¶ … sex, power, alcohol and money on moral and ethical acts Ethics, Sex, and Morality

Sex is still a subject that is a victim of human irrational treatment of an otherwise clear functional human phenomenon. Such incidents as homicide, and insanity gold and gems have also been subjected to such irrational treatment but, luckily, the mysteries around these have been dispelled over time. Sex has not been so lucky though as there is still a cloud of mystery and deliberate misrepresentation, perception and near-superstitious handling of the phenomenon. Sex is the most emotionally involving aspect of human existence. It is not a wonder then, that there is so much confusion directed at it. Lately, though, it seems that the wind of change is sweeping fast to affect people's view of sex. Some forces in operation around the subject of sex are clearly defined now. It is increasingly impossible to have a society that maintains and respects chastity until one is in the institution of marriage. Casual sex is a common reality. Modern life makes the traditional treatment of sex impossible in many situations (Russell, 1936).

What are these Conditions?

My intention is to explore the ethics behind sexual morality, particularly the subject of fornication and adultery. The subject of concern is whether it is morally appropriate to engage in sex outside marriage. There are several labels that have been attached to this subject. Adultery refers to sex between two people who are married to different spouses or that one of them is married but another one is not. Or simply having sex with someone other than the one you are married to. Fornication is sex between people who are still single. One school of thought holds the view that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage. Other views are more liberal and think that there is really nothing wrong with sex outside marriage. The latter is referred to as the natural impulse view of sex (Moore, 2009).

The natural impulse perception of sex is based on the premise that sex is a natural human instinct. Therefore, it should be left to run its course and enjoyed that way, in its natural form, in order to generate the greatest pleasure and happiness. The use of contraceptives was introduced to reduce the chances of unwanted pregnancies. Sex should, therefore, be treated as a pleasurable human activity. There should not be moral strings attached, if the partners mutually agree to engage in the activity. There is no justification to control sex or even restrict it to a single partner. The concept of sex and morality should be reviewed. The two do not necessarily go together. Moore (2009) fronts four arguments to support this stand:

1. Sex is a natural instinct that should be treated as such; just like animals do. After all, contraception is available (Moore, 2009).

2. It is wrong to suppress sex. It is, actually healthy to engage in sex in a natural way. Repression of sex is the cause of several sexual maladies, including madness (Moore, 2009).

3. Man is obligated morally to exploit pleasure (Moore, 2009).

4. An act is always right until the ones who impose restriction have proof that such behavior is wrong.

Ethics Power, and Morality

Power is a sensitive subject. It has been associated with many societal ills. Indeed, it is easy to think of it as an evil thing. History has shown that power is often prone to abuse. There is evidence to show that power interferes with the acceptable human behavior and induces new undesirable character. The question is therefore whether it is appropriate to limit, stop, restrict, control or, even, do away with power. Should it be evenly spread so that no one has a monotony of the same? Or should power be made almost impossible to access that it will not be a threat. The United States of America is a good example of a system that has worked around the concept of limiting and controlling...

The power here is weak and hobbled. The system seeks to prevent abuse of power at all levels. The question is whether power is only effective when it is weak and hobbled as is the case in USA.
It is clear that some forms of power can be used for good intention. Military power can be used to suppress evil. Such use of power is generally desirable. Saints have been cited to be among the people who used their power for good purpose in history. They helped the poor and supported the sick with their power. St. Elizabeth from Hungary is a good example of such a saint. Even non-royalty saints have been cited for using their powerful position they held in society to support the prosperity of their societies and human race in general.

In theological terms, God is the almighty; which means He is the most powerful being. God is absolutely good and pure. We can, thus conclude that power is not bad in itself. In fact, it is good. Power is a classic concept in theology. It goes back to the St. Augustine's days. He postulated that when power is abused, it tends to fall away from the real power; there is need for close examination here.

Power is objectively defined as the capacity to get things done. It is supposed to be embowering and creative. It is also constructive and cooperative. These aspects of power can be seen in the book of Genesis where it is explained that God created everything on earth. God, therefore, did not create things to trouble humans. His divine intention is that these things will be helpful to human life. Indeed, God shares power with humans. Humans are cooperative, creative and constructive; with the capacity to assist each other (Green, 2011).

God was liberal in his sharing of power. Humans have the liberty to control the power that has been shared and even abuse the same. Creativity can be channeled to destructive means. This will, of course, constitute abuse. Humans have been known to also cooperate to accomplish evil missions. These are, seemingly, acts of abuse of power that has been shared by the almighty (Green, 2011). If people could extrapolate and use two examples, in which power is used on one hand to build a city and to destroy, on the other. If a person is to build a city, he/she will have to assemble a team of workers and get money to pay them for their labor. The person will also need tools and building materials. The city allows the builders to utilize their creative gifts. This makes them bolster their skills, knowledge and abilities. This empowers them to do good things in the future too (Green, 2011).

On the other hand, destroying a town may be a decision for the town's people to make. They may use their power to destroy what has been built over the years in their town. Any survivors have to rebuild their lives afresh. This means that human power will have been diminished by using the power that has been shared by God and meant for good. Ideally, then, such use of power is a negation of the same power that was meant to serve the good of human existence. They have used power to diminish human capability (Green, 2011).

The question of the use of power comes to light. Power is meant to accomplish good things. It is meant to assist humans, to educate young people, create and cooperate for the success of the community. Veering away from this aspect of power is essentially destruction. It constitutes destruction of the part. The part eventually harms the whole. Would it not be better to cooperate with a limiting proviso (Green, 2011)?

The caveat is the fact that the whole is consumed in evil deeds. The most immediate example is the Nazi. Should Germany have cooperated for the common good of the whole? The Germany that really constituted the whole was only a part of humanity. By mistakenly thinking that it was the whole, Germany found herself in the mire. Germany ruined almost half of Europe and destroyed the lives of millions of people (Green, 2011).

Nonzero; 'The Logic of Human Destiny' a book written by Robert White, is interesting. This expose addresses the logic in human cooperation and the benefits derived from the same. He says it is about altering sums of zero into non-zero ones. The initial alterative will only assist a part of the whole equation. The second one is of help to both sides and leads to cooperation; which is the difference. Creativity and power that does not destroy are inherently based on this logic. If power is good, it will not be lorded on others rather, it will be shared amongst everyone (Green, 2011). Disparity in power distribution is a source of grave consequences for humans. The idea is that the fewer people with a lot of power always turn out weaker than the majority that hold spread out power. The Middle East revolutions have demonstrated the truths in this…