Is dating a friend's ex wrong?

Affection is a fickle thing. If it was based on rational considerations, so many problems would dissipate and people would conduct less turbulent lives. As it is not, sexual lust and emotional communion drive men and women into situations they soon rue and regret. The discovered adultery, the office romance or senior junior relationship are all classic situations which, if the participants had been putting social standing, career security and their own well beings first, they probably would not have committed to them. However, raw passion, ecstatic emotions and hungry desires are compelling forces. It is in this cauldron of everlasting turmoil with delinquent tendencies attempting to overpower the logical results of what limited cognitive capacities I posses. My mind of late has been preoccupied with fanciful thoughts for a young woman, with admirable qualities. They are not strong like that of a 'crush', but nevertheless some attraction exists. Unfortunately, this person is no ordinary female: she is an ex of a friend of mine. Social convention demands abstinence from such an engagement, but should that be discarded for the possibility of personal pleasure and fulfillment?

The first ruminations I have on this issue is that any potential advance on the woman in question would be harmful. It could damage my relationship with my friend. When someone disentangles themselves from an intimate relationship with another person, the last individual they want to be hanging around is there companion who has decided to try their shot with this person. Relations would be tense, and a rift can create because of a girl you have decided to date. Furthermore, as social standards demand I do not ask out this woman, other people would find my actions distasteful, damaging my reputation. The same may be true for her. And there are no shortage of potential partners. Wagering on this one specimen is just too big a risk to maintain the social web of harmony and high rank among peers, which sadly, determines oppurtunities and the quality of enjoyment one can have in their life.

However, the crucial question is not what the results are of an action, but why would a person resent their friend having intimate relations with their ex? This alone can determine whether I have wronged him deontologically, whether my actions are worthy of condemnation. Problematically, there is no determined answer. Each person has their own position on this delicate issue. I happen to think the main issue is one of loyalty. That person became emotionally (and perhaps physically) attatched to your friend. They shared things with them, opened up their lives to this person. This is private territory. When you go into a relationship with a friends ex, you violate that area of their life which was private from you. Moreover, people, men in particular are programmed to get very defensive over people they have had a bond with. i terms of evolution, the male who prevents other males from partnering his mate will be more likely to pass on his genes. This cements itself in this situation.

This is rationalistic thought. But as Sigmund Freud remarked 'romantic love is not logical. It’s highly illogical and all emotion.' Affection is not founded on moral principles, but instinct and desire. It was the great philosopher Nietzsche (pictured below) who questioned the reasoning behind discarding the fulfilment of our deepest wishes and desires in favour of the etiquette and standards of the community we live in. He argued that to truly become Ubermensch (supermen) we must try to achieve our aims, throwing off the shackles of tradition and religion, which creates a slave morality. Whilst I do not entirely agree with the logic of Nietzsche, defining ourselves and actions in response to our most fundamental desires is appetising. Most conventions have a sound justification, such as paying taxes, providing reparations for those you have hurt and queuing. However, not dating a friend's ex does not nearly have the same moral strength behind it. Sacrificing my potential happiness for the judgement of others is not an ideal a person should aspire too. So a strong counter-argument can be made against the traditional stance.

Luckily, I can abstain from such a dichotomy, as I am moving house next week to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and will be attending Edinburgh University. For those who want a resolution to this ethical dilemma, I shall depart leaving the following suppositions. Suppose you believe that a person should be free to act how they want (within the law). Furthermore, you believe a person does not commit a bad action by engaging sexual encounters outside of monogamous relationships. As such, it is clear that the results and effects of intimate bonding should not hinder one's attempts to engage in them, whether tradition and social values approve of them. Following this through, as you do not perceive relationships as being defined by the creation of a loyal wife and husband, why should the man who wants to date his friends ex be condemned as immoral? If, on the other hand, you believe relationships have moral restrictions, then putting your friendship first appears the right course of action. If, in particular, you believe in putting others first, like the followers of Christ, then you will definitely seek to forfeit your desires for your friend. Unfortunately, I, along with most of the human race, have irrational tendencies, and whilst the rationality of ethics can determine a man's mind, it cannot alter his emotional outcry in the fluctuating wilderness that is love.

Romance and the Erotic

Humans are social creatures. We enjoy and thrive in relationships with others, maximising are own happiness by connecting with people who share similar interests, aims and outlooks on life. Most folk aim to have a particular partner, an individual who the are more intimately related to than any other human being. This is what drives many people; the search for their 'other half'. Intertwined with this is a mission to attain pleasure, particularly through the senses. As such, a fine line is drawn on the sexual nature of dating between a union of two people and a fulfillment of animal urges. I fear that the youth of 21st Century Britain are too concerned with the physical aspects and joys of life, thus leading to an over sexualised culture which forces men and women to define themselves and their ways of living by their bedroom activity. This in turn has created an environment where sex is the foundations of relationships, the badge of honour among peers and the ultimate reality. In this article, I aim to demonstrate why I believe such a worldview is detrimental to humanity and the virtuous life.

The reasons why a society may be built on sex are obvious. Patricia Churchland, a philosopher in America, claims the majority of human activity can be summarised by the four F's: Feeding, Fleeing, Fighting and Reproducing. The search for sex is integral to most creatures, and we humans are no exception. As far as pleasure goes, it provides some of the best. It is powerful, raw and back to basics. It thrills, excites, and is memorable. A whole industry has been made out of it, connecting potential partners, aiding the event itself and other such items to support it. Furthermore, music, art and literature has always been permeated by references to the romantic, feeding into fashion and other products. Adverts are filled with attractive people, films with the erotic and entertainment incorporating this most mysterious of activities. It dominates are way of life, with companies, celebrities and friends pointing our desires in the direction of the sensual and sexual. With the 'death of God' (Nietzsche), the abandonment of Christianity and the liberalisation of British culture, the traditional relationship has been usurped by the will to just find physical pleasure wherever possible, particulary romance. People say that we are a secular society: I disagree, because most people seem to worship the ideals and actions of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, beauty, lust and pleasure.

Sex has always been an essential part of human culture. However, for many centuries, Britain had been dominated by other concepts and ideas, such as the divine. With the advent of atheism, the romantic passions of the youth have flourished, becoming an open, normal part of life. Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sensual pleasure, over indulgence and application, which are promoted by this culture, are dangerous. There are three reasons for this: the well being of the individual and community, the responsibility of each human being and the damage it does to our 'function'.

The life associated with the hedonistic worldview is sex, drugs and rock n roll. Drink and illegal substances go hand in hand with the culture pursuing physical pleasure. When one goes clubbing, one is surrounded by alcohol and dealers, all there to help the 'experience'. It is these places where sex is also an easy option. Whilst sex is not directly connected to the taking of harmful substances, the attitude towards senusal fulfillment is enhanced by the taking of such things. These products are, despite what many will say, detrimental to the well being of people and the community. Nearly half of all violent crimes are caused by over consumption of alcohol. Smoking can cause lung, oral, uterine, liver, kidney, bladder, stomach and cervical cancer, among other problems. Both are highly addictive and force a dependency upon them. They are integral to the hedonists outlook on life, along with a primordial focus on sex. So whilst the pursuit of sex as an ultimate end is not in itself the reason why alcohol and drugs damage people and lives, the culture which promotes physical pleasure is the root of all three.

Furthermore, unprotected sex can have devastating consequences. STIs can be caught, including life rendering diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Other infections are rather unpleasant, and can be quite painful. More drastically, unplanned pregnancies can be caused, potentially shattering a young woman's life through forcing her to raise a child or go through the horrific process of abortion. Neither are ideal. It is just a fact that if people live in a society which encourages a focus on sex, they will be more likely to catch STI's and create unplanned pregnancies, both which should be avoided as far as possible. As such, this hedonistic drive for sex as the foundation of relationships and human activity is harmful.

