Natural Law and Beards?

[Richard320]

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?

The difference is that a man cannot control his beard growing, or his fingernails growing, or his nose running. But he can control his urges. If he doesn’t want kids, he doesn’t have sex.

Also, hair growth and the rest are all personal, but sex includes another person. If you’re having sex with artificial contraception, you may as well get a blowup doll.

Up at the very top of the page there is a tab marked chastity. If you follow it, there are talks about birth control. They’ll do a better job explaining it than I can, and I don’t have to type so much.

 

[PRmerger]

The difference is that a man cannot control his beard growing, or his fingernails growing, or his nose running. But he can control his urges. If he doesn’t want kids, he doesn’t have sex.

Also, hair growth and the rest are all personal, but sex includes another person. If you’re having sex with artificial contraception, you may as well get a blowup doll.

Up at the very top of the page there is a tab marked chastity. If you follow it, there are talks about birth control. They’ll do a better job explaining it than I can, and I don’t have to type so much.

So when you say that it’s okay for man to have control and dominion over his environment (that is, we can trim our fingernails) how is using birth control to have dominion over our fertility illicit?

 

[Richard320]

So when you say that it’s okay for man to have control and dominion over his environment (that is, we can trim our fingernails) how is using birth control to have dominion over our fertility illicit?

I already answered you.

Do you want to learn, or argue? You can’t have listened to any of the talks. They wouldn’t even be done buffering this fast!

 

[PRmerger]

I already answered you.

Do you want to learn, or argue? You can’t have listened to any of the talks. They wouldn’t even be done buffering this fast!

Been there. Done that, Richard.
There’s nothing in there about beards, as it applies to my question.

And the purpose of the forum is to discuss.

If you don’t want to discuss, then…:

 

[Pug]

Well, I think it is perfectly okay to eat something of zero nutritive or filling value. I’ve done so several times for medical tests.

Also, where is it written that the purpose of a beard is to grow? Perhaps its purpose is to serve the organism (the human), perhaps as a social symbol.

 

[centurionguard]

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 would have thought shaving ones beard for men would be the unatural course of action given the naturally contention that men naturally grow beards.

Shaving itself is a Egyptian/Greek tradition passed on the the Romans. Bodily Hair Grooming for woman and men is a vain human custom thousands of years old. Not sure why or how Natural Law enters into this equation.

 

[McDale721]

The end of my beard is about 3 inches right now…

 

[PRmerger]

I would have thought shaving ones beard for men would be the unatural course of action given the naturally contention that men naturally grow beards.

Exactly!

So how does a Catholic reconcile

A) shaving beards = not immoral
B) artificial contraception = immoral

when one of the arguments proffered for B is that it is wrong because it interferes with the natural course of action of the procreative nature of the marital act.

Shaving itself is a Egyptian/Greek tradition passed on the the Romans.

Fascinating! I shall use this whenever I am in dialogue with someone who objects to Catholicism because it allegedly “borrows from Egyptian traditions”. I shall say, “Oh, really? Do you object, then, to shaving, as it is an Egyptian/Greek tradition passed on to the Romans.”

But first, can you cite a source for me for this?

 

[bzkoss236]

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.

First, why are you using urban dictionary when its words are user defined? Why not use a more official and reliable source?

Second, you stating that what makes a beard’s “beardness” is for it to grow is still an assumption you are making. You have not given evidence for what makes a beard a beard is that it grows.

A beard is nothing more than a name for hair which grows on the face around the mouth and neck which sometimes includes a mustache.

Since a beard is only hair, then if hair’s “hairness” (its purpose) is to grow, then shaving would be immoral. However, you can’t prove that this is its purpose any more than you could assert that it is the purpose of a human to grow. And if it is immoral for a person to not grow, then those who have height deficiencies are being immoral for not growing.

Growing is not a purpose. It is just something that happens. Growing is morally neutral. Something can’t grow or not grow to immorality. And to prevent something which is not alive from growing can’t be immoral either. And hair cannot potentially become alive.

 

[PRmerger]

First, why are you using urban dictionary when its words are user defined? Why not use a more official and reliable source?

Fair enough.

How about this:

Many but not all natural rights theorists also take a natural-law approach to this question, but historically a natural-law approach to ethics has been more teleological – that is, based on the natural end or good for human beings-- than utilitarian.

Source: bu.edu/rbarnett/Guide.htm#F66

Please note the footnote #66.

Thus, if we take the teleological approach: what do you think is the teleological end of a beard?

It is, of course, to grow.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

I’ve had the same question regarding anesthesia and childbirth (given the Biblical injunction) and have never heard a satisfactory response to that either.

This won’t be a satisfactory response, but perhaps it will be some food for thought.

Until the latter part of the 19th century, women were attended to in childbirth by other women who were experienced in helping them through the process. They were free to move about in labor and get themselves into a position of most comfort when it came time to deliver. Sure, they went without an epidural, but because they could work with nature, instead of against it, the pain was likely more tolerable than it is for most women today. Why? Well, for the past 100+ years in North America, childbirth has fallen under the domain of medical professionals, many of whom have never and will never give birth simply because their gender doesn’t have a uterus. They have taken the natural act of giving birth and turned it into a potential medical disaster which necessitates a woman being stuck in bed, hooked up to monitors, and unable to move about or get into a position optimal for delivery of a baby; instead being stuck on her back because it’s more convenient for the doctor, especially for internal monitoring and performing the most common surgical procedure done on women- the episiotomy. When that happens, she’s unable to deal with the pain in a way that generations of women before her did- by working with the pain to birth the baby. Therefore, it’s become almost necessary for a women to have some kind of anesthesia for childbirth, simply because it has now became a medical procedure (inductions which bring on stronger and more painful contractions than those without artificial enhancement, episiotomies, constant monitoring, routine IV’s, C-section, etc), instead of a natural act in which God intended. Childbirth in the hospital today can save lives, which is awesome, but the level of medical care that is involved equals that of an appendectomy. Which of course, no one, male or female, would be expected to endure without anesthesia. I’ve had 3 C-sections, all with regional anesthesia. I cannot imagine God would think I was sinning or going against “natural law” because I was numb before being cut open from side to side to remove my children from the womb. I don’t think it’s against natural law to have pain relief when one gives birth in the hospital setting, either. That’s my take on it.

 

[PRmerger]

This won’t be a satisfactory response, but perhaps it will be some food for thought.

Until the latter part of the 19th century, women were attended to in childbirth by other women who were experienced in helping them through the process. They were free to move about in labor and get themselves into a position of most comfort when it came time to deliver. Sure, they went without an epidural, but because they could work with nature, instead of against it, the pain was likely more tolerable than it is for most women today. Why? Well, for the past 100+ years in North America, childbirth has fallen under the domain of medical professionals, many of whom have never and will never give birth simply because their gender doesn’t have a uterus.** They have taken the natural act of giving birth and turned it into a potential medical disaster **which necessitates a woman being stuck in bed, hooked up to monitors, and unable to move about or get into a position optimal for delivery of a baby; instead being stuck on her back because it’s more convenient for the doctor. When that happens, she’s unable to deal with the pain in a way that generations of women before her did- by working with the pain to birth the baby. Therefore, it’s become almost necessary for a women to have some kind of anesthesia for childbirth, simply because it has now became a medical procedure (inductions which bring on stronger and more painful contractions than those without artificial enhancement, episiotomies, constant monitoring, routine IV’s, C-section, etc), instead of a natural act in which God intended. Childbirth in the hospital today can save lives, which is awesome, but the level of medical care that is involved equals that of an appendectomy. Which of course, no one, male or female, would be expected to endure without anesthesia. That’s my take on it.

I don’t disagree with much of what you have to say…

except I must argue against your bolded section.

Health care providers are not to blame for turning childbirth into a “potential medical disaster.”

That is the product of the human body. Pushing out a human person through a small canal, with all body systems involved, will always be a “potential medical disaster.”

That is not the fault of the medical professionals.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

I don’t disagree with much of what you have to say…

except I must argue against your bolded section.

Health care providers are not to blame for turning childbirth into a “potential medical disaster.”

That is the product of the human body. Pushing out a human person through a small canal, with all body systems involved, will always be a “potential medical disaster.”

That is not the fault of the medical professionals.

Having worked for years in maternal/newborn health care in the hospital setting, I will say that the majority of moms do not need constant monitoring and inductions, and they certainly do not need to labor and deliver on their back just because it’s easier for the doctor. It was the physician’s taking over all childbirth and treating pregnancy as a state of illness that needs medical management instead of a state of health that might need occasional assistance that caused women to be “put to bed” for birth, starting a cascade of interventions that are usually unnecessary. This info can be found in any OB nursing textbook published since the mid-1990’s when the topic of the history of childbirth is introduced, Thankfully, the trend is going back to a more natural approach to birth- not just the single-room care, but the mindset of letting women move about during labor and birth and allowing her to birth in a position of comfort- for her and baby, which of course allows for a much easier passage through the birth canal instead of the baby getting stuck up under the pelvic bone because of mom’s position of being on back with legs in stirrups, often prolonging pushing and increasing fetal distress and increasing the chances of a C-section. That’s where I was going with the comments about medical professionals and childbirth. I always felt my hands were tied when I had patients that really wanted to move around and have a natural birth experience, but standing orders and protocol required otherwise; thus starting the cascade of interventions:shrug:

 

[bzkoss236]

It is, of course, to grow.

You are still making an assumption without evidence that the end of a beard is to grow.

I would say the end is for aesthetic appeal. That it is used as a method for looks to attract the opposite sex. Which would mean that trimming the beard would be moral because some woman find certain beards, or no beards at all, more attractive than untrimmed, unkempt beards.

Can you prove that its theological end is not for aesthetics?

 

[centurionguard]

Exactly!

So how does a Catholic reconcile

A) shaving beards = not immoral
B) artificial contraception = immoral

when one of the arguments proffered for B is that it is wrong because it interferes with the natural course of action of the procreative nature of the marital act.

Fascinating! I shall use this whenever I am in dialogue with someone who objects to Catholicism because it allegedly “borrows from Egyptian traditions”. I shall say, “Oh, really? Do you object, then, to shaving, as it is an Egyptian/Greek tradition passed on to the Romans.”

But first, can you cite a source for me for this?

A) shaving beards = not immoral
B) artificial contraception = immoral

I’d say what the Catholic Church thinks about (“shaven or unshaven beards”) is completely irrelevant.

when one of the arguments proffered for B is that it is wrong because it interferes with the natural course of action of the procreative nature of the marital act.

No argument here.

Fascinating! I shall use this whenever I am in dialogue with someone who objects to Catholicism because it allegedly “borrows from Egyptian traditions”. I shall say, “Oh, really? Do you object, then, to shaving, as it is an Egyptian/Greek tradition passed on to the Romans.”

But first, can you cite a source for me for this?

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say what the Catholic Church thinks about (“shaven or unshaven beards”) is completely irrelevant.

It’s relevant if you apply this principle:

“It is immoral to frustrate the natural end of a natural faculty.”

That’s one of the reasons why ABC is immoral.

Yet, one is also frustrating the natural end of a beard’s natural faculty to grow when one shaves. So why is this permissible?

 

[bzkoss236]

It’s relevant if you apply this principle:

“It is immoral to frustrate the natural end of a natural faculty.”

That’s one of the reasons why ABC is immoral.

Yet, one is also frustrating the natural end of a beard’s natural faculty to grow when one shaves. So why is this permissible?

I say it’s because the natural end of a beard’s natural faculty is not to grow. And you have yet to prove that it is. Just because you say it is, is not a proof.

Also, it seems what you are trying to accomplish is to get people to see contraception as moral. Is this right?

 

[PRmerger]

I say it’s because the natural end of a beard’s natural faculty is not to grow.

Then why do beards grow?

Also, it seems what you are trying to accomplish is to get people to see contraception as moral. Is this right?

What I am trying to accomplish, bzk, is to be able to provide a good apologia for those who raise a valid question. If it’s against natural law to use artificial contraception, why isn’t it against natural to shave a beard?

Right now, if a pro-contraceptive Catholic asked me that question, the only response I could give is, “That’s a good question. I really don’t know. It does seem consistent to either be: pro contraception and pro shaving, or anti-contraception and anti-shaving. But it does seem inconsistent to say: it’s wrong to contracept but fine to shave.”

 

[bzkoss236]

Then why do beards grow?

What I am trying to accomplish, bzk, is to be able to provide a good apologia for those who raise a valid question. If it’s against natural law to use artificial contraception, why isn’t it against natural to shave a beard?

Right now, if a pro-contraceptive Catholic asked me that question, the only response I could give is, “That’s a good question. I really don’t know. It does seem consistent to either be: pro contraception and pro shaving, or anti-contraception and anti-shaving. But it does seem inconsistent to say: it’s wrong to contracept but fine to shave.”

Then I would say, beards grow to allow a man to style himself in such a way which he thinks would attract a “mate” to put it in objective, animalistic, and somewhat scientific terms. For some, they don’t need to shave. Some shave only a little. Others only trim and groom. And yet others shave it all off.

If you go for beards, why stop there. Why not bring up any hair on a male body. Is it immoral to shave or trim the hair on one’s head? In the bible doesn’t it mention that a man’s hair should not be longer than a woman’s? Is it immoral to wax one’s back hair, which serves no function, and means the fact that it grows is pointless?

The point of anything on one’s person in terms of Natural Law (which I believe the Church says only applies to humans) is the purpose a body part serves to the person. So the purpose of the bodily hair has to serve a purpose to the person. If it doesn’t serve a purpose, then there is no need for it and therefore not immoral to remove it. Contraceptives would be removing a critical bodily function, the means to reproduce. NFP is not immoral because the function to reproduce is still there, but because of the woman’s natural cycle in the course of her menstruation and/or post-birth functions (breast feeding), renders her temporarily infertile. And since this is a natural process, done on the woman’s natural time, it is a moral form of preventing contraception (though, in the Church’s view, good reason is needed to do so). Contraceptives, like birth control, confuse the woman’s body into doing things on unnatural timing and can harm the woman. However, using birth control as a means of medicine where it can correct a dysfunctional cycle, is a moral use.

This is all based on my understanding of things, so…

ps. Not to mention that I personally feel that contraceptives put a barrier between a couple preventing from being able to completely give 100% of themselves to each other, which is what a married couple should do. They are to become one flesh, and you can’t become one flesh if you withhold part of yourself. You need to give of yourself completely, especially in the marital act.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I would say, beards grow to allow a man to style himself in such a way which he thinks would attract a “mate” to put it in objective, animalistic, and somewhat scientific terms. For some, they don’t need to shave. Some shave only a little. Others only trim and groom. And yet others shave it all off.

It would seem, then, that this belief also supports the fact that it would be immoral to shave. At least, if he’s single and looking.

If you go for beards, why stop there. Why not bring up any hair on a male body. Is it immoral to shave or trim the hair on one’s head? In the bible doesn’t it mention that a man’s hair should not be longer than a woman’s? Is it immoral to wax one’s back hair, which serves no function, and means the fact that it grows is pointless?

Exactly!

ps. Not to mention that I personally feel that contraceptives put a barrier between a couple preventing from being able to completely give 100% of themselves to each other, which is what a married couple should do. They are to become one flesh, and you can’t become one flesh if you withhold part of yourself. You need to give of yourself completely, especially in the marital act.

Interesting. Then by this logic do you disapprove of husband and wife who keep some article of clothing on during the marital embrace? Is this not forming a “barrier”?