For too long have we decided to “stand on [religious] principle” and not give any consideration to the genuinely scientific facts. I am, of course, referring to the [ethical] issue of on-campus condoms. Yes, it is true that we, as the existing beings of the 21st century, have moved in a direction that is foreign to the previous generations. But this is not in anyway perverse. We live in a time where people [choose], more often than not, to no longer wait until “marriage” to have sexual intercourse. Many people see this as a problem. However, if we bring into consideration some ideas of the existentialist movement, we can prove that ethics have not dissipated; the ethics of our generation manifest themselves within the “individual”.
It is true that Seattle University was founded on the principles of the Jesuit tradition, but [it] is an institution that is meant to serve the students. If the students want to petition to have the University offer them free condoms on campus, then the University should be willing to comply.
One must not deny the facts of the current reality. Sexually transmitted diseases are widespread, and condoms are an important element in the reduction of these cases. The article published last week saw a highly immoral problem with this fact. Yes, we are all aware of the “preventative sexual education” theory, but that kind of ideology is not going to prevent anything at all. My philosophical response to the author’s moral claim is exactly this: one can stand on his or her own ethical principles while at the same time allowing for people to have something that your ethics may oppose.
As was mentioned previously, ethics manifest themselves within the individual. If I believe that people should wait for marriage before engaging in sexual activity, then I will adhere to that belief. In no way do I have the right to “push” my own ethical choice on any other person. I think that some people believe that if someone does not adhere to their own ethics, then their ethics are null and void. That is highly unjustified.
In the case of on-campus condoms, the Jesuit tradition can be maintained while providing for students the [option] to be safe in the pursuit of their own rational decisions. For example, the university offers numerous scientific and mathematical courses. These do not include the notion of God and the Jesuit tradition. Would that not also be considered a “degradation of moral principles”? I would think not, because Seattle University is committed to educating the human individual to make his or her own rational life choices.
In conclusion, I would simply say that a good solution to the problem would be for the University to act in accord with the following dictum: “Although [We] may not agree with your own ethical decision (to engage in pre-marital sexual activity), we will [passively] provide you with the means to be safe”.