Natural Law and Beards?

[bzkoss236]

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 he’s single and looking, then it would be to help him find a partner. If he’s married, it helps strengthen the bond between him and his partner because taking care of yourself and looking nice for them is a way of showing love and affection.

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”?

It is obvious that some articles of clothing could not be worn during the marital act because it would make the act impossible. And those that do not hinder the marital act then do not create a barrier to the act, because they can still give 100% of themselves during the act. While it may create a physical barrier for skin-to-skin contact, it does not create a barrier to the marital act.

 

[Highwayhound]

Then again, I don’t see any reason why men would shave their beards. Be proud, men.

Well, we might shave because if we did not then by the end of our lives we would be hefting around 27 foot long beards. :bigyikes:

Beards grow approximately 1/2 inch per month.

So without shaving our beards several problems might arise. We might trip over it. We might throw our old man backs out by carrying it around. It certainly would get stuck in all these automated doors. I would not even contemplate the use of an escalator. :nope:

Of course now that we are not supposed to have children ride in shopping carts men could use that empty seat space for their beards while grocery shopping. Well men old enough to have beards long enough that they would need carrying.

Now I wonder if a man with a sufficiently long beard were to braid it properly could he use it as a whip? :newidea: This would be especially handy while bicycling in Canada as it seems those Canadian farmers all have very large pooches.

The one purpose I do know for a beard is that it will keep a man’s face wonderfully warm in cold temps. This I learned while bicycle camping in Alaska one year. The one problem with a beard is that it does not keep one’s nose warm. It was so strange to have a completely comfortable face except for my nose.

Just wondering does anyone suffer from Pogonophobia?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

If he’s single and looking, then it would be to help him find a partner. If he’s married, it helps strengthen the bond between him and his partner because taking care of yourself and looking nice for them is a way of showing love and affection.

So it would be immoral for single men to shave and moral for married men to shave?

iI is obvious that some articles of clothing could not be worn during the marital act because it would make the act impossible. And those that do not hinder the marital act then do not create a barrier to the act, because they can still give 100% of themselves during the act. While it may create a physical barrier for skin-to-skin contact, it does not create a barrier to the marital act.

The Catholic Church does not take such a narrow view of the marital act.

You have essentially reduced the profound, sublime, magnificent marital act to the act of penetration of genitals.

That is not the Catholic view.

The marital act is the entirety of the act–which is why it’s not just for procreation, but also for unification.

Thus, when one views the marital act as the Catholic Church does, and also holds the idea that a “barrier” prevents someone from giving himself/herself fully, it would appear that having an article of clothing remaining would, indeed, be immoral.

 

[bzkoss236]

So it would be immoral for single men to shave and moral for married men to shave?

No, I meant that it was moral for both. I meant that if a single man shaved, it would be to find a partner.

The Catholic Church does not take such a narrow view of the marital act.

You have essentially reduced the profound, sublime, magnificent marital act to the act of penetration of genitals.

That is not the Catholic view.

The marital act is the entirety of the act–which is why it’s not just for procreation, but also for unification.

Thus, when one views the marital act as the Catholic Church does, and also holds the idea that a “barrier” prevents someone from giving himself/herself fully, it would appear that having an article of clothing remaining would, indeed, be immoral.

Don’t put words into my mouth. The unitive aspect can still occur if one or both are somewhat clothed. The unitive part of the act deals with whatever allows the couple to grow closer, and for some this might involve fetishes, and some of which might involve having clothes on, or even costumes. However, these things cannot remove the procreative part of the marital act. That is what I was saying. You don’t have to be unclothed for unification to occur.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t put words into my mouth. The unitive aspect can still occur if one or both are somewhat clothed. The unitive part of the act deals with whatever allows the couple to grow closer, and for some this might involve fetishes, and some of which might involve having clothes on, or even costumes. However, these things cannot remove the procreative part of the marital act. That is what I was saying. You don’t have to be unclothed for unification to occur.

Fair enough.

I just don’t buy the "condoms are immoral because they are a barrier’ argument against contraception. If that were true, then any article of clothing retained during the marital act would also be a barrier.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I meant that it was moral for both. I meant that if a single man shaved, it would be to find a partner.

Then he would be interrupting the natural end of the beard, which is to attract a mate. The beard is to attract. Shaving it, therefore, removes the attraction. And is therefore immoral.

By this reasoning.

 

[bzkoss236]

Then he would be interrupting the natural end of the beard, which is to attract a mate. The beard is to attract. Shaving it, therefore, removes the attraction. And is therefore immoral.

By this reasoning.

No, you missed my initial point. The beard is allowed to be shaved, trimmed, etc. in such a way to where the man feels it would attract a mate. Some men might feel that they do not look good with a beard, and therefore the beard is useless, and so it is moral for it to be completely shaved off.

 

[PRmerger]

No, you missed my initial point. The beard is allowed to be shaved, trimmed, etc. in such a way to where the man feels it would attract a mate. Some men might feel that they do not look good with a beard, and therefore the beard is useless, and so it is moral for it to be completely shaved off.

But then you are frustrating the natural end of the beard.

That is immoral, according to the same principle that ABC is immoral.

 

[bzkoss236]

But then you are frustrating the natural end of the beard.

That is immoral, according to the same principle that ABC is immoral.

You’re still not getting it.

What if I said that the purpose of a beard was to be dealt with in any way the man wants to attract a mate, which would include trimming or outright shaving?

 

[LilyM]

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?

ONE OF the reasons. If it were the only reason artificial contraception was immoral - and, as pointed above, could be demonstrated that the purpose of a beard was to grow - then you might have a point.

As the former is untrue and the latter has not been demonstrated, the analogy fails.

 

[Nigel7]

I don’t see any reason why men would shave their beards. Be proud, men.

Amen to that.

it doesn’t necessarily have a natural function other than possibly for aesthetics and, maybe at one time, warmth.

I stand out at the bus stop every weekday to catch the bus into town. It is currently 17 degrees and snowing where I live. Believe me, my beard will serve me quite well out there come Monday morning. http://www.jwtalk.net/forum/smilies/bearedSmiley.gif

 

[Tony_the_mad]

1 Corinthians 11: 14

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given for a covering?”

I am naturally suspicious of any argument that depends on what is ‘natural’ since what is ‘natural’ too often depends on culture.

 

[bzkoss236]

I stand out at the bus stop every weekday to catch the bus into town. It is currently 17 degrees and snowing where I live. Believe me, my beard will serve me quite well out there come Monday morning. http://www.jwtalk.net/forum/smilies/bearedSmiley.gif

I’m glad it can still keep you warm! I have to use a scarf…

 

[PRmerger]

ONE OF the reasons. If it were the only reason artificial contraception was immoral - and, as pointed above, could be demonstrated that the purpose of a beard was to grow - then you might have a point.

As the former is untrue and the latter has not been demonstrated, the analogy fails.

What is the purpose, then, of a beard? What is its natural end?

 

[PRmerger]

1 Corinthians 11: 14

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given for a covering?”

I am naturally suspicious of any argument that depends on what is ‘natural’ since what is ‘natural’ too often depends on culture.

Indeed.

The argument about natural law, though, is not about what is “natural”, in the sense that you use it above.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re still not getting it.

What if I said that the purpose of a beard was to be dealt with in any way the man wants to attract a mate, which would include trimming or outright shaving?

I would say that this is not the classic Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of teleological ends.