An argument for the illegality of condoms

[AngryAtheist8]

Dude, it’s a link to a defense I WROTE.

What, do you want me to copy it for you???

Not necessary.
I did not read the post carefully enough the first time, and did not realize you were finally presenting some of your own work. But now that I have read it, its clear that your argument is full of un-proven assumptions. Now you have to make these assumptions to be a good Catholic, but for those (such as me) who have no reason to accept these large assumptions, the argument is fatally flawed.

For the reader’s benefit I have posted sw85’s argument below and highlighted the biggest un-proven assumptions:

Understand it this way:

God exists; you are a created being.
You are a being who exists in a particular way, i.e., according to a particular mode of being. So you are not simply some kind of vague entity but a human person. Given that you sign your post “Marie” I am guessing you are a female person, which entails an even more particularized mode of being.

This mode of being is nonnegotiable – you are simply stuck being a person.

Now, goods arise out of a thing’s mode of being. Knives exist to cut things, so a good knife is one that cuts well (i.e., that is sharp) and a bad knife is one that cuts poorly. To be good is to be according to your mode of being.

So to be a good human is to be according to the human mode of being.

Now the human mode of being lends itself naturally to consciousness, reason, and will – so goodness for a human being involves CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSING to live as a human being ought to.

(This is the very reductive principle on which natural law is based).
**
Part of your nature as a human being is that you are created, as I said earlier: you were created by God, and are dependent on Him for your continued existence. This means you owe Him a debt of gratitude.**

It does not matter whether or not God even wants your gratitude: the facts of the situation simply demand it. Your nature itself demands it. Because of this, it is GOOD that you render Him the gratitude which He is due.

Now, I said a moment ago that the goodness of a thing is existence in accordance with its mode of being. So what does that mean goodness in general is? Goodness must be simply being – the standard by which all good is measured is being, pure being, pure actuality.

But God IS pure being, pure actuality. Hence God IS goodness. (See the first two of the Five Ways for the reason why).

And because God is goodness, He wants what is good for you – and that means He wants you to worship Him: because it is good for you to do it.

Follow?

---

I said a moment ago that God is goodness. (Actually, God simply is whatever property he can be said to possess, because, being pure actuality, there is nothing about Him which He cannot literally be said to be – so God is not merely loving, for instance, he is love itself; not merely just but justice itself; and so on).

**So whatever God commands is always good.

This does not mean that a thing is good merely because God commands it – God Himself has a nature, too. He cannot create anything such that He is not its creator, for instance. Therefore everything volitional He creates has a duty to worship Him. Therefore He can never command anything NOT to worship Him.**
It simply means that whatever God tells you to do must be good, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, since He cannot command evil.

So whatever God tells you to do, do it.

The problem you are running into is imaging that God is Himself a moral agent. He isn’t. God is not subject to moral law: He is moral law.

Consider an example: God, being our creator and the being who sustains us in existence, is within his rights to kill us at any time (since He is under no obligation to keep us alive). It is right and proper for Him to do so.

If He tells you to kill someone else, He is simply delegating this authority to you. And you must therefore act on it.

You may not kill on your own: such would be contrary to your nature. But you may kill whomever He commands you to kill, because He is the author of your nature and may grant exceptions from it.

If you imagine that God is somehow subordinate to human nature, such that what is bad for you is necessarily bad for Him, then you are improperly elevating human nature above the divine nature and failing to respond to God with the deference due Him. This is a bad thing.

Hope this helps.

P.S. As sw85 illustrates so well, Catholic Natural Law is not based on the obvious facts, but rather a great many theological assumptions. Now Catholics are free to accept these assumptions (in fact the Church commands them to accept most of them) but outsiders are free to question them, of course when you do, the whole theory of Natural Law falls apart.

I would also like to thank sw85 for admitting that his theology can justify anything (including murder) as long as you say God commanded it.

 

[Debora123]

Oh no, not another “outlaw condoms” thread…

If we’re seriously going to fight to throw people in jail for using a condom, we might as well fight against religious freedom in general because that’s right down the road!!

