Teleology, purpose and ordering

[preferanonymous]

Suppose someone says something like the following: “Our sexual faculties are for the unity of spouses in marriage and the procreation of children. That is their purpose. Each at of intercourse must be ordered to unity AND procreation.”

How does one know this? How does know what God’s design is, even if one thought there was such a design? How does one know what the purpose of the sexual faculties are? What tells one that a penis and a vagina themselves, or engaged in intercourse, are ordered to procreation? What sort of ordering might this be?

Furthermore, even if one could be sure of the ordering or purpose of these organs, particularly if it proved to be a rather exclusively biological one, how does one know that it would be morally wrong to act in a way that strays from such an ordering? Why would it be wrong for one to act in a way that is different from the way one’s organs are ordered? To put the point another way, it seems that at least by some standards the human body is not biolgically ordered to be thrown on a cross to be crucified, but does this mean that to do so could never be the right thing to do?

 

[bmullins]

The simple answer is the penis is a method of implanting seed. What is the seed for? It is apparent from the very nature of pregnancy that the sperm is for fertilizing an egg. If you spill it on the ground it won’t grow into anything, it will just decay. If you put it on a chicken egg, it won’t fertilize it, it will simply dry up and decay. Only when it is united with the females egg does it produce an effect of life. All other uses of it are just decay.

That makes it very simple to see that because we believe in intelligent design, that the penis was designed specifically to place the sperm in the female body in order that the female egg might be fertilized by the male sperm.

That is how we know what God’s design was. It brings life. When it doesn’t bring life, but decay… well then it’s against the purpose of God’s design.

 

[preferanonymous]

The simple answer is the penis is a method of implanting seed. What is the seed for? It is apparent from the very nature of pregnancy that the sperm is for fertilizing an egg. If you spill it on the ground it won’t grow into anything, it will just decay. If you put it on a chicken egg, it won’t fertilize it, it will simply dry up and decay. Only when it is united with the females egg does it produce an effect of life. All other uses of it are just decay.

That makes it very simple to see that because we believe in intelligent design, that the penis was designed specifically to place the sperm in the female body in order that the female egg might be fertilized by the male sperm.

That is how we know what God’s design was. It brings life. When it doesn’t bring life, but decay… well then it’s against the purpose of God’s design.

First, would you say that one can only understand the purpose or ordering only if one accepts the notion of a design?

Second, you seem to say that being a part of God’s design is synonomous with bringing life. What about human life created using IVF? Furthermore, what do you think about allowing oneself to be crucified? What do you mean my bringing life?

 

[bmullins]

Well, yes I would say that believing in the creator necessarily means that he created with a reason. If you don’t believe in God, then there is no need for anything to have a purpose at all and everything is just an accident.

As to why would someone be crucified, well in the case of Christ because it brought life. It brought eternal life. He died for us, which means he saved our lives.

As to IVF that’s an entirely different topic and would require a lot more than just a post to respond to. The short is that it is man trying to take the place of God, in that he removes the egg from the womb, and the sperm from the penis, and inserts them himself. The problem with IVF is that it takes the creation of life from God’s plan into man’s plan.

 

[preferanonymous]

Well, yes I would say that believing in the creator necessarily means that he created with a reason. If you don’t believe in God, then there is no need for anything to have a purpose at all and everything is just an accident.

As to why would someone be crucified, well in the case of Christ because it brought life. It brought eternal life. He died for us, which means he saved our lives.

As to IVF that’s an entirely different topic and would require a lot more than just a post to respond to. The short is that it is man trying to take the place of God, in that he removes the egg from the womb, and the sperm from the penis, and inserts them himself. The problem with IVF is that it takes the creation of life from God’s plan into man’s plan.

It seems you think that if there is a purpose, then God. You also seem to think that if God, then there is a purpose. Suppose I agree with you. How do we know this purpose has anything to do with how one’s organs are ordered?

The Christ example means to show that bringing life might be more than just a biological matter. How can we know that the biological purpose of a sperm and an egg has anything to do with God’s purpose?

I am not sure that what you say about IVF is right- one might argue that God does not insert the sperm into the egg in natural sex any more than He would in IVF- but think we might focus on the other points.

 

[buffalo]

** Science goes full circle **

Science goes full circle on teleology. Michael Denton discusses the return to the teleological ideas of the past. The universe is biocentric.

