Argument, Counter-Argument, and Counter Counter-Argument Against Sex Education (as contained in the RH bill)

Argument, counter-argument, and counter counter-argument against sex education (as contained in the RH bill)
by Mark Lian, Philosophy Teacher
. Reposting with permission.

ARGUMENT AGAINST SEX EDUCATION

“Informing young people about sex will lead them to try it.” (this is a common argument by those against sex education).

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

“Informing young people about stealing and its evil does not necessarily lead them to try it.” (this is not so common a reply to that argument, i got this from a thread).

COUNTER COUNTER-ARGUMENT

LONG ANSWER: The counter argument is using an argument by analogy. An argument by analogy is a legitimate way of arguing a case and is a very persuasive argument but it is also susceptible to facile reasoning that gives more value to the workings of the imagination than to thought. For this reason, one must be very careful in using such an argument and of evaluating such an argument in others.

The essential elements (form and substance) in an argument by analogy is that, first, the form of the two arguments (the original and the counter) should be the same while, second, the content must be substantially similar in aspects. With this in mind, let us examine the counter argument or argument by analogy presented above.

First, regarding the form: it goes like…”informing them about an act (here i am thinking of stealing in general and sex in general) leads them to trying it. Now, the form used by the counter-argument is the same with the original or the argument against sex education. This means that the counter-argument is a true argument by analogy, that is, it passes the requirement of proper form. The question now is whether it is a correct one, meaning whether it passes the second essential element in an argument by analogy, the requirement of proper substance.

Second, regarding proper substance. Is sex similar to stealing? In the sense that they are acts, yes. In the sense that they are bad, no. Stealing is BAD IN ITSELF while sex is NOT bad in itself but only when done in a disordered way as in extra-marital sex, premarital sex, homosexual sex, etc. In the sense, that they (stealing and sex) equally present a temptation to a child, no. Now we see that the two arguments are similar in their contents on one respect only, that is about ‘acts’. But this respect is not significant enough to prove the point of the counter-argument. Moreover, the last two respects of ‘bad’ and ‘equal temptation’ (this will be expounded in the next paragraph), which are the truly significant respects that the counter-argument needs are what are, in fact, missing in it. For this reason the counter-argument or the argument by analogy presented above fails.

Regarding the difference between sex and stealing in terms of badness. Since stealing is bad in itself, and when it is taught in class as something to be avoided, the tendency for the students is to avoid it considering that we have in ourselves the primordial command or ‘synderesis’ to ‘do good and avoid evil’ (which does not necessarily mean that all people always comply to this universal command.). But when we are speaking of sex, it becomes a different matter. Since sex is not bad in itself but only becomes bad when misused (as in premarital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual acts, etc.), teaching young people about it cannot include the injunction of avoiding it (as sex, simply speaking) in CATEGORICAL terms for doing so might mislead them into thinking that sex is bad (which is a wrong way to think about sex). But if this is the case, the tendency would be to avoid talking all together about the evil of misplaced and misused sex UNLESS the educator is prepared to explain to young people the meaning of the difference between ‘married love sex’ and ‘unmarried pleasure sex’. However, when the educator is able, supposedly able, to explain the meaning of the cited difference to his young students who are also supposedly able to understand it then sex education in schools (especially when they teach artificial contraception) would reveal its ugly head of decontextualizing and miscontextualizing sex, meaning sex outside of true spousal love– a decontextualization and miscontextualization that puts pleasure above commitment and morality. Now, considering what is said above, the most probable thing that would happen then is that sex education would encourage young people to experience sex rather than avoid it.

Regarding the difference between sex and stealing in terms of ‘equal temptation’. The difference lies on two points: first point follows from what is said earlier about the difference between sex and stealing in terms of badness. If stealing is bad in itself and is taught to be avoided because it is bad, then it would present a lesser temptation to young people; in fact, the opposite of temptation would happen since we have this ‘synderesis’ or the natural aversion for evil (stealing then is seen as evil and should be avoided) and the natural desire for what is good. Now since sex is not bad in itself, its teaching it to young people by the school is susceptible to various misrepresentations and misunderstandings. This means that because ‘objectivity’ is required in teaching a school subject the students would tend to consider sex as a neutral ground or something outside morality and from that stance of ‘neutrality’ or ‘objectivity’ the DOOR IS OPEN – I am not saying that the students will necessarily enter– to considering sex as a ‘must-have’ or at least as a ‘nice-to-have’. This also means that because teachers do have their own subjective opinions about sex, they will most probably be giving different and even opposing signals about the value and meaning of sex— I just pray that there are no ill-intentioned teachers in this regard). In the context then of confusion at least and misinterpretation at most, the students who were given sex education having no sure guide for their actions (they are not specifically taught that premarital sex is very wrong, very evil) regarding the matter would tend NOT to reject premarital, extra-marital, homosexual sex as disordered human acts or immoral behavior. Therefore, having premarital sex would be, according to the minds of these confused and misinformed students, excusable actions thereby increasing these acts’ tempting power.

The second point with regards to the difference between sex and stealing in terms of ‘equal temptation’ is that of the PRESENCE of a universal and natural human passion for procreation manifested in the sexual act (being rational creatures we ought to regulate these acts according to reason) and the ABSENCE of a universal and natural human passion for stealing. If and when stealing is taught in class as something to be avoided because it is bad, the students’ passion would not be aroused. But if you teach children in their relatively innocent state about sex, even though you will tell them to avoid it because they are still young, you have thereby unwittingly or wittingly aroused their passions and therefore increase the temptations to engage in it.

A correct and realistic conception of the nature and state of man, especially that of the children, can truly help in deciding whether sex education must be had in our schools. With the points i have given above, i think ‘sex education’ in our schools would only make the matter worse, it will just aggravate the problem (unwanted pregnancies) it is trying to solve.

SHORT ANSWER: Stealing is not a universal human passion, therefore it is improbable that a teaching about it and about its evil can arouse someone to try it; on the other hand, because sex is based on a universal human passion, therefore teaching young children about it (especially in the context of school education where most teachers have no time if not intention of ministering to the souls of individual students) puts them at risk of arousing their sexual passion too early or simply wrongly.

P.S.

Some people might replace ‘stealing’ with ‘eating’ in their counter-argument. Again, while eating is a universal human desire, it is not really passion in the sense that sexual passions are. In this significant difference the revised counter-argument would still fail.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Sex Education, The Moral Argument
6 comments on “Argument, Counter-Argument, and Counter Counter-Argument Against Sex Education (as contained in the RH bill)
  1. Gabby Dy-Liacco says:

    Argument against sex-education: “Informing young people about sex will lead them to try it.”

    Counter-argument: “Informing young people about stealing and its evil does not necessarily lead them to try it.”

    There is another reason why the counter-argument has nothing to do with the argument against the RH-style sex education.

    RH style sex-ed will not inform young people that having sex before marriage is immoral, unlike the counter-argument which will tell young people that stealing is immoral.

    Instead, RH style sex-ed will tell young people that sex is not only good, but that it is good to experiment with in many different ways outside of marriage.

  2. JJ says:

    counter-counter-counter argument:
    so by refraining from “teaching young children about (sex)…(putting) them at risk of arousing their sexual passion too early or simply wrongly,” we will thus ensure their ignorance in the said matter? sex is sex. whether they get the right or wrong information about its complete biological workings, adolescents will always know that they “feel” that “urge” to, to put in bluntly, put the phallus into the sheath. It’s part of human nature and a biological urge. if this were not true, we would not have this debate in the first place.

    It is always better to put out correct information so that the young will know what to do if and when they decide to do it. Not saying every teen who feels it will do it. Those who won’t, will most probably abstain because of personal principles instilled at home. Additional info will most likely not have any effect in changing this personal belief; inasmuch as those who are already predisposed to doing it will not change their mind regardless if they are exposed to sex education or not.

    Let’s not kid ourselves. Abstinence mostly starts at home. If and when a teen decides to do it, the best way to deal with it is to try to prevent unintended consequences due to a lack of proper knowledge.

    We have a moral obligation to implement working measures to alleviate growing problems. Withholding information does not, and will not, work.

  3. Truthsayer says:

    I respectfully disagree, JJ. Sex isn’t just sex. If it were as simple as that, you wouldn’t have sex offenders, sex perverts, sex addicts, etc., etc. Sex is about the whole person — mind, body, heart, and for those who believe, soul. Given that it’s a complex matter, should we really trust the government and DepEd to be the be all and end all of information on sex? Yes, it is a biological urge. It’s also a psychological one. It’s also a signal to the human person that he or she is ready to reproduce. Not all urges have to be followed right at the moment that it’s felt. Otherwise, the urge to murder or to steal would be just as excusable.

    What is correct information? Who decides? There is also the conflicting information that most sex ed programs present: you are a sexual being, you have sexual rights, there’s a right time to have sex (assuming the best, that they do say that), but here, you probably can’t control yourself anyway so here are the contraceptives you should use. Really?

    If you believe what you believe about the harmlessness of comprehensive sex ed you probably haven’t read the studies that point to the fact that the earlier and the more information, the bigger chances that early engagement in sex and unintended pregnancies result.

    No, let’s not kid ourselves. Abstinence does start at home. So why not work with parents and equip them and empower them, instead of taking that right away from them and putting that right squarely in the hands of government?

    If we’re talking about morals, let’s talk morals. It is our moral obligation to respect the rights of those who have the most at stake when it comes to the sexual education of our children: the FAMILY. I can assure you if people get sick from HIV or get pregnant — where’s the first recourse? The FAMILY.

    And who said anything about withholding information? Right place, right time, right age. And that decision should rest with the parents.

  4. justinnnnnnnnnnnnneeee says:

    that is why there is so many infections and unplanned pregnancy because of people like your self

  5. timothy2011 says:

    Justin, you are saying that “right place, right time, right age” = infections and unplanned pregnancy? Kindly explain your logic. I do not understand it.

  6. geekborj says:

    The challenge about sex is the nature of the act because it refers to the (second) highest expression of one’s love for another.

    However, I would like to argue that every act must be done in the proper natural forum. Example: We eat because we want (1) the pleasure of taste AND (2) the nourishment that food gives. However, there’s a point when #1 and #2 gets *very much* separated to the point that the case is called a disorder. Sexual act is like that we get both (1) pleasure and (2) perform our ‘duty’ to reproduce (“procreate”). This time however, the threshold of separation is so thin it becomes a line that #1 without #2 is always an abusive act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,962 other followers

%d bloggers like this: