Thomistic Essence

[Wesrock]

The question is: “WHY?”.

The primary or “ordered” use of the upper tract of the digestive system is to bite, chew and swallow food. Nevertheless there is a secondary use, of transmitting information, use of the vocal chords (grunt, shout or speak) and even a tertiary use of emitting “useless noises” like singing and humming. Singing is an “unnatural” use in connection with the primary use of the mouth, tongue and teeth.

And yet, information transmitting and singing / humming are not considered “immoral” and “sinful”. Even though no one says that every instance of using the mouth must result in the primary purpose of consuming food, but yet it must be “open” to the primary purpose of consuming some calories. Actually it would be very dangerous to do so, due to the lousy “design” of mixing the respiratory and digestive systems.

Our organs have multiple uses - and all of them are important to the proper functioning of the body. The procreative part is the least frequent. During our lifetime it needs to be used about 2.3 times on the average. Some people use it more, others use it less for that particular purpose. And yet, it is only the “non-procreative” use is that is singled out for being chastised if used for pleasure only. Singing and humming are just fine.

I have never seen a rational explanation for the claim that one must be open for the procreative aspect. It would be interesting to see one.

Singing does not frustrate talking, and talking does not frustrate chewing (except when talking with your mouthful, your mother knew what she was talking about in regards to that… I jest, I jest), and so I’d hardly call it unnatural. Perhaps singing could be called extraordinary, if even that. These actions are taken separately, using the same apparatus. It’s only if I were to deprive the good of eating, or the good of talking, etc… that there’d be an issue. The male genitalia itself is ordered towards both excreting waste and the sex act, but again, these actions are separate, and taken at different times. I do not deny that organs have multiple functions. But eating is for taking in nutrition. Talking is for relaying information. Singing is a great form of entertainment and pleasure. The sex act and the male climax is ultimately ordered towards reproduction. Reproducing is also a natural end of a nutritive and sensory soul.

When I eat or sing, I do not frustrate in any way a final cause of talking. I am not required to talk at all times. Still, when I do, it’s known that it’s immoral to lie, though there are other reasons for that, too. Likewise, it would be immoral to eat poisonous food, as eating is ordered towards nutrition.

Anyway, why? Because goodness is defined by how well I instantiate my formal and final causes. If I am a human, then to be a formal good human, I should have a head, two arms, two legs, a tongue, two eyes, the ability to talk, the ability to reason, etc… None of these are about moral goodness, and lacking these traits does not make me less of a human (fetuses, coma patients, and other physical or mental issues, are all as human as I am). Whether we instantiate the form better or worse, we are all still humans with rational souls.

Likewise, we have final causes associated with our form, and again, goodness is about acting in accord with those causes. A heart that doesn’t beat is not a good heart. An eye that doesn’t see is not a good eye. Morality enters in with reason and with choice, and certainly encompasses far more than simply sex, such treating other humans with charity and respect for life and their rights.

Edit: I can’t help but feel that this staunch insistence that sex in humans isn’t primarily ordered towards procreation, and that sexual pleasure isn’t ordered towards getting people to have sex, and the strong emotional bonds that form over sex aren’t ordered to creating a pair with a strong bond for long-term child rearing, is itself incredibly blind, ignoring science (in particular biology and psychology), politically motivated wishful thinking on the part of opponents. Before I ever heard of formal or final causes or Thomas Aquinas or found my faith–and not thinking anything at all of the issue of same-sex marriage–I would have had the same conclusion based on my education of biology and evolutionary theory. Perhaps when I’d been a proponent of same-sex marriage I’d have argued that final causes, should they exist, had no moral bearing (before I understood them and the metaphysical backgroumd better), but never would I have said that sex wasn’t about procreation. My go-to thought would have been evolution, fitness, selection, etc…

 

[Solmyr]

First of all, thank you for your answer. Now let’s get down to the details.

Singing does not frustrate talking, and talking does not frustrate chewing (except when talking with your mouthful, your mother knew what she was talking about in regards to that… I jest, I jest), and so I’d hardly call it unnatural. Perhaps singing could be called extraordinary, if even that. These actions are taken separately, using the same apparatus. It’s only if I were to deprive the good of eating, or the good of talking, etc… that there’d be an issue.

I am sure you are aware of zero-calorie foods and drinks, which separate the “nutrition” from the pleasure of the taste buds. Using the same logic, these should be considered “immoral”, because they are concentrating on the “pleasure” part - at the expense of the nutrition part.

The male genitalia itself is ordered towards both excreting waste and the sex act, but again, these actions are separate, and taken at different times. I do not deny that organs have multiple functions. But eating is for taking in nutrition. Talking is for relaying information. Singing is a great form of entertainment and pleasure. The sex act and the male climax is ultimately ordered towards reproduction. Reproducing is also a natural end of a nutritive and sensory soul.