Next thing we know, we’ll be getting threads about making masturbation, missing Sunday Mass, oral sex to climax, and wearing bikinis, all “criminal offenses” as well. God help us all, theocracy is alive and well on CAF!

 

[Nate13]

Oh no, not another “outlaw condoms” thread…

If we’re seriously going to fight to throw people in jail for using a condom, we might as well fight against religious freedom in general because that’s right down the road!!

Next thing we know, we’ll be getting threads about making masturbation, missing Sunday Mass, oral sex to climax, and wearing bikinis, all “criminal offenses” as well. God help us all, theocracy is alive and well on CAF!

This would be great except no one is pushing for anyone to be thrown in jail for using a condom unless they do so in public, in which case what they were doing would already by illegal, condom or not.

If you had read the arguments in this thread you would realize that none of them have anything to do with “God says condoms are bad so lets make them illegal”. My point was merely that if a country can ban guns in the name of protecting society and limit people’s personal freedoms in that way, it seems to me that same country could easily ban condoms by the same reasoning. Looking at the Pope’s predictions for how condoms would affect society and how right he has been on every point, it seems apparent that they have probably done more harm than guns ever have. If we can outlaw guns and takeaway people’s personal freedom there in the name of protecting society, why not condoms as well?

 

[Debora123]

This would be great except no one is pushing for anyone to be thrown in jail for using a condom unless they do so in public, in which case what they were doing would already by illegal, condom or not.

If you had read the arguments in this thread you would realize that none of them have anything to do with “God says condoms are bad so lets make them illegal”. My point was merely that if a country can ban guns in the name of protecting society and limit people’s personal freedoms in that way in the name of protecting society, it seems to me that same country could easily ban condoms by the same reasoning. Looking at the Pope’s predictions for how condoms would affect society and how right he has been on every point, it seems apparent that they have probably done more harm than guns ever have.

Quite frankly you are not making much sense at all, and I still haven’t figured out your position on this since the very beginning of this thread… as it seems quite flippant.

I think you’re trying to say that you think condoms should be illegal, without actually coming out and saying that condoms should be illegal lol (maybe because your better judgement realizes how silly it would be to actually say that?). And that’s not working out too well.

This last post of yours follows pretty much the same pattern of “flippant,” given you started off saying all you meant is that people should not wear condoms “in public” (which is silly to say, because it’s already illegal for people to be naked or have sex in public anyway ) …And then you concluded with kinda comparing condoms to killing machines (guns) and then said something about the pope saying condoms have effected society, and finally making the bold claim that condoms have hurt people more than guns have. Thus giving the impression that you DO think they should be criminally offensive. So I really can’t say I know for sure where you stand.

Sorry, but I guess I can’t really make an intelligent conversation out of that.

Nonetheless, whatever your position may be, I stand my ground about religious freedom and theocracy. Sorry if you disagree.

 

[Nate13]

P.S. As sw85 illustrates so well, Catholic Natural Law is not based on the obvious facts, but rather a great many theological assumptions. Now Catholics are free to accept these assumptions (in fact the Church commands them to accept most of them) but outsiders are free to question them, of course when you do, the whole theory of Natural Law falls apart.

I would also like to thank sw85 for admitting that his theology can justify anything (including murder) as long as you say God commanded it.

Haha do you just enjoy pissing people off? You remind me of my little brother in this regard in that I highly doubt whether you truly care if the Truth is found in your arguments. Through posts dripping with sarcasm and contempt for your opponent, you attempt to invoke your opponent to lose control of his emotions. These kinds of tactics are praised in a presidential debate where what is occurring has more to do with making your opponent look bad than finding the Truth, but I find it somewhat childish and in bad faith that you resolve to use them here.

Sw85 has definitely let his emotions get the better of him at this point and I hope his future posts realize that you aren’t worth it.

Angry Atheist8 do you have a problem with the concept of unalienable rights (natural rights) as well as natural law?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This would be great except no one is pushing for anyone to be thrown in jail for using a condom unless they do so in public, in which case what they were doing would already by illegal, condom or not.

If you had read the arguments in this thread you would realize that none of them have anything to do with “God says condoms are bad so lets make them illegal”. My point was merely that if a country can ban guns in the name of protecting society and limit people’s personal freedoms in that way, it seems to me that same country could easily ban condoms by the same reasoning. Looking at the Pope’s predictions for how condoms would affect society and how right he has been on every point, it seems apparent that they have probably done more harm than guns ever have. If we can outlaw guns and takeaway people’s personal freedom there in the name of protecting society, why not condoms as well?

Wrong.

All the posts in this thread have something to do with that.
Here’s the OP below:

Dec 30, '11, 1:09 pm
preferanonymous
Trial Membership Join Date: December 27, 2011
Posts: 48
Religion: Roman Catholic

An argument for the illegality of condoms

---

The following attempts to be an argument for the illegality of condoms. It seems to me that if the truth of any of its premises relies upon the truth of a notion that cannot be rationally justified, the argument should be rejected. If the premises do not so rely, and are true, then the argument, if valid, should be accepted. In this case, people who argue for the legality of condoms should, it may seem, consider their arguments irrational. That making condoms illegal might be impractical strikes me as an irrelevant reply: concerning matters of natural law, charges of impractically have nothing to do with the law should or shouldn’t be. The pervasiveness of slavery never made it true that slavery should be legal. Even if the impractically argument was considered relevant it would be baseless—how could one ever be so sure? Had someone told people living in Connecticut in 1960 that condoms should be made available for widespread use by 1980, surely this would be considered impractical as well. The argument is as follows:

P1: Intentional acts embodying a contra-life will are intrinsically immoral (contrary to natural law).
P2: The use of contraceptives embodies a contra-life will.
C1: Therefore, the use of contraceptives, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P3: Condoms are contraceptives.
C2: Therefore, the use of condoms, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P4: State resources should not in any way support products whose usage, as intentional acts, is intrinsically immoral.
P5: If a state makes the usage of a product legal, it supports the product with state resources.
C3: Therefore, the state should make illegal any product whose usage, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
C4: Therefore, the state should make condoms illegal.

P.S. Note how Part 1 is about Catholic morality and Natural Law.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Haha do you just enjoy pissing people off? You remind me of my little brother in this regard in that I highly doubt whether you truly care if the Truth is found in your arguments. Through posts dripping with sarcasm and contempt for your opponent, you attempt to invoke your opponent to lose control of his emotions. These kinds of tactics are praised in a presidential debate where what is occurring has more to do with making your opponent look bad than finding the Truth, but I find it somewhat childish and in bad faith that you resolve to use them here.

Sw85 has definitely let his emotions get the better of him at this point and I hope his future posts realize that you aren’t worth it.

Angry Atheist8 do you have a problem with the concept of unalienable rights (natural rights) as well as natural law?

Sometimes:shrug:

When I was younger I got uncomfortable, afraid, or simply angry in return when others got upset with me for pointing out their BS (lies, mistakes, etc.) which are the normal human reactions. But now I am mature enough (or perhaps just jaded enough) to merely be amused in most such situations.

As for sw85 and his conduct, he was the one to start throwing around personal insults (in this thread) at anyone who disagreed with him (so it wasn’t just me).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Haha do you just enjoy pissing people off? You remind me of my little brother in this regard in that I highly doubt whether you truly care if the Truth is found in your arguments. Through posts dripping with sarcasm and contempt for your opponent, you attempt to invoke your opponent to lose control of his emotions. These kinds of tactics are praised in a presidential debate where what is occurring has more to do with making your opponent look bad than finding the Truth, but I find it somewhat childish and in bad faith that you resolve to use them here.

Sw85 has definitely let his emotions get the better of him at this point and I hope his future posts realize that you aren’t worth it.

Angry Atheist8 do you have a problem with the concept of unalienable rights (natural rights) as well as natural law?

No.

Am I correct in assuming that you’re going to try to argue that Unalienable Rights (such as those mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution) is the same as Catholic Natural Law?

 

[Nate13]

No.

Am I correct in assuming that you’re going to try to argue that Unalienable Rights (such as those mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution) is the same as Catholic Natural Law?

Yes my argument is that natural laws are self-evident in the same way natural rights are.

I hope you don’t mind but from my participation in another thread I offer you these explanations from “rom422” as a starting point:

Scientists do not regard natural laws as conclusions, but as principles. To be precise, the laws of nature are regarded as axiomatic principles. They are regarded as granted, given, and presumed accepted by all, as result of direct measurement or observation. Therefore, they are simply accepted as true without proof. Newton’s laws of motion, for example, are the principles of his science of mechanics. From these laws he deduced the various equations of motion that help to describe and predict the behavior of bodies in motion.

I would say that the existence of natural rights in human beings is a moral law or principle similar to natural laws in the sense that it is accepted as given, or granted as true, without proof. Unlike natural laws, however, it is not derived from observation or statistical inference. Its basis is human conscience. It belongs to the realm of conscience or moral order, not the physical order. It would be classified as one of the axioms of ethics or moral philosophy.

Now, just as the scientist does not need to find a Lawgiver who is the Author of natural laws to construct his science of nature, so a moral philosopher (who does not want to borrow data from divine revelation) can simply take moral laws as axioms, and he could then construct a code of conduct or moral philosophy without reference to God. Obviously, a purely natural science of nature (which references nothing to God), will not be complete or will not be intellectually satisfactory in the sense that, to the extent that it falls short of the First Cause, then it falls short of explanatory power. Likewise, a purely natural ethics (which establish moral laws without God) will not be complete or thoroughly compelling because, short of Divine sanctions, those moral laws would be easier to reject or deny.

Still, this does not mean that a purely natural ethics is useless. Nor does this mean that what we call moral laws or principles are completely devoid of sanction. No, because it would be difficult for anyone to deny a valid moral principle without going against his conscience and without getting himself involved in insuperable difficulties. For example, he who denies that people have natural rights would have to accept that he himself has no natural rights. And if he modifies his principle and say that only some people have moral rights, then he would need to justify why he has rights and others don’t have them. So, you see, this is why a moral law or principle - such as “All human beings have a right to life” - can be accepted as true without proof, and serve as the basis of our legislations and moral reasoning.

Why are you able to accept the existence of natural rights, but not natural law? Natural law does not preclude accepting the existence of God. However acknowledging the existence of God does make natural law more meaningful and harder for man to refute. Accepting the idea that we have been designed by God in his own image and likeness also attributes more reason as to why not breaking natural law is important.

 

[Mudgely]

This can be simplified radically by saying: civil law is always subordinate to natural law; natural law forbids the use of contraception; therefore, civil law must forbid the use of contraception.

There is literally no argument against this that doesn’t rely on misconception, error, falsehood, or an undue (and frankly sinful) elevation of the state above natural law.

The difficulty with this approach is that “natural law” is a man made construct. That should be evident. If not, then there is not much to discuss as it becomes irreconcilable.

 

[Nate13]

The difficulty with this approach is that “natural law” is a man made construct. That should be evident. If not, then there is not much to discuss as it becomes irreconcilable.

No, natural law is either the construct of an orderly Universe and is just self-evident, or it is the construct of a God who has made us in his own image and likeness and is also self-evident. Whether natural law exists or not is not the question. The question is whether and how important it is to uphold it or not.

Eugenics is a prime example of what you get when you decide that natural law is irrelevant.

 

[sw85]

P.S. As sw85 illustrates so well, Catholic Natural Law is not based on the obvious facts, but rather a great many theological assumptions.

None of which you identify.

Now Catholics are free to accept these assumptions (in fact the Church commands them to accept most of them) but outsiders are free to question them, of course when you do, the whole theory of Natural Law falls apart.

The mere act of questioning them causes it all to fall apart?

Is that what passes for rhetoric at the Big Name State U of Lefty Outrage?

I would also like to thank sw85 for admitting that his theology can justify anything (including murder) as long as you say God commanded it.

No. As long as God ACTUALLY commanded it.

Sheesh.

If we’re seriously going to fight to throw people in jail for using a condom

Which no one’s endorsing, mind you.

we might as well fight against religious freedom in general because that’s right down the road!!

I’d be OK with that. There’s no right to falsehood or error. The proper response to false religious practice is toleration, not “freedom” – i.e., formal religious establishment.

Next thing we know, we’ll be getting threads about making masturbation, missing Sunday Mass, oral sex to climax, and wearing bikinis, all “criminal offenses” as well. God help us all, theocracy is alive and well on CAF!

Theocracy? Who here is endorsing that? Do you even know what that word means? Can you even articulate why you find it objectionable? – or is it merely because you yourself are in open rebellion against like 90% of the Church’s teachings and have no problem scandalizing others and inducing them to similar rebellion?

Nonetheless, whatever your position may be, I stand my ground about religious freedom and theocracy. Sorry if you disagree.

That is indeed unfortunate, since you don’t seem to know what that word means.

Sw85 has definitely let his emotions get the better of him at this point and I hope his future posts realize that you aren’t worth it.

Hey now, I’m forceful, but my passions are well under control. But thanks for your concern.

As for sw85 and his conduct, he was the one to start throwing around personal insults (in this thread) at anyone who disagreed with him (so it wasn’t just me).

You asked what I would say if you said you were unconvinced by natural law. I said I would say you are ignorant of it. Given that nearly everyone who opposes natural law, in my experience, does so out of ignorance and misapprehension (the remainder, a tiny minority, were simply evil bastards), that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach.

There’s nothing insulting about saying someone is ignorant. I’m ignorant about many things, such as astrophysics, the nitty-gritty of the stock market, hierarchical linear modeling, and the history of the Seleucid Empire. These are deficiencies on my part, to be sure, but I could not be insulted if someone pointed out that I was ignorant about them. They’d simply be stating a fact – and truth cannot offend.

Am I correct in assuming that you’re going to try to argue that Unalienable Rights (such as those mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution) is the same as Catholic Natural Law?

I would hope not; in terms of history of philosophy they are quite distinct. (The Lockean conception of “natural rights” being radically deficient, like every child of nominalist philosophy).

The difficulty with this approach is that “natural law” is a man made construct. That should be evident. If not, then there is not much to discuss as it becomes irreconcilable.

That is an assertion, not an argument.

 

[Nate13]

Wrong.

All the posts in this thread have something to do with that.
Here’s the OP below:

Dec 30, '11, 1:09 pm
preferanonymous
Trial Membership Join Date: December 27, 2011
Posts: 48
Religion: Roman Catholic

An argument for the illegality of condoms

---

The following attempts to be an argument for the illegality of condoms. It seems to me that if the truth of any of its premises relies upon the truth of a notion that cannot be rationally justified, the argument should be rejected. If the premises do not so rely, and are true, then the argument, if valid, should be accepted. In this case, people who argue for the legality of condoms should, it may seem, consider their arguments irrational. That making condoms illegal might be impractical strikes me as an irrelevant reply: concerning matters of natural law, charges of impractically have nothing to do with the law should or shouldn’t be. The pervasiveness of slavery never made it true that slavery should be legal. Even if the impractically argument was considered relevant it would be baseless—how could one ever be so sure? Had someone told people living in Connecticut in 1960 that condoms should be made available for widespread use by 1980, surely this would be considered impractical as well. The argument is as follows:

P1: Intentional acts embodying a contra-life will are intrinsically immoral (contrary to natural law).
P2: The use of contraceptives embodies a contra-life will.
C1: Therefore, the use of contraceptives, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P3: Condoms are contraceptives.
C2: Therefore, the use of condoms, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
P4: State resources should not in any way support products whose usage, as intentional acts, is intrinsically immoral.
P5: If a state makes the usage of a product legal, it supports the product with state resources.
C3: Therefore, the state should make illegal any product whose usage, as an intentional act, is intrinsically immoral.
C4: Therefore, the state should make condoms illegal.

