Objective Teleology

[Bubba_Switzler]

Only pantheists believe nature had a purpose in mind! It is more reasonable to believe God transcends the universe instead of virtually equating them.

If true, though, this marks the end of the most optimistic view of Aquinas’ natural law, that natural law can lead nonbelievers to Christian morality.

Now I have seen it argued that Aquinas never sought to accomplish this with his natural law, that his goals were more modest: to show that Christian faith was not unreasonable. That’s good, it frees Christians from the angst of choosing between faith and reason. And it might even be helpful in evangelizing, e.g. to those who reject Christianity out of genuine concern that it is unreasonable. But that’s still a weaker goal because there are many who reject Christianity because they reject Christian morality. I personally know people who reject Christianity for it’s prohibition on homosexuality, alone.

 

[ffg]

We don’t need to literally “punt on concern of a divine purpose”. I’m only suggesting that we restrict ourselves to knowledge available from the natural order so that we can make moral arguments to atheists and fellow travelers. If Thomas Aquinas is right, if nature dictates a moral code, then that would be a good way to present Christian ideas to athiests. (And if they are stuck with Chrisitan morality anyway, they might be more open to Christian theology too.)

To put it more simply: life has consequences and it behooves one to avoid the worst of them.

There are some nasty consequences of unprotected homosexual sex. And perhaps there are some psychological problems as well.

But are there wrathful consequences for, say, contraceptives? Having fewer or no children? How is that worse than a life as an abstinent cleric?

If this is going to contraception, you can see a bunch of thoughts here -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1001253

Had a good back and forth for a bit.

If anything in there doesn’t touch up on your question(s), or if you have no interest in scanning this other thread, let me know. I’m happy to discuss further.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Teleological terms such as “function” and “design” appear frequently in the biological sciences.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

One way in which evolutionary biology may play a modest role in metaethics is by raising difficulties for appeals to natural teleology in the attempt to account for ethical normativity…Evolutionary biology raises significant challenges to any such approach to understanding ethics, though this is not as straightforward as it might at first seem…The problem with appeals to natural teleology in ethics is rather that it is hard to see how we can employ teleological concepts in non-arbitrary ways without appealing precisely to the evolutionary causal histories that have given shape to and organized these traits into coherent functional systems…For these reasons, a welfare-based conception of natural functions and ends is problematic.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/natural-teleology-ethics.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While I sympathize with your logic, the challenge for Aquinas was to find a way to justify abstinence but not homosexuality. Both are an impediment to reproduction. But one is a virtue and the other a sin.

It was hardly a challenge to justify abstinence. Abstinence is not a perverse form of sexuality. It is not sexuality at all. Homosexuality is perverse, and the wages of that sin were Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is no passage in Scripture that condemns abstinence, just as there is no passage in Scripture that condemns fasting or abstaining from food.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But that’s still a weaker goal because there are many who reject Christianity because they reject Christian morality. I personally know people who reject Christianity for it’s prohibition on homosexuality, alone.

They would have to reject at lot more than Christianity since homosexuality has been considered perverse by nearly all civilizations. Only in modern times has it been defended, and mostly by those who can no longer distinguish the normal from the perverse.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

ffg:

To find a wrong for contraception in nature, I don’t think we would walk too far away from what’s already been discussed.

Contraception used, interferes with a ‘natural law’ as it fights purpose.

Side effect: some forms can cause harm to oneself or others.

‘Right’ in natural law might be argued as ‘healthy’ or ‘lack of harm / promoting safety’, vs. ‘wrong’ being what harms.

This, though, is where we’ve been stuck all along.

First you have to establish purpose by observation of nature. We can pretty safely say that the purpose of sex is procreation almost as certainly as we can say that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood.

The problem is that interferring with procreation is not unhealthy in nearly the same sense as interferring with the pumping of blood. Contraception means fewer children. It’s unhealthy in the same way that abstinance is; it’s unhealthy for the human race (though some would argue with this) but not for the individual. (Let’s set aside the side effects of some forms and use condoms for a simple example.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It was hardly a challenge to justify abstinence. Abstinence is not a perverse form of sexuality. It is not sexuality at all. Homosexuality is perverse, and the wages of that sin were Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is no passage in Scripture that condemns abstinence, just as there is no passage in Scripture that condemns fasting or abstaining from food.

But if we’re focusing on a natural law which can stand on it’s own then we cannot call up on Scripture.

And, of course, there are sins of omission as well as comission.

They would have to reject at lot more than Christianity since homosexuality has been considered perverse by nearly all civilizations. Only in modern times has it been defended, and mostly by those who can no longer distinguish the normal from the perverse.

I agree that homosexuality has been condemned by many different societies but you know as well as I do that this is dismissed as ancient prejudice.

If the danger of homosexuality is no procreation that’s a danger shared by abstinance.

 

[ffg]

This, though, is where we’ve been stuck all along.

First you have to establish purpose by observation of nature. We can pretty safely say that the purpose of sex is procreation almost as certainly as we can say that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood.

The problem is that interferring with procreation is not unhealthy in nearly the same sense as interferring with the pumping of blood. Contraception means fewer children. It’s unhealthy in the same way that abstinance is; it’s unhealthy for the human race (though some would argue with this) but not for the individual. (Let’s set aside the side effects of some forms and use condoms for a simple example.)

A few thoughts:

~ If we define the action and discount results, we will surely end up ‘stuck’ as we are potentially missing ‘what all is happening’ and not considering ‘all of the results’. (Reference to the bold black type above) Don’t be fooled by the term ‘side effects’, if ‘results’ is easier to work with, go with that.

~ If we start to compare, then we are losing sight of the question - right / wrong. You can’t vote your way** to **right / wrong. You can vote for a right(s) or a wrong(s). (Reference to the bold red type above)

~ Something you are not considering with health, is mental health.

Whether someone knows they did a wrong or not, there is weight to ‘wrongs’, just as there is freedom in ‘rights’. (regardless of scale)

One of the causes to the difficulty here is to discount so much to come to a conclusion, we can all do that with anything. It doesn’t help discovery.

Another difficulty is to defend abstaining from something has the same effect(s) as not abstaining from something.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A few thoughts:

~ If we define the action and discount results, we will surely end up ‘stuck’ as we are potentially missing ‘what all is happening’ and not considering ‘all of the results’. (Reference to the bold black type above) Don’t be fooled by the term ‘side effects’, if ‘results’ is easier to work with, go with that.

~ If we start to compare, then we are losing sight of the question - right / wrong. You can’t vote your way** to **right / wrong. You can vote for a right(s) or a wrong(s). (Reference to the bold red type above)

~ Something you are not considering with health, is mental health.

Whether someone knows they did a wrong or not, there is weight to ‘wrongs’, just as there is freedom in ‘rights’. (regardless of scale)

One of the causes to the difficulty here is to discount so much to come to a conclusion, we can all do that with anything. It doesn’t help discovery.

Let me try to limit the discounting and justify those few:

1. I am discounting revelation on the theory that reason and observation can be used to derive a natural law that even atheists would find persuasive.
2. I am discounting some contraceptives, which have known side effects, in favor of others, which don’t, in order to focus on the contraceptive act itself and not the problems that some specific forms may exhibit.

That said, I am certainly all of the results including purely mental health, though I’m not aware of any side effects of condoms, which is why I chose that to represent contraception.

I am trying to find the natural weight of wrongs in an observable way that even an atheist would concede to. Obviously we are not here considering the weight of wrongs that might fall after death since atheists refuse to recognize this.

Hopefully this is clarifying.

Another difficulty is to defend abstaining from something has the same effect(s) as not abstaining from something.

This is a much trickier question but perhaps we can also look at this purely in terms of natural effects. Several people argued that the natural effect of contraception was reduced procreation. It makes total sense that life should favor procreation and that choices that go against that would frustrate this natural inclination. On those terms, absitanance seems to have the same effect as contraception.

Now if we could show that sex with contraceptives is not the same as absitanance in terms of observable results then we’d have an argument for distinguishing them. Sex with contraceptives is probably most common outside of marriage but we could say more simply that fornication has observable bad consequences for those involved.

But what about contraceptives in otherwise genuine marriage with the aim of limiting the number of children? One might argue that more children is always better, no matter what people might think. Or one might argue that contraception has observably bad consequences for the marriage, e.g. one or the other partner feeling a loss of genuineness.

 

[tonyrey]

Only pantheists believe nature had a purpose in mind! It is more reasonable to believe God transcends the universe instead of virtually equating them.

Not necessarily because Christians believe God is immanent as well as transcendent. The value of life is based not only on divine omnipresence but also on Christ’s teaching that we are all children of the same Father and the beauty of nature reveals His power and love for His creatures.

Now I have seen it argued that Aquinas never sought to accomplish this with his natural law, that his goals were more modest: to show that Christian faith was not unreasonable. That’s good, it frees Christians from the angst of choosing between faith and reason. And it might even be helpful in evangelizing, e.g. to those who reject Christianity out of genuine concern that it is unreasonable.

I think it’s a false dilemma because faith and reason are interdependent. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

But that’s still a weaker goal because there are many who reject Christianity because they reject Christian morality. I personally know people who reject Christianity for it’s prohibition on homosexuality, alone. f true, though, this marks the end of the most optimistic view of Aquinas’ natural law, that natural law can lead nonbelievers to Christian morality.

There is no prohibition on homosexuality but on unnatural sexual activity. Even Dawkins believes Christ’s moral teaching was ahead of its time.

 

[tonyrey]

They don’t have a rational origin.

I agree but in a more fundamental sense nature reveals God’s purpose in its beauty and power which exceed the ingenuity, originality and creativity of human artists and scientists.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t keep us in suspense. What makes homosuality or artificial contraceptives immoral if not merely that they are unnatural?

As I understood the traditional view of Thomas Aquinas, it was that God had an ideal form of sex and humanity in mind and infused this into the natural world in such a way that it would be obvious even to those who did not know God. Thus, for example, God’s concept of sexuality is that it be procreative while his concept of humanity is that it is a whole body. Surgery to correct disease is therefore ok. And it’s not only restoring proper function but function that the person may never have had since birth but which other human beings have, e.g. correcting a cleft lip and palet.

But if final cause is no longer God’s design but merely this inversion of efficient cause how does one distinguish the morality of correctie surgery from contraceptives?

I don’t think it is a secret that Aquinas judges immorality on the basis of “right reason” applied to the created order rather than some purely mechanistic approach to “mother nature”.
Mother nature isn’t perfect, somehow reason discerns when nature is misbehaving and can correct for it sometimes.

The difficult question is who judges rightly which body of mandarins actually possesses right reason when it comes to ethics rather than biology and corrective surgery. .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I assume this is the fnal cause as reverse of efficient cause idea? See above.

Actually I haven’t explored this before, what is your source for this concept … I couldn’t find anything “above”.

Am I wrong about Aquinas using natural law to distniguish abstinence from homosexality? Aquinas view was not that people ought to procreate in order to propogate the species but that sexuality ought to be used as it is naturally inclined, i.e. toward procreation and that if it is not used (i.e. abstinence) that is not a sin.

I think a number of different things are at play here and I am a bit confused as to which one you are tracking.

I don’t believe Aquinas had any problem with justifying sexual abstinence - unlike eating its a moral imperative of the species not the individual. It doesn’t need explaining for individuals (unless you are the last couple on earth - in which case even if it was you and your mum you would be morally obliged to have kids).

Homosexuality would be immoral primarily because it is against right reason than because it is “unnatural”.

Actually anything that is against right reason is unnatural - in a sense then even fornication is unnatural as the instability of relationship offends against the secure upbringing of the children likely.

“Unnatural” has a number of different meanings, I fear the one we have today is but an exaggeration and a mainstreaming of a meaning that in medieval times was really secondary.

I believe it is reasonable to hold that homosexuality is somewhat demonised (ie garners more approbation than the act/condition really deserves) in predominantly “red neck” societies (whether religious or secular).

It would be deserved if significant percentages of the population acted this way rather than the small percentages that actually do.

And as those small percentages seem to reflect much the same small percentage of the population that is born/raised “hard-wired” to this condition it seems to be a “function” of mother nature herself rather than viscious human malice per se freely contradicting nature for the sheer sense of self-mastery and desire to bring a halt to continuation of the species.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think it is a secret that Aquinas judges immorality on the basis of “right reason” applied to the created order rather than some purely mechanistic approach to “mother nature”.
Mother nature isn’t perfect, somehow reason discerns when nature is misbehaving and can correct for it sometimes.
The difficult question is who judges rightly which body of mandarins actually possesses right reason when it comes to ethics rather than biology and corrective surgery.

That’s one of the points I’ve been raising here. We observe variance in nature but in some cases we celebrate it, in others we seek to correct it. On what basis do we distinguish between these?

At one extreme, you have those who view nature as pure putty to be molded in whatever shape or form we will. That would certianly incude the recent fad for gender innovation that’s so wild even Facebook can’t keep up with it.

At the other extreme would be the view that nature is omnicient and that we are to bow to her wisdom. If it’s natural, it’s good.

Aquinas, as I understand him, is somwhere in the middle. He clearly believes that God has some Aristotilian pattern in mind in his creation, which we can observe and infer, but that the fallen world does not conform to it. People are obviously imperfect compared to the ideal person (e.g. exemplified by Christ).

But I don’t see how you can reliably infer what God intended from observation of, and reason about, nature given the above without reference to revelation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Actually I haven’t explored this before, what is your source for this concept … I couldn’t find anything “above”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13791274&postcount=10

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13793705&postcount=15

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13801554&postcount=26

I don’t believe Aquinas had any problem with justifying sexual abstinence - unlike eating its a moral imperative of the species not the individual. It doesn’t need explaining for individuals (unless you are the last couple on earth - in which case even if it was you and your mum you would be morally obliged to have kids).

Homosexuality would be immoral primarily because it is against right reason than because it is “unnatural”.

If Aquinas were claiming that homosxuality was unnatural and immoral because, as some here have argued, it is nonprocreative, the he would have a problem explaining absitenance. But he takes a different, more complicated approach. The question is, did he take that more complicated approach in order to distinguish homoexuality from abstinance?

Actually anything that is against right reason is unnatural - in a sense then even fornication is unnatural as the instability of relationship offends against the secure upbringing of the children likely.

“Unnatural” has a number of different meanings, I fear the one we have today is but an exaggeration and a mainstreaming of a meaning that in medieval times was really secondary.

Yes, this is where most people get tripped up with Aquinas. He doesn’t mean by “natural” that which is untainted by human hands which is the modern usage.

I’d prefer to invent a new word. Other philosphers have used the word “reasonable”. Fornication is certainly natural in the sense that it predates marriage and comes naturally. People are inclined to fornicate long before they figure out the virtue of commitment. But it is an inferior choice to marriage. It is less than ideal, less even than what flawed humans can achieve in a fallen world. Marriage is a better choice and even an atheist could, in theory, see that.

 

[ffg]

Let me try to limit the discounting and justify those few:

1. I am discounting revelation on the theory that reason and observation can be used to derive a natural law that even atheists would find persuasive.
2. I am discounting some contraceptives, which have known side effects, in favor of others, which don’t, in order to focus on the contraceptive act itself and not the problems that some specific forms may exhibit.

That said, I am certainly all of the results including purely mental health, though I’m not aware of any side effects of condoms, which is why I chose that to represent contraception.

I am trying to find the natural weight of wrongs in an observable way that even an atheist would concede to. Obviously we are not here considering the weight of wrongs that might fall after death since atheists refuse to recognize this.

Hopefully this is clarifying.

This is a much trickier question but perhaps we can also look at this purely in terms of natural effects. Several people argued that the natural effect of contraception was reduced procreation. It makes total sense that life should favor procreation and that choices that go against that would frustrate this natural inclination. On those terms, absitanance seems to have the same effect as contraception.

