When Theology Meets Modern Love: Letter 2 - On Ethics and Human Nature
Letter 2 of a series exploring conscious relationship design through the lens of faith and ethics
In my previous letter, we explored how Conscious Relationship Design (CRD) might strengthen rather than weaken our social fabric. Today's letter responds to deeper ethical challenges raised by my correspondent - particularly around individual freedom versus collective responsibility.
Their thoughtful critique raises vital questions:
Does prioritising personal fulfilment inherently diminish our capacity for empathy?
Can relationship structures that deviate from traditional models lead down a 'slippery slope' towards moral chaos?
What level of emotional and intellectual capacity is required for conscious relationship design, and are most humans equipped for it?
They express particular concern about BDSM practices and question whether the skills required for CRD might be beyond most people's capabilities. Their perspective brings crucial questions about empathy, human nature and the potential impact of individual choices on others to the forefront.
While keeping my correspondent's identity and words private, I'm sharing my response because it grapples with fundamental questions about relationship innovation versus traditional wisdom. My response examines historical parallels with social change, explores research on relationship structures, and considers how conscious choice might create stronger ethical frameworks than rigid rules.
Dear X,
Thank you for sharing your thoughtful reflections and for engaging so deeply with these ideas. I appreciate you taking the time to read more of my work, including the challenging piece on BDSM. And thank you for inviting me to call you [X] - I agree that titles can create unnecessary barriers to meaningful dialogue.
Let's explore your concerns one by one, considering how applying Conscious Relationship Design principles might address each one.
You raise the 'slippery slope' argument - that allowing some exceptions to relationship norms might lead to a cascade of less merit-worthy deviations. This prompts an important question: why shouldn't we question societal scripts, particularly when many aren't serving us well? When people consciously examine and design their relationships rather than defaulting to societal scripts, they typically create more ethical, not less ethical, arrangements. CRD requires deep consideration of impact on others, clear communication and ongoing consent. These principles actually create guardrails against harmful behaviours.
History shows us that 'slippery slope' arguments were used against many positive social changes, from interracial marriage to women's suffrage. The key question isn't whether we're deviating from norms, but whether our choices create more harm or more good. Current societal rules haven't prevented domestic violence, marital rape, child abuse or toxic relationships. In fact, rigid relationship structures sometimes trap people in these situations.
Regarding narcissism - this is a fascinating point. However, CRD actually works against narcissistic tendencies because it requires deep empathy, mutual consent and co-creation. I invite you to explore my recent article on the Empathy Canvas, which outlines specific tools for developing deeper understanding and connection. The CRD manifesto and 'How CRD Works' also detail how empathy is central to this approach. Traditional structures can enable narcissistic behaviour by making it harder for partners to leave, while CRD's emphasis on ongoing consent means people have more freedom to exit unhealthy situations.
Your concern about my 20-year marriage contract reflects your […] care for others' emotional well-being. The reality is that many marriages break down before reaching 20 years, often with bitter endings and damaged relationships. Our conscious choice of a finite commitment created a firm container that actually encouraged us to work through challenges that might have ended other marriages prematurely. As I discuss in 'Reimagining Bonds', I grappled deeply with the moral implications of this decision. While this transition has indeed been a pivot point for both of us, we've emerged as friends and ardent supporters of each other - something I'll be exploring in my upcoming TEDx talk on 16 November.
Regarding BDSM, I must respectfully challenge your assertion about "maladjusted personalities" and would be interested in your sources for this conclusion. Research consistently shows that BDSM practitioners often have better communication skills, clearer boundaries and higher emotional intelligence than the general population. Studies by Wismeijer and van Assen (2013) found lower levels of neuroticism and higher levels of well-being among BDSM practitioners.
Your observation about the high level of skills required for CRD is astute. But isn't this equally true for traditional relationships? The high rates of divorce, infidelity and relationship dissatisfaction suggest our current models aren't working well either. Rather than waiting until humanity "evolves" enough, why not start developing these skills now?
Consider the priesthood you've experienced - whether Catholic and celibate or Protestant and married, these traditional structures haven't prevented human struggles and failures. What if we applied CRD principles instead? Rather than imposing rules from above, we could encourage conscious choice, ethical frameworks and ongoing examination of how well our relationships serve both individual growth and community good.
I share your concern for empathy and the impact of our choices on others. In fact, this is central to CRD. The Empathy Canvas and other tools I've developed specifically address how to consider and honour everyone's needs within a relationship. The difference is that CRD approaches this consciously rather than assuming traditional structures automatically protect others' interests.
It occurs to me that people fear systems where each choice must be weighed on its own merits. There's comfort in having clear rules handed down by society or religion. But those rules haven't prevented relationship trauma and dysfunction - they've sometimes enabled it by making questioning taboo. Progress in human relationships, as in other areas, comes from careful examination and conscious choice rather than blind adherence to tradition.
I value this dialogue and the opportunity to explore these important questions together. Your [theological] experience brings valuable insight into human relationships, and I believe combining that wisdom with conscious design principles could help create healthier, more fulfilling connections for many people.
Looking forward to continuing this exploration,
Julie
What do you think?
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility touches all our relationships. When we try to grow and evolve, how do we balance personal fulfilment with care for others? Are some relationship structures truly beyond most people's capabilities, or do we underestimate human potential for growth and conscious connection?
I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on whether questioning traditional relationship structures necessarily leads to ethical slippage. Have you encountered situations where breaking from convention actually created stronger, more ethical bonds?
Share your reflections in the comments below. Even - perhaps especially - if you disagree with some of these ideas, your perspective enriches this ongoing exploration of how we might design more conscious, fulfilling relationships while maintaining strong ethical foundations.
Feel free to share this article if you enjoyed it. Comment or reach out if you’d like to share your thoughts. I’d love to hear from you.
Curious about what comes next? Read Letter 3 here:
