Is premarital sex immoral?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

Apart from consequentialism, what secular arguments could there be justifying the existence of any institution?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

Apart from consequentialism, what secular arguments could there be justifying the existence of any institution?

Secular agnostic anti-utilitarian here, so I think I can take this one. There are many schools of secular moral thought that don't involve a heuristic of utility-maximization. It's harder to say they're not "consequentialist", because honestly "consequentialism" is a meaningless buzzword rather than a coherent philosophy, and basically every moral framework from Divine Command Theory to Kantian deontology to Benthamite utilitarianism can be said to focus on a certain kind of consequences.

The moral framework I subscribe to, virtue ethics, justifies the existence of political institutions as necessary to shepherd people toward living a good life. It's the whole foundation of Aristotle's Politics, one of the founding texts on Western political philosophy. And while Aristotle was full of sh*t in a lot of ways, this is one of the parts of his thought that really holds up IMO.

[afleitch]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

Apart from consequentialism, what secular arguments could there be justifying the existence of any institution?

Secular agnostic anti-utilitarian here, so I think I can take this one. There are many schools of secular moral thought that don't involve a heuristic of utility-maximization. It's harder to say they're not "consequentialist", because honestly "consequentialism" is a meaningless buzzword rather than a coherent philosophy, and basically every moral framework from Divine Command Theory to Kantian deontology to Benthamite utilitarianism can be said to focus on a certain kind of consequences.

The moral framework I subscribe to, virtue ethics, justifies the existence of political institutions as necessary to shepherd people toward living a good life. It's the whole foundation of Aristotle's Politics, one of the founding texts on Western political philosophy. And while Aristotle was full of sh*t in a lot of ways, this is one of the parts of his thought that really holds up IMO.

If those institutions are male and heteronormative (secular as well as religious) then of what value are the virtues that flow from them?

[DC Al Fine]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

I'm not a utilitarian either Crabcake. You asked for a secular argument for premarital sex being immoral and I gave an example.

Why don't you tell me your moral presuppositions or basis for your ethics and I can tell you if there are any arguments basee on them?

[DC Al Fine]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

Apart from consequentialism, what secular arguments could there be justifying the existence of any institution?

Secular agnostic anti-utilitarian here, so I think I can take this one. There are many schools of secular moral thought that don't involve a heuristic of utility-maximization. It's harder to say they're not "consequentialist", because honestly "consequentialism" is a meaningless buzzword rather than a coherent philosophy, and basically every moral framework from Divine Command Theory to Kantian deontology to Benthamite utilitarianism can be said to focus on a certain kind of consequences.

The moral framework I subscribe to, virtue ethics, justifies the existence of political institutions as necessary to shepherd people toward living a good life. It's the whole foundation of Aristotle's Politics, one of the founding texts on Western political philosophy. And while Aristotle was full of sh*t in a lot of ways, this is one of the parts of his thought that really holds up IMO.

How do you determine what the virtues are?

[Antonio the Sixth]

If those institutions are male and heteronormative (secular as well as religious) then of what value are the virtues that flow from them?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If political institutions are flawed, then we obviously need to fix them, but I hope you're not trying to argue that we're better off without norms and institutions altogether, because if you are I am ready to go full Hobbes on you about what happens when you get rid of them.

(And of course, Aristotle himself very much thought political institutions should be male and "old white men can  whoever and whatever they want"-normative, as any upstanding Athenian citizen of his time, but thankfully we can take the few good bits of his theory and discard the rest.)

Also worth noting that the most prominent contemporary virtue ethicists are women.

How do you determine what the virtues are?

Well, there's no one single blueprint for how to do it. I actually need to read more myself on how people like Foot and Anscombe went about it. I'm familiar with the way Aristotle does it but I haven't found that part very interesting.

As for how I go about it myself, I'm actually of the perspective that Virtue has to be singular, one core ideal to aim toward. I define it as the desire for the good of all. Vices, then, are the things that can get in the way of such desire, whether it be our own selfish desires, our passions, our pride, etc. I can elaborate more but I'd probably need my own thread and more time on my hands.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No. It's natural.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

Apart from consequentialism, what secular arguments could there be justifying the existence of any institution?

Secular agnostic anti-utilitarian here, so I think I can take this one. There are many schools of secular moral thought that don't involve a heuristic of utility-maximization. It's harder to say they're not "consequentialist", because honestly "consequentialism" is a meaningless buzzword rather than a coherent philosophy, and basically every moral framework from Divine Command Theory to Kantian deontology to Benthamite utilitarianism can be said to focus on a certain kind of consequences.

