Thomistic Essence

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m tying to figure out Thomas Aquinas’ concept of essence.

It seems, at first blush, to be a derivative of Aristotilian categorization.

But I’m sure it can’t be that simple.

For example, a hot topic today is the morality of homosexuality. The traditional Catholic argument against it is that it is a violation of natural law. It is the essence of human sexuality to form opposite-sex pairs for the purpose of procreation. This essence is inferred from the observation of nature.

Apologists for homosexuality counter that the inference above is flawed because homosexuality is natural, that is, it is found in nature (both human and animal) even if it is no the norm. And, further, that natural law is nothing more than norming, holding all to be morally bound to be like most.

Please help me to better understand the arguments.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’m tying to figure out Thomas Aquinas’ concept of essence.

It seems, at first blush, to be a derivative of Aristotilian categorization.

But I’m sure it can’t be that simple.

For example, a hot topic today is the morality of homosexuality. The traditional Catholic argument against it is that it is a violation of natural law. It is the essence of human sexuality to form opposite-sex pairs for the purpose of procreation. This essence is inferred from the observation of nature.

Apologists for homosexuality counter that the inference above is flawed because homosexuality is natural, that is, it is found in nature (both human and animal) even if it is no the norm. And, further, that natural law is nothing more than norming, holding all to be morally bound to be like most.

Please help me to better understand the arguments.

Of course homosexuality is not natural. ***For any species to be homosexual would mean the death of that species. ***All nature is oriented to reproduction for its survival. Anything contrary is counter its own species survival. You will have a hard time finding an example of animals which choose sex with the same gender over the opposite gender since nature is oriented to reproduction. So much so that if you could find an example we would think there was something wrong with this particular animal as it is acting contrary to its nature, to reproduce.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Or to put another way if there was a large enough percentage of animals in a species that were homosexul (not having any sexual relations with the opposite sex) then that could bring about the end of that species. Thus, how could something be good and natural for its own kind to do if it goes against that species survival? For anything that causes the death of the body we consider bad. But anything that causes the death of a species must also be considered bad. Now, a virus could be considered natural but we don’t consider it to be naturally good for us (it exists for its own sake, counter natural to the hosts). It is not naturally ordered to another species greater good. Rather it would be a parasite since it kills off members of that species. From a reproductive perspective homosexuality kills off potential reproduction. So how could it be ordered to the good of its species?

 

[DrTaffy]

Of course homosexuality is not natural. ***For any species to be homosexual would mean the death of that species. ***All nature is oriented to reproduction for its survival. Anything contrary is counter its own species survival. You will have a hard time finding an example of animals which choose sex with the same gender over the opposite gender since nature is oriented to reproduction.

Hermaphrodites such as earthworms. Intrinsically homosexual, not noticeably short on the ground.

If a species were all 100% male, that would spell game over. Do you thereby conclude that being male is “not natural”?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For any species to be homosexual would mean the death of that species.

Let’s agree on that. It’s also true that for any species to be abstinent would mean the death of that species. Is abstinence equally unnatural?

All nature is oriented to reproduction for its survival. Anything contrary is counter its own species survival.

This is largely true but not universally. The very existence of homosexuality in nature (not just man, by the way), suggests that nature is not universally oriented toward reproduction. And it’s not just homosexuality. Some species (e.g. sharks and spiders) eat their young.

(BTW, I don’t want to get too focused specifically on the issue of homosexuality, which I know is contentious. I am more interested in using it to better understand Thomsitic essence. So please help me to understand how your argument entails the essence of e.g. sexaultiy.

 

[Wesrock]

It is not strictly about what is found in nature. For example, in nature (or in material existence), you will find no perfect triangles. Even the best triangle in existence will have some some defect from the essence of triangularity, which is three perfectly straight sides and angles adding up to 180 degrees. Does the fact that only imperfect triangles appear in nature, that nowhere is triangularoty perfectly instantiated, mean we misunderstand the essence of triangularity? Is triangularity then, having imperfectly straight sides and angles adding up to something other than 180 degrees? Or does this mean that all those things we call triangles are not triangles? Of course not.

In much the same way, nobody in existence perfectly instantiates the more complex essence of “humanness.” That doesn’t change what the essence of being human is.

Furthermore, triangularity doesn’t depend on actual existing triangles to be an essence. If every material triangle popped out of existence tomorrow, or even if it had never been in existence, doesn’t change that a three straight-sided object with angles adding up to 180 degrees is traingularity (even if we’d never given it a name).

And before anyone says it, I’m of course referring to triangles in Euclidean space. I’m well aware of spherical and hyperbolic geometries. That doesn’t change the example, which is just a simple demonstration. It of course could be more nuanced.

 

[Wesrock]

This is largely true but not universally. The very existence of homosexuality in nature (not just man, by the way), suggests that nature is not universally oriented toward reproduction. And it’s not just homosexuality. Some species (e.g. sharks and spiders) eat their young.

What is the primary end of sex? You can even answer as a Darwinist, I think you’d have to come to the same conclusion. There are secondary ends, of course. It feels good. It creates a stronger bond between two people. But any Darwinian can tell you that these are ordered towards the primary end of offspring and family security to raise those offspring, that is, sexual fitness. Sex has a final cause, it’s ordered to specific ends. The subject is complex, sure, but to say the primary purpose isn’t nature driving us to reproduce more is just absurd.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Apologists for homosexuality counter that the inference above is flawed because homosexuality is natural, that is, it is found in nature (both human and animal) even if it is no the norm.

To be consistent, the apologists for homosexuality would also have to hold that homicide is natural because it is found in nature among humans and animals.

How perverse is that kind of logic?

Shall we now license people to kill one another just as we license them to commit sodomy?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is not strictly about what is found in nature.

Thank you, this is more the sort of thing I am interested in discussing here (not to say that the example of homosexualtiy is not interesting in and of itself).

For example, in nature (or in material existence), you will find no perfect triangles. Even the best triangle in existence will have some some defect from the essence of triangularity, which is three perfectly straight sides and angles adding up to 180 degrees. Does the fact that only imperfect triangles appear in nature, that nowhere is triangularoty perfectly instantiated, mean we misunderstand the essence of triangularity? Is triangularity then, having imperfectly straight sides and angles adding up to something other than 180 degrees? Or does this mean that all those things we call triangles are not triangles? Of course not.

Let’s agree that there are no perfect triangles in nature. And that we can easily conceive of perfect triangularity. And that we can include in the category of triangls things which are not perfect triangles.

In much the same way, nobody in existence perfectly instantiates the more complex essence of “humanness.” That doesn’t change what the essence of being human is.

This is orders of magnitude more complicated perhaps to the point of being meangingless. The first problem is that we cannot easily conceive of a perfect human being, of what is the essence of humanity.

Now perhaps we might conceive of human essence in the abstract without knowing or agreeing on what that essence is but I’m not sure that would be helpful.

How would we go about identifying the essence of humanity?

What is the primary end of sex? You can even answer as a Darwinist, I think you’d have to come to the same conclusion. There are secondary ends, of course. It feels good. It creates a stronger bond between two people. But any Darwinian can tell you that these are ordered towards the primary end of offspring and family security to raise those offspring, that is, sexual fitness. Sex has a final cause, it’s ordered to specific ends. The subject is complex, sure, but to say the primary purpose isn’t nature driving us to reproduce more is just absurd.

Here we are talking more specifically about the essence of sexuality. A Darwinian would argue, I think, that sexuality has evolved by chance and natural selection to provide a variety of offspring that is more complex than asexual production could produce and, hence, that it had some survival advantage. But I doubt you would get a Darwinian to agree that sexuality has an end in the theistic sense (though even atheists fall into using teleological language).

Perhaps we should ask: can teleology be inferered from nature?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To be consistent, the apologists for homosexuality would also have to hold that homicide is natural because it is found in nature among humans and animals.

How perverse is that kind of logic?

Shall we now license people to kill one another just as we license them to commit sodomy?

Yes, true. But I don’t think they are saying that homicide is wrong because it is unnatural.

 

[Wesrock]

Let’s agree on that. It’s also true that for any species to be abstinent would mean the death of that species. Is abstinence equally unnatural?

You just pointed out the flaw in Kant’s categorical imperative. The issue for the Thomist frustration away from its natural ends. Birth control, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, all frustrate the primary end of the sex act. Continence does not. No sex act = no frustration of the sex act. Humans are also not strictly nutritive or sensory souls, but are, in addition to those, rational beings, whose final cause (above all others, which merely enable us to pursue the higher end) is to seek and know God. Thus, people who put off some goods in the favor of this higher good (perhaps through continence) do not do wrong, so long as they don’t frustrate these goods if they pursue then (birth control, gluttony, intentional vomitting, material wealth, etc…). At the same time, so long as we don’t frustrate our highest end as rational beings, our nutritive and sensory ends are also good. They are not evil. The issue is only if we commit idolatry and put such things above God.

 

[Wesrock]

Perhaps we should ask: can teleology be inferered from nature?

Yes. A Thomist would agree, through both empirical but also metaphysical inquiry. We wouldn’t just start here and go straight to infering from nature, though. We’d need also the additional metaphysical background as a backdrop to such inquiry. Still, I think a Thomist would concur that much of it is evident even without a lot of background. Killing is bad, stealing is bad, etc…

 

[DrTaffy]

What is the primary end of sex? You can even answer as a Darwinist, I think you’d have to come to the same conclusion. There are secondary ends, of course. It feels good. It creates a stronger bond between two people. But any Darwinian can tell you that these are ordered towards the primary end of offspring and family security to raise those offspring, that is, sexual fitness.

Nope, from a Darwinian POV the original, main advantage of sex is evolution, not reproduction. Creatures were already reproducing asexually when sex came along, and sex actually complicated and impeded the goal of producing lots of mini-me copies.

Also, from a Darwinian point of view, the secondary goals (those that came later in the evolutionary process) can be just as important if not more so than the first comer. It is now more important for us that our hands hold things well rather than acting as fins or feet. So the unitive aspect of sex is fine if you want to base morality on Darwinian evolution.

Which illustrates somewhat the OP question. Is the ‘essence’ of sex about reproduction, evolution or strengthening social bonds? All three? Is the ‘essence’ of hands about holding things, swimming, walking, communicating or what?

To be consistent, the apologists for homosexuality would also have to hold that homicide is natural because it is found in nature among humans and animals.

It is natural. We just conclude that what is ‘natural’ is not a good guide to what is ‘moral’ - you lot are the ones who claim that. Dressing it up as ‘essence’ does not hide the truth.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You just pointed out the flaw in Kant’s categorical imperative. The issue for the Thomist frustration away from its natural ends. Birth control, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, all frustrate the primary end of the sex act. Continence does not. No sex act = no frustration of the sex act.

If I understand you correctly, Aquinas would say “if you want to have sex, do it this way” whereas Kant would say “have sex.” Aquinas would say that there is no sin by omission, only commission.

Humans are also not strictly nutritive or sensory souls, but are, in addition to those, rational beings, whose final cause (above all others, which merely enable us to pursue the higher end) is to seek and know God. Thus, people who put off some goods in the favor of this higher good (perhaps through continence) do not do wrong, so long as they don’t frustrate these goods if they pursue then (birth control, gluttony, intentional vomitting, material wealth, etc…). At the same time, so long as we don’t frustrate our highest end as rational beings, our nutritive and sensory ends are also good. They are not evil. The issue is only if we commit idolatry and put such things above God.

I doubt any homosexual apologist would argue that homosexuality is a means to finding God. But then I don’t expect they would agree that abstinance is either. Catholics obviously do think that abstinence is different from homosexuality in this way but if we are operating stricly within natural law, isn’t this a bit circular? How do we determine that abstinence is superior to homosexuality in the search for God without already concluding that it’s sinful?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes. A Thomist would agree, through both empirical but also metaphysical inquiry. We wouldn’t just start here and go straight to infering from nature, though. We’d need also the additional metaphysical background as a backdrop to such inquiry. Still, I think a Thomist would concur that much of it is evident even without a lot of background. Killing is bad, stealing is bad, etc…

Can you walk me through this or point me to an online resource that explains better how Thomists infer essential teleology from observation and metaphysical inquiry?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is natural. We just conclude that what is ‘natural’ is not a good guide to what is ‘moral’ - you lot are the ones who claim that. Dressing it up as ‘essence’ does not hide the truth.

Homicide is unnatural. That idea is implicit in law. People go to jail for murder.

