There’s a couple of fundamental differences between the two couples. For one, Couple A lacks the biological, philosophical, and psychological unitive aspect. You may argue that they would be united through the psychological, I would argue that the biological and philosophical weighs more heavily in this case. Men, to be crude about it, are built to give. Women, to receive. We see this in the procreative aspect of sex, where a man literally gives himself (and his sperm) to a woman, and the results can produce a child. At some point that child will, literally, become the fruit of her labour. Psychologically speaking, Couple A can be unified in a sense, however when you factor in the philosophical and biological I would question that unity.
This of course is not counting the natural biological need of a species to procreate. And before you say “animals have homosexual relations in the wild”, I want to remind those who will read this comment that some animals will also instinctively will eat their young. So unless you’re willing to also advocate for the consumption of human babies, lets leave “animals do it in the wild” at the door step.
Unless we want to get into a metaphysical discussion about how man is different than the other animals, and that philosophically speaking we are a cut above them via several theories, including Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.
**These things fall under the philosophical term “natural law”, that there are laws that are simply there, and there is no civil laws or thoughts that can change them. Simplest natural law to comprehend? The Law of Gravity. Second? Any of Newton’s Laws. **
…
Outside of blood transfusions, look at how HIV is spread. Drug needles and sex. HPV, straight up sex. Maybe if we tried to accept the fact that consequences will happen and try to address behavioral patterns, things could get better. The money spent on the HPV vaccine and associated research sure could feed a lot of poor people.
Melchior, you made a pretty good post and covered some great points. However, I need to point a few things out to you and what I think needs clarifying is based on those parts of your post which I have highlighted.
Those aspects of the physical sciences we adduce to be “laws” we do not necessarily include in what we call Natural Law. The Law of Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and other scientific laws are indeed natural laws by dint of the fact that they are naturally occuring, or that they exist in nature. However, Natural Law in a Philosophical and Theological sense does not include these physical laws. It certainly takes an account of them, because, after all, Natural Law enquiry must include mankind’s place in the natural world. The Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics and the fact that copper always conducts electricity are examples of how objective facts about the world we live in can be discerned. Take notice of the use of that word “discerned”, because not all of Natural Law is so easily recognised as, say, the Law of Gravity. Mankind has always suspected that there is an underlying order in a world that seemed often chaotic. The Stoics, the athenian Philosophers, the Romans and then people like Thomas Aquinas percieved it. The worldview, particularly in the West, has changed very quickly since the Renaissance. From a world which seemed mostly chaotic, there emerged an unsuspected underlying
order, revealed by physics, chemistry, biology, geology and other sciences.
Natural Law, as we use it, refers to more than simply the laws of nature and the underlying order in the world. It also includes human nature and man’s place qua man in the natural order of things. It leads to deliberations of Natural Law as a Legal system and Natural Law as a Moral system. Natural Law moral theory says that there is an overlap and that moral imperatives are authoritative because of their moral content.
From what is discerned of mankind’s nature and the way he lives in the natural world, descriptive ethics give rise to descriptions of how mankind behaves. From this, in turn, normative ethics then tell us how man
ought to live and behave. Thus, we go from what is, to what ought to be. Therein lies the dificulty, because mankind relies on his reason and intellect to discern what is right and proper, based on what is discerned about the natural world, about mankind’s place in it and about the very nature of mankind itself.
Aquinas tells us that the rational nature of human beings is what defines moral law: According to him, human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Consequently, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings and that is why it is called “natural law”. According to the Stoics, Aristotle, Rome’s Cicero, Aquinas and a multitude of more contemporary philosophers and Theologians, Natural Law is ethical as well as physical law; and man discerns such law through the use of his
reason. Moral conduct is conduct which is in accordance with right reason.
It was Aristotle and Aquinas, centuries apart, who both discerned that reason is what places man above the animals, who are bound indeed by the laws of nature. mankind, however, has free will and can be whatever he chooses. Ethical behaviour should, therefore, aim to allow mankind to achieve his right and proper ‘ends’ as discerned by the use of right reason. That last sentence of yours which I bolded highlights just why the use of right reason needs to be reapplied to human behaviour.