Secondly, this attitude has molded an atmosphere which promotes avoiding responsibility. In the past, if a man and a woman had a sexual relationship, society expected them to care for each other, think of their partner's well being and take the blame for any negative results of such an affair. However, now that you can sleep with strangers at the flick of a button, there is no need to feel responsible for your actions. The idea that you can get laid with different people as a casual, no strings attached connection implies one does not need to remember nor bare the results of any of the ensuing consequences. If your partner catches an STI from you, what difference does it make? It was only a one time thing anyway. If your partner has to split up with her long term boyfriend, why should you feel guilt about that? You were just two strangers looking for pleasure. If you impregnate her by accident, why should you pay for a mistake? Indeed, with the number of absent fathers rising, it seems apparent this is the mind set of many people in the UK. Unfortunately, the most damage is done to the children, who by rights deserve parents who take full responsibility for creating them. However, seeking for pleasure makes sex an impersonal act, which damages and impacts on relationships, communities and most importantly, children. The lack of emotional connection removes responsibility, key for a philanthropic and well run country. As such, the hedonists view should be abandoned.

Finally, the quest for sensual pleasure can damage our ability to perform our 'function'. This is what Plato (pictured below), perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time, believed. He thought we each had an ability, or purpose, which it was the object of our lives to try and get the best out of. This would require us to restrain our desires to dominate and for pleasure; the man who allows his lust for women to dominate his life will not focus on refining his skill, and thus will be less able than if he had restrained such an urge. Knowledge is architectonic: it orders our actions in a way which will best achieve our function. This, for Plato, is the virtuous life. I am inclined to agree. If a person does not refrain his love of sex or dreams of power, he will not reflect and try to improve his skills nor work hard at refining his abilities. Only if one is totally dedicated to this task can it be achieved. This is the role of knowledge: it helps us know what is good for fulfilling our 'techne'. But if we allow pleasure, not knowledge, to govern how we act, our skills and purposes will not be brought out to their greatest degree, and thus our talents are wasted. The culture which claims a pursuit of sex should dominate the soul can only be to the detriment of our ability to perform our function: it leads to an unbalanced way of action, a disrespect for hard work and focus on improving ourselves as individuals. Employers consistently complain that young people lack the skills necessary for jobs, and it appears to me the radical over sexualisation of British people may be part of it. Thus, this over baring need for sexual activity is harmful to our very purposes and talents, and thus should be abandoned.

In the past, many people have complained that I am trying to impose my morality on them. They complain that I do not have the authority to challenge their actions, that I have no right to infringe or lampoon their desires and I am just a 'moral monster'. However, if they were about to be raped, and I was a bystander willing to help the victim, would they complain if I imposed my morality on the attacker? The point is that it is very easy to relativise morality when it is 'out there', but when it directly affects you, it is quite easy to determine what is right and wrong. As the sexual directive of British society effects not only me but people I hold very close and care about, it is only right I voice my concern and try to persuade others of the dangers they may enter in to. The objectivity of morality is not a major issue here: it is whether my description of it is accurate, which I believe it is.

To conclude, the culture young British people grow up in is one which is directed towards sex and the erotic. This undermines those traditional and good institutions like marriage, love, families. In a previous article, I said I was in love with a girl. However, her hedonistic views, which destroyed her sense of responsibility and working hard at what she excelled at, blew away the enchantment of emotional affection I had been under. And she is not alone. Many share such sentiments among my contemporaries. I have not argued that as a response to this we abolish sex or anything like that: there is nothing wrong with the act by itself. However, the over emphasis on it, the fact it is the foundation of many people's aims and aspirations and its close boundary to transcendent relationships can make it a dangerous and harmful force. I believe it is right the government secure the rights of life, liberty and estate, entailing we should allow those who indulge in lustful pleasure trips to do so. Rather, because it harms the well being of the individual and community, destroys the concept of responsibility and damages our ability to perform our unique function, we should encourage people to reject the hedonistic, sensual seeking worldview our society promotes.

Do we have Souls?