Interesting that you emphasized the MALE climax. We both know that the female climax is not necessary for the reproduction, but stimulating the clitoris without any intent to procreate is still considered “sinful”. Sure, it is permitted to have intense “patting” both before and after the coitus, but not instead of it. Why is cunnilingus a problem?

When I eat or sing, I do not frustrate in any way a final cause of talking. I am not required to talk at all times. Still, when I do, it’s known that it’s immoral to lie, though there are other reasons for that, too. Likewise, it would be immoral to eat poisonous food, as eating is ordered towards nutrition.

I am talking about food without nutritional value, just for sake of enjoying the taste. Not gorging oneself and then vomiting. Just a few morsels of some good tasting food. It “frustrates” the nutritional aspect, and yet, there is no “sinful” aspect to it.

By the way, the “primary purpose” of the legs is to provide means of motion from one place to another. Dancing is moving the legs for the sheer fun of it, without getting somewhere else. And yet, there is no “moral” problem with it… except for Southern Baptists. (Do you know why Southern Baptists do not make love in a standing position? Because someone might mistake it for dancing… )

Edit: I can’t help but feel that this staunch insistence that sex in humans isn’t primarily ordered towards procreation, and that sexual pleasure isn’t ordered towards getting people to have sex, and the strong emotional bonds that form over sex aren’t ordered to creating a pair with a strong bond for long-term child rearing, is itself incredibly blind, ignoring science (in particular biology and psychology), politically motivated wishful thinking on the part of opponents.

The problem is not about “primarily ordered” part. The problem is insisting that EVERY instance must be open to it. That is the so far unanswered question.

 

[fisherman_carl]

As far as Aquinas is concerned I think he would talk about a things final cause or end. So when it comes to the sexual organs it is clear what their primary function is, for sexual reproduction. So when using them for something that contradicts that primary end, it would be considered contrary to nature. That is contrary to the nature of that particular organ.

Similarly, if one were to eat glass that would be contrary to the primary natural function or purpose of eating which is for nutrition. Now, if someone were to fast or abstain from eating temporarily that would not contradict the purpose of eating. Because one isn’t actually eating by abstaining from it. (Not only that but there is evidence that fasting is good for you.) However, if someone were to use their mouth to eat rat poison that would be contrary to the function of the mouth.

 

[DrTaffy]

Sexual reproduction compared to asexual reproduction does have the advantage of greater diversity. However, the very implication in sexual reproduction having greater diversity is directly related to the primary end of the act being reproduction.

We are hijacking Bubba’s thread here - you may want to take this to his objective teleology thread.

But briefly, how can you say that sex, as a biological innovation, has the purpose of reproduction when it is actually an impediment to reproduction? It is successful because it has other beneftis, but it makes reproduction less likely.

It is like putting a fort blockading a mountain pass and charging travellers to let them travel through. Can I claim that the ‘purpose’ of the fort is travel through the pass? It is preventing such travel unless a toll is paid, not facilitating it.

Which ties in to the OP, weakly. Apologists often assert that reproduction is the ‘essence’ of sex in order to ‘prove’ that sex should always be at least in part about reproduction. But it still boils down to circular logic, as the claim that reproduction is the ‘essence’ of sex is in effect just asserting that sex should always be at least in part about reproduction. That it doesn’t stand up to an evolutionaryu understanding of sex is not really on topic.

Homosexual couples don’t produce offspring, though of course they could raise them.

Yes they do. Through AI, surrogacy, or as in the bit you actually quoted and replied to, "a gay couple and a lesbian couple coparenting a family together ".

But furthermore, human teleology is ordered towards a family for procreation and child rearing. The unitive nature of the act keeps the couples together for precisely that reason.

That again boils down to a blank assertion of that belief, not a support for it from other principles. The family is good for raising children, but you say yourself that SS couples (or even larger social groups) do that. Monogamy is actually bad for conception. I would also argue that strong family and social ties are good for reasons other than just rearing children.

 

[Vico]

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.

Humans are not entirely material.

The incorruptible soul of a human person is uniquely suited for the body of that person. Together there is a person. Upon death of the body, the person no longer exists but rather the rational soul remains, but upon resurrection of the body, person will exist. Aquinas would abstract the universal form humanness, but this is a class of objects with potentiality and actuality.

Because the body relies upon the incorruptible soul for existence (i.e., partial substances) and that soul is potentially uniquely suited for the body of that person, there is no abstract universal human essence in the way that Aristotle uses it.

The human physiology potentially has reproductive capability, which in a particular body may be non-functional, but which is called a natural capability.