From consent to morality

[Spock]

I disagree, I have provided some points in natural law philosophy to back my position up.

Since the philosophy of “natural law” is nonsense, your points are not accepted.

Depends… if you use “pure pleasure” as a euphemism for “contraceptive intercourse” than that is a problem. In that case it would mean going against (contrary) a natural and innate function.

It seems that you don’t yet see the difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose. They are most different.

There is no difference. To use your mouth as part of digestive system (eating) is fine. To use it to kiss your partner “contradicts” its usage as part of the digestive system, but it is also fine - I hope even in your eyes. There is no “contradiction” at all, even if that kissing goes all the way to achieve orgasm.

Again: we see that any other human function which is contradicted causes negative consequences: why is intercourse so special that it is immune to the laws of nature?

On the very contrary, our organs usually have multiple uses, and none “contradicts” the other. It is only a christian idea that these multi-uses do not apply to the sexual organs. The “laws of nature” ensure that the use of the sexual organs for non-procreative action is also perfectly natural and harmless.

 

[You]

that was a short vacation

 

[Spock]

that was a short vacation

Yes, it was a nostalgia trip… exactly 29 years ago we left the old communist regime, so we wanted to visit the places where we lived for 7 months. It was nice, but everything changed so we could hardly recognize the streets. But it was fun nevertheless. The next vacation will come in the middle of October. Ain’t it great to be retired?

 

[Shike]

There is no difference. To use your mouth as part of digestive system (eating) is fine. To use it to kiss your partner “contradicts” its usage as part of the digestive system, but it is also fine - I hope even in your eyes.

You’re getting closer by willing to engage further with these ideas–thank you.

The example you give does not meet the definition of a contradiction in natural law philosophy. Again, I agree with you, there is no problem with using something other than its purpose. One could use their mouth both for eating and kissing. This is not at issue. What is at issue is using something contrary to its purpose. One extreme example is sewing your mouth shut.

Do you see the difference yet?

When you do something that makes one of the functions in question impossible to perform–that is the relevant idea of contradiction.

 

[Spock]

You’re getting closer by willing to engage further with these ideas–thank you.

The example you give does not meet the definition of a contradiction in natural law philosophy. Again, I agree with you, there is no problem with using something other than its purpose. One could use their mouth both for eating and kissing. This is not at issue. What is at issue is using something contrary to its purpose. One extreme example is sewing your mouth shut.

Even in that case the person could be kept alive by administering food via infusion. A better example would be tubal ligation, either on the male’s or the female’s part - and both of them are reversible. However, it does not matter. Being “against” part of the functionality (in some of the cases) is irrelevant - even if one would accept the “natural law” - which I do not do. Next time, they can change their mind and intend to procreate. You know, I can just imagine Aristotele contemplating that one must always release the semen within the vagina - otherwise the act is against this “natural law” and I see the bewildered look on his face - and hear his incredulous remark: “are you crazy or something???”. The Greeks were very open-minded in questions of sex. None of this christian hang-ups. The idea of “being open to conception” is fully christian idea, no other religion accepts it. So bringing in “natural law” will not help your case.

Do you see the difference yet?

No, I do not. There is no difference.

When you do something that makes one of the functions in question impossible to perform–that is the relevant idea of contradiction.

Using regular contraception does not make the conception impossible, but unlikely. So your argument is inapplicable. Using extra-vaginal foreplay may lead to inadvertant “conclusion” of the act, and even the catholic concept accepts this outcome - as long as it is not “intended”. And why would the intentional outcome be inferior to the accidental? They both lead to the same conclusion. Besides, even the catholic philosophy does not prohibit to bring the female partner to her climax. The reason for the distinction is obvious: way back then the male semen was thought to be consisting of “miniature homunculi” and the woman was thought to provide the “incubator”. The ancient ones had no idea of biology, they made their conclusion on their incorrect understaning of biological processes. And that is why they considered the spilling of the “beans” as problematic.

 

[Shike]

Even in that case the person could be kept alive by administering food via infusion. A better example would be tubal ligation, either on the male’s or the female’s part - and both of them are reversible. However, it does not matter. Being “against” part of the functionality (in some of the cases) is irrelevant - even if one would accept the “natural law” - which I do not do. Next time, they can change their mind and intend to procreate.

First, the scope is especially important. The scope is the act itself, the one where one of the functions is being explicitly contradicted. Future acts are irrelevant to the point at hand.

Second, saying the person could be kept alive by food infusion is irrelevant. That the person would have to be fed differently than normal shows that an inherent function is being contradicted.

The idea of “being open to conception” is fully christian idea, no other religion accepts it. So bringing in “natural law” will not help your case.