The moral framework I subscribe to, virtue ethics, justifies the existence of political institutions as necessary to shepherd people toward living a good life. It's the whole foundation of Aristotle's Politics, one of the founding texts on Western political philosophy. And while Aristotle was full of sh*t in a lot of ways, this is one of the parts of his thought that really holds up IMO.

I have a lot of respect for virtue ethics.  But as you say, it is a kind of consequentialism even though not utilitarian.  Crabcake as I understand objected to the idea that any sort of statistics or tendency in the course of social relations should be able to establish something as immoral. And if that is the position, I'm not sure virtue ethics helps, since a prudential concern for what tends to result would, I think, have to be central for discerning what constitutes a virtuous life and how to promote it.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

No. It's natural.

I obviously don't think premarital sex is immoral, but this is an oft-used logical fallacy that really gets under my skin. just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's bad.

For instance, cancer is a natural thing, but it's obviously not good, whereas cancer treatments are not natural and have been created by humans - but are obviously good.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have a lot of respect for virtue ethics.  But as you say, it is a kind of consequentialism even though not utilitarian.

Yes, and by the same token, traditional Christian morality is "a kind of consequentialism" as well - the desired consequence being the salvation of souls. But really, as I did say, consequentialism is a philosophically vacuous concept that needs to be abandoned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for Crabcake and I wasn't necessarily endorsing everything she said before (although I do think she had valid points you haven't answered yet). That said, one key implication of virtue ethics to keep in mind is that categories of actions are usually not inherently moral or immoral - rather, their morality depends on the motivation and emotional disposition of the person who is carrying them out. So, in the case of premarital sex, the person who's engaging in it for self-indulgent reasons and views their partner as an object can't be lumped into the same category as the person who's in a loving, committed relationship with someone they just don't happen to be married to. Applying the same label to those two is a category error, and therefore renders the question meaningless.

Prudential concern for the consequences of other people's actions, and the courage to stop immoral actions, are most certainly virtues. But the humility and charity not to prejudge of an action's moral status without appropriate knowledge of the circumstances are also virtues, and I would personally argue they are higher ones.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No. It's natural.

I obviously don't think premarital sex is immoral, but this is an oft-used logical fallacy that really gets under my skin. just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's bad.

For instance, cancer is a natural thing, but it's obviously not good, whereas cancer treatments are not natural and have been created by humans - but are obviously good.

I mean sure, sex can have negative consequences and connotations. But when I say that it is natural I mean that it is a biological function. A teenager going through puberty is going to start having urges, and if they want to act on them with consent from another individual and when done safely, there is nothing wrong with it.

[HillGoose]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

uhhh, I don't think humans are naturally polygamous. Humans are naturally jealous which means polygamy is like, in direct opposition to human nature.

i literally know a total of 0 people who seem to have any sort of polygamous desire. that's like, a weird ass hippie thing.

We are descended from a species that practiced habitual polygamy. The rule of thumb is that if an animal has significant differences between the size of males and females, the species is more likely a polygamous one (and even "monogamous" species like most birds display habits like cheating and even prostitution). In humanity's case, it's normally speculated that early Homo species formed harems, where a single male would jealously guard his brood from rivals, much like gorillas or elephant seals; often killing off any infants produced from other males. (Contrasting with our closer ape cousins, who tend to engage in more of a free for all, which is why chimps have much larger testicles relative to their penises than humans or gorillas). The harem structure is less conducive to the functioning of society, which is why the practice has become less and less common (although it has persistently been practiced across human civilisation, especially amongst wealthy men).

so basically a bunch of warlords raped everybody back in the olden days?

I mean that makes sense but also that's not polygamy that's just like, tyranny.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes.  That, of course, didn't stop me from partaking in that institution, once upon a time.  God, however, has made it clear in Scripture that sexual activity is reserved for a man and a woman married to each other.

God has never said to people "Thou shalt not . . . " without seeing that harms that occur when "Thou shalt . . ."  If you look at everything God has deigned as Sin in Scripture, you will figure out that every one of these things is a harmful act to someone, and an act that will bring harm on the person committing the act.  God is not a Party Pooper or a Wet Blanket, but He is a Father who seeks to look out for those He loves, even as He attempts to give them limits within which to live.  To quote William Kilpatrick (Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong):  Sexual activity creates a bond and implies a promise.  It's the nature of the activity, and sexual activity prior to marriage creates bonds without extracting promises.  It's a reason (I believe) that people are less secure in their relationships and have more problems with commitment today than ever before, and that impacts both persons that make a couple, as well as any children that this couple may have. 

