Soundings (Press, 3 April 1971)

In an article published on 3 April 1971, Denis McCauley discusses the emergence of a "New Morality" and its implications for legal restraint versus personal conscience in society, particularly in the context of Christian ethics. The article highlights the tension between two contrasting views: one advocating for more laws to regulate behaviour, represented by figures such as Patricia Bartlett, who argues that a breakdown of social self-discipline necessitates increased state intervention in private behaviours. Conversely, many—including numerous church leaders—argue that individuals should be permitted to make personal choices without legal interference, as not every private act can be effectively regulated by law. McCauley points out that the debates around issues such as abortion and homosexuality have been muddied by an overlap between moral, ethical, and medical perspectives. He notes that while those who view the foetus as a living being strictly oppose abortion on ethical grounds, this perspective does not resonate with everyone. Many argue for limits on abortion based solely on medical concerns rather than moral absolutes. He criticises both sides for their approaches to the abortion debate, suggesting ethical advocates should have focused on a clear moral stance rather than muddying the conversation with questionable medical claims. The discussion extends to the legality of homosexuality, where McCauley asserts that existing laws actually draw more attention to homosexuals than they would receive otherwise. He indicates that concerns about legalising homosexual acts often stem from a fear that it might encourage more individuals to engage in such behaviours, although he notes this concern has no empirical backing, particularly with regards to the lack of legal consequences for female homosexuals. McCauley also critiques Bartlett’s efforts against obscenity in media, suggesting that her moral arguments fail to align with the legal frameworks in place. He suggests a broader recognition that laws governing obscenity are not necessarily rooted in morality but are intended to protect public interest. He believes that Bartlett's stance would have been more fruitful had she framed her arguments in terms of the responsible distribution and visibility of objectionable material, rather than invoking moral outrage. He concludes by advocating for a clear separation between personal conscience and state control, arguing that society needs a coherent public policy regarding morals. This clarity is essential in navigating contemporary challenges such as abortion and homosexual law reform, paving the way for a future that respects individual conscience while addressing societal norms. The overarching message indicates a call for rational discourse that reconciles ethical considerations with modern legal frameworks, as society moves away from strict religious foundations guiding laws.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand