From my stand point, I feel the author is trying to explain how complex social morality is and how various people have taken a simplistic approach in trying to understand it. This simplistic approach has led various people nowhere; hence the author is showing how an average person will often be lost between the shallow and extremely contradicting information available in various sources. For instance, if we get to consider the role of ‘virtue ethics’, we are directly led by the literature available in various sources to consider the importance of human character. Character defined means the type of person a human being is. It is exceptionally hard to conclude a person’s character as this is extremely variable. It is not easy to get a human being with exemplarily behavior to be emulated by everybody as the Old and the New Testament of the Bible does not give a common criterion for selection.
Catholics’ social morality differs distinctly from their sexual morality in that their social ethics is found to be notably flexible and has a unique ability to accept various objective stand points while still considering various circumstances. The Catholic sexual teaching is seen as being based on one objective with no room for discussions. However, it allows for various subjective considerations mainly as a way of compassionately understanding the sinners. The above reversal and the division for the two aspects can be explained to be caused by the need for the church to retain its identity while still remaining relevant to non-believers.
Negative approach to sexual ethics tends to criminalize and condemn all sexual activities. The New Testament depicts Jesus as a man who overhauled the world’s view of sexuality. In his whole life, he is seen as living a celibate life. Paul in the same New Testament depicts marriage as a remedy for people who cannot control themselves. This has led to condemnation of all sexual activities, and it has been grossly misused by some groups. Christ’s view of sex could have indicated eschatology where sexuality will not be beneficial. St. Paul’s view of sex cannot be explained and could be imposed by a failed relationship in his upbringing. His approach and view of sexuality has been misplaced in the arguments of people with negative approach to sexuality. However, this has not given any direction and has made other people seek other sexual adventures that are unnatural and unethical. On the other hand, sexuality will always be beneficial because it is God’s creation. The abuse of sex should be discouraged and should be put across in a manner that does not lead to condemnation of all sexual acts. The argument that people who encourage positive approach to sexuality have is that God’s love can sometimes be revealed or be communicated in a sexual relationship which is a union. From the above illustration, we can say that positive sexual ethics approach differs from the negative one in that the positive one does not condemn all the sexual acts while the negative supports the ones considered immoral.
This essay is related to the previous one in that both of them shed more light on human sexuality. The other tells the reader about the scientific research that has found out some facts about sexuality, and how crucial sexuality is in describing one’s character. Sexuality makes a person either male or female, and also influences many other aspects of human life. The first essay is more inclined to personal approach; it differs from this one in the way it gives a Christian approach to sexuality especially relating to the Christianity as culture and others, for example, the Romans and the modern living. The writer in his previous essay tries to show that there is an undue exaltation of pervasive sexuality in the society. Some of the sexual acts being exalted are not morally appealing, and he is expressing his concern on how the general public should be helped. However, in this essay, he is showing that there is a greater need to examine various sources that can be used to provide assistance concerning sexual morality. Both essays have some similarity as they emphasize the importance of sexual morality at an individual level. The most fundamental principle found in the first essay is the presence of innate ability of people to differentiate what is right or wrong. According to the author, people have the law written deep in their soul. According to his essay, I am able to differentiate between what is right and what might be improper.