In recent times, when the word soul is mentioned in an intellectual arena, the proponent is laughed out the room. The prevailing naturalism of pop philosophy, combined with the substance monism that pervades academics is a powerful combination which drives out any talk of a part of you which is immaterial and yet connected to a physical body. With religious overtones reminding us of a bygone age when Christianity ruled the waves, the soul is an unhelpful and potentially dangerous concept to those like Dawkins and Dennett, who believe everything is made of matter. If a strong argument could be brought forward to demonstrate that a soul, or something like a soul, exists, then it is clear that materialism, and thus, most forms of naturalism are false. In this article, I want to illustrate why I believe in the existence of the soul.

As there are many different formulations and variations of what the word soul means, I shall define it in the following way: the essential and immaterial part of a person. This is the view that Plato, most Christian theologians of the first millennium AD and Descartes, along with many others, have taken. Indeed, even the Aristotelian Aquinas held this, whilst emphasising that union with a body was the natural state of the soul. This definition is open to a wide variety of religions, and does not require a set of doctrines to be true, such as God's existence, for its own truth. By essential, I mean the part of a person which they need to exist in order for their own existence, and by immaterial something which is non-physical is substance or cause.

A few months ago, my friend Ben 'Headboy' Hampson and I went to see Professor Richard Swinburne of Oxford University give a lecture on an argument to demonstrate the truth of the idea that soul's exist (pictured below). The following extract is taken from the handout he provided, which outlines the argument.

Definitions:

Metaphysical necessity is the strongest kind of necessity, metaphysical impossibility is the strongest kind of impossibility, metaphysical possibility is the weakest kind of possibility. A sentence s is logically necessary (impossible) iff s is metaphysically necessary (impossible) and discoverable to be so a priori. s is logically possible iff it is not discoverable a priori to be metaphysically impossible. I shall understand these definitions as: s is logically necessary iff its negation (the sentence not-s) entails a contradiction, logically impossible iff it entails a contradiction, logically possible iff it does not entail a contradiction. It is often fairly obvious whether some sentence is logically possible, this can be shown by showing that the sentence is fairly obviously entailed by a fairly obviously logically possible sentence (or conjunction of sentences); and that involves showing this by plausible thought experiments.

A rigid designator is a word which designates the same thing (substance, property, or whatever), whatever properties that thing gains or loses, so long as that thing continues to exist. An informative (rigid) designator is a designator such that anyone who knows what the designator means (that is, has linguistic knowledge of how to use it) knows a set of conditions necessary and sufficient for a thing to be the designated thing. To know these conditions is to be able (when favourably positioned, faculties in working order, and not subject to illusion) to recognise where it applies and where it does not, and to be able to make simple inferences from its application.

I argue that:
s is metaphysically necessary (impossible, possible) iff s is logically necessary (impossible, possible) when informative designators are substituted for co-referring uninformative designators. Various thought experiments show it to be logically possible that I survive operations in which parts of my brain are transplanted, I lose much of my memory etc.- especially if we suppose that I have continuity of experience (overlapping conscious events) during crucial parts of the operations. 'I' or 'Richard Swinburne', as used by me, and 'I' or your proper name as used by you, are informative designators. So each of us can know that sentences asserting that they survive and sentences asserting that they do not survive such operations are metaphysically possible; and so that survival is metaphysically possible. Other thought experiments show that it is metaphysically possible that a person can continue to exist in a totally new body, or without any body at all. Hence the 'simpe theory' of personal identity: the continuing identity of a person over time is an ultimate brute fact, independent of any continuities of physical matter (e.g. brain) or properties (e.g. memory or character).

Given the Principle of the Identity of Composites (a substance of the same parts having the same properties (including past-related properties) arranged in the same way is (of logical necessity) the same substance as any other such substance), it can only be logically and so metaphysically possible both that I survive a certain operation and that I don't survive it, if I already have a non-physical part (my soul) which is necessary for my existence. Given that it is metaphysically possible that I become disembodied, that part is sufficient for my existence. The simple theory entails that each embodied human consists of two parts - body (non-essential) and soul (essential).

If you struggled to follow that, imagine sitting through an hour and a half of Swinburne talking! As it is abundantly clear some explanation is needed, the following part of the article will be dedicated to such a task.

