Moral dilemma.

[jonfawkes]

LOL! Are you sure about that? What do you think the word ‘unnatural’ refers to then? Something that does *not *occur in nature? (‘Unnatural’ is the antonym of ‘natural,’ in case you didn’t notice.)

(It’s usually not the best idea in philosophy, but in this case maybe you should consult a dictionary.)

Okay, but what does that have to do with your original (false) claim:

Also the notion of Natural Law connotes that “natural” means common and correct.

For Aristotle, the embodiment of natural law is in virtue, and true virtue is held to be exceedingly rare (i.e., not common).

I’m not sure what point you are making - I am saying that by branding homosexuality as unnatural is implying that it doesn’t happen in nature, which it obviously does. So calling homosexuality unnatural is misguided at best. It is a deceitful misnomer.

Things are deemed “natural” which is said to mean they are following their function. Which means “correct” function and not abnormal which implies “normality”.

 

[jonfawkes]

Just for S&Gs -

1nat·u·ral
adj \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl
Definition of NATURAL
1
: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

The first definition I find ambiguous - “inherent” by who’s standards?

The second is consistent with what I’m saying.

 

[davidv]

Just for S&Gs -

The first definition I find ambiguous - “inherent” by who’s standards?

God’s standards are absolute and objective standards of morality.

The second is consistent with what I’m saying.

This definition doesn’t apply to morality.

 

[davidv]

I’m not sure what point you are making - I am saying that by branding homosexuality as unnatural is implying that it doesn’t happen in nature, which it obviously does. So calling homosexuality unnatural is misguided at best. It is a deceitful misnomer.

Things are deemed “natural” which is said to mean they are following their function. Which means “correct” function and not abnormal which implies “normality”.

You are not getting the point because you aren’t understanding the argument.

Your argument about unnatural is a strawman because “unnatural” is not reason for determining the immorality of an act. Just because something occurs in nature does not discount the immorality of an act.

Murders occur in nature. Does that mean they are moral?

 

[jonfawkes]

You are not getting the point because you aren’t understanding the argument.

Your argument about unnatural is a strawman because “unnatural” is not reason for determining the immorality of an act. Just because something occurs in nature does not discount the immorality of an act.

Murders occur in nature. Does that mean they are moral?

Dude - are you actually reading my posts or just using me as a sounding board -

Because I find it faulty for basically two reasons:

1. People bring their prejudices of what is natural and not, like the case of homosexuality. Homosexuality does occur in nature but is deemed unnatural.

Also the application isn’t applied uniformly. Like left handedness which also occurs in nature, and is a deviation from the norm and is not considered immoral although that is the reasoning for deeming homosexuality immoral.

1. The whole of human behavior must be considered “natural” because we are part of nature. There are human behaviors that I find undesirable and immoral.

 

[jonfawkes]

God’s standards are absolute and objective standards of morality.

This definition doesn’t apply to morality.

God isn’t mentioned in the definition.

Doesn’t apply? Says who?

 

[Betterave]

I’m not sure what point you are making - I am saying that by branding homosexuality as unnatural is implying that it doesn’t happen in nature, which it obviously does. So calling homosexuality unnatural is misguided at best. It is a deceitful misnomer.

The point I am making is obvious: Your claim - “by branding homosexuality as unnatural is implying that it doesn’t happen in nature” - is very obviously false. It is a silly straw man misinterpretation based on an obviously stupid and unnatural(!) interpretation of the word “unnatural”.

Things are deemed “natural” which is said to mean they are following their function. Which means “correct” function and not abnormal which implies “normality”.

Wrong: “correct” does not mean “not abnormal.” And why do you think that “correct” implies “normality”? If people *normally *give an incorrect answer to a question, do you think that implies that the incorrect answer is correct?

 

[Betterave]

The first definition I find ambiguous - “inherent” by who’s standards?

That’s irrelevant. It’s like saying: “triangle” by whose standards? Answer: by the fact that it’s really a triangle (or by the fact that it’s really inherent)!

The second is consistent with what I’m saying.

No it’s not.

 

[jonfawkes]

The point I am making is obvious: Your claim - “by branding homosexuality as unnatural is implying that it doesn’t happen in nature” - is very obviously false. It is a silly straw man misinterpretation based on an obviously stupid and unnatural(!) interpretation of the word “unnatural”.

Wrong: “correct” does not mean “not abnormal.” And why do you think that “correct” implies “normality”? If people *normally *give an incorrect answer to a question, do you think that implies that the incorrect answer is correct?

google.com/dictionary?q=unnatural&langpair=en|en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lEpATanjGIzQgAfat6WKAw&ved=0CCIQmwMoAA

• un·nat·u·ral Adjective /ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ listen
  Synonyms:
  o adjective: abnormal, artificial, factitious, affected
  o
  Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal
  +
  death by unnatural causes
  o
  ** Not existing in nature; artificial**
  +
  the artificial turf looks an unnatural green
  o
  Affected or stilted
  +
  the formal tone of the programs caused them to sound stilted and unnatural
  o
  Lacking feelings of kindness and sympathy that are considered to be natural
  +
  they condemned her as an unnatural woman

The way it is used in natural law does imply this - the normal function of the penis and vagina is for sexual reproduction, so that must be the correct one. Anything that deviates is contrary to nature therefore immoral. That is the crux of the argument.

 

[jonfawkes]

That’s irrelevant. It’s like saying: “triangle” by whose standards? Answer: by the fact that it’s really a triangle (or by the fact that it’s really inherent)!

No it’s not.

