Feasibility in moral theology

I am writing in response to an article by Rick Aaron, who argues that singleness, is "not practically feasible" and therefore "not morally obligatory", or, to paraphrase, "I can't do it, so I don't have to."

 

Let me begin by addressing the issue theologically. I do so, since the author expressly sets out to critique the “conservative Christian” stance. He argues that, since singleness, as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage, requires "supernatural help", it cannot be morally binding. Theologically, this is the Pelagian heresy, namely the notion that people are naturally able to fulfil the moral law without recourse to divine aid. Christianity teaches that all moral obligations require divine aid to be fulfilled. Granted, "supernatural help" can only be voluntarily embraced. However, for many I know voluntary singleness belongs in the same category as sacrificial love, patience, fidelity in relationships, truth-telling – i.e. something practised as they walk the narrow path of reliance upon divine grace.

 

Now, let me also address the argument from a moral philosophy point of view.

 

Firstly, the argument that singleness is not morally obligatory because it is “not practically feasible”, evidently opens itself to refutation, depending on the definition of “feasibility”. By implication, if singleness can be shown to be feasible, it follows that it could be a moral obligation. Singleness is certainly statistically feasible; in many modern societies over 50% of households are single-person households, not to mention single-parent families. It is unhelpful to suggest all these people are living “loveless” lives, for which a romantic relationship would be a panacea, and to dismiss other forms of relational engagement.

 

Secondly, “feasibility”, by any definition, is a flawed criterion for identifying right and wrong. We would not apply it in other cases. Someone might find social distancing unbearable or their own inner racist sentiments insuperable. Another person might feel drawn into inappropriate and damaging relationships or compelled to succumb to addictive behaviour. It might be argued that the good is not “feasible” in these cases. But it is not a requirement for the good to be "easy to do" or that "most people can do it". We only ever fulfil our moral responsibility partially and imperfectly; that does not change what is right or wrong.

 

I want to express my support for those of all circumstances and sexual orientations practising singleness as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage.