The "perverted natural faculty" argument

[Joel_PF]

I realise this is going to be polemical, but it is a problem I have with a very common moral argument used among Catholics, and perhaps this criticism of it will lead to new formulations or good arguments.

The natural goal, or natural end, of walking is locomotion, that is, going from point A to point B. That is why we walk, that is why we have legs; no-one doubts that.

Now, there are other benefits to walking, such as improving one’s cardiovascular health; this can even be seen as a secondary end of walking, perhaps even a parallel end.

We know that it is always wrong, immoral, to divert a natural faculty from its natural end, or to pursue one of its ends while excluding and impeding the other ones (especially if the impeded end is the primary natural end).

When a person walks on a treadmill, they are pursuing one of the ends of walking: cardiovascular health. However, the treadmill, by rolling on the opposite direction of the person’s walking, impedes the first and primary end of walking: locomotion. Indeed, locomotion is completely prevented in a treadmill: a person can walk for hours and not leave the same spot.

Therefore, the treadmill perverts the end of walking, creating an unnatural separation between locomotion and the promotion of cardiovascular health, and is therefore immoral.

Comments?

 

[Corki]

Therefore, the treadmill perverts the end of walking, creating an unnatural separation between locomotion and the promotion of cardiovascular health, and is therefore immoral.

Comments?

You were doing fine until you got to the end. Walking is not an act that has a natural **moral **context. It simply has a natural context. Walking on a treadmill may be unnatural but not immoral.

 

[Joel_PF]

And what is it that gives an act a moral context, instead of a merely a natural one?

According to St. Thomas, all conscious and deliberate human acts are moral (that is, are either morally good or bad).

 

[WetCatechumen]

And what is it that gives an act a moral context, instead of a merely a natural one?

Because with contraception you’re intentionally making it unnatural in order to prevent the existence of human souls.

 

[Joel_PF]

Because with contraception you’re intentionally making it unnatural in order to prevent the existence of human souls.

Ok, so is it immoral because of the consequence and not because of the perversion of the natural faculty itself?

PS: the morality or immorality of contraception do not hinge on this, since there are other arguments against contraception than the “perverted natural faculty”. It is just that this particular argument seems very unconvincing to me. Specially because of its premise: it is wrong to act against the natural end of some faculty or bodily member.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

In order for something to be sinful it must offend God, contraception offends God because it displays a lack of trust in His plan for our lives and a lack of trust His timing on creation

I fail to see any way that walking on a treadmill could offend God.

 

[PJM]

=Joel PF;7863545]I realise this is going to be polemical, but it is a problem I have with a very common moral argument used among Catholics, and perhaps this criticism of it will lead to new formulations or good arguments.

The natural goal, or natural end, of walking is locomotion, that is, going from point A to point B. That is why we walk, that is why we have legs; no-one doubts that.

Now, there are other benefits to walking, such as improving one’s cardiovascular health; this can even be seen as a secondary end of walking, perhaps even a parallel end.

We know that it is always wrong, immoral, to divert a natural faculty from its natural end, or to pursue one of its ends while excluding and impeding the other ones (especially if the impeded end is the primary natural end).

When a person walks on a treadmill, they are pursuing one of the ends of walking: cardiovascular health. However, the treadmill, by rolling on the opposite direction of the person’s walking, impedes the first and primary end of walking: locomotion. Indeed, locomotion is completely prevented in a treadmill: a person can walk for hours and not leave the same spot.

Therefore, the treadmill perverts the end of walking, creating an unnatural separation between locomotion and the promotion of cardiovascular health, and is therefore immoral.

Comments?

Nope:

**1 Cor. 6: 19-20 **“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body”.

1. It seems to me under the laws of “good- Stewardship” that anything one does to naturally improve one’s physical health; allows God to share in the outcome and fulfills one moral obligation to care prudently for oneself.
2. Your premis errors in that the “object” is defined and accomplished. Obviously not “all” walking is entended to get one from point “A” to point "B’.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Joel_PF]

In order for something to be sinful it must offend God, contraception offends God because it displays a lack of trust in His plan for our lives and a lack of trust His timing on creation

I fail to see any way that walking on a treadmill could offend God.

I never claimed it did.

I merely used the logic of a prominent argument against contraception and applied it to something else, to show its absurd conclusion.

You are giving me another reason, one unrelated to the perversion of natural faculties, why contraception is wrong. I will not here debate it (though, to be honest, your argument doesn’t seem that convincing to me either; does having a savings account show lack of trust in His plan? - Anyway, you can have the last word on this if you want; in this topic I want to discuss the kind of argument I presented, and which I think is unsound).

 

[Joel_PF]

1. Your premis errors in that the “object” is defined and accomplished. Obviously not “all” walking is entended to get one from point “A” to point "B’.

Likewise, not “all” sex is intended to generate more children. And then someone would say “as long as it remains open to the natural end of sex, it is fine; but it would be wrong to close oneself to it, by impeding conception”.

Likewise, one could say that it is fine to go for a walk to improve one’s health, as long as one is open to the natural end of locomotion. But it is wrong to close oneself to the natural end. A walk around the park is open to the goal of locomotion; walking on the treadmill is not; it impedes locomotion; in fact, it is specifically designed to prevent locomotion.

 

[Corki]

Ok, so is it immoral because of the consequence and not because of the perversion of the natural faculty itself?

PS: the morality or immorality of contraception do not hinge on this, since there are other arguments against contraception than the “perverted natural faculty”. It is just that this particular argument seems very unconvincing to me. Specially because of its premise: it is wrong to act against the natural end of some faculty or bodily member.

It is not the consequences that make it immoral.

As for the TA cite, you have to give me more context. I am not familiar with that particular quote. It may be that there is a distinction to be made between “acts” and “actions”. Walking is an action. Sexual relations is an act (the marriage act, in fact). But I can’t tell for sure if that is the Thomistic rationale without seeing the context.

TA notwithstanding, there are many actions, and even some acts, for which morality can be assumed or rather, immoralilty cannot be attributed. Breathing, for example, is clearly an act. To control your breathing, for example when singing, is not the natural way to breathe, but is in no way immoral. Nor is it immoral to hold one’s breath. Walking would be in the same category. The other way to approach your falacy would be on the initial premise. I could say that the natural end of walking is NOT in fact to get from Point A to Point B. The natural end of walking it to provide a means of moving the upper body. With that premise, a treadmill does not “prevert” that natural end. The body is still being moved by the legs when walking on a treadmill.

As for your attempt to link your argument to contraception, you are missing a few important points. First of all, the natural (and moral) end of sexual relations is procreation. A secondary, but not necessarily lesser, end is to confirm the unitive committment of spouses. But the two must alway occur in any single sexual act. To use contraceptives choses the secondary end by shutting off the primary end. To be clear, it is just as wrong to choose the primary end but shut off the secondary end.

Second, marriage is more than an act or action. It is a state of life. It is the context for sexual relations. To take sexual relations out of the context of marriage, either by removing the act (ie adultery or fornication) from marriage or by shutting out one of the ends, is to take sexual relations out of its moral context.

 

[po18guy]

And what is it that gives an act a moral context, instead of a merely a natural one?

According to St. Thomas, all conscious and deliberate human acts are moral (that is, are either morally good or bad).

I believe that you might be over-thinking this. Walking on a treadmill is a purposeful activity. Exercise in pursuit of health for the body that God blessed you with is most certainly not an evil, but rather a good, as it respects God and serves to build up your body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit. We also cannot divorce the spiritual from the physical aspect of any given action.

 

[PJM]

=Joel PF;7863851]Likewise, not “all” sex is intended to generate more children. And then someone would say “as long as it remains open to the natural end of sex, it is fine; but it would be wrong to close oneself to it, by impeding conception”.

Likewise, one could say that it is fine to go for a walk to improve one’s health, as long as one is open to the natural end of locomotion. But it is wrong to close oneself to the natural end. A walk around the park is open to the goal of locomotion; walking on the treadmill is not; it impedes locomotion; in fact, it is specifically designed to prevent locomotion.

Good point!

My responce is that the purpose of the trendmill unlike a walk is not a measurement of distance but a measurement of health.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Joel PF;7863851]Likewise, not “all” sex is intended to generate more children. And then someone would say “as long as it remains open to the natural end of sex, it is fine; but it would be wrong to close oneself to it, by impeding conception”.

Likewise, one could say that it is fine to go for a walk to improve one’s health, as long as one is open to the natural end of locomotion. But it is wrong to close oneself to the natural end. A walk around the park is open to the goal of locomotion; walking on the treadmill is not; it impedes locomotion; in fact, it is specifically designed to prevent locomotion.

Joel,

Are you speaking of cause and effect? In this case [sex] the “effect” is a consequence of the cause; even though the reason [intent] for the cause was different.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Joel_PF]

I believe that you might be over-thinking this. Walking on a treadmill is a purposeful activity. Exercise in pursuit of health for the body that God blessed you with is most certainly not an evil, but rather a good, as it respects God and serves to build up your body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit. We also cannot divorce the spiritual from the physical aspect of any given action.

For the record, I know walking on the treadmill is not immoral. What I am trying to show is that one very popular argument which purports to show the immorality of contraception is unsound. The very same argument in terms of different natural ends that ought not to be separated can be made regarding walking, to ridiculous results.

 

[Joel_PF]

It is not the consequences that make it immoral.

As for the TA cite, you have to give me more context. I am not familiar with that particular quote.

Go to either the Summa Theologiae or the De Malo and see the article on whether there are indifferent human acts. He makes no distinction between acts and actions. I can find for you online later on if you want; just not right now.

TA notwithstanding, there are many actions, and even some acts, for which morality can be assumed or rather, immoralilty cannot be attributed. Breathing, for example, is clearly an act.

Ok. I guess the question is what differs between the actions to which immorality cannot be attributed and those to which it can?
Why are some acts/actions special in such a way that doing them “unnaturally” is immoral whereas this does not hold for other actions?

I could say that the natural end of walking is NOT in fact to get from Point A to Point B. The natural end of walking it to provide a means of moving the upper body. With that premise, a treadmill does not “prevert” that natural end. The body is still being moved by the legs when walking on a treadmill.

You could say that, but I doubt you or anyone else would ever believe it. After all, there are many ways to move one’s upper body (by waving our arms, for instance), and we almost never use our legs with that end in mind.

I can likewise say that the natural end of sex is to sweat. Therefore, using contraception does not prevent the natural end.

As for your attempt to link your argument to contraception, you are missing a few important points. First of all, the natural (and moral) end of sexual relations is procreation. A secondary, but not necessarily lesser, end is to confirm the unitive committment of spouses. But the two must alway occur in any single sexual act. To use contraceptives choses the secondary end by shutting off the primary end. To be clear, it is just as wrong to choose the primary end but shut off the secondary end.

I am very aware of all those points, and have in fact made explicit mention of all of them.
Why is it immoral to shut off either of these ends? Why is it immoral to have only one of them in a single sexual act?

The point I am making with walking is the same. Walking has two ends: locomotion and health. The two must occur in any single walking act [where does *this premise come from?]. Therefore, it is illegal to use the treadmill, an artificial means of “shutting off” locomotion and actualizing only the goal of health.

Second, marriage is more than an act or action. It is a state of life. It is the context for sexual relations. To take sexual relations out of the context of marriage, either by removing the act (ie adultery or fornication) from marriage or by shutting out one of the ends, is to take sexual relations out of its moral context.

Sure, I’m speaking of sex within the bounds of matrimony.

 

[Corki]

Go to either the Summa Theologiae or the De Malo and see the article on whether there are indifferent human acts. He makes no distinction between acts and actions. I can find for you online later on if you want; just not right now.

Ok. I guess the question is what differs between the actions to which immorality cannot be attributed and those to which it can?
Why are some acts/actions special in such a way that doing them “unnaturally” is immoral whereas this does not hold for other actions?

Context is what differs. You gave two examples yourself. Walking can be morally positive or morally neutral but I can’t think of any way that walking could be morally bad. You other example, sex, is morally good when practiced in marriage, morally bad when practiced outside of marriage.

For the record, I know walking on the treadmill is not immoral.

How do you know that walking on a treadmill is not immoral? Is your premise that no act can be immoral sometimes and not others?

Most people would disagree, not just philosphers and theologians.

You could say that, but I doubt you or anyone else would ever believe it. After all, there are many ways to move one’s upper body (by waving our arms, for instance), and we almost never use our legs with that end in mind.

Waving your arms doesn’t move the upper body, unless you are walking on your arms. When we walk, we virtually always use it to move the rest of our body somewhere (absolutely or relatively). Since our brains are in the upper part of our body, all movement (of legs or otherwise) is because the brain wants to be there.

I can likewise say that the natural end of sex is to sweat. Therefore, using contraception does not prevent the natural end.

That would violate biology. The natural end of sex is reproduction. If the natural end was sweat, we would have died out long ago.

I am very aware of all those points, and have in fact made explicit mention of all of them.
Why is it immoral to shut off either of these ends? Why is it immoral to have only one of them in a single sexual act?

Because that’s what makes marriage. It is not any more immoral to have one or both in an extramarital sex act. It is the marriage that brings them together.

The point I am making with walking is the same. Walking has two ends: locomotion and health. The two must occur in any single walking act [where does *this premise

come from?]. Therefore, it is illegal to use the treadmill, an artificial means of “shutting off” locomotion and actualizing only the goal of health.

It is not illegal to use a treadmill. It is not illegal to walk for locomotion and not health or to walk for health and not locomotion.

Sure, I’m speaking of sex within the bounds of matrimony

And you identify yourself as Catholic. You must understand matrimony as a calling and a gift. Sex is legitmized through that calling. Taking on the calling of marriage is to embrace sex as part of that union and all that sex stands for within the context of marriage.

Walking is simply part of being human. It is not part of a state of life. To compare the two is illogical.

 

[PJM]

=Joel PF;7863851]Likewise, not “all” sex is intended to generate more children. And then someone would say “as long as it remains open to the natural end of sex, it is fine; but it would be wrong to close oneself to it, by impeding conception”.

Likewise, one could say that it is fine to go for a walk to improve one’s health, as long as one is open to the natural end of locomotion. But it is wrong to close oneself to the natural end. A walk around the park is open to the goal of locomotion; walking on the treadmill is not; it impedes locomotion; in fact, it is specifically designed to prevent locomotion.

OK

By why and where is it explict that walking HAS TO END IN locomotion?

God Bless,

To my fellow readers: The author is not reying to teach new doctrine; rather his goal is to teach “how to think” so bear that in mind