Now if we could show that sex with contraceptives is not the same as absitanance in terms of observable results then we’d have an argument for distinguishing them. Sex with contraceptives is probably most common outside of marriage but we could say more simply that fornication has observable bad consequences for those involved.

But what about contraceptives in otherwise genuine marriage with the aim of limiting the number of children? One might argue that more children is always better, no matter what people might think. Or one might argue that contraception has observably bad consequences for the marriage, e.g. one or the other partner feeling a loss of genuineness.

I understand your desire to keep God out of the picture for the discussion. However we have to leave in the possibility to observe an abnormality to natural law. If observed, an exception to a natural law may be fairly persuasive, considering only natural law.

Not being aware of ‘wrong’ results, mental or otherwise, for using condoms just means you haven’t observed it yet. That’s an observation opportunity waiting to happen. You might find a brave soul willing to share their story here. I’m sure there are posts already in the archives here that could assist in the opportunity to learn.

With regard to the last, I don’t find it to be that tricky. Not doing, and doing are very different, even if there is an appearance of similar results.

To sit comfortably on the assumed results, which we know can include a lack of ‘observation opportunity’, may lead to a flimsy conclusion.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I understand your desire to keep God out of the picture for the discussion. However we have to leave in the possibility to observe an abnormality to natural law. If observed, an exception to a natural law may be fairly persuasive, considering only natural law.

I assume you are referring, here, to miracles and the like? If not, please explain. If so, I think this is a different line of argument, one worthy but really very different.

Not being aware of ‘wrong’ results, mental or otherwise, for using condoms just means you haven’t observed it yet. That’s an observation opportunity waiting to happen. You might find a brave soul willing to share their story here. I’m sure there are posts already in the archives here that could assist in the opportunity to learn.

With regard to the last, I don’t find it to be that tricky. Not doing, and doing are very different, even if there is an appearance of similar results.

To sit comfortably on the assumed results, which we know can include a lack of ‘observation opportunity’, may lead to a flimsy conclusion.

You’d think, though, that if contraception were so harmful that we’d see some scientific studies demonstrating this. There are studies showing the side effects of some contracetives (e.g. medical treatments and devices) but I’ve never seen one on condoms which I am using to represent the simplest and least harmful contraception.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

People question the teleological ends of hands in the other topic. Is it a misuse of them to type on a computer? No, of course not. If we want to consider their ends, they are for manipulating and grasping, for being useful towards our achieving ends of nutrition, learning, language, caring, or what have you. They help us to function towards our natural ends as nutritional, sensory, and rational beings. If we use them intentionally contrary to those ends, to unjustly harm others or ourselves, we are using them contrary to their purpose.

I think this is largely a contrast in semantics. For most moderns, “natural” means prehistoric, arising naturally before human cognition. Hands evolved for grasping tree branches, etc. long before computers came along. Typing with hands is a new, “unnatural” application in the modern sense that computers are “artificial” and not “natural” artifacts of human creation.

Now you are referring to a higher level end (nutritional, sensory, and rational beings). However humans came to have these ends, using hands to type on a computer clearly serves those ends.

But, to keep things level, how do we show that using contraceptives are antithetical to those same ends?

 

[tonyrey]

…
I don’t believe Aquinas had any problem with justifying sexual abstinence - unlike eating its a moral imperative of the species not the individual. It doesn’t need explaining for individuals (unless you are the last couple on earth - in which case even if it was you and your mum you would be morally obliged to have kids)…

Does the Church teach that human survival justifies incest? There is no reason to believe homo sapiens is intended to live on this planet forever.

 

[tonyrey]

I assume you are referring, here, to miracles and the like? If not, please explain. If so, I think this is a different line of argument, one worthy but really very different.

You’d think, though, that if contraception were so harmful that we’d see some scientific studies demonstrating this. There are studies showing the side effects of some contracetives (e.g. medical treatments and devices) but I’ve never seen one on condoms which I am using to represent the simplest and least harmful contraception.

How about the spiritual and psychological effects with which scientific studies are not concerned?