I can somewhat sympathize why you would think natural law philosophy is somehow built upon religious doctrine… but you’d still be wrong if I sympathized or not. If you think you’re correct, then back it up by pointing to a revealed doctrine of the Church which is essential to the foundations of natural law philosophy. Good luck.

No, I do not. There is no difference.

Right… are you sure? So you’re saying there is no difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose? Regardless if you see a moral difference or not, please tell me you at least see the ontological difference.

Using regular contraception does not make the conception impossible, but unlikely.

It’s wrong to the extent that it contradicts the inherent function. So my argument does apply.

Using extra-vaginal foreplay may lead to inadvertant “conclusion” of the act, and even the catholic concept accepts this outcome - as long as it is not “intended”. And why would the intentional outcome be inferior to the accidental? They both lead to the same conclusion.

It’s strange that you downplay the role of intention here, but exalt it with regards to “mercy killings”. Relevant moral features of an act are: the intent, the circumstances, and the objective act. Go ahead and disagree with me and the western tradition of justice, you’d still be wrong.

The ancient ones…

Irrelevant. Stick to the argument presented, not a straw man.

 

[Spock]

First, the scope is especially important. The scope is the act itself, the one where one of the functions is being explicitly contradicted. Future acts are irrelevant to the point at hand.

Why so? Who says that people must be “open” to procreation each and every time? If the woman is already pregnant, she cannot become “more pregnant”, can she? What is wrong with giving pleasure to her husband in a different manner?

I can somewhat sympathize why you would think natural law philosophy is somehow built upon religious doctrine… but you’d still be wrong if I sympathized or not. If you think you’re correct, then back it up by pointing to a revealed doctrine of the Church which is essential to the foundations of natural law philosophy. Good luck.

My goodness! As if there would be any clear-cut, official declaration of anything from the church (except a few “inerrant” ones, like virgin birth). The church is notoriously shy to make official declarations. But I don’t need to. The christian view of sex is unique.

Right… are you sure? So you’re saying there is no difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose? Regardless if you see a moral difference or not, please tell me you at least see the ontological difference.

The “purpose” of a hammer to hit something strongly. Either the head of a nail, or the head of a human.

It’s strange that you downplay the role of intention here, but exalt it with regards to “mercy killings”. Relevant moral features of an act are: the intent, the circumstances, and the objective act. Go ahead and disagree with me and the western tradition of justice, you’d still be wrong.

Strange to bring up mercy killing as a parallel to non-procreative sex. In another thread someone brought up sucide. What is wrong with this picture?

Irrelevant. Stick to the argument presented, not a straw man.

Since those ancient people invented the concept of natural law, their views are hardly irrelevant. And they would laugh their heads off if they heard how the church has distorted their ideas.

 

[Shike]

Why so? Who says that people must be “open” to procreation each and every time?

They must be open in the sense of not contradicting a natural capacity – otherwise bad things happen.

My goodness! As if there would be any clear-cut, official declaration of anything from the church (except a few “inerrant” ones, like virgin birth). The church is notoriously shy to make official declarations. But I don’t need to. The christian view of sex is unique.

That is a dodge. Simple question: point out what part of natural law philosophy relies on Catholic, even Christian-in-general doctrine. The proof is in the pudding, let’s see it. Surely you can find something about it that is inherently religious and based upon revelation and not reason. Surely…

The “purpose” of a hammer to hit something strongly. Either the head of a nail, or the head of a human.

Yes, a hammer has many uses which are not contrary to its inherent function(s). Why is that? Because artifacts in general don’t have any inherent functions besides what is exhibited by the materials they are made of.

Your point, if I gather rightly, is only valid if you think humans are like hammers. That is a materialist assumption, unsupported by science and unsupported by metaphysics. And based upon what I pointed out above, about some of the materials that make up the hammer and their inherent functions, your analogy fails at a more fundamental level.

Strange to bring up mercy killing as a parallel to non-procreative sex. In another thread someone brought up sucide. What is wrong with this picture?

I am not comparing the moral gravity of the acts but only showing the inconsistency of championing the will of the individual while saying consequence is key and intent makes no moral difference. That’s a contradiction that you will have to square.

Since those ancient people invented the concept of natural law, their views are hardly irrelevant.

This is a philosophy forum. While they are relevant in many areas, they are not so much important in the success or failure of an argument, even though they may contribute to a deeper understanding. An argument stands or falls on its own merits. If you really want to talk about history, perhaps you should visit a different forum.

I’m still ears and will listen to your version of history, but you are too vague. Start dropping names and back your statements up.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

They must be open in the sense of not contradicting a natural capacity – otherwise bad things happen.

What “bad things”?

That is a dodge. Simple question: point out what part of natural law philosophy relies on Catholic, even Christian-in-general doctrine.

