The basic framework of Christian ethics never changes, since it is based on God’s unchanging will concerning how his human creatures should live. However, the range of issues that Christian ethics needs to consider at any moment in time varies in accordance with the development of human society and the development of technology. Two good examples of this truth are the issues of abortion and contraception.
In the case of abortion Christian ethics today has to address the fact that around the world the percentage of babies being aborted has grown exponentially to the extent that abortion is now by some way the most common cause of death among human beings. If we ask what has brought about this state of affairs, two of the key factors are developments in medical technology.
The first development is the fact that whereas in the past abortion was a procedure that could very well result in the death of the mother this is no longer the case. In the developed world at least, whatever other harmful results an abortion may have it is not likely to kill the mother. The second development is the ability of ultrasound scans to accurately determine the sex of a baby before it is born. In many parts of the world this fact has led to a huge growth in sex-selective abortion in which girls are aborted while boys are allowed to live.
In the case of contraception, the development of relatively reliable forms of contraception has broken the link between sexual activity and having children, with the result that increasing numbers of people link sex primarily with pleasure (sex as a form of recreation) rather than with being married and starting a family.
In both these cases Christians have been forced to consider how the changes just described relate to the Christian view of God’s will for human behaviour. Is it ever right (and, if so, in what circumstances) to end the life of a human being prior to birth? Is it ever right (and again in what circumstances) to use artificial forms of contraception to prevent sex leading to pregnancy?
A further instance of the way in which Christian ethics has to respond to technological change is the need for Christians to think about the ethical issues raised by the development of sex robots - similar to a sex doll but more advanced.
As Joe Carter explains in his 2018 article "The FAQS: Christians and the Moral Threat of Sex Robots": ‘Although sex dolls have been available in the United States since at least the late 1960s, advances in technology have led to the creation of gynoids that can move, express emotions, and even carry on simple conversations. Artificial intelligence (AI) and advances in material sciences may soon make gynoids even more life-like and affordable, increasing both the supply and also the demand for gynoids.’
As the name ‘sex robot’ implies, the purpose of the existence of such robots is to enable human beings to engage in sexual activity only with a robot rather than with another human being. Sex robots are available for purchase and there are also sex robot brothels where the services of a sex robot can be hired for a period of time.
There is a vigorous ethical debate about sex robots in the secular world. On the one hand there are those such as the American writer David Levy, the author of the book Love and Sex with Robots who view the development of sex robots positively. In a 2014 article with Newsweek, Levy declared, ‘I believe that loving sex robots will be a great boon to society ... There are millions of people out there who, for one reason or another, cannot establish good relationships.’
On the other hand, there are those such as the British feminist academic Kathleen Richardson, author of the recent book Sex Robots: The End of Love, who argue that the use of sex robots (which are predominantly made to look like women and used by men) is dehumanising and contributes to a culture in which women are viewed by men as property rather than human beings with freedom of will that needs to be respected.
So far, however, the debate about the ethics of the use of sex robots has been rather limited within the Christian Church. Discussions of contraception and same-sex relationships have had centre stage in Christian ethical discussion in recent years, but discussion about sex robots has been a niche activity.
It is arguable, however, that this needs to change. As Carter wrote in his article on sex robots back in 2018:
‘… sex robots may seem to be a futuristic concern. But attitudes about sex robots are already becoming extremely permissive. A recent survey found that one in four men (24 percent) and one in ten women (9 percent) would consider having sex with a robot. Only about a third (32 percent) believe having sex with a robot while in a relationship should be considered cheating. And almost half of Americans (49 percent) also believe that having sex with robots will become common practice sometime within the next 50 years.
‘While we might wish to remain ignorant about trends such as sex robots and virtual reality-based pornography, we need to begin preparing today to respond to the challenges they will cause for our families and church congregations.’
So how should Christians view the development of sex robots? From a Christian perspective there are two basic problems with the idea of people seeking to have sexual relationships with robots.
