we could all move on. Nothing more to see.

The way it is worded would mean that if the answer was ‘yes’, then it would be ‘yes’ in all cases, which is patently absurd.

It is patently -not- absurd, if you understand what morality is.
Morality is not about what is bad. (I know, this is getting to be an oft-repeated observation…but it needs to be repeated when we are talking about morality)
Morality has as it’s source and reference point “the good”. When a prohibition is expressed, it serves the good. A prohibition is not a self-assertive thing.

“Because I say so” can be a good argument if it’s from moral authority, but it’s not a full proposition. The fullness of a moral proposition is in it’s reference and trajectory to an objective good.

And so, an action which detracts from the good (aka “evil”) is always to be avoided.
I’m not sure what you find absurd about that.

 

[Bradski]

It is patently -not- absurd, if you understand what morality is.
Morality is not about what is bad. (I know, this is getting to be an oft-repeated observation…but it needs to be repeated when we are talking about morality)
Morality has as it’s source and reference point “the good”. When a prohibition is expressed, it serves the good. A prohibition is not a self-assertive thing.

“Because I say so” can be a good argument if it’s from moral authority, but it’s not a full proposition. The fullness of a moral proposition is in it’s reference and trajectory to an objective good.

And so, an action which detracts from the good (aka “evil”) is always to be avoided.
I’m not sure what you find absurd about that.

The op didn’t ask if premarital sex was immoral. He asked if it was bad. So we can skip any discussion on the definition of morality.

So we are left with a rather straightfoward task. You define what you mean by bad (and Randy gave quite a few examples) and then decide if premarital sex will:

A: always result in bad consequences.
B: never result in bad consequences.
C: sometimes result in bad consequences.

A is as absurd as B. C is obviously correct. Only a fool would deny that premarital sex is entirely without risk of at least some bad consequences and only a fool would insist that there are always bad consequences in all cases.

The answer to the question ‘Is premarital sex bad’ is: It depends.

The answer to the question ‘could premarital sex be bad’ is: Yes.

If you want to discuss whether it is immoral, then you are going to have to define exactly what you mean by that. And I really can’t see you doing that without correlating it with what you consider to be ‘bad’. STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc.

But please, no arguments about one partner simply using the other as a piece of meat for their personal gratification. That happens within marriage as well as outside it. In fact, I know a woman who did just that this morning. She’s making my breakfast as I write.

No complaints from me.

 

[PRmerger]

You define what you mean by bad (and Randy gave quite a few examples) and then decide if premarital sex will:

A: always result in bad consequences.
B: never result in bad consequences.
C: sometimes result in bad consequences

No, luv.

Things are not defined as “bad” based on their consequences, necessarily.

That would make adultery only bad if it resulted in bad consequences.

But we have already established that you acknowledge that adultery would be bad even if the cuckolded spouse never found out about it. That is, there was never a single bad consequence that happened because a man cheated on his wife.

It would still be bad.

You acknowledge that.

So what is “bad”? As goout articulated, something is “bad” when it is a deficit of the “good”.

 

[Bradski]

No, luv.

Things are not defined as “bad” based on their consequences, necessarily.

That would make adultery only bad if it resulted in bad consequences.

But we have already established that you acknowledge that adultery would be bad even if the cuckolded spouse never found out about it. That is, there was never a single bad consequence that happened because a man cheated on his wife.

It would still be bad.

You acknowledge that.

So what is “bad”? As goout articulated, something is “bad” when it is a deficit of the “good”.

If you cheat on someone then the outcome is a broken bond of trust. It no longer exists. The relationship is now based on a lie. That is the consequence and that is a bad thing.

Something cannot be immoral if there is no intention to commit a bad act or nothing bad actually happens. Otherwise it’s a matter of personal opinion.

If someone wants to tell me not to do something because they consider it to be immoral, then they will be ignored unless they can convince me that harm will come from it.

 

[PRmerger]

If you cheat on someone then the outcome is a broken bond of trust. It no longer exists.

How does this hurt the person who hasn’t a clue that she’s been cheated on.

I am truly mystified.

And, let’s say this woman dies a week after her husband cheated on her, and she never found out, poor dear.

*I know you believe that the act was wrong **at the moment *that the husband did the dirty deed.

Not when she was harmed by it.

Esp when she was never harmed by it at all.

Can you please 'splain the incoherence you’re espousing to me?

 

[PRmerger]

If you cheat on someone then the outcome is a broken bond of trust. It no longer exists. The relationship is now based on a lie. That is the consequence and that is a bad thing.

Something cannot be immoral if there is no intention to commit a bad act or nothing bad actually happens. Otherwise it’s a matter of personal opinion.

If someone wants to tell me not to do something because they consider it to be immoral, then they will be ignored unless they can convince me that harm will come from it.

I’m really trying to understand this POV, to try to make it coherent.

And the best I can do is that you seem to be saying that a *concept *can be harmed?

Is that right?

The concept of a loving marriage/promise/covenant is harmed when someone cheats?

Is that what you’re professing?

 

[Rau]

Things are not defined as “bad” based on their consequences, necessarily.

That would make adultery only bad if it resulted in bad consequences.

An evaluation of morality or goodness vs. 'badness" based on consequences is not uncommonly encountered among those without a belief in a divine law (ie. atheists). I regularly encounter persons arguing scenarios where it seems one “must” do evil (with certain bad consequences) in order to prevent some other set of events with even greater evil consequences anticipated. When the Catholic replies - sorry, what you ask of “me” is not morally permissible, the response is “then you are accountable for these even greater bad consequences”. And of course, “before the Atheist”, that is absolutely true, but “before God” (as we understand it), it is not.

It is not so much the reasoning of the parties that makes the difference, but rather their different premises.

 

[phil19034]

How does this hurt the person who hasn’t a clue that she’s been cheated on.

I am truly mystified.

And, let’s say this woman dies a week after her husband cheated on her, and she never found out, poor dear.

*I know you believe that the act was wrong **at the moment ***that the husband did the dirty deed.

Not when she was harmed by it.

Esp when she was never harmed by it at all.

Can you please 'splain the incoherence you’re espousing to me?

I can’t speak for Bradski, but in the case of adultry (where the spouse never finds out) the cheater must live with that lie. For some, such a lie/secret is impossible to keep because they are overwhelmed by the guilt OR they use it one day to hurt their spouse when angry.

To Bradski - fornication is bad because it is a risky behavior in many ways. It can be psychologically damaging, could result in unwanted pregnancy, could lead to a improperly discerned marriage, sexually transmitted disease (not just deadly ones like HIV/AIDS, but also HPV, Herpies, etc), etc.

Today’s society has attempted to mitigate the risks, but they are still there just like they were thousands of years ago. The only difference between today and 2000 years ago is that our modern pill and modern abortion methods are somewhat physically safer for the woman. But not completely, and it’s still just as psychologically damaging.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

An evaluation of morality or goodness vs. 'badness" based on consequences is not uncommonly encountered among those without a belief in a divine law (ie. atheists). I regularly encounter persons arguing scenarios where it seems one “must” do evil (with certain bad consequences) in order to prevent some other set of events with even greater evil consequences anticipated. When the Catholic replies - sorry, what you ask of “me” is not morally permissible, the response is “then you are accountable for these even greater bad consequences”. And of course, “before the Atheist”, that is absolutely true, but “before God” (as we understand it), it is not.

It is not so much the reasoning of the parties that makes the difference, but rather their different premises.

Excellent observations. I could not have formulated them better. The point is that we live HERE and NOW, and God does not express his approval or disapproval to us. Therefore our best estimate is to accept that “silence” is a “silent approval”. So, if you could prevent a “worse” consequence and fail to do so, the court system will find you guilty.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t speak for Bradski, but in the case of adultry (where the spouse never finds out) the cheater must live with that lie. For some, such a lie/secret is impossible to keep because they are overwhelmed by the guilt OR they use it one day to hurt their spouse when angry.

To Bradski - fornication is bad because it is a risky behavior in many ways. It can be psychologically damaging, could result in unwanted pregnancy, could lead to a improperly discerned marriage, sexually transmitted disease (not just deadly ones like HIV/AIDS, but also HPV, Herpies, etc), etc.

Today’s society has attempted to mitigate the risks, but they are still there just like they were thousands of years ago. The only difference between today and 2000 years ago is that our modern pill and modern abortion methods are somewhat physically safer for the woman. But not completely, and it’s still just as psychologically damaging.

I don’t think that works.

Because, as I understand Bradski’s POV, he believes (rightly) that* the act is wrong at the moment he’s doing the dirty deed*.

Not when he experiences remorse several hours later*.

In fact, if consequences are what we use to judge morality, since the act brings about great pleasure for 2 people, at the moment they do the deed, it’s a very, very good act.

Does that not seem to be a correct explication?

*And let’s say he doesn’t experience remorse, but rather feels justified because, hey, his wife wasn’t good in bed…is the act still wrong?

 

[Bradski]

To Bradski - fornication is bad because it is a risky behavior in many ways. It can be psychologically damaging, could result in unwanted pregnancy, could lead to a improperly discerned marriage, sexually transmitted disease (not just deadly ones like HIV/AIDS, but also HPV, Herpies, etc), etc.

Nope.

Forrnication COULD be bad IF…x, y, z.

