An argument for the illegality of condoms

[preferanonymous]

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.

 

[sw85]

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.

 

[Nate13]

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.

I question whether its the duty of the law to protect us from ourselves though. The law should obviously never be an opponent of natural law, but I don’t believe its necessary for the law to take it upon itself to prosecute the natural law in instances where one person does no harm to another.

For instance should we outlaw masturbation in the privacy of ones own home? Is that the duty of the law? I do not think it is the laws duty to do so.

A case might be made for condoms though in that using a condom during sex is a crime against ones partner whether they willingly agree to it or not. A example of this already in effect would be prostitution where it doesn’t matter whether the prostitute is willing or not, it is still a crime. The law should go about regulating condoms though in the same way it regulates prostitution. Not by barging into people’s houses, but by going to the source of the problem and working to control the distribution of condoms.

 

[NonServiam]

P4: State resources should not in any way support products whose usage, as intentional acts, is intrinsically immoral.

Well, here’s your problem: it’s not the secular government’s place to outlaw things that one particular religious group considers bad.

We luckily live in a pluralistic society with a secular government, in which individuals are permitted to have all kinds of beliefs – including this belief that condoms are somehow “bad” – but in which those individuals aren’t permitted to force those beliefs on others.

The government’s laws aren’t based on morality. They’re based on practicality. The government doesn’t outlaw murder, for example, “because it’s bad,” which is a nonsenscial reason. It outlaws murder because a society in which there were no negative incentives for murder might descend into chaos, and nobody wants that.

 

[Nate13]

Well, here’s your problem: it’s not the secular government’s place to outlaw things that one particular religious group considers bad.

We luckily live in a pluralistic society with a secular government, in which individuals are permitted to have all kinds of beliefs – including this belief that condoms are somehow “bad” – but in which those individuals aren’t permitted to force those beliefs on others.

The government’s laws aren’t based on morality. They’re based on practicality. The government doesn’t outlaw murder, for example, “because it’s bad,” which is a nonsenscial reason. It outlaws murder because a society in which there were no negative incentives for murder might descend into chaos, and nobody wants that.

So its ok for secular governments to deny reality? Are you ok with the fact that by your own admonition the law on murder is based on a “might”? And what proof do you have that allowing murder would lead to chaos, and why is that chaos a bad thing as opposed to what we have now? If I could provide as much proof that allowing contraception would lead to chaos as you can show to prove that murder would lead to chaos, can we outlaw it?

 

[WinterLight]

The government’s laws aren’t based on morality. They’re based on practicality. The government doesn’t outlaw murder, for example, “because it’s bad,” which is a nonsenscial reason. It outlaws murder because a society in which there were no negative incentives for murder might descend into chaos, and nobody wants that.

All legal codes are based on moral codes. The only question is: whose morality?

But let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that today laws are accepted today purely practical reasons. It’s still a rationalization, rather than a reason, for the law: people didn’t get together and ponderously formulated that murder, rape, theft, etc., would cause chaos.

 

[NonServiam]

So its ok for secular governments to deny reality?

No. I’m saying it’s ok for secular governments to not adopt the beliefs of one single religious group and force that belief on all others.

Are you ok with the fact that by your own admonition the law on murder is based on a “might”?

Of course. In daily life, we all live by “mights”: I choose to wear a seatbelt because I might get into an accident, and it might – it very well might, actually – save my life in that instance. I almost always choose not to speed because I might end up hurting myself or others and because I might receive a ticket for doing so, etc., etc. Just about all decisions are based on probabilities.

And what proof do you have that allowing murder would lead to chaos, and why is that chaos a bad thing as opposed to what we have now?

One of the goals of society is to be cooperative – for all of us to work together toward the common goals of survival and safety. The very basis of society is the social-contract agreement that we’re not going to kill each other and take each other’s stuff.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a society that allows murder would be better than the one in which we live now? Or are you – as I think is more likely – just playing the “questions game” to try to distract from the point I’m making?

 

[NonServiam]

All legal codes are based on moral codes.

I strongly disagree.

But let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that today laws are accepted today purely practical reasons. It’s still a rationalization, rather than a reason, for the law

Aren’t you the guy who said to me in another thread that people don’t accept claims for rational reasons?

people didn’t get together and ponderously formulated that murder, rape, theft, etc., would cause chaos.

In point of fact, “laws” mostly descended from times immemorial, when the social contract was in its earliest stages of “me no kill you and me no take your stuff. me and you hunt together and split what we kill. me and you look out for each other. ugh!”

Eventually these things became codified.

 

[WinterLight]

I strongly disagree.

Fine, but you’ll pardon me for not finding that response persuasive.

Aren’t you the guy who said to me in another thread that people don’t accept claims for rational reasons?

Yes, and that’s my point here, hence my use of the word “rationalization”.

In point of fact, “laws” mostly descended from times immemorial, when the social contract was in its earliest stages of “me no kill you and me no take your stuff. me and you hunt together and split what we kill. me and you look out for each other. ugh!”

Eventually these things became codified.

The idea of a “social contract” was unknown before Rousseau developed it. It is also absurd: entering into a contract is a voluntary choice, unlike entering into a “social contract” whereby your birth is your signatrue.

 

[sw85]

I question whether its the duty of the law to protect us from ourselves though. The law should obviously never be an opponent of natural law, but I don’t believe its necessary for the law to take it upon itself to prosecute the natural law in instances where one person does no harm to another.

For instance should we outlaw masturbation in the privacy of ones own home? Is that the duty of the law? I do not think it is the laws duty to do so.

Fair point, let me rephrase. The state has a duty to enforce natural law. But like any other duty, it cannot be pursued to the extent that it runs afoul of other duties: the means must be suited to the gravity of the end.

Contraception is qualitatively worse a sin than masturbation because there is a public and therefore scandalous element to it – contraception is publicly displayed, purchased, transported, advertised, etc. The end is graver, hence the state may go farther in addressing the issue.

A case might be made for condoms though in that using a condom during sex is a crime against ones partner whether they willingly agree to it or not. A example of this already in effect would be prostitution where it doesn’t matter whether the prostitute is willing or not, it is still a crime. The law should go about regulating condoms though in the same way it regulates prostitution. Not by barging into people’s houses, but by going to the source of the problem and working to control the distribution of condoms.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Well, here’s your problem: it’s not the secular government’s place to outlaw things that one particular religious group considers bad.

Problem: yes, it is, when that “one particular religious group” is the Church established by Christ Himself.

Secular governments did this for millennia and society was, as a result, very holy and devout, produced thousands of saints and theologians and very likely delivered millions of souls to Heaven.

We luckily live in a pluralistic society with a secular government, in which individuals are permitted to have all kinds of beliefs

Whether or not this arrangement is ideal is precisely what is at issue here.

– including this belief that condoms are somehow “bad” – but in which those individuals aren’t permitted to force those beliefs on others.

Uh, if you mean that individuals are not permitted to vote according to their consciences, then you are simply wrong.

At any rate, historically speaking many devoutly religious societies had large ethnic minorities. This was especially the case when Rome converted to Christianity – it had populations of pagans to deal with. The fact of having a “pluralistic society” entails no obligations to tolerate the pathologies of various minority groups.

The government’s laws aren’t based on morality. They’re based on practicality.

Again, whether or not such an arrangement is ideal is precisely what is at issue here. You are conflating the fact of how things are with the assumption that this arrangement is optimal. That is an improper conflation.

The government doesn’t outlaw murder, for example, “because it’s bad,” which is a nonsenscial reason. It outlaws murder because a society in which there were no negative incentives for murder might descend into chaos, and nobody wants that.

Nobody wants chaos because everyone realizes chaos is bad, so your argument is self-referential and a little on the dumb side.

This is the problem with utilitarianism/consequentialism. Telling us that the “ends justify the means” tells me nothing about what the proper end is.

One of the goals of society is to be cooperative – for all of us to work together toward the common goals of survival and safety. The very basis of society is the social-contract agreement that we’re not going to kill each other and take each other’s stuff.

If the social contract arrangement is false (and it is – it’s based on a false conception of human nature and the nature of reality), then appealing to it establishes nothing.

 

[NonServiam]

Problem: yes, it is, when that “one particular religious group” is the Church established by Christ Himself.

Says the member of the particular religious group.

Imagine some other religious group claiming that it is the “one true faith” trying to force its beliefs onto everyone, and you’ll quickly see what’s wrong with your argument.

Again, whether or not such an arrangement is ideal is precisely what is at issue here. You are conflating the fact of how things are with the assumption that this arrangement is optimal. That is an improper conflation.

I’m telling you how things are. If you don’t like it, move to another country. No one will stop you.

Nobody wants chaos because everyone realizes chaos is bad, so your argument is self-referential and a little on the dumb side.

Not at all: I’m saying our laws are crafted to preserve social order and that most people would agree that permitting murder would be destructive to that social order.

 

[Geofarmer1]

The concept of natural law is based on belief in a creator. The concept is that things that are created for a reason that is evident should not be mis-used. Therefore sex has a procreative and unifying purpose and to contracept the act is wrong.

Those of us who live in the United States of America live under a set of laws designed to break with the tyranny of the old world. Much of that tyranny of the past was religious in nature. A new place where you were free to believe as you wished or not believe at all. A republic ruled by an elected congress and a president with laws that based on a constitution and passed by a elected majority and enforced by an independent judiciary.

There is no place in this republic to outlaw something that is used or done between consenting adults in privacy.

Many laws that have existed that have dealt with homosexuality, birth control and other private acts have been struck down on this basis.

This being said I am pro-life because I believe it is wrong to devalue human life by destroying it and that the state has a role in protecting our life, liberty and property from from unjustly deprived of us.

I would hope that those of you who live in the U.S. value your freedoms enough to let all decide how they believe and to not force you beliefs on others.

I value your right to believe as you do, to use or not use contraception, to attend the church of your choice, and to pursue your dreams in our society.

I know that this discussion is only in any real way a “theoretical one”, but why waste your time trying to argue for outlawing something that you can’t even convince the majority of those that sit in the pew each Sunday is wrong? If you think the only way to enforce mortality is through law I don’t want live in your society.

 

[sw85]

Says the member of the particular religious group.

Imagine some other religious group claiming that it is the “one true faith” trying to force its beliefs onto everyone, and you’ll quickly see what’s wrong with your argument.

There is nothing “wrong” with it. Other religions are false. They may believe they’re not false but that’s because they are wrong.

I do not care if they try to misappropriate own logic to establish their own sort of society and therefore censor me. Not in the least. Their society would be founded on falsehood and I would continue to say as much until they martyred me.

I’m telling you how things are. If you don’t like it, move to another country. No one will stop you.

I’m telling you I don’t care how things are. Things *are *suboptimal. You may be content with that; that says more about you than me.

Not at all: I’m saying our laws are crafted to preserve social order and that most people would agree that permitting murder would be destructive to that social order.

That is again self-referential. You are saying laws exist to preserve the social order that allow laws to exist. At no point does this explain WHY laws should exist or WHY the social order that preserves them OUGHT to exist.

People like social order because they intuit (correctly) that it is good, and that the loss of social order is bad and leads to bad things. And they intuitively seek what is good and avoid what is bad.

 

[preferanonymous]

A point: I think the argument I posed need not imply that masturbation or sodomy, even if these acts are against the natural law, should be made illegal. Nor would every contraceptive method be outlawed that might be contrary to natural law, consider the pulling out method. The point is that legality of condoms, as a marketable product, would require the support of public resources and that this would be unjustifiable state coercion.

Another point: consider, geofarmer1, the fact that this argument might be accepted by a religious group does not, it seems to me, discredit it from being the basis of public policy. If the argument relied on premises that were not able to rationally justified, I think that might be a quite different case. Unless it can be shown, however, that the argument does rely on these sorts of non-rationally justifiable premises, the notion that it couldn’t be used as a reason to make public policy a certain way strikes me as unwarranted unless supported by further argument. Why would someone need to hold all the beliefs a Roman Catholic does to accept this argument? If not all, which ones? Are these beliefs that could not be rationally justifed anyway? How do you know the belief in a creator cannot be justified rationally? Furthermore, you might note I don’t think I made any reference to purpose in my argument. To say I argued against contraception in this way then, might be to set up a straw man instead of addressing the argument I put forth.