It was Saul Kripke (pictured below), the American genius, who is to be credited with the idea of a rigid designator. It is a term to characterise an expression which has the same reference in every possible world in which it has reference at all. Names and natural-kind terms are rigid designators, whereas most definite descriptions are flaccid designators. Thus, whereas 'the inventor of bifocals' is non-rigid, designating Benjamin Franklin in the actual world and all other possible states of affairs is a term which can only be given to the person who is Benjamin Franklin. This is important for our concept of what the identity of an object or substance is: it is a set of properties which that object or substance has in any state of affairs it exists in. For example, to identify an object as God, it must be essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, otherwise you are not referring to God. So what we are asking here is what part of the human person is required for that person to be that person, and not some other designated thing.

Most people think that what defines the informative designator 'I' is a collection of material particles which form a body. This the position held by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling. But let us embark on a thought experiment. Imagine you go to bed, your body is the same, and you have a nice dream about meeting Mario and driving his kart. The next day you wake up, but instead of your body being human, you are now like Yoshi, with green skin, webbed toes and a tail. You see your old body lying on the floor. You panic, scream, and then realise Yoshi is so cool you don't mind looking like him. The point of this scenario is that if you and your body were identical (that is, what makes you is your composition of particles) then this scenario would be logically impossible, as you would not be able to inhabit another body. However, there seems nothing contradictory about this thought experiment: whilst it may be a bit silly, there is nothing inherently incoherent about you inhabiting another body. We see it in fiction all the time. This entails that your body is not identical with the properties which need to be in existence for you to exist. But that entails that what makes you you is non-physical.

But if it is not your body which is the set of properties which makes you you, what is? For Descartes, and  more recently Swinburne, this is what we call a soul: an immaterial substance which is independent of the body (for the body is not required for the rigid designator 'Nathan Hood' to apply to an object in a possible world). What this entails is a bare, immaterial essential nature, which is what is referred to when we say 'I' or 'Mr/s X'. Of course, a downside of this is that the descriptions of a soul religious people like to give i.e. fully functioning cognitive faculties etc. can not be evidence by this argument. The kind of soul which has a meaningful relationship with God post-death is not what is entailed by this argument. However, the fact that we are essentially immaterial is a large step forward for this conception of the soul, and gives a philosophical proof that monistic and naturalistic accounts of human identity are flawed, as thought experiments demonstrate. This is a conclusion which flies in the face of modern thought, and hopefully shall challenge you to think about what it means to be 'you' and whether you have a soul.

To summarise the argument put forward by Swinburne for the existence of the soul: it is possible my body is not required for my existence: if my body is not required for my existence, then it follows that what designates me is immaterial: the essential, immaterial part of me is my soul. This is a complex and hard argument to understand, which I appreciate. However, all I hope is that it challenges you to think harder about these issues and that you can see there is rationality and thus intellectual credibility in believing people have souls.

Women in the Church

Christianity has always been dominated by men. It was a man who started it, twelve men who spread it, men who have shaped it and men who are remembered for it. Women are a minority in the history of the Church. The great theologians, philosophers, thinkers, saints and clergy have largely been men, with feminists usually attacking the church for its masculine outlook on life. Whilst the Roman Catholic tradition still bars female participation in leading the church, Protestant denominations are now becoming more accepting of women in positions of authority and gravitas within the religious community. However, now that we allow a small number of women to contribute, do we pretend the problem has gone away of under representation? Does the Church still have a 'misodginistic' way of operating? Should this be changed? A friend asked me if I would take a look at this subject area, and so in this article I shall be asking are women given less opportunities than men in the Church and what should be done about it.