The first problem is that such activity detaches sex from a marital relationship with a human being. In her book Alone Together, Sherry Tuckle records an encounter with a young student called Anne at a conference on the development of anthropomorphic robots during which Anne confided that she would be prepared to trade in her boyfriend “for a sophisticated Japanese robot” if the robot “would produce what she called ‘caring behavior.’”
Tuckle writes, “She told me that she relied on a ‘feeling of civility in the house.’ She did not want to be alone. She said ‘if the robot could provide that environment, I would be happy to help produce the illusion that there is somebody really with me.’ She was looking for a ‘no-risk relationship’ that would stave off loneliness. A responsive robot, even one just exhibiting scripted behavior, seemed to her better than a demanding boyfriend. I asked her, gently, if she was joking. She told me she was not.”
What Anne wanted is the upside of a relationship with another human being in terms of companionship, without the downside of having to relate to someone who would make demands of her. What she wants is a benefit to herself without having to pay the cost of giving of herself to someone else. To use traditional Christian terminology, what Anna wanted was a relationship focused on love of self and not having any need for love of neighbour.
A relationship with a sex robot raises exactly the same problem. Someone in such a relationship would choose to have the upside of a sexual relationship with another human being in terms of sexual stimulation without the downside of having to engage with the sexual or emotional needs of another person.
Such an unwillingness to relate to another human being and their needs would involve a rejection of God’s call to love of neighbour and in addition there would also be a failure to love God.
This is because it would be a rejection of God’s decision recorded in Genesis and 1 and 2 that the proper sexual companion for another human being is another human being of the opposite sex, and that the proper context for sex is a marital relationship. To love God involves loving what God in his wisdom and goodness has laid down, and this is what someone who decides to get their sexual pleasure from a robot would show themselves unwilling to do, in exactly the same way as someone who seeks to obtain sexual pleasure from AI generated pornography online.
It might be argued that it is possible to imagine someone entering into a relationship with a sex robot because they would really like to be married and have sex with a real-life spouse, but despair of this ever being a possibility. They would choose a relationship with a sex robot as second best, but as something better than a life of loneliness and sexual abstinence.
In this latter case there would not be a total rejection of God’s decision that the proper place for sex is within marriage but there would be a failure to love God’s decision enough to give it priority over their desire for companionship and sexual activity. There would also be a failure to trust that if God wants them to be married then he will arrange this; that if he does not he can provide an answer to loneliness through relationships of intimate friendship among God’s people; and that whatever forms of self-denial living God’s way may involve in this life will be more than made up for by the eternal joy of complete union with God in the world to come (the reality of which sexual activity in this world is only a foretaste).
The second problem with sexual activity with a sex robot is that it is sex in a relationship that is necessarily infertile. God has designed human beings in such a way that the same activity that is meant to unite people emotionally in a way that anticipates the eternal union of human beings with God, is also the activity that has the potential to fulfil God’s command to his human creatures to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28). As in the case of sexual activity with someone of the same sex, sexual activity involving a robot can never be the means of fulfilling this command. It has no procreative potential. It thus sunders two things which by God’s design are meant to go together - sexual activity and the possibility of having children.
It might be objected to at this point that this second argument against the use of sex robots also rules out any form of sexual activity that is not open to procreation and thus rules out not only artificial methods of contraception but also the methods of natural family planning supported by the Roman Catholic Church. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the point made by Oliver O’Donovan in Begotten or Made? that ‘the sexual life of a married couple ought to be viewed as a whole, not in terms of its distinct acts of intercourse.’ Marital relationships should have procreative potential and openness to having children, but not every sexual act within marriage needs to have procreation in view. The problem with the use of a sex robot is that it can never have procreation in view.
In summary, there is an old saying that goes ‘Don’t knock masturbation. It is sex with the person you truly love.’ That, from a Christian perspective, is exactly what is wrong with masturbation. It is exclusively about self-love. That is also the problem with sex robots. Like online porn, sex with a sex robot is sex detached from love of neighbour and love of God.
