One would have to adduce either a religious or a philosophic basis for considering unwanted sexual arousal as being an intrinsic impurity, and constituting a vivid harm. The religious basis having been disavowed, we have to examine it as a philosophical proposition. Now, that puts us on a natural law basis, with respect of allegations of impropriety, since there is no standard higher than nature. In other words, even if the ability to be aroused in inappropriate situations constitutes a weakness, it is a weakness that we are not able to transcend, but must live with as part of our nature. Therefore, by itself, it cannot be considered an evil that we are blameworthy for being subject to, in itself. On the other hand, normal moral formation should instill sufficient discipline not to act on such impulses, when it is wrong or inconvenient to do so. Certainly, few people are so attractive that we could make a reasonable claim to have no self- control, or expect them to invoke such a claim. Furthermore, there are checks that may be employed, such as having a clinical environment with a receptionist on the other side of the door. Thus, there is no reason on a naturalistic basis to have scruples about the occasional matter of unwanted arousal, or to feel in inordinate danger of something developing as a result.
The thing is that one must discriminate between a strong sentiment about something, and a position of conscience. We cannot exempt people from things just because they disagree. There is a level of persuasiveness that must be achieved that the position is derived from the formation of conscience, either by a religious tradition or by a coherent philosophical worldview......... |
