Natural Law and Beards?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PRmerger

Guest
So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on contraception I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. If the act of eating does not achieve its natural end of filling, the organism will starve. Think about bulimia.” source

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. 😛 )
 
PRmerger said:
So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on contraception I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. If the act of eating does not achieve its natural end of filling, the organism will starve. Think about bulimia.” source

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. 😛 )
Click to expand...
I’ve had the same question regarding anesthesia and childbirth (given the Biblical injunction) and have never heard a satisfactory response to that either.
 
Well, this is certainly a topic I have never considered – or ever would consider. 🙂 I’ve never really thought about whether beard or hair even had a natural end. However, if the natural end of a beard is to grow, I’d suggest that trimming or shaving a beard does not prevent it from growing. (But personally, I don’t think that hair has an “end.” It’s just there.)
 
I should have thought that the purpose of the beard was to protect the face from he elements and possibly wild animals or something. Since we no longer need the beard to protect us from that, there’s no problem with shaving it. That’s just off the top of my head, though.

–Jen

P.S. When I said “we” I meant mankind. I do NOT have a beard. :yukonjoe: 😃
 
I wouldn’t say a beard’s natural function is to grow. I would say it doesn’t necessarily have a natural function other than possibly for aesthetics and, maybe at one time, warmth.

This is my personal opinion, but a natural end should be something that provides service for the person, like how the natural end for sex is unification of spouses and creation of new life. So, if something doesn’t have a function, then it doesn’t have a natural end.
 
I’m not an expert on Natural Law, but I don’t see how facial hair can have any morality attached to it. Maybe this falls under the “common sense” clause.

Then again, I don’t see any reason why men would shave their beards. Be proud, men. 🙂
 
40.png
Garyjohn2:
I’m not an expert on Natural Law, but I don’t see how facial hair can have any morality attached to it. Maybe this falls under the “common sense” clause.

Then again, I don’t see any reason why men would shave their beards. Be proud, men.
Click to expand...
Well, they do make for rather scratchy kisses. I’m used to it, but every time my 18 month old kisses his dad, he pulls away with a pained look on his face. But he still kisses him, so I guess it’s not too bad. Plus he would be really, really confused if my husband shaved it - he doesn’t recognize DH in pictures without it.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
One could then argue that fingernails are to grow, so clipping them violates natural law as well. But… hairs fall out, naturally. Fingernails do not. Therefore, cutting the beard is only accelerating that which would naturally occur, whereas clipping the fingernails is unnatural.

With an allergy, copious amounts of mucus are produced. Therefore, to take a medication that stops it is against the natural law, too.

Or we could just say that Man can advance and have dominion over his environment to make his life more comfortable. And if that means shaving off his beard, so be it.
 
PRmerger said:
So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on contraception I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. If the act of eating does not achieve its natural end of filling, the organism will starve. Think about bulimia.” source

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. 😛 )
Click to expand...
You are using the word ‘nature’ wrong. It refers to human nature, not to the nature of an act. It refers to what is common in us all.
 
Because growing or cutting a beard does not keep the organism from achieving what it is meant to do.

Not eatig or eating can make all the difference in what an organism is meant to do, which is live.

The internet is also unnatural, but the internet is just an extension of communication, which is natural. The internet also does not prevent the organism from achieving what it is meant to do.
 
Your logic: Dont cut any hair(s) or beard/
Dont cut finger nails/don’t cut toe nails/ Don’t
brush your teeth and certainly don’t wipe your…
Code: 
             Shall I go on?
Isn’t it wonderful that people in C21st still think like Pharisees BC?
Don’t you know Jesus scorned all such trivia.

Time to grow up and get a proper job.
 
jimmy said:
You are using the word ‘nature’ wrong. It refers to human nature, not to the nature of an act. It refers to what is common in us all.
Click to expand...
So how do we apply that logic to contraception in its proper perspective?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I’ve had the same question regarding anesthesia and childbirth (given the Biblical injunction) and have never heard a satisfactory response to that either.
Click to expand...
That’s a different argument. You’re saying: if the Bible says women are to bear children in pain, why is anesthesia permissible?

My question is: if it’s wrong to interrupt the natural end of things, why isn’t it wrong to shave one’s beard?
 
hodgewyfe said:
Well, this is certainly a topic I have never considered – or ever would consider. 🙂 I’ve never really thought about whether beard or hair even had a natural end. However, if the natural end of a beard is to grow, I’d suggest that trimming or shaving a beard does not prevent it from growing. (But personally, I don’t think that hair has an “end.” It’s just there.)
Click to expand...
Good point.

So it would be immoral to put something on one’s body that inhibited the hair from growing at all?
 
Bookcat said:
Natural Moral Law and the various ends of things in nature are rather different subjects.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this.

From the Urban Dictionary:

The most basic principles to Natural Law involves a particular absolute truth: Everything has one nature that defines what it is, and everything is what it is simply because it is. The nature of an object, thing, or idea is defined attaching the suffix -ness to the end of said object, thing, or idea. EX: A chair has “chairness”, a human has “humanness”, a rock has “rockness”, etc. The absolute truth about the state of beings of objects, things, and ideas is impossible to separate from the item.

Thus, the “absolute truth” about a beard, or that which makes something have “beardness”, is for it to grow.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
I’m not an expert on Natural Law, but I don’t see how facial hair can have any morality attached to it. Maybe this falls under the “common sense” clause.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that facial hair has morality.

Rather, I am talking about the principle of interrupting a thing’s natural essence. This is immoral, it appears, from the Catholic perspective.
 
Richard320 said:
One could then argue that fingernails are to grow, so clipping them violates natural law as well. But… hairs fall out, naturally. Fingernails do not. Therefore, cutting the beard is only accelerating that which would naturally occur, whereas clipping the fingernails is unnatural.

With an allergy, copious amounts of mucus are produced. Therefore, to take a medication that stops it is against the natural law, too.

Or we could just say that Man can advance and have dominion over his environment to make his life more comfortable. And if that means shaving off his beard, so be it.
Click to expand...
Right.

So how does one hold the view above, which sounds reasonable, yet also uphold the Catholic Church’s argument that (artificial) contraception is immoral?
 
tobbias88 said:
Your logic: Dont cut any hair(s) or beard/
Dont cut finger nails/don’t cut toe nails/ Don’t
brush your teeth and certainly don’t wipe your…
Code: 
             Shall I go on?
Isn’t it wonderful that people in C21st still think like Pharisees BC?
Don’t you know Jesus scorned all such trivia.

Time to grow up and get a proper job.
Click to expand...
Huh?

This is a forum in which we discuss ideas, as they are appropriate to Catholic Apologetics.

Please try to see the bigger picture and think in the abstract here, tobbias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top