I do not accept the concept of “natural law”. Among all those who do accept it, only Christians assert that this bogus natural law also includes to be “open to conception” in each and every case. What is your problem with it?

Yes, a hammer has many uses which are not contrary to its inherent function(s). Why is that? Because artifacts in general don’t have any inherent functions besides what is exhibited by the materials they are made of.

Ok. A human hand or fist is not “designed” to be used as a hammer. Yet, with a lot of practice it can be used as one; driving in nails, breaking bricks, etc… It is definitely contrary to the everyday usage. What is problematic with it? Nothing, obviously.

 

[Shike]

What “bad things”?

I’ve already answered this question. A corruption of true love toward the other person and therefore a corruption or distancing between the couple (call it a corruption of full intimacy if you will). You simply say that it is not selfish but fail to say anything that pertains to natural law philosophy and my argument. Basically, I only have your word rather than an argument I can sink my teeth into.

And that’s not even touching the tip of the iceberg to be found in secondary effects. For instance the effect it can have on populations and the way they view intercourse, thus affecting their sexual behavior. Far from reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, the contraceptive mentality fuels a promiscuous culture that drives the abortion numbers up. Do you think the rate of abortions are going up or down since the advent of modern artificial contraception and the more it is promoted?

I do not accept the concept of “natural law”. Among all those who do accept it, only Christians assert that this bogus natural law also includes to be “open to conception” in each and every case. What is your problem with it?

First, it doesn’t matter if you accept it or not. At the very least you should be able to understand what you don’t accept. So far your criticisms are missing the point.

Second, even if I agree with you (and I’m not yet confident to say either way) that only Christians can be found at odds with artificial contraception by using natural law philosophy, it misses the point. It’s a well known fallacy in philosophy to shoot the message along with the messenger.

So again, this is a dodge. So what if Christians are the only ones who champion natural law philosophy and the destructiveness of artificial contraception. Evaluate the argument on its own merits and point out any specifically religious premise: basically, prove that natural law philosophy isn’t philosophy!

Ok. A human hand or fist is not “designed” to be used as a hammer. Yet, with a lot of practice it can be used as one; driving in nails, breaking bricks, etc… It is definitely contrary to the everyday usage. What is problematic with it? Nothing, obviously.

And I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with what you say here. Which should indicate to you: “Oh ****, maybe I misunderstood what “contrary” means in natural law philosophy”.

 

[John21652]

Why so? Who says that people must be “open” to procreation each and every time? If the woman is already pregnant, she cannot become “more pregnant”, can she? What is wrong with giving pleasure to her husband in a different manner?

Spock, you have a habit of going from thread to thread, forum to forum, spouting off errant nonsense.
The Catholic Church does not say that every single marital act has to be open to procreation every time. If that were the case, how is it that the Church champions NFP? Come on Spock, stop making your silly and baseless assertions and own up to the disengenuousness of your arguments. Explain how it is that, according to you, the Church says every single sex act has to be open to life and yet the Church advocates NFP. There is a very simple answer and if you don’t know it, it is because you are very ignorant of the religion you so openly criticise. That, of course, makes your criticisms valueless.

My goodness! As if there would be any clear-cut, official declaration of anything from the church (except a few “inerrant” ones, like virgin birth). The church is notoriously shy to make official declarations. But I don’t need to. The christian view of sex is unique.

How can you keep a straight face when your arguments so openly swing between criticisms of Christianity and the Catholic Church? It is rather obvious to most of the world that catholicism has endured whilst other ‘Christian’ churches have been formed. Which Christian view are you including in your criticisms? By the way, the Christian view of sex is not unique. Another of your tall tales. Go study up on Islam and Judaism, then come back and repeat your silly assertion, if you dare. Even Buddhism frowns on the use of contraception for the persuit of sexual pleasure.

Since those ancient people invented the concept of natural law, their views are hardly irrelevant. And they would laugh their heads off if they heard how the church has distorted their ideas.

On other threads you have asserted that there is no such thing as “Natural Law”. Despite much evidence to the contrary, you still attempt at its denegration. At least here you seem to accept it as existing. Wow, that’s a major leap forward in your thought processes. It has been pointed out to you many times that Natural Law was ‘discerned’ and ‘discovered’ through the use of man’s reason. It was not ‘invented’, as you wrongly assert. It’s discovery has been affirmed by countless philosophers and theologians and even political thinkers down through the ages. Its rich history can be traced back all the way to the first philosophical schools of ancient Greece. The Catholic Church’s position on Natural Law is attributed to Aquinas and Aquinas followed on with his reasoning from Aristotle. That same reasoning is enshrined in declarations of human rights and various national constitutions. It is also enshrined in the Catholic Catechism. For you to suggest that the Catholic Church has distorted the ideas of the “ancient people” is wrong and you are guilty of submitting misleading information. Time to grow up.