What does “Classically speaking” mean?
After doing some research online I’m willing to concede that I was improperly vague. My definition of evil is taken from Thomas Acquinas, who of course is Catholic. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates (from what I can gather) didn’t realy try to define evil as such, other than notions of malicious intent, etc. Thomas Acquinas appears to be the first to have defined evil in general terms. I will stick by it though.
This is a tautology. All it states is “God is good is God”.
I have asserted that all Good proceeds from God. Anything that is good will be in accord with God’s will. I’m not really stating a tautology, as I’m not trying to prove one statement with the second - just showing the flipside of the first assertion made without proof. The real objection here would be that you do not accept God’s existence - but I will be happy to address that if you want.
I asked if following the precepts of other religious faiths would also, according to your definition, be called “good” in the way that following those of the Christian NT writings would be considered “good.” I am asking you to define “good”. It is extremely important in philosophy and logic to completely and specifically define your terms.
Good is anything that is in accord with God’s will. However, even without this full understanding of “good” we can have some understanding from the natural law (what is written on everyone’s hearts) what is “good.” Life is good. Families are good. Food and shelter are good. A beautiful painting is good.
I am not disregarding anything, flippantly or not. You have shown no “disorder” at all beyond the kind of “disorder” shared with other infertile couples. I consider this only “uncommon” as in “statistically less common than the general population” and find no immoral component in it whatsoever. The same level of “disorder” as red hair.
Ironically, I have red hair.
Hardly, a disorder, though.
Anyway, you do disregard flippantly when you say things like, “I delete everything after Nazi,” or ignore my arguments, or twist my arguments into something they are not.
Also, I have shown disorder in homosexual acts. They are
inherently,
intrinsically barren. They can
never be ordered towards reproduction. In contrast, infertile acts between heterosexual couples are still ordered toward the foundational and obvious nature of sex, which is reproduction - even if children cannot result. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the two.
And there is nothing flippant in what I say here. I am simply disagreeing until you make a stronger case beyond “my God disapproves.”
I have made this case, even without reference to God. You have not addressed it. See above, I won’t repeat myself.
To say that genitals are primarily for reproduction is a biological generalization. But to pin the morality of said genital use ONLY to that one function is to place a culturo-religious stricture on those body parts as a form of control over behavior–not as a form of “logic” from “Natural Law.” Use of the genitalia–like use of the mouth–may in fact have several valuable purposes. I would no sooner argue that the mouth should only be used for eating and, say, not singing–which has no primary procreative function that I am aware of. Human sexuality and bonding through sexuality is MUCH more complicated than this moral reduction and focus on procreation (which humans took care of LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before the time of the Jews and then Christians).
Indeed, sex is more than for just reproduction. Most fully, sex has two primary purposes that are intertwined and of equal importance - reproduction and union of spouses. When either or both are broken, only bad things result.
Homosexual acts, as inherently barren, are diametrically opposed to reproduction - and thus break one of the two primary purposes of sex. They also break the other purpose, as two people of the same sex cannot really be married and they do not share the sexual complimentarity shared by male and female.
For my purposes, it is sufficient to show only that one is broken.