P.S. Note how Part 1 is about Catholic morality and Natural Law.

No, you use that as an excuse as to why you don’t have to try and refute them.

The first point essentially says “Contraceptive sexual acts are against natural law” or if you want it to be more descriptive “Contraception sexual acts contradict our humanness”

This is an objective statement of fact. We can both save each other a ton of each others time by not arguing on this subject further if you cannot agree that this is an objective statement of fact. If you wish to contest whether it matters or not that it opposes natural law, I’m willing to have that discussion. Contraception being against natural law is self-evident.

 

[Nate13]

@sw85

Hey now, I’m forceful, but my passions are well under control. But thanks for your concern.

Haha I hope this is true, but make sure it comes across in your posts if so. Your last few posts have come across as very emotion fueled.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Debora123
Nonetheless, whatever your position may be, I stand my ground about religious freedom and theocracy. Sorry if you disagree.

And what word exactly are you accusing me of not understanding?

“Religious Freedom” or “theocracy?”

Since “religious freedom” is 2 words, I’ll guess “theocracy” was the word you were claiming I don’t understand.

To make it clear to you, let me give you Webster’s word per word definition:

Theocracy - A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Ok, so now that we’ve both established that I DO know what a “theocracy” is, I can go ahead and say that I’m sorry you feel it’s unfortunate that I don’t think the US government should be ruled by a religion.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Debora123

So wait a minute, now I’m confused… are you saying then that you DON’T think using a condom should be illegal? I thought you were saying they SHOULD be illegal.

…In which case the couple who gets caught using them would either go to jail for breaking the law, or issued to pay a fine. Problem is, if they DON’T pay the fine, they go to jail.

So what exactly are you saying should happen to these people if they got caught breaking this law of using a condom??

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Debora123

So now I’m VERY confused. Here you are admitting that people should have NO religious freedom. But in the previous post just above this you said people shouldn’t go to jail for breaking the law against condoms! So what would you suggest happen to people who practice another religion, if you think doing so should be illegal as well? Should THEY get prosecuted and thrown in jail for their religious beliefs??

Please enlighten. I am very confused.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Please refer to my earlier post in regards to the definition of “theocracy.” Post #93, for your convenience.

To answer your question, I find it objectible because I believe in religious freedom and don’t think people should be prosecuted for their religious beliefs. Though you should know this already from reading earlier posts.

– or is it merely because you yourself are in open rebellion against like 90% of the Church’s teachings and have no problem scandalizing others and inducing them to similar rebellion?

Whoa whoa whoa buddy!!

No need to get personal, you don’t even know me. And for the record I have issues with ONE catholic teaching, not the 90% you so eloquently accused me of!

Take some control of yourself over there. Perhaps you are having a bad day? You are getting very personal, offensive, and uncharitable, and only because I disagree with you in regards to religious freedom. Take it a step further and you’ll be breaking forum rules with your personal insults, if you haven’t done so already.

I hope you have a better day.

 

[Debora123]

@sw85

Hey now, I’m forceful, but my passions are well under control. But thanks for your concern.

Yup!

…Not to mention containing some personal attacks as well. :yup:

 

[Nate13]

Please refer to my earlier post in regards to the definition of “theocracy.”

I find it objectible because I believe in religious freedom and don’t think people should be prosecuted for their religious beliefs. Though you should know this already from reading earlier posts.

A theocracy does not imply no religious freedom. There is some inherent limiting to religious freedom by nature of a theocracy, but a secular system also limits religious freedoms inherently. You show that you don’t understand what a theocracy entails entirely by precluding that it means no religious freedom. The Jews practiced theocracy and in fact that is where the idea of it comes from as described by Josephus.

You should also remember that God established what was essentially a theocracy in Moses and the tribes of Israel. The idea of a theocracy is not un-Christian.