Homosexual Acts are Not Against the Natural Law

[davidv]

Please, forget the Pill and lovemaking.
It’s about the principle. Why are intentions, circumstances, … of a moral act treated in two different ways?

Because moral good objects are different than moral evil ones.

Given a moral good object, a moral evil can be committed depending on the intentions and circumstances.

In contrast:
A moral evil can never be converted into a moral good act by the intentions or circumstances.

This is usually summarized: The ends don’t justify the means (objects).

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve never talked about negation of the implication.
I am talking about how the intentions are treated in two different ways. Once they are ignored then they are not ignored in the other instance. How come?

The principle is similar to, if not identical with “double effect.”

Contraception is having sex with the deliberate end of not having children by using artifical means to break or disconnect the means from the end.

NFP means working within the natural parameters to legitimately use an act to the extent that specific ends (procreation) are not necessitated.

The intended end (physical union or bonding) is legitimate within the natural and ethical parameters of how the means (sexual act) can be used. There is no intent to thwart procreation since procreation would not occur, in any case, given due diligence.

With contraception the intended outcome is sex by deliberately targeting or making the end (procreation) artificially impossible.

It could be argued that if God simply intended procreation to be the purpose of sex, he would have made conception the result of every act of sex. And if he intended mere pleasure/bonding to be the purpose, then sex would never end in pregnancy. By making procreation somewhat improbable – but under the auspices understanding, reverence and love – then a case could be made that responsible sex was his intention for BOTH the ends of procreation and for fostering the loving bond between the complementary pair. Not one nor the other, but BOTH together.

Responsible “love making” in the sense that both its ends are to be held in consistent balance with each other: loving unity to support procreation and procreation to add or create tangible, subsistent meaning (new life) to loving unity.

I recognize I am just rambling here – but there is a point in there somewhere, just inelegantly made.

 

[Hans_W]

That is wishful thinking designed to excuse the behavior that is clearly against the Natural Law.

What do you mean by “Natural Law”?

When a 10-year old child dies of leukaemia is this not against Natural Law as well. Having been born with the wrong male/female hormone ratio must also be against the Natural Law. But it happens in 5% of the population. (Please don’t quote me on that number).

 

[Jaaanosik]

The principle is similar to, if not identical with “double effect.”

Contraception is having sex with the deliberate end of not having children by using artifical means to break or disconnect the means from the end.

NFP means working within the natural parameters to legitimately use an act to the extent that specific ends (procreation) are not necessitated.

The intended end (physical union or bonding) is legitimate within the natural and ethical parameters of how the means (sexual act) can be used. There is no intent to thwart procreation since procreation would not occur, in any case, given due diligence.

With contraception the intended outcome is sex by deliberately targeting or making the end (procreation) artificially impossible.

It could be argued that if God simply intended procreation to be the purpose of sex, he would have made conception the result of every act of sex. And if he intended mere pleasure/bonding to be the purpose, then sex would never end in pregnancy. By making procreation somewhat improbable – but under the auspices understanding, reverence and love – then a case could be made that responsible sex was his intention for BOTH the ends of procreation and for fostering the loving bond between the complementary pair. Not one nor the other, but BOTH together.

Responsible “love making” in the sense that both its ends are to be held in consistent balance with each other: loving unity to support procreation and procreation to add or create tangible, subsistent meaning (new life) to loving unity.

I recognize I am just rambling here – but there is a point in there somewhere, just inelegantly made.

The discussion was about the meaning of word “intrinsically”.
Intrinsically evil act is evil based on its moral object only. Intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are ignored in this case.
Well, we can ask if there are intrinsically good acts that are good solely on the basis of their moral object, ignoring the intentions, … in a similar way as it is done with the evil act.
The answer is no, there is no intrinsically good act because we can not ignore intentions in this case. Bad intentions can change the morality of any good moral object so the whole act is not morally OK.

The question is why there is the double standard for the intentions, circumstances, …?

