An interesting comment was left by Stentor at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog, where Hugo discussed my “autoerotism” post. Stentor observed that my post was based upon deontological arguments, whereas “liberal” Christians like Hugo use arguments of the consequentialist variety. Stentor went on to state that it is not effective to use deontological arguments with a consequentialist thinker, and when a deontological thinker attempts to use consequentialist arguments with a consequentialistic thinker, those arguments fail/fall short because the two approaches are fundamentally different. Here is the comment:
Apologies if this is excessively philosophical ...Your [Hugo’s] rephrasing of the "theology of the body" argument against masturbation is interesting. Reading Bonnie's post, I took her view to be a deontological one -- that God creates things with a certain purpose in mind, and that it is immoral to use them in any way inconsistent with God's purpose. But you present it as a consequentialist argument -- that masturbation will make us less able to have good connecting-with-another-person sex. The two arguments would require much different responses.
The deontological version raises some much deeper disagreements between anti-masturbation Christians and pro-masturbation secularists, such as whether things are designed with purposes, and if so whether that purpose is binding on other people who may encounter the thing. The consequentialist argument is both more plausible to a secularist, as well as being amenable to empirical demonstration of its central claim. But things get tricky if someone whose real commitment is to the deontological argument tries to use the consequentialist one in order to win support. Much frustration results when a consequentialist argument is disproven (and their high empirical content typically makes consequentialist arguments very vulnerable to disproof) but nobody changes their mind because they're really deontologists fighting a consequentialist proxy war.
I would like to briefly explore that idea in this post. I think that Stentor’s observation is quite profound, though I don’t completely agree with him. I don’t think that everyone can be neatly placed into separate camps of completely consequentialist vs. completely deontological thinkers. Actually, the secular person (or, in some cases, the religious “liberal”) has a personal deontology, whether conscious or not, that sees purpose in things as serving his/her pleasure or survival, or that of humankind, as an end. Likewise, there is consequentialism in Christianity, the most fundamental being that if one chooses to accept God’s salvation on His terms, there will be a certain consequence, as there will also be for the one who chooses to reject God and His salvation.
Regarding the empiricism of salvation in the afterlife, none exists in this life, though there is certainly empirical evidence for claims such as the ones I make about sexuality and masturbation. In this case, I would say that the problem lies not within empiricism itself, but in interpretation of empirical evidence, which, by nature of its being a human endeavour, is necessarily subjective. This does not, however, disprove the empirical proof of these claims. It is written, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” (Psalm 34:8) This is not a deontological invitation; it’s a consequentialist one, one that implies that the empirical evidence will assert itself. (Note that I am using the term “empirical” broadly here, to encompass anything within human experience. This would include that which is spiritually apprehended. I don’t mean to open a can of worms regarding distinctions between empiricism and that which can only be apprehended within the spirit, but such a broad understanding of empiricism serves my purpose in this particular discussion.)
In many ways, deontology and consequentialism are combined in the reality of Christian truth. Yes, the Designer has designed creation and all that it entails (including humans and their functions) for various purposes, the greatest of which is to serve and please Him, yet He doesn’t disregard the well-being of His servants in the process. The highest well-being of a person is found in submission to a holy, just, and loving God, which is something He has purposed as well. This well-being will not necessarily be according to “natural” purposes, though, because there is a higher purpose that the natural serves. (This would be something both spiritually and empirically apprehended; the interpretation of the empirical evidence would come via spiritual means.)
Applied to sexuality, this means that both deontology and consequentialism are true; i.e., God has designed sex with a purpose, which, when followed, will provide the most fulfilling, holistic sense of well-being for man (or woman).
I welcome discussion!