Inherent - google.com/dictionary?q=inherent&langpair=en|en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wUxATZ3qEYTVgQfN9emdAw&ved=0CB8QmwMoAA

*
  in·her·ent Adjective   /inˈhi(ə)rənt/   /-ˈher-/ listen
  Synonyms:
      o adjective: innate, inborn, native, intrinsic, natural
      o
        Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute
            +
              any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers
            +
              the symbolism inherent in all folk tales
      o
        Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege
            +
              the president's inherent foreign affairs power

I find it ambiguous because people are not born with the same traits uniformly. People have different strengths and weaknesses. What is inherent to one may not be in another or be so in different degree.

How is it not consistent?

 

[davidv]

Dude - are you actually reading my posts or just using me as a sounding board -

Right back at you.

And yes, potentially to your amazement, I do actually read your post. I even sometimes understand them.

Since I wasn’t getting reasonable responses, I decided that maybe the lurkers would benefit from seeing the Church’s teachings regarding some of the information you presented.

So to summarize:

1. You have demostrated a faulty understanding of morality.
2. This misunderstanding is rooted you your adherence to relativism
3. You have not provide a coherent explanation of how relativism is the correct view.

Given the above, any statement you make about the morality of anything is, using biblical language, is build on a foundation of sand and is washed away in the flood of Truth.

 

[jonfawkes]

Right back at you.

And yes, potentially to your amazement, I do actually read your post. I even sometimes understand them.

Since I wasn’t getting reasonable responses, I decided that maybe the lurkers would benefit from seeing the Church’s teachings regarding some of the information you presented.

So to summarize:

1. You have demostrated a faulty understanding of morality.
2. This misunderstanding is rooted you your adherence to relativism
3. You have not provide a coherent explanation of how relativism is the correct view.

Given the above, any statement you make about the morality of anything is, using biblical language, is build on a foundation of sand and is washed away in the flood of Truth.

Why did you ask me the question

Your argument about unnatural is a strawman because “unnatural” is not reason for determining the immorality of an act. Just because something occurs in nature does not discount the immorality of an act.

Murders occur in nature. Does that mean they are moral?

when I had just stated as a reason against natural law as a determination of morality

1. The whole of human behavior must be considered “natural” because we are part of nature. There are human behaviors that I find undesirable and immoral.

 

[davidv]

Why did you ask me the question

when I had just stated as a reason against natural law as a determination of morality

Usually I ask a question hoping to get answer.
I asked, given that murders occur in nature, if murder was immoral.

Your response to that question

jonfawkes:

Dude - are you actually reading my posts or just using me as a sounding board -

did not provide an answer.

In fact it was a complete dodge.

What am to conclude?

 

[jonfawkes]

Usually I ask a question hoping to get answer.
I asked, given that murders occur in nature, if murder was immoral.

Your response to that question did not provide an answer.

In fact it was a complete dodge.

What am to conclude?

:banghead:

Yes - there are things that occur in nature that I feel are immoral, murder being one of them. This is why appealing to natural law is not a good determination of morality.

 

[davidv]

:banghead:

Yes - there are things that occur in nature that I feel are immoral, murder being one of them. This is why appealing to natural law is not a good determination of morality.

Strawman. You have mistated what natural law is and thus you argument is invalid.

An excerpt from the Catholic Encylopedia article on Natural Law

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

 

[jonfawkes]

Strawman. You have mistated what natural law is and thus you argument is invalid.

An excerpt from the Catholic Encylopedia article on Natural Law

You’re seeing something I’m not. Can you spell it out more distinctly?

 

[Betterave]

The way it is used in natural law does imply this - the normal function of the penis and vagina is for sexual reproduction, so that must be the correct one. Anything that deviates is contrary to nature therefore immoral. That is the crux of the argument.

No, jon, it’s not! You’re just making up stupid arguments, aren’t you? If not, show me the source for your argument. Tell me, “X is a natural law theorist, and he/she argues that…” Most people prefer to eat simple sugars and fatty foods; if someone deviates from this natural propensity, preferring to eat grains and vegetables, no natural law theorist thinks this is immoral.

 

[davidv]

You’re seeing something I’m not. Can you spell it out more distinctly?

I have no idea what you are not seeing. Your posts only exhibit confusion. So, no I cannot spell out anything.

 

[Betterave]

I find it ambiguous because people are not born with the same traits uniformly. People have different strengths and weaknesses. What is inherent to one may not be in another or be so in different degree.

So what? Do you think absolutists deny this? Can you name one who does?

How is it not consistent?

It’s not consistent with your claim that ‘natural’ simply means ‘occurring in nature.’

 

[jonfawkes]

No, jon, it’s not! You’re just making up stupid arguments, aren’t you? If not, show me the source for your argument. Tell me, “X is a natural law theorist, and he/she argues that…” Most people prefer to eat simple sugars and fatty foods; if someone deviates from this natural propensity, preferring to eat grains and vegetables, no natural law theorist thinks this is immoral.

Kant

cond crimen carnis contra naturm (immoral acts against our animal nature) is intercourse between sexus homogenii, in which the object of sexual impulse is a human being but there is homogeneity instead heterogeneity of sex, as when a woman satisfies her desire on a woman, or a man on a man. This practice too is contrary to the ends of humanity; for the end of humanity is respect of sexuality is to preserve the species is without debasing the person; but in this instance the species is not being preserved (as it can be by a crimen carnis secundum naturam), but the person is set aside, the self is degraded below the level of animals, and humanity is dishonored

Preservation (procreation) is the “ends of humanity” - if it contrary to the “ends of humanity” it is immoral.