People have scoffed at my quoting Kilpatrick in the past, thinking the statement nonsense.  The pain and rage of the #MeToo folks are, to me, proof of its truth.  I am concerned about the Guilt Without Proof aspect of #MeToo, but I have no doubt that someone hurt these people, and that they are legitimately suffering human beings for the most part.  The idea that sexual activity creates a bond and implies a promise, IMO, is part of the source of the immense hurt and immense emotional injury that sexual abuse survivors and sexual assault survivors experience; an act meant for good used in a way to damage a person extensively.  Forming the kind of bond sexual activity creates is harmful when a person is unwilling to live up to the promise implied by the act.  That's the nature of the act, not something created by artificial stigmas.

[°Leprechaun]

"It's between consenting adults" works well as a legal argument, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see at least some posters restraining themselves to using it as one, but as a moral argument it's too presuppositional of a generally libertarian and individualistic moral framework to convince anybody who doesn't share those presuppositions.

I'm far from a libertarian, whether from a political or from a moral standpoint, but when it comes to the issue of premarital sex I still have trouble finding it immoral for this reason.

Immoral is a strong word. For someone who is not a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox and Orthoprax Jew - but I think Jews would overall be less likely to emphasize the immoral aspect of it-), consent just seems the most logical basis on which you can judge the morality of it.

Yeah, I mean, coming from a totally non-religious perspective, I don't understand how something could possibly be immoral if it has absolutely no negative impact on anyone or thing - as far as I am concerned, something is moral or not depending on the impact that it has; things aren't inherently moral or not by themselves.

If two people consent to pre-marital sex, even if it totally devoid of any emotional connection, it doesn't actually have any impact on anyone outside the couple, so I don't see what rationale there could be for it being immoral.

More than anything, the more partners you accumulate in your life (no double standards here, it's valid for both sexes), the harder it becomes to form the type of bond and committment that is needed in order to make a marriage work, and I really think that's one of the big reasons relationships (including marriage) generally don't survive long term these days.

I've had over 80 sexual partners, a 5 year relationship then a 7 year marriage. If anything it makes for a stronger bond because it's based on experience.

That isn't a lot. (more than I) Solomon had about 1000.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think one thing that's important to note is "premarital sex" doesn't have to mean "has one night stands" or whatever. It can be even as little as having sex with the person you're engaged to, a practice that was standard for most of England's history before the 18th century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes.  That, of course, didn't stop me from partaking in that institution, once upon a time.  God, however, has made it clear in Scripture that sexual activity is reserved for a man and a woman married to each other.

God has never said to people "Thou shalt not . . . " without seeing that harms that occur when "Thou shalt . . ."  If you look at everything God has deigned as Sin in Scripture, you will figure out that every one of these things is a harmful act to someone, and an act that will bring harm on the person committing the act.  God is not a Party Pooper or a Wet Blanket, but He is a Father who seeks to look out for those He loves, even as He attempts to give them limits within which to live.  To quote William Kilpatrick (Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong):  Sexual activity creates a bond and implies a promise.  It's the nature of the activity, and sexual activity prior to marriage creates bonds without extracting promises.  It's a reason (I believe) that people are less secure in their relationships and have more problems with commitment today than ever before, and that impacts both persons that make a couple, as well as any children that this couple may have. 

People have scoffed at my quoting Kilpatrick in the past, thinking the statement nonsense.  The pain and rage of the #MeToo folks are, to me, proof of its truth.  I am concerned about the Guilt Without Proof aspect of #MeToo, but I have no doubt that someone hurt these people, and that they are legitimately suffering human beings for the most part.  The idea that sexual activity creates a bond and implies a promise, IMO, is part of the source of the immense hurt and immense emotional injury that sexual abuse survivors and sexual assault survivors experience; an act meant for good used in a way to damage a person extensively.  Forming the kind of bond sexual activity creates is harmful when a person is unwilling to live up to the promise implied by the act.  That's the nature of the act, not something created by artificial stigmas.

...this is one of the vilest things you've ever said on here. And that's saying a lot.