 

[Rau]

The discussion was about the meaning of word “intrinsically”.
Intrinsically evil act is evil based on its moral object only. Intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are ignored in this case.
Well, we can ask if there are intrinsically good acts that are good solely on the basis of their moral object, ignoring the intentions, … in a similar way as it is done with the evil act.
The answer is no, there is no intrinsically good act because we can not ignore intentions in this case. Bad intentions can change the morality of any good moral object so the whole act is not morally OK.

The question is why there is the double standard for the intentions, circumstances, …?

Basic logic. It was explained earlier. The AND function which defines morally good acts.

 

[Rau]

The discussion was about the meaning of word “intrinsically”.
Intrinsically evil act is evil based on its moral object only. Intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are ignored in this case.
Well, we can ask if there are intrinsically good acts that are good solely on the basis of their moral object, ignoring the intentions, … in a similar way as it is done with the evil act.
The answer is no, there is no intrinsically good act because we can not ignore intentions in this case. Bad intentions can change the morality of any good moral object so the whole act is not morally OK.

The question is why there is the double standard for the intentions, circumstances, …?

It is not about the meaning of the word “intrinsically”. To pursue that line is to play a word game.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Basic logic. It was explained earlier. The AND function which defines morally good acts.

Thank you for the patience. I understand what you are saying now.
Though there are still some issues with the double effect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The discussion was about the meaning of word “intrinsically”.
Intrinsically evil act is evil based on its moral object only. Intentions, circumstances, consequences, … are ignored in this case.
Well, we can ask if there are intrinsically good acts that are good solely on the basis of their moral object, ignoring the intentions, … in a similar way as it is done with the evil act.
The answer is no, there is no intrinsically good act because we can not ignore intentions in this case. Bad intentions can change the morality of any good moral object so the whole act is not morally OK.

The question is why there is the double standard for the intentions, circumstances, …?

There isn’t a double standard BECAUSE moral acts are acts of moral agents. Intention and circumstance make relevant differences because moral agents act within circumstances according to intended outcomes. These become morally relevant.

A large rock falling on a person and killing them is not a moral act because it was not the act of a moral agent. A lion devouring a child is not a moral act because lions are not capable of moral agency.

A human being killing another out of rage after years of abuse is not the same, morally speaking, as a premeditiated murder or killing for monetary gain. Intentions and circumstances matter because human moral agents and not rocks or lions undertake moral actions.

Intrinsically evil acts are still acts of moral agents, but are intrinsically evil not because they are determined to be independently of intention or circumstance, but BECAUSE NO possible intention or circumstance can mitigate or excuse or “right” the evil.

Put another way, intrinsically evil acts are those actions of moral agents where no possible motive or circumstance can sufficiently weigh against the outcome as to make the act a legitimate moral option. Intention and circumstance are not “ignored;” there cannot be any possible motive or circumstance that would ever permit the act. The act simply outweighs all possible motives or circumstances.

An intrinsically good act would be one where a good or best possible outcome results from good or best possible motives under the right circumstances.

Intrinsic determinations cannot ignore motive or circumstance surrounding moral acts BECAUSE moral acts are acts of moral agents in distinct environments and thus must have motive or circumstance as logically necessary aspects of the determination. There is no way around that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To the bold part … no no no no no you have it wrong.
“You keep assuming that the telos of an act has something to do with the purposes for which someone pursues the act. That assumption is false. Catholic theology doesn’t work that way. The telos of an action is an objective fact, independent of human agency.”
How is the sterilization independent from human agency? It’s the agent doing the act! Where is a common sense in it?

In the case of contraception, the aim of the agent and the object of the act coincide. But that is not always true: for instance, one might use contraception to regulate one’s cycles. Unless double effect comes into play, such an action is impermissible, on Catholic teaching.

According to you the purpose is not supposed to be the moral object. Do I understand it correctly?

No. The purpose is conceptually separate, but they sometimes coincide.

… and this “One cannot have sex in order to not have children.” is a good foundation for a schizophrenic behavior. What is NFP about?
This is the reason why NFP will not be successful. The schizophrenia behind it.