Another point: Consider, non serviam, that this is an argument about what the laws should be, not how they are enacted in a society such as ours. Furthermore, this normative standard is not one based on what people agree to: even if slavery was agreed to that made no difference as to whether or not it should have been legal. Had you disagreed with, and made rational arguments against, the institution of slavery and someone responded " If you don’t like it, move to another country. No one will stop you" would you have not thought that this was not a proper response? If this response was legitimate, no change could ever be justified. The objectors would only have as political recourse the option to leave the unjust state. Although this might be a legitimate option, I don’t think that means it should be the only option. I do not think you can say laws cannot be improved upon given you would fall into conflict with historical fact. For these reason, I think the proper way to discuss the question of condoms would be to see whether or not the argument holds.

 

[Leegal]

All legal codes are based on moral codes. The only question is: whose morality?

But let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that today laws are accepted today purely practical reasons. It’s still a rationalization, rather than a reason, for the law: people didn’t get together and ponderously formulated that murder, rape, theft, etc., would cause chaos.

In truth our system of law is based upon the priciple of “utility” – the “greatest good for the greatest number.” See Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

This topic has been asked and answered in another thread. No one can see the unintended consequences of regulating condoms – a government that regulates based upon varying doctrines. Each individual is responsible for his moral choices. If the Church teaches that condoms are condemned, we know what it is expected of us without any intervention by government.

But this entire topic is redundant. It was already addressed the day before and the same answers given in which the OP participated. This is merely an attempt to start the controversy all over again.

 

[Nate13]

No. I’m saying it’s ok for secular governments to not adopt the beliefs of one single religious group and force that belief on all others.

If I believe natural law is reality though and you are ignoring it, am I in the wrong to continue pushing that natural law is respected? What happens when our beliefs clash and our views of reality cannot coexist?

Of course. In daily life, we all live by “mights”: I choose to wear a seatbelt because I might get into an accident, and it might – it very well might, actually – save my life in that instance. I almost always choose not to speed because I might end up hurting myself or others and because I might receive a ticket for doing so, etc., etc. Just about all decisions are based on probabilities.

Contraception might lead to the destruction of the family unit, which might lead to the destruction of society. This assumes we agree of the importance of the family unit to society and civilization.

One of the goals of society is to be cooperative – for all of us to work together toward the common goals of survival and safety. The very basis of society is the social-contract agreement that we’re not going to kill each other and take each other’s stuff.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a society that allows murder would be better than the one in which we live now? Or are you – as I think is more likely – just playing the “questions game” to try to distract from the point I’m making?

First off our society does allow murder and there are people that do think we are better off for it i.e abortion. I’m not of this persuasion at all but it seems to me that people who are wouldn’t have to take too much of a stretch in order to say killing people outside the womb is alright as well as long as it was regulated. We could have a system by which we determine if people should be left alive based on certain criteria and it would all be incredibly efficient and orderly and prevent chaos.

 

[Nate13]

In truth our system of law is based upon the priciple of “utility” – the “greatest good for the greatest number.” See Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

This topic has been asked and answered in another thread. No one can see the unintended consequences of regulating condoms – a government that regulates based upon varying doctrines. Each individual is responsible for his moral choices. If the Church teaches that condoms are condemned, we know what it is expected of us without any intervention by government.

But this entire topic is redundant. It was already addressed the day before and the same answers given in which the OP participated. This is merely an attempt to start the controversy all over again.

What is the difference between regulating condoms like some countries regulate guns? In all honesty a stronger argument can be made against regulating guns than it can against regulating condoms. Guns have recreational uses and uses that are not a danger to society. What use do condoms have that is not a danger to society? Party balloons? Obviously America does not outlaw owning guns, but there are advocates for that and there are countries that do so. If we can do so with guns, why not condoms?

 

[Leegal]

What is the difference between regulating condoms like some countries regulate guns? In all honesty a stronger argument can be made against regulating guns than it can against regulating condoms. Guns have recreational uses and uses that are not a danger to society. What use do condoms have that is not a danger to society? Party balloons? Obviously America does not outlaw owning guns, but there are advocates for that and there are countries that do so. If we can do so with guns, why not condoms?

You are trying to impose Catholic doctrine upon a country that has separation of Church and state. How many times can I say that we are responsible for our own actions – but cannot impose our doctrine upon others in the form of regulation and law. You are on that slippery slope. You think you get a good end from a bad means. However, what it the tables are turned and another religion’s doctrine becomes law? How about Sharia law next? We’ll ban condoms and we’ll cover up women like they do in Saudi Arabia and it never ends. It’s the law of unintended consequences.

