This week revolved primarily around the introduction of Ethical Theory and the process of proving or disproving an moral belief. We were introduced to moral dilemmas such as the Trolley Problem, and debated the nature of our theoretical actions. However, our brief discussion brought to the surface the fact that ethical natures weigh Ethics into three categories: Motive, Action, and Consequence. In order to continue our efforts in debating moral topics, let another one be introduced that is of greater importance to us
As college students, many of us will engage in some form of sexual activity within these four years. Thus, the question comes up: Is it ethical to freely distribute condoms among young adults in school as a means of preventing STIs? Upon reading this question, many of us will quickly form a very strong opinion. Either we will think it’s wrong to promote morally unacceptable casual sexual relationships, or we will think it’s our moral obligation to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a major problem to the health of sexually active young adults from the age of 16 to 25. As condoms are the only effective barrier against the disease, increasing the accessibility to condoms is high on our moral “to do” list. Condoms are already highly accessible to Rhodes students with an adequate amount of finances and self confidence. However, those who are tight on cash or lacking in self confidence might find them difficult to access. In 1991, New York City implemented a system-wide condom availability program (THE REGION: New York Goes First; High Schools Hand Out Condoms). Schools were instructed to not only teach a minimum amount of lessons on HIV, but also to set up a stagnant place where condoms were easily accessible. Surveys done before and after this program revealed little to no increase in sexual activity, but a higher level of condom use among those engaging in said activity. Therefore, the rate of HIV transmission was logically seen to decrease as well. These results seem to show that a low cost condom availability program in school increased condom use. Thus, logic alone determines that accessibility to condoms in public school is our moral responsibility. Not only are we protecting our fellow man, we are also indirectly protecting family and future generations.
However, another argument can be made. Savings lives is not the only moral responsibility of humanity. If that were true, out driving and drinking ages would be substantially higher, physical examinations would be forced on a yearly basis, and dietary rules would be strictly enforced. Furthermore, even if saving lives was our only responsibility, there is no reason to say that schools carry that responsibility over parents, and thus the possible implications. Students need to grasp that if they become sexually involved with someone with whom condoms must be used, this is because neither you nor they are fully aware of the exposure level you are subjecting yourself to. Therefore, you are sleeping with someone who is either staggeringly ignorant of the danger of STI’s, or is willing to kill you. Should sexual activity continue past this point of ignorance, then it is obvious that neither party has the decency to place life above ephemeral gratification. Sexual promiscuity is an insult to morality. It exposes oneself and others to STI’s and reveals an unfortunate failure of personal character. Thus it is our morale responsibility to cease the highly available nature of condoms in school systems such as Rhodes. Respect must be instilled in the students, which involves a higher level of pre-thinking than merely grabbing some rubber from the nurses station.
Both arguments contain logical patterns of thinking, though the results are on opposite sides of the debate. Therefore, let us increase our appetite for ethical debate, and discuss these issues. Do you agree with one side or the other? Do you find one to be highly fallible? Is there perhaps a better argument you can make?
Everyone can probably agree that staying disease free is good and keeping your fellow man disease free is also good. However, the motives and consequences to action and desired consequence could be seen as immoral or at least morally gray. The action of giving out condoms could be seen as bad because they’re tools for having safe sex which itself promotes immoral behavior as an added consequence, such as promiscuity. The motive of preventing disease could also be tainted by money. There are many variables to this argument that go unanswered.
ReplyDeleteFor example when are people too young to start receiving condoms? In my home state of Maine a middle school gave condoms to children as young as eleven, the story is in this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcolm-friedberg/sex-condoms-in-schools_b_69023.html. Now is that school being safe and morally responsible by giving the tools for safe sex to these children? Why not just use sex education to keep children safe instead of giving them the tools for which they can have safe sex? What ages is it morally responsible to give out condoms?
Could the reason the state of New York is handing out condoms, not only be done by reason of moral responsibility, but the economic principle of opportunity cost as well? The government could give out condoms, which are very cheap, to prevent mass spreading of STI’s or the government could face the higher cost of giving aid to those who have contracted STI’s which is a substantial amount of more money. Not only that, but keeping people disease free keeps them working. Even if the action of handing out condoms were morally responsible, would all of the motives as a whole be one hundred percent moral?
What about handing out condoms in prisons? They’re people too but people’s opinions on that would definitely vary. It would be promoting safe sex but also safe rape. In addition condoms could be used to smuggle contraband in prison. These subjects are briefly touched upon in this article about a San Francisco prison http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/apr/19/condoms-jails-controversial-intervention/ . This program is still being evaluated so it’s unknown whether or not it is reaping good results. However, would it be more morally responsible to possibly increase disease prevention or to possibly prevent an increase in crime in prison?
Finally, why is it the responsibility of the government or a school to hand out condoms when it is so easy to buy condoms? They are cheap and in nearly every supermarket, convenience store, gas station, and they’re even available in most bars and clubs. Why then does the government need to intervene? There are clear reasons why the government would intervene in driver safety by providing laws for that and enforcing them. Individuals could not conceivably handle that responsibility without the laws of the society. However, when does the moral responsibility of personal safeties go from the individual to the society that the individual is a part of?