Natural Law Philosophy Debunked? Earmuffs

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JJO

Guest
Hi guys,

The Catechism says this
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the ultimate purpose of the sexual faculty” which is why masturbation, contraception etc are wrong.

But what if I deliberately use my hearing faculties (my ears) for reasons outside normal hearing purposes such as wearing fluffy earmuffs as a fashionable thing to wear. This contradicts and frustrates the ultimate purpose of my ears so is blocking your ears also sinful?

Please help me to resolve this systematically and logically.

By the way, I completely agree with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, but I fear She hasn’t made her arguments very strong.

JJO
 
This is the reference for…
The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
Click to expand...
So the reason given here seems to be a sort of hybrid of natural law and teleology.
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage , for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153
Click to expand...
This ^ is the paragraph in the CCC referencing contraception. It also seems to be a hybrid of natural law and teleology.

So, none of this debunks natural law. Natural law isn’t really something that can be debunked. But one could argue that evoking natural law as a justification for these doctrines is questionable (And I think those arguments have taken place by theologians). Which I think is a valid point to argue from. But I’m not sure if it’s a worthwhile argument to make here outside of just being an exercise in furthering an understanding of natural law.
 
Last edited:
Covering your ears for warmth is not a deliberate use of the hearing faculty. A better analogy would be blasting white noise into them when someone is talking to you so that you actually cannot hear what is spoken. That would be deliberately using your ears for something they are not meant for that frustrates their actual purpose. The difference is sexual misuse is more serious than “hearing misuse” so the degree of gravity is a different kind.
 
Last edited:
JJO said:
Hi guys,

The Catechism says this
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the ultimate purpose of the sexual faculty” which is why masturbation, contraception etc are wrong.

But what if I deliberately use my hearing faculties (my ears) for reasons outside normal hearing purposes such as wearing fluffy earmuffs as a fashionable thing to wear. This contradicts and frustrates the ultimate purpose of my ears so is blocking your ears also sinful?

Please help me to resolve this systematically and logically.

By the way, I completely agree with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, but I fear She hasn’t made her arguments very strong.

JJO
Click to expand...
Putting earmuffs on is like wearing underwear.
It’s not a disordered use of the ear.
A better analogy might be trying to eat by shoving a pizza in your ear.
Using a hammer to clean glassware.
Using a car on a treadmill.
 
Last edited:
JJO said:
Hi guys,

The Catechism says this
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the ultimate purpose of the sexual faculty” which is why masturbation, contraception etc are wrong.

But what if I deliberately use my hearing faculties (my ears) for reasons outside normal hearing purposes such as wearing fluffy earmuffs as a fashionable thing to wear. This contradicts and frustrates the ultimate purpose of my ears so is blocking your ears also sinful?

Please help me to resolve this systematically and logically.

By the way, I completely agree with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, but I fear She hasn’t made her arguments very strong.

JJO
Click to expand...
If you think her arguments are not very strong, then you need to start studying St. Thomas Aquinas.

There is a reason why his writings are part of the Great Books of the Western World collection


BTW - earmuffs are to keep you ears warm, the same as all clothing. Now, if you were truly trying to make yourself deaf because you honestly didn’t want to hear, then yes I think one can argue that it would be potentially sinful.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
So, none of this debunks natural law. Natural law isn’t really something that can be debunked. But one could argue that evoking natural law as a justification for these doctrines is questionable
Click to expand...
That’s a very good point. Although, I can’t think of what other justifications there could be…

Nonetheless, why does the example of the earmuffs appear to also fit the requirements for something that goes againts the natural law.
 
People have already said plenty of applicable things. Earmuffs in general are used to protect the ear from elements that would do damage to them, such as excessive sound or cold. Other times to help a person sleep or concentrate. Preserving health and fitness is a good end. Otherwise, even wearing them is pretty much neutral.

And that’s really the issue. The proper use of one’s faculties, or something that is neutral, is fine. It is deliberate perversion of faculties and specifically acting contrary to (and not just neutrally to) those ends is what is immoral.
 
Neithan said:
Covering your hears for warmth is not a deliberate use of the hearing faculty. A better analogy would be blasting white noise into them when someone is talking to you so that you actually cannot hear what is spoken.
Click to expand...
That’s a good response. So if someone says it’s wrong to use a pen as a door-stopper because it goes against the purpose of a pen, the answer is no because you’re not actually using the pen???
 
If you want to come up with a suitable analogy you have to come at it from the other direction. In order to use sex properly it must be ordered towards unity of the spouses and procreation. In order to use hearing properly it must be ordered towards what?
 
Art for art’s sake. Fluffy earmuffs for appearance’ sake “can be” vanity. Worn to prevent frostbite or physical discomfort is caring for your created body. Sound-deadening earmuffs used in a noisy environment to preserve hearing is prudence - a virtue.
 
But what about using condoms to protect yourself from STIs then?

@Neithan has similar point to you, I get what you mean, thanks
 
JJO said:
So if someone says it’s wrong to use a pen as a door-stopper because it goes against the purpose of a pen, the answer is no because you’re not actually using the pen???
Click to expand...
I presume this thread is about “right” and “wrong” as moral questions. If you’re talking about the relationship between the pen and the door, I don’t think that is a moral issue. Morals affect persons. If you’re talking about using a pen that belongs to someone else as a door stopper, and they told you not to use it as a door stopper, then you’re doing it wrong.
 
JJO said:
But what if I deliberately use my hearing faculties (my ears) for reasons outside normal hearing purposes such as wearing fluffy earmuffs as a fashionable thing to wear. This contradicts and frustrates the ultimate purpose of my ears so is blocking your ears also sinful?
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I think a closer analogy would be going to a concert where the music was blasting at 100 dB or more and screaming blasphemous things because you like the music and don’t care what it does to what your hearing or your heart are meant to be in your life as a whole.

No, you’re supposed to protect yourself from hearing experiences that would harm yourself or others, whether physically or spiritually, so that your use of your ears both protects them for their full intended use and also protects you from what could happen to you if you go around hearing what feels good in the moment with no care for your own welfare or that of others or with no care for what the experience does to your relationship with your Creator.
 
Last edited:
JJO said:
But what about using condoms to protect yourself from STIs then?

@Neithan has similar point to you, I get what you mean, thanks
Click to expand...
Ultimately it would require the perversion of both the sexual faculty and one of the ends of a human being. Abstinence should be pursued in those situations.
 
JJO said:
40.png
goout:
Using a hammer to clean glassware.
Click to expand...
Is this then a sin?
Click to expand...
Depends on the circumstances. If it were my wife’s glassware definitely mortal for me.
 
JJO said:
40.png
1Lord1Faith:
So, none of this debunks natural law. Natural law isn’t really something that can be debunked. But one could argue that evoking natural law as a justification for these doctrines is questionable
Click to expand...
That’s a very good point. Although, I can’t think of what other justifications there could be…

Nonetheless, why does the example of the earmuffs appear to also fit the requirements for something that goes againts the natural law.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. It would go against the teleological aspect of the ears, i.e. the purpose of the ears. Meaning, the purpose of ears is not simply just a place to put ear muffs. But, in order to maintain the health of the ears (the purpose of the ears) they need to be kept from excessive cold or noises. So, because wearing ear muffs isn’t considered to be a moral bad, then there’s nothing wrong with wearing them for protection, or even fashion.
 
Last edited:
I would still need to explain how earmuffs aren’t intrinsically wrong. Some other guys in the chat have answered this question anyway so thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top