For Aquinas, the natural law derives from the divine law. Clearly, God did not create us for the purpose of killing each other. We are free to do so, but it is against the divine law and the natural law which derives from the divine law.

The divine law created sexual organs for reproduction, not sodomy. Those who hold that he created them for sodomy defy both the divine and the natural law.

 

[Wesrock]

Nope, from a Darwinian POV the original, main advantage of sex is evolution, not reproduction. Creatures were already reproducing asexually when sex came along, and sex actually complicated and impeded the goal of producing lots of mini-me copies.

Well, we could say the purpose was greater genetic diversity, but that only makes sense in the context of sex leading to reproduction, without which there would be no greater diversity. Within beings to which sexual reproduction is natural to their essence, the end of the act is still instrinsically linked with reproduction.

Also, from a Darwinian point of view, the secondary goals (those that came later in the evolutionary process) can be just as important if not more so than the first comer. It is now more important for us that our hands hold things well rather than acting as fins or feet. So the unitive aspect of sex is fine if you want to base morality on Darwinian evolution.

Could you please elaborate more on the primary goal of sex within sexual beings from a Darwinian perspective? I don’t see how the unitive aspect, while intrinsic to it in our species, has trumped the reproductive aspect of it.

Which illustrates somewhat the OP question. Is the ‘essence’ of sex about reproduction, evolution or strengthening social bonds? All three? Is the ‘essence’ of hands about holding things, swimming, walking, communicating or what?

Evolution only makes sense in the context of reproduction, and I don’t see how strengthening social bonds has replaced reproduction as the primary purpose of the act from a Darwinist perspective, though the case could be made it aids in child rearing and social support, which goes back to reproduction.

It is natural. We just conclude that what is ‘natural’ is not a good guide to what is ‘moral’ - you lot are the ones who claim that. Dressing it up as ‘essence’ does not hide the truth.

Let’s keep in mind that what a Thomist meams by natural is not exactly the same as what a Darwinist would use it for.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Homicide is unnatural. That idea is implicit in law. People go to jail for murder. For Aquinas, the natural law derives from the divine law. Clearly, God did not create us for the purpose of killing each other. We are free to do so, but it is against the divine law and the natural law which derives from the divine law.

Let’s spend some time on this because, presumably, murder is less controversial than homosexuality.

Is natural/unnatural equivalent to moral/immoral? Are all things immoral unnatural and vice versa?

My understanding of Aquinas’ natural law is that it does not rest on special revelation/revealed law but that’s not necearrily what you mean by divine law.

If we are talking to atheist homosexual apologists must we convert the first to Christianity before convincing them that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s keep in mind that what a Thomist meams by natural is not exactly the same as what a Darwinist would use it for.

This deserves more attention. I am aware of it without entirely grasping the fine detail of it.

 

[Wesrock]

If I understand you correctly, Aquinas would say “if you want to have sex, do it this way” whereas Kant would say “have sex.” Aquinas would say that there is no sin by omission, only commission.

Omission can be a sin. If a person is dying of thirst, and I’m carrying a water bottle, giving that person water is part of my moral duty. Humans are a social being, and promoting life is essential, and I do not go contrary to my own ends as a nutritive, sensory, or rational being in providing that water… I believe Thomas would advise that every action should be done in charity.

I doubt any homosexual apologist would argue that homosexuality is a means to finding God. But then I don’t expect they would agree that abstinance is either. Catholics obviously do think that abstinence is different from homosexuality in this way but if we are operating stricly within natural law, isn’t this a bit circular? How do we determine that abstinence is superior to homosexuality in the search for God without already concluding that it’s sinful?

Sex is worldly in focus. It is a good, of course, but passing on it in favor of the higher good of knowing and loving God and focusing less on this worldly life is never wrong. It should be noted that I would not fail to live up to my ends as a nutritive or sensory soul doing this. I’d like to clarify that giving up a lot of indulgent foods and focusing only on what is necessary would be good continence, and it fulfills my nutritive ends. However, if in my search for God I went so far as to cut food out altogether, that would be going too far, doing self harm to my life which God sustains, I’d be doing wrong.

Continence in any aspect (not just sex, and within reason) can help us to focus less on this world and more on God.

Abstinence is continence. Any type of fornication would not be sexual continence, and homosexual acts go so far as to be a misuse of our sexual faculties away from their primary ends.