Michael Denton Interview

 

[preferanonymous]

Science, it seems to me, gives us probabilities, not the sort of causality that seems to be at work in notions of purpose. Nor, it seems to me, can science prove to us the existence of God- a presupposition is not a proof. There is no scientific reason, it seems to me, that would imply something like the Big Bang Theory must be have occurred such that the universe in some form could not have existed forever. I am not sure that I think that a well supported theory or the evidence of trends should be taken as the foundation for the sort of moral purpose God expects one to respect.

Neither, it seems to me, does science give us a proof of His existence. These sorts of things, I think, underly any sort of empirical endeavor. One has a given set of data, and a conclusion from trends may seem reasonable. This correlation is not causality, however. One has only worked within a fixed set of data and it is entirely possible, it seems to me, that the conditions under which the conclusion seems plausible are no longer relevant such that the conclusion goes without justification- one cannot know. One might say, however, that this might reflect an inadequate understanding on our part and not be something in principle that could not be eliminated in our scientific inquiries about the world.

Yet, consider the implications of what is known as no hidden variable argument: the statistical and probabilistic character of scientific laws could not be eliminated even if all variables were accounted for. This indeterminacy is characteristic, it seems, of the universe itself.

 

[sw85]

Suppose someone says something like the following: “Our sexual faculties are for the unity of spouses in marriage and the procreation of children. That is their purpose. Each at of intercourse must be ordered to unity AND procreation.”

How does one know this?

Do not get too caught up in talk about “purpose” – that is euphemistic speak.

What teleology says is that when X causes Y (efficient cause), it is because X is empowered to cause Y (final cause). Loosely speaking, Y is the “end” toward which X “points” or “is ordered.” That’s all.

How does know what God’s design is, even if one thought there was such a design? How does one know what the purpose of the sexual faculties are? What tells one that a penis and a vagina themselves, or engaged in intercourse, are ordered to procreation? What sort of ordering might this be?

Well, the sexual act culminates in ejaculation – ejaculation leads to pregnancy. And various other features, such as the shape of the sexual organs being designed in such a way as to maximize the possibility of the pregnancy; the fact that women’s sex drive peaks during fertility; etc.

Furthermore, even if one could be sure of the ordering or purpose of these organs, particularly if it proved to be a rather exclusively biological one, how does one know that it would be morally wrong to act in a way that strays from such an ordering? Why would it be wrong for one to act in a way that is different from the way one’s organs are ordered? To put the point another way, it seems that at least by some standards the human body is not biolgically ordered to be thrown on a cross to be crucified, but does this mean that to do so could never be the right thing to do?

I encourage you to read my post here, in which I condense the whole of natural law into a little bit of text:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8765139#post8765139

 

[Nate13]

It seems you think that if there is a purpose, then God. You also seem to think that if God, then there is a purpose. Suppose I agree with you. How do we know this purpose has anything to do with how one’s organs are ordered?

The Christ example means to show that bringing life might be more than just a biological matter. How can we know that the biological purpose of a sperm and an egg has anything to do with God’s purpose?

I am not sure that what you say about IVF is right- one might argue that God does not insert the sperm into the egg in natural sex any more than He would in IVF- but think we might focus on the other points.

We were just discussing this idea in another thread, and I will have to disagree with both of you here after that discussion. It is not necessary to believe in God in order to establish that there is a purpose to our sexual organs, or that the purpose is important to uphold. Even if you believe the said apparent purpose is the result of chance, it is not the result of pure chaos because almost everyone will agree that the Universe is ordered. Even if you don’t believe in God you would be going against this inherent order of the Universe which you don’t have even a spec of chance of ever fully understanding. By virtue of the Universe being ordered that should strongly suggest to anyone that the inherent purposes of our sexual organs have reason behind them. Anyone who chooses to deny or attempt to change these purposes without fully understanding the reason and rhyme to why they are there in the first place is the definition of a foolish person. That said there are a lot of foolish people in the World who will do foolish things if they don’t have any immediate or obvious downfall to them.

Once you add God into the equation, you add more weight behind the purposes of the act because you then have this idea that we were created in God’s image and likeness which is no small thing to ignore. The fact that we were created in his image and likeness is how we know our sexual faculties have everything to do with God’s purpose. We also know this in that the union of male and female in which they become one body mirrors the union of the Trinity which is God.

 

[preferanonymous]

Do not get too caught up in talk about “purpose” – that is euphemistic speak.

What teleology says is that when X causes Y (efficient cause), it is because X is empowered to cause Y (final cause). Loosely speaking, Y is the “end” toward which X “points” or “is ordered.” That’s all.

Well, the sexual act culminates in ejaculation – ejaculation leads to pregnancy. And various other features, such as the shape of the sexual organs being designed in such a way as to maximize the possibility of the pregnancy; the fact that women’s sex drive peaks during fertility; etc.

I encourage you to read my post here, in which I condense the whole of natural law into a little bit of text:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8765139#post8765139

Hey sw85: I checked out your post and would say that I think I agree with much of if not all of it, though am not sure if it mentions what we are after to resolve this dispute.

Ejaculation does not necessarily lead to pregnancy- the woman might be infertile and or the ejactulation could occur outside of the woman’s vagina. By what grounds do you say the sexual organs are designed, then? It seems to me one sees many ways in which these organs can be used in the world: how do you pick out which one manifests the proper ordering? Furthermore, what grounds would you say that acting contrary to, or outside of, these biological orderings, even if you could be sure about them, is morally wrong?

Hey Nate13:

“Even if you believe the said apparent purpose is the result of chance, it is not the result
of pure chaos because almost everyone will agree that the Universe is ordered. Even if you don’t believe in God you would be going against this inherent order of the Universe which you don’t have even a spec of chance of ever fully understanding.”

How do you know it is so ordered? That everyone thinks it so does not strike me as a reason. You seem to say that we can know this ordering, but then seem to say we cannot fully understand it. What do you mean by this? Do we really know it then?

“By virtue of the Universe being ordered that should strongly suggest to anyone that the inherent purposes of our sexual organs have reason behind them.”

Even if you are right about the universe, this might be the fallacy of division: a purpose in the whole does not necessarily imply that all its parts have purposes. You might need further argument to establish this.

 

[John21652]

Hey sw85: I checked out your post and would say that I think I agree with much of if not all of it, though am not sure if it mentions what we are after to resolve this dispute.

There can’t be a dispute until you state a position. So far all you have done is keep posing pretty wild questions!

Ejaculation does not necessarily lead to pregnancy- the woman might be infertile and or the ejactulation could occur outside of the woman’s vagina. By what grounds do you say the sexual organs are designed, then?

You are here just stating the obvious. I can keep my car parked in the garage, but that doesn’t give sufficient reason to question its design principles! Watch me drive it and then start asking questions!

It seems to me one sees many ways in which these organs can be used in the world: how do you pick out which one manifests the proper ordering?

Now that shouldn’t be too hard, surely? To progress this so called “debate”, why not ask some big boy questions? After all, you have grown up with sex organs, so, surely, you have some idea of what they are not for?!

Furthermore, what grounds would you say that acting contrary to, or outside of, these biological orderings, even if you could be sure about them, is morally wrong?

What makes a moral choice ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Can you answer that?

Hey Nate13:

“Even if you believe the said apparent purpose is the result of chance, it is not the result
of pure chaos because almost everyone will agree that the Universe is ordered. Even if you don’t believe in God you would be going against this inherent order of the Universe which you don’t have even a spec of chance of ever fully understanding.”

What Nate is saying is that one can take God out of the picture and still the Natural Law argument holds up. He’s right.

How do you know it is so ordered? That everyone thinks it so does not strike me as a reason. You seem to say that we can know this ordering, but then seem to say we cannot fully understand it. What do you mean by this? Do we really know it then?

Well, ships can navigate by stars and explorers can navigate by compasses, so obviously much is very ordered. However, try and explain what gravity is exactly and then you will see that there are limitations to our understanding of certain natural phenomena. That, however, doesn’t mean we can’t recognise it.

“By virtue of the Universe being ordered that should strongly suggest to anyone that the inherent purposes of our sexual organs have reason behind them.”

Indeed, but we need to define “reason”.

Even if you are right about the universe, this might be the fallacy of division: a purpose in the whole does not necessarily imply that all its parts have purposes. You might need further argument to establish this.

This paragraph leads me to conclude that I will never ever hire you to work on my car’s gearbox!
Just because ypou can’t see, know, nor understand how it works is no reason to assume some parts are redundant.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Suppose someone says something like the following: “Our sexual faculties are for the unity of spouses in marriage and the procreation of children. That is their purpose. Each at of intercourse must be ordered to unity AND procreation.”

How does one know this? How does know what God’s design is, even if one thought there was such a design? How does one know what the purpose of the sexual faculties are? What tells one that a penis and a vagina themselves, or engaged in intercourse, are ordered to procreation? What sort of ordering might this be?

Furthermore, even if one could be sure of the ordering or purpose of these organs, particularly if it proved to be a rather exclusively biological one, how does one know that it would be morally wrong to act in a way that strays from such an ordering? Why would it be wrong for one to act in a way that is different from the way one’s organs are ordered? To put the point another way, it seems that at least by some standards the human body is not biolgically ordered to be thrown on a cross to be crucified, but does this mean that to do so could never be the right thing to do?

Whatever the Church says is true.

 

[sw85]

Hey sw85: I checked out your post and would say that I think I agree with much of if not all of it, though am not sure if it mentions what we are after to resolve this dispute.

Ejaculation does not necessarily lead to pregnancy- the woman might be infertile and or the ejactulation could occur outside of the woman’s vagina. By what grounds do you say the sexual organs are designed, then? It seems to me one sees many ways in which these organs can be used in the world: how do you pick out which one manifests the proper ordering? Furthermore, what grounds would you say that acting contrary to, or outside of, these biological orderings, even if you could be sure about them, is morally wrong?

It is enough that ejaculation (or something that substitutes it) is a NECESSARY condition for pregnancy. It does not have to be SUFFICIENT for us to know that that’s what it is aimed at or accomplishes.

In other words, teleology is “backwards-looking.” It doesn’t matter if X always causes Y. It is enough to say that when Y exists, it’s because X caused it.

Again, simple rational/intuitive reflection here helps. Everything about the way the sexual organs are “designed” (to use another euphemism) points to the end of procreation. The head of the penis for instance looks like it does because it scoops out rival men’s semen and thus confers evolutionary advantage on the last man to have sex with a woman. This doesn’t make sense if the reproductive system is in no way ordered toward reproduction.

As far as goodness is concerned, I did in fact address that in the post linked above. Goodness is existence in accordance with a thing’s mode of being. Our mode of being includes a sexual faculty ordered toward procreation. Thus, the good (i.e., morally upright) use of the sexual faculty is in a manner consistent with the end of procreation.

 

[sw85]

Whatever the Church says is true.

 

[Holly3278]

We know this because God has revealed this to us through His Catholic Church.

 

[preferanonymous]

There can’t be a dispute until you state a position. So far all you have done is keep posing pretty wild questions!

You are here just stating the obvious. I can keep my car parked in the garage, but that doesn’t give sufficient reason to question its design principles! Watch me drive it and then start asking questions!

Now that shouldn’t be too hard, surely? To progress this so called “debate”, why not ask some big boy questions? After all, you have grown up with sex organs, so, surely, you have some idea of what they are not for?!

What makes a moral choice ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Can you answer that?

Hey Nate13:

What Nate is saying is that one can take God out of the picture and still the Natural Law argument holds up. He’s right.

Well, ships can navigate by stars and explorers can navigate by compasses, so obviously much is very ordered. However, try and explain what gravity is exactly and then you will see that there are limitations to our understanding of certain natural phenomena. That, however, doesn’t mean we can’t recognise it.

Indeed, but we need to define “reason”.

This paragraph leads me to conclude that I will never ever hire you to work on my car’s gearbox!
Just because ypou can’t see, know, nor understand how it works is no reason to assume some parts are redundant.

Hi John, I find this posts rather childish and condescending. These are not arguments. I know that just because I can’t see it doesn’t mean its not there and that my questions don’t mean its wrong. But that does not mean it is right either, and I think it might be said that you have provided more sarcastic commentary than arguments in this post. Without an argument, your beliefs are dogmatic which is precisely what moral views should not be for a Catholic.

 

[John21652]

Hi John, I find this posts rather childish and condescending. These are not arguments. I know that just because I can’t see it doesn’t mean its not there and that my questions don’t mean its wrong. But that does not mean it is right either, and I think it might be said that you have provided more sarcastic commentary than arguments in this post. Without an argument, your beliefs are dogmatic which is precisely what moral views should not be for a Catholic.

You are entitled to find a post anyway you like, but I can say my response was not meant to be “childish”, or “condescending”. As a matter of fact, I’d be obliged if you pointed out to me which parts are “childish” and which parts are condescending".

The last paragraph, where I wrote about you working on my gearbox, was meant to be tongue in cheek and to make you think about a certain point. I was trying to make the point that just because we can’t always see the how and why of how things work, we know that they do and if the whole is working rhythmically, it is fairly safe to assume that the parts are working rhythmically.

I also asked you some serious questions, which you have avoided answering.
The most serious question I asked you was

What makes a moral choice ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Can you answer that?

The answer to that particular question is fundamental to answering the questions you posed.

 

[preferanonymous]

“You are entitled to find a post anyway you like, but I can say my response was not meant to be “childish”, or “condescending”. As a matter of fact, I’d be obliged if you pointed out to me which parts are “childish” and which parts are condescending”."

“Now that shouldn’t be too hard, surely? To progress this so called “debate”, why not ask some big boy questions? After all, you have grown up with sex organs, so, surely, you have some idea of what they are not for?!”

Childish and condescending.

“it is fairly safe to assume that the parts are working rhythmically.”

So it is an assumption. Why assume it?

“What makes a moral choice ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Can you answer that?”

Why should I need to answer this to point out problems in your teleological view? If you mean to imply that teleology is the only way to do ethics, why assume we need to do ethics at all? Your view seems to lack independent justification. How do we do ethics? Teleology. Why teleology? Its the only way to do ethics. Why do ethics at all?..

 

[John21652]

“You are entitled to find a post anyway you like, but I can say my response was not meant to be “childish”, or “condescending”. As a matter of fact, I’d be obliged if you pointed out to me which parts are “childish” and which parts are condescending”."

“Now that shouldn’t be too hard, surely? To progress this so called “debate”, why not ask some big boy questions? After all, you have grown up with sex organs, so, surely, you have some idea of what they are not for?!”

Indeed, my question stands. You cite a couple of exceptions to a “rule” about the use of sex organs and then ask the question in post #10 about how fo we know what they are designed for. Surely you don’t need a treatise on that, do you? I did ask you if you could figure out what they are not for.

Childish and condescending.

In response to a simplistic question.

“it is fairly safe to assume that the parts are working rhythmically.”

So it is an assumption. Why assume it?

Because the whole is working perfectly, is why. I explained that too.

“What makes a moral choice ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Can you answer that?”

Why should I need to answer this to point out problems in your teleological view?

Because answering that question is fundamental and answers are required if one wants to address “problems” which you raise regarding teleology.

If you mean to imply that teleology is the only way to do ethics, why assume we need to do ethics at all? Your view seems to lack independent justification. How do we do ethics? Teleology. Why teleology? Its the only way to do ethics. Why do ethics at all?..

You are the one posing the questions about teleological ethics, so you will recieve answers framed accordingly. In my case it is part of a methodology used to arrive at an objective ethical framework. Simple, really.

 

[preferanonymous]

“You cite a couple of exceptions to a “rule” about the use of sex organs and then ask the question in about how fo we know what they are designed for. Surely you don’t need a treatise on that, do you?”

“Because the whole is working perfectly, is why. I explained that too.”

John, my issue is that these exceptions to the rule would seem to me, at least if I am allowed to interpret you in this way, that the whole is not working perfectly. Thus, those exceptions might pose a real problem in your justification for assuming a teleological world ciew.

“Because answering that question is fundamental and answers are required if one wants to address “problems” which you raise regarding teleology.”

I don’t think so. I am simply trying to draw out the teleological view on its own terms and see how it comes at its notions of purpose of an organ etc, when it the world we see that being used in different ways. And, please do not think I agree with all of what the new natural law says.

Let us, perhaps try to focus. I have two question. 1) How we figure out what the natural purpose of an organ is? 2) Even if we could figure out this purpose, would it really be morally relevant.

The force behind one, it seems to me, is that if you go about inductively as modern science does, you have no right to speak of an objective purpose. If you fill in the gap with an assumption, I might ask why you do this.

The force behind two, it seems to me, deals with the Anscombe bit about the notion of ‘morally ought’, what I am looking for, would still be something that eluded us if we only knew the purpose of the organ. Is this not the sense of morality that you are talking about? Do you think it can prove to be the same, at least in content, to the hypothetical kind? If so, I think that requires further argument for which I would ask why?

I think a difference between us might be that you have perhaps a more deterministic view of the universe which I think might be a necessary condition of a teleological view like yours. Is this the case do you think?