 

[Rau]

Excellent observations. I could not have formulated them better. The point is that we live HERE and NOW, and God does not express his approval or disapproval to us. Therefore our best estimate is to accept that “silence” is a “silent approval”. So, if you could prevent a “worse” consequence and fail to do so, the court system will find you guilty.

For the person of faith, God has expressed his position. The “best estimate” we can access comes from one’s conscience.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Since the discussion has drifted a little into contemplating what is the “goodness” or “badness” of an action and how is it evaluated, let’s consider the following.

For the person of faith, God has expressed his position.

I am sure you are aware that different “people of faith” have a different opinion about WHAT God expressed. They may even refer to different “holy writs” to support their opinion. Or even interpret the same “holy writ” in a different manner. Even among Catholics there is no agreement about the subject. Not to mention other “people of faith”. Everyone’s interpretation is: “this is God’s opinion about the subject - and I am right - because God ALWAYS agrees with me”.

As such, it would be in everyone’s best interest if God would express his opinion in an unmistakable way, for everyone to see and hear. Until we have that, there will be no consensus - which is really sad. This is why the allegedly expressed opinion of God is best left out from such discussions. Maybe there is some afterlife, maybe not. But we live here and now.

The “best estimate” we can access comes from one’s conscience.

Everyone’s conscience is somewhat different. The court system does not care about our conscience. If you could have prevented a serious event and failed to do so, you will be held accountable as an accomplice. It is because the whole system is based upon the principle: “Do no harm. But if the circumstances force you to do harm, do as little harm as possible”.

And remember, sometimes we are forced by the circumstances, through no fault of our own. No just judge would find fault in you actions if you chose the least amount of harm.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you had said that people who are more likely to divorce have had more than one sexual partner, then all you can determine from that is that people who are more likely to divorce are likely to have had more than one sexual partner. Period. The one does not necessarily cause the other. It’s classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The title of the thread is a leading question in any case.
‘Objection m’lud’
‘Sustained.’

It should be worded ‘Could premarital sex be bad’. And the answer to that would be a definite ‘yes’ and we could all move on. Nothing more to see.

The way it is worded would mean that if the answer was ‘yes’, then it would be ‘yes’ in all cases, which is patently absurd.

True, correlation is not causation. There could be a third factor which tends to drive both “premarital sex” and an increased likelihood of divorce.

Of course, some clarification should be provided about what is meant by “bad” - the OP seems to be leaning to an ethical (moral) assessment, rather than one about observable negative consequences. The responses cover both dimensions however. And the answer to the question - at least with a view to consequences - might not need to be a black or white “yes” or “no”.

I agree that correlation is not causation.

However, having sex for the first time is not something that can be undone. Therefore, while there may by any number of CAUSES for the loss of virginity or the taking multiple sex partners, it is also possible that having had sex at least once prior to marriage may lead to any number of the problems within marriage.

For example, Point #3: the ONLY way that one can make qualitative comparisons about the sex one is currently having with one’s spouse is to have had prior sexual experience with other partners. This is a case of direct causation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

FWIW, there are a couple of good thoughts in this article and in the comments section which follows it:

How do Catholic priests remain celibate?
quora.com/How-do-Catholic-priests-remain-celibate

 

[PRmerger]

I am sure you are aware that different “people of faith” have a different opinion about WHAT God expressed.

This is irrelevant.

People of Science can have different opinions about things, too, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t objective truths that can be discerned.

 

[PRmerger]

As such, it would be in everyone’s best interest if God would express his opinion in an unmistakable way, for everyone to see and hear.

Interesting…

How would this work?

What would God expressing His opinion in an unmistakable way look like, so that skeptics couldn’t say, “Well, that’s not God. That’s [A, B or C] talking”?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree that correlation is not causation.

However, having sex for the first time is not something that can be undone. Therefore, while there may by any number of CAUSES for the loss of virginity or the taking multiple sex partners, it is also possible that having had sex at least once prior to marriage may lead to any number of the problems within marriage.

Indeed.

And then there is this fact: if you have sex with your boyfriend prior to marriage you know this fact WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY: he is willing to sleep with someone he’s not married to.

And this sets a precedent for future infidelity.

After all, you know that he has done it in the past…

And, for that matter, he knows the same about you as well.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’ve never understood this “do no harm” from non believers. Why do no harm? Why is that a virtue or principle? Can’t one just do harm?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never understood this “do no harm” from non believers. Why do no harm? Why is that a virtue or principle? Can’t one just do harm?

Egg-zactly.

All that the non-believer can assert is: I prefer it when people “do no harm”. And it’s yucky when people “do harm”.

But for the non-believer there can never be an moral obligations. There are no “ought tos”.

Only, “I don’t like it when…”