Moral dilemma.

[jonfawkes]

Your dishonesty is getting depressing. One more time:

Name one absolutist moral philosopher who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?

There is nothing dishonest about it, I never said it -

What I said was in the context of moral absolutism in the catholic church - the example that we are discussing is Homosexuality, Homosexuality is presented as a immoral, possibly an example of a moral absolute. I say that this moral absolute is only immoral in a faith context.

Please pay attention

 

[Betterave]

jon,
I’m beginning to doubt whether you are (capable of) understanding anything that I’m saying to you. Can you try to give me some feedback in terms of “okay, I get that point,” or “I don’t understand your claim/argument here,” etc.?

 

[Betterave]

There is nothing dishonest about it, I never said it -

What I said was in the context of moral absolutism in the catholic church - the example that we are discussing is Homosexuality, Homosexuality is presented as a immoral, possibly an example of a moral absolute. I say that this moral absolute is only immoral in a faith context.

Please pay attention

So you’ve changed the topic, but that doesn’t make one bit of difference! There are obviously Catholic absolutist moral philosophers: so again(!!!):

Name one absolutist moral philosopher - it’s fine if he or she happens to be Catholic - who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all (Catholic) absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?

Please note: if you could provide one, that would NOT show that your position is correct. It would just show that you’re not entirely full of sh*%, that there is a least a scrap of a starting point from which to have an intelligent discussion about your position.

 

[jonfawkes]

That doesn’t make one bit of difference! There are Catholic absolutist moral philosophers: so again(!!!):

Name one absolutist moral philosopher - it’s fine if he or she happens to be Catholic, genius! - who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all (Catholic) absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?

Please note: if you can provide one, that does NOT show that your position is correct. It will just show that you’re not entirely full of sh*%, that there is a least a scrap of a starting point from which to have an intelligent discussion about your position.

I have already posted a link from this site.

 

[Betterave]

I have already posted a link from this site.

Which I have already addressed.

 

[jonfawkes]

Which I have already addressed.

I have addressed your concerns - natural law in that context is an an appeal to the view formed by OT creation stories and OT and NT views on homosexuality. It doesn’t account for homosexual acts that do occur in nature.

Kant makes a similar argument.

A second 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

The only purpose of sex is procreation. This isn’t the case in the our species or other species. Sexual behaviors are also used for bonding. So it does hinge on the religious view of sex as an act only for procreation.

If you would like to throw out a non-religious view - I’d be happy to discuss it.

 

[davidv]

I have addressed your concerns - natural law in that context is an an appeal to the view formed by OT creation stories and OT and NT views on homosexuality. It doesn’t account for homosexual acts that do occur in nature.

Kant makes a similar argument.

The only purpose of sex is procreation. This isn’t the case in the our species or other species. Sexual behaviors are also used for bonding. So it does hinge on the religious view of sex as an act only for procreation.

If you would like to throw out a non-religious view - I’d be happy to discuss it.

The Natural Law view is non-religious. It is accessible using only human reason. If you don’t see that, I have to assume that you are being unreasonable. Is this a correct assumption?

 

[jonfawkes]

The Natural Law view is non-religious. It is accessible using only human reason. If you don’t see that, I have to assume that you are being unreasonable. Is this a correct assumption?

No, It functions on a set of assumptions of what is natural. I don’t think that the assumptions are valid nor the conclusions drawn are valid. Using reason.

 

[Betterave]

I have addressed your concerns - natural law in that context is an an appeal to the view formed by OT creation stories and OT and NT views on homosexuality.

No it isn’t.

It doesn’t account for homosexual acts that do occur in nature.

This comment is completely nonsensical, since the provision of such an account would never be the intent of a moral theory as such. If you mean that homosexual acts contradict natural law theory, please explain.

(Remember: clear premises and a conclusion that follows from those premises - try something like this:
P1. It is the case that…
P2. If it is the case that…, then…
C. Therefore, …)

Kant makes a similar argument.

The only purpose of sex is procreation. This isn’t the case in the our species or other species. Sexual behaviors are also used for bonding. So it does hinge on the religious view of sex as an act only for procreation.

Where is there any discussion of religion in this argument?? What the heck do you think ‘religious’ means?? Seriously??

 

[davidv]

No, It functions on a set of assumptions of what is natural. I don’t think that the assumptions are valid nor the conclusions drawn are valid. Using reason.

What assumption are these and why are they invalid?

 

[jonfawkes]

Viewing sexual intercourse as simply for procreation is a limited view of sexual intercourse in humans.Humans and other species engage in sexual intercourse as a method of pair bonding. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Dolphins are other species that share this trait. These species also exhibit homosexual behavior.

Any premise that discounts, dismisses or neglects this additional function of sexual intercourse is based on faulty premises. Any premise that places acts that occur in nature as unnatural is faulty.

The conclusion that any sexual intercourse that doesn’t include the possibility of procreation is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise. Fruit of the poison tree. This view of sex as simply procreation is largely religious one. Consistent with the dogma of the Catholic Church.

As a side note - Kant’s view would also make celibacy immoral sense the species isn’t being preserved. So he is constant in regards to Homosexuality but not celibacy with the views of the Catholic Church.

Also the notion of Natural Law connotes that “natural” means common and correct.
There are deviants from the norm which must be considered within the realm of natural, since they occur in nature. For example left handedness, dwarfism, albinism, etc. These things are not considered immoral. The singling out of sexual deviance isn’t consistent. Other deviance are tolerated as natural and moral. A further reason for it’s immorality must be given to be logical.

 

[davidv]

Viewing sexual intercourse as simply for procreation is a limited view of sexual intercourse in humans.

Agreed. Please see Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body for a full explanation of human sexuality.

Humans and other species engage in sexual intercourse as a method of pair bonding. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Dolphins are other species that share this trait. These species also exhibit homosexual behavior.

I am human and not Bonobo, Chimpanzee or Dolphin. Any comparison to them is insulting and irrelevant.

Any premise that discounts, dismisses or neglects this additional function of sexual intercourse is based on faulty premises.

Agreed.

Any premise that places acts that occur in nature as unnatural is faulty.

Faulty reasoning. Cancer occurs in nature, yet it is declared unnatural.

The conclusion that any sexual intercourse that doesn’t include the possibility of procreation is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise.

You have not demonstrated a faulty premise.

Fruit of the poison tree.

What is this?

This view of sex as simply procreation is largely religious one. Consistent with the dogma of the Catholic Church.

Simplistic and faulty reasoning. You have not established the sex for procreation is “largely religious”.

As a side note - Kant’s view would also make celibacy immoral sense the species isn’t being preserved. So he is constant in regards to Homosexuality but not celibacy with the views of the Catholic Church.

Why should I believe Kant over the Church teaching.

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

Your understanding of Natural Law is faulty. It does not mean laws of nature.

There are deviants from the norm which must be considered within the realm of natural, since they occur in nature. For example left handedness, dwarfism, albinism, etc. These things are not considered immoral. The singling out of sexual deviance isn’t consistent. Other deviance are tolerated as natural and moral. A further reason for it’s immorality must be given to be logical.

Deviations from normal are just that. There is no implication of making these abnormalities consistent with Natural Law and the right ordering of the human person.

Logical reasons have been presented. Have you failed to recognize them, or have you just “hand-waved” them away without explanation?

 

[jonfawkes]

Agreed. Please see Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body for a full explanation of human sexuality.

I am human and not Bonobo, Chimpanzee or Dolphin. Any comparison to them is insulting and irrelevant.

Agreed.

Faulty reasoning. Cancer occurs in nature, yet it is declared unnatural.

You have not demonstrated a faulty premise.

What is this?

Simplistic and faulty reasoning. You have not established the sex for procreation is “largely religious”.

Why should I believe Kant over the Church teaching.

Your understanding of Natural Law is faulty. It does not mean laws of nature.

Deviations from normal are just that. There is no implication of making these abnormalities consistent with Natural Law and the right ordering of the human person.

Logical reasons have been presented. Have you failed to recognize them, or have you just “hand-waved” them away without explanation?

Natural means occurring in the natural world - cancer occurs in the natural world so it is natural. Homosexuality also occurs in nature, so also is natural. The secondary function of sexual intercourse as bonding mechanism is also natural.

To appeal to natural law without acknowledging these facts is presenting an argument based on a faulty premise.

The Catholic (and other Abrahamic religions) view is sex is in the context of marriage with the goal of procreation. I don’t think this needs to be demonstrated at great lengths.

2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122

The study of human sexuality shows a wider occurrence of sex than acts with in the bonds of marriage. This happens in the natural world so is also “natural”

Appeals to procreation only sex fall into this religious view not with in the study of human sexuality which shows a broader view.

Kant was used as a “non-religious” example - you don’t have to believe him at all.

You don’t demonstrate why one deviation is immoral while another is not.

 

[davidv]

Natural means occurring in the natural world - cancer occurs in the natural world so it is natural. Homosexuality also occurs in nature, so also is natural. The secondary function of sexual intercourse as bonding mechanism is also natural.

To appeal to natural law without acknowledging these facts is presenting an argument based on a faulty premise.

The Catholic (and other Abrahamic religions) view is sex is in the context of marriage with the goal of procreation. I don’t think this needs to be demonstrated at great lengths.

The study of human sexuality shows a wider occurrence of sex than acts with in the bonds of marriage. This happens in the natural world so is also “natural”

Appeals to procreation only sex fall into this religious view not with in the study of human sexuality which shows a broader view.

Kant was used as a “non-religious” example - you don’t have to believe him at all.

You don’t demonstrate why one deviation is immoral while another is not.

Based what you write above, I don’t believe you believe anything is immoral.
Edit: So I don’t believe you would accept any explanation for the difference between moral and immoral acts that occur in nature.

 

[jonfawkes]

Based what you write above, I don’t believe you believe anything is immoral.
Edit: So I don’t believe you would accept any explanation for the difference between moral and immoral acts that occur in nature.

No, I just don’t believe that “natural law” is a good determiner of what is moral or immoral.

 

[Betterave]

Any premise that places acts that occur in nature as unnatural is faulty.

Why is that?

The conclusion that any sexual intercourse that doesn’t include the possibility of procreation is a faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise. Fruit of the poison tree. This view of sex as simply procreation is largely religious one. Consistent with the dogma of the Catholic Church.

Could you try to be more careful with your grammar to start with, and in general with expressing yourself more intelligibly? Maybe better arguments will follow.

As a side note - Kant’s view would also make celibacy immoral sense the species isn’t being preserved. So he is constant in regards to Homosexuality but not celibacy with the views of the Catholic Church.

So…?

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

No it doesn’t. Where did you get that idea?

 

[jonfawkes]

Why is that?

Because it is contrary to the definition - something that is natural is something that occurs in nature.

No it doesn’t. Where did you get that idea?

It is connotation - if something is in accordance with natural law it is deemed moral and/or correct. If it deemed unnatural then immoral and/or incorrect.

 

[davidv]

No, I just don’t believe that “natural law” is a good determiner of what is moral or immoral.

Why?

 

[Betterave]

Because it is contrary to the definition - something that is natural is something that occurs in nature.

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.)

It is connotation - if something is in accordance with natural law it is deemed moral and/or correct. If it deemed unnatural then immoral and/or incorrect.

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).

 

[jonfawkes]

Why?

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.