Being the product of ancient Judaism, a patriarchal society, Christianty inevitably contained male bias. In Israel in the early period the man was absolute ruler of the extended family; if a husband died, the widow was given to the nearest brother (Deuteronomy 25: 5-10). Women had no powers, could make no decisions, though they could sometimes engage in inspired trickery (Genesis 27 and 31). The subordination of women was maintained during the monarchical period; divorce was exclusively open to a husband, and a woman's adultery was, according to the law, a capital offence (Leviticus 20: 10). Women were not entitled to own property and were kept in state of impurity - e.g. during and after menstruation and after childbirth (the length of purdah was doubled if a baby was female). In practice, however, a measure of humanity possibly prevailed, and women were not excluded from worship ceremonies (Deuteronomy 16: 13-14). Women are to be honoured as parents equally with men (Exodus 20: 12). Women did hold positions of power: Jezebel the Queen (1 Kings 21: 7), the prophets Miriam, Deborah and the Wise Women (2 Samuel 20: 16-22). However, after the exile, more restrictions were placed on women. They could no longer participate with the men in worship, but were relegated to the outer court of the Second Temple. Their testimony was valid in law courts, and they could not teach the Torah. By the time of the New Testament, it is assumed women could divorce their husbands (Mark 10: 12) but many men still gave thanks to God they were not born a woman (Tosfta Berakot, 7: 18).

Women play a large part in Jesus' ministry and life. The birth of Christ gives Mary an important role in the scheme of salvation, and women are also prominent in the resurrection narratives: it is they who receive the first revelation that Jesus has been raised. Between the birth and resurrection there are notable healing miracles for women - the distressing case of menorrhagia (Mark 5: 24-34) and the Gentile Syro-Phoenician girl (Mark 7: 24-30). Women annoint Jesus (e.g. Luke 7: 36-50) and Mary and Martha along with their brother Lazarus are loved by Jesus (John 11: 5). Jesus' relationship with women is in accord with his teaching that the kingdom of God implies a new community of love which embraces all mankind (Luke 13: 10-17). People are welcomed by Jesus irrespective of race, status, or gender, and those who are called to leadership are chosen on the basis of God's gracious spirit not on accidents of birth.

Whilst the Church has been slow and reluctant to incorporate the true evaluation of women (Galatians 3: 28) into its institutions and rituals, in recent years it has progressed, with many denominations offering the opportunities for female clergy and bishoprics, giving them an equal platform to men. However, whilst the situation has improved and adopted Christ's teachings more fully, are women still under represented in Church services? As women will make up on average about half a congregation, should half the leadership be women? Would this be more faithful to Jesus views on gender?

Taking the Church of England as my prime example, the body of the community is about half men and half women. However, the leadership is predominantly male. There are no women bishops. The clergy at most services are male, and the team of volunteers who help organise groups and services are usually male. Women do get involved, but more often than not it will be a man giving the sermon, a man leading the music, a man conducting projects for the church. Whilst the oppurtunity is there, it seems like there is still a pervading attitude that leadership is for men, and background help is for women.

I do not claim to understand the causes for this state of affairs. The real question is, how do we, as people following Christ, respond? My own opinion is as follows: whilst there is not equal representation of women in the church as men, that is not an issue. Following Jesus is not a democracy; you don't vote on which commands you like, which sacraments to perform, which doctrines to uphold. Rather, it is about submitting yourself to the eternal love and truth. Now God endows each person with a particular set of skills and functions which, if they focus on Him, can flourish into a service for the Kingdom of God. This means not all people are destined for Church leadership. Some will be carpenters, fisherman, manufacturers etc. Others lawyers, doctors, scientists. Only a few will lead the Lord's flock. It does not matter what gender they are, nor race nor status. Rather, it is by God's choice alone. If God allocates such positions to more men than women, that is fine: what should be certain is that if a woman has been selected to lead, the opportunity should be open. All the Church can do is keep the door open, it is up to God to pick who goes through it.

In this respect, denominations such as the United Reformed Church, Church of Scotland and Methodists are already implementing true evaluation of women. I just hope that the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans and Orthodox traditions will follow suit. I hope Bishop Chartres is listening.

To summarise, women have been marginalised by Christianity, despite its founder and object of worship coming to save all and loves everyone equally. This stems from its patriarchal roots, which have somewhat mellowed over time in Protestant churches. The proportion of men to women in Church leadership is a red herring: whilst liberal thought makes us think we need equal representation, we should rather focus on providing the opportunity for those called by God to perform such duties, regardless of gender. If this can be done, Christ's kingdom will be extended greatly.