Condoms are not a danger to society. Do not use them – they are a danger to Catholics. Besides, are you being naive or just unrealistic to think that the federal government or the states would just cave in and regulate condoms because Catholics condem them?

In fact, the Pope has made an exception for condom use. We are not so easily free to reject his teachings, even though he was not speaking ex Cathedra.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/

 

[Nate13]

You are trying to impose Catholic doctrine upon a country that has separation of Church and state. How many times can I say that we are responsible for our own actions – but cannot impose our doctrine upon others in the form of regulation and law. You are on that slippery slope. You think you get a good end from a bad means. However, what it the tables are turned and another religion’s doctrine becomes law? How about Sharia law next? We’ll ban condoms and we’ll cover up women like they do in Saudi Arabia and it never ends. It’s the law of unintended consequences.

Condoms are not a danger to society. Do not use them – they are a danger to Catholics. Besides, are you being naive or just unrealistic to think that the federal government or the states would just cave in and regulate condoms because Catholics condem them?

In fact, the Pope has made an exception for condom use. We are not so easily free to reject his teachings, even though he was not speaking ex Cathedra.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/

I’m not basing the ban on condoms on my religious views anymore than someone who wants a ban on guns does. I’m basing it on concrete things that everyone can acknowledge are real threats. I’ll quote Humane Vitae to give the basis by which condoms should be regulated, where the Pope laid out some very clear secular consequences to allowing contraception:

Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Are all of these things guaranteed to happen in every case by continuing to allow the use of contraceptives? No, just as most people choose not to do evil with a gun in their possession. My point here is to show that banning condoms is no more of a ridiculous notion in the U.S than the idea of banning guns. And in countries that already ban guns, the way is paved for condoms to be banned should a majority of public opinion sway to that persuasion.

We don’t legislate based on how we believe people should act, we legislate based on how they do act. Does using a condom during sex automatically mean you are going to take her for granted and see her as an object? No, but the last 60 years have shown that it has had an effect to that end in many cases that is weakening the family, which in turn weakens society.

 

[sw85]

You are trying to impose Catholic doctrine upon a country that has separation of Church and state. How many times can I say that we are responsible for our own actions – but cannot impose our doctrine upon others in the form of regulation and law. You are on that slippery slope. You think you get a good end from a bad means. However, what it the tables are turned and another religion’s doctrine becomes law? How about Sharia law next? We’ll ban condoms and we’ll cover up women like they do in Saudi Arabia and it never ends. It’s the law of unintended consequences.

Separation of church and state does NOT require that law be based on utilitarianism – it merely requires that the law be enacted by the state and not the church.

Whether or not separation of church and state is good or ideal is precisely what is at issue here – saying that it exists tells us nothing.

We are not talking about imposing irrational beliefs but requiring society to be organized according to the basic principles of reality on which Catholic moral theology is based. If you believe these principles to be true, then there is no reason to say that society ought not to be based on them; if you believe them to be false, then you are not a Catholic.

In case you haven’t noticed, Muslim societies ALREADY DO practice sharia law. They do not refrain from it just because we do. What you are advocating is nothing short of unilateral disarmament. And at any rate, if Muslims somehow took over this society I would oppose their false religion unto martyrdom.

Simply put, we speak Catholic truths because they are true – not because the state graciously permits us to.

Condoms are not a danger to society. Do not use them – they are a danger to Catholics. Besides, are you being naive or just unrealistic to think that the federal government or the states would just cave in and regulate condoms because Catholics condem them?

In fact, the Pope has made an exception for condom use. We are not so easily free to reject his teachings, even though he was not speaking ex Cathedra.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/

This is a gross misrepresentation of the plain text of the Holy Father’s words, which is simply that the GOOD INTENTION of prostitutes using condoms in order to shield their clients from disease may be the first step along the path of moral awakening that leads those prostitutes to a full understanding of sexual morality.

He IN NO WAY “made an exception.” This is, again, a gross misrepresentation intentionally spread by heretics and modernists seeking to undermine the magisterium of the Church.