I’m confused. Do you claim that the telos of sex, during infertile periods, isn’t progeny? That sounds false. Do you claim that the purpose of a married couple, when having sex, is ever “not to get pregnant”? That would be a BIZARRE purpose. If that’s their purpose, why not play chess instead?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you claim that the purpose of a married couple, when having sex, is ever “not to get pregnant”? That would be a BIZARRE purpose. If that’s their purpose, why not play chess instead?

:doh2:

 

[Thorolfr]

Do you claim that the purpose of a married couple, when having sex, is ever “not to get pregnant”? That would be a BIZARRE purpose. If that’s their purpose, why not play chess instead?

They could be having sex for no other purpose than because it feels good. That might not be a purpose you or the Church approves of, but surely that’s what many couples do. It’s certainly more fun than playing chess

 

[Peter_Plato]

They could be having sex for no other purpose than because it feels good. That might not be a purpose you or the Church approves of, but surely that’s what many couples do. It’s certainly more fun than playing chess

Why would “feeling good” be a plausibly sufficient end for any behaviour or action?

Why, then, wouldn’t hooking human beings up to feeding tubes and mind altering drugs be a reasonable alternative to living a life of drudgery and toil?

Isn’t forming good moral agents a higher end than mere pleasure satisfaction? And where pleasure satisfaction detracts from or negates sound moral formation, it loses value as a “good” or desired end.

 

[Rau]

They could be having sex for no other purpose than because it feels good. That might not be a purpose you or the Church approves of, but surely that’s what many couples do. It’s certainly more fun than playing chess

Certainly that motivation is common. It is one of the fruits of sex, and I know of no objection to it, unless that motivation is pursued to the exclusion of the other fruits.

 

[Thorolfr]

Why would “feeling good” be a plausibly sufficient end for any behaviour or action?

I do it all the time. I eat ice cream and chocolate because it feels good. I ride roller coasters at Disney Land because it feels good. So are you saying that we can’t ever do anything just because it’s fun and feels good?

 

[Hans_W]

Why would “feeling good” be a plausibly sufficient end for any behaviour or action?

Because “feeling good” is a state that most people aim for. Not many people analyse the philosophical implications of their feelings and actions as Plato would have done.

If it’s not illegal, if it’s not harmful to other people, or the environment - why not? Of course, you can now come with religious moral codes. But that’s what we are questioning here.

 

[truetofaith]

This is an endless discussion with no relief in sight…I’m movin’ on!

 

[Rau]

So in conclusion folks, I think we can confidently conclude that the assertion in the thread title has been found to be without merit.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They could be having sex for no other purpose than because it feels good. That might not be a purpose you or the Church approves of, but surely that’s what many couples do. It’s certainly more fun than playing chess

I’m fine with that, Thor. But Jaaanosik was claiming (apparently) that people sometimes had sex because they didn’t want to have children. I was pointing out that people might put on a condom for that reason, but that they would never have sex for that reason. Yes, they might be pursuing unity, or pleasure, or whatever.

As for whether sex is more fun than sex, it depends on what pieces you use.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do it all the time. I eat ice cream and chocolate because it feels good. I ride roller coasters at Disney Land because it feels good. So are you saying that we can’t ever do anything just because it’s fun and feels good?

Except that sexual activity isn’t innocuous in the way either eating ice cream or riding a roller coaster are, now is it? Suppose every time you ate an ice cream cone or rode a roller coaster, the possible existence (life or death) of a new human being hung in the balance. Further suppose that the promotion of eating ice cream or riding roller coasters necessarily meant promoting utter disregard for the lives of those new or potential human beings.

Clearly there is no moral equivalency to be made.

Here’s the body count:

numberofabortions.com

Still want to use eating ice cream or riding roller coasters as a parallel?

Neither of those carry with them the moral repercussions that sexual activity does. Claiming sexual activity is as morally insignificant as eating ice cream requires all of us to wear seriously obstructing moral blinders.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would “feeling good” be a plausibly sufficient end for any behaviour or action?

I’m not sure it’s a bad reason. I mean, certainly, one should measure all the physical, moral, and spiritual consequences, but if that all checks out, I’m not sure why doing something simply for enjoyment would be wrong.

I go back and forth on this question. At the moment, I think that pleasure is a sometimes a valid reason for action.