What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[Tomdstone]

And you clearly didn’t understand at all what I meant by breakthrough [fertilizations].

Can you enlighten us on what is meant by this term?

 

[Elizium23]

Can you enlighten us on what is meant by this term?

Despite having had a tubal ligation, a woman’s egg finds its way from the ovary to meet with sperm and be fertilized. Or, a man who has had a vasectomy can still produce sperm eith the same effect. So, the chances are not zero.

 

[Tomdstone]

Despite having had a tubal ligation, a woman’s egg finds its way from the ovary to meet with sperm and be fertilized. Or, a man who has had a vasectomy can still produce sperm eith the same effect. So, the chances are not zero.

How often has this happened in real life?

 

[Rau]

The discussion appears to be wanting to view morality as something disconnected from God. For the atheist, that is true, for the Christian, not true.

 

[Bradski]

Not according to the Church’s definition of “procreative”, and not according to the scientific fact that sometimes breakthroughs occur despite a sterilization.

The aim is to determine whether sex which is simply recreational is immoral. What definition the Church attaches to the term ‘procreative’ is irrelevant. The term recreational precludes it being procreative by definition.

And we are talking about a sexual act. Not long term considerations of sexual congress. A scientific breakthrough is hardly likely to occur whilst you are actually having sex. Let’s be clear again, we are talking about a sexual act where there is ZERO chance of pregnancy.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Despite having had a tubal ligation, a woman’s egg finds its way from the ovary to meet with sperm and be fertilized. Or, a man who has had a vasectomy can still produce sperm eith the same effect. So, the chances are not zero.

That is theoretically possible. However if the ovaries are removed and / or the uterus is removed, then there can be no pregnancies. But, as I said, it is much simpler to make sure that the sperm does not get close to egg… and the method to do it well known, and has been practiced since the dawn of time.

The question now is if there is a rational argument against having recreational sex. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

 

[Rau]

The aim is to determine whether sex which is simply recreational is immoral. What definition the Church attaches to the term ‘procreative’ is irrelevant. The term recreational precludes it being procreative by definition.

And we are talking about a sexual act. Not long term considerations of sexual congress. A scientific breakthrough is hardly likely to occur whilst you are actually having sex. Let’s be clear again, we are talking about a sexual act where there is ZERO chance of pregnancy.

Recreational - as you define it - means the context/form of the act is one in which conception is judged impossible - I think that is what you mean? Hence: masturbation, bestiality, homosexual or contracepted (effectively), sterile (eg. Woman has had medically required hysterectomy)

In my system, the last of these may be moral, the rest not.

 

[Rau]

That is theoretically possible. However if the ovaries are removed and / or the uterus is removed, then there can be no pregnancies. But, as I said, it is much simpler to make sure that the sperm does not get close to egg… and the method to do it well known, and has been practiced since the dawn of time.

The question now is if there is a rational argument against having recreational sex. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

I recall your definition of rational was that it be secular - no reference to God.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The discussion appears to be wanting to view morality as something disconnected from God. For the atheist, that is true, for the Christian, not true.

If that is the way you see it, then no atheist (or any non-Christian person) can be deemed “moral”. And that seems to be a rather strange proposition. Most believers, even the pope seems to admit that one can be a moral person, even if one is not a Catholic, or not even a believer. Therefore “morality” (whatever it may be) can be discussed and considered without referring to God.

Recreational - as you define it - means the context/form of the act is one in which conception is judged impossible - I think that is what you mean? Hence: masturbation, bestiality, homosexual or contracepted (effectively), sterile (eg. Woman has had medically required hysterectomy)

In my system, the last of these may be moral, the rest not.

Accepted, but that is only your personal opinion (shared by many others, of course), UNLESS you can provide a rational (secular) argument for it. Plato has already failed to provide such an argument.

I recall your definition of rational was that it be secular - no reference to God.

Yes, that is correct. I am willing to concede that I am wrong, if you can bring evidence that God actually exists, AND that God actually agrees with your stance. (It is rather interesting that every believer - no matter what the flavor for their particular belief might be - insists that God always agrees with their assertions, or using other words: they all insist that they speak for God.)

This seems to be impossible. The trouble is that your definition of “immoral” is very different from mine. So how can a “heathen” be moral, if his definition of “moral” is not the same? You are between a rock and a hard place. Either you must maintain that non-Catholics and unbelievers are “immoral” by definition, or you concede that morality can be defined without referring to the Christian God. Which one will it be?

 

[Tomdstone]

Either you must maintain that non-Catholics and unbelievers are “immoral” by definition, or you concede that morality can be defined without referring to the Christian God. Which one will it be?

IMHO, you can have moral humanistic secularism and be a non-Christian. Wouldn’t this be where the “natural law” fits in?

 

[Rau]

If that is the way you see it, then no atheist (or any non-Christian person) can be deemed “moral”. And that seems to be a rather strange proposition. Most believers, even the pope seems to admit that one can be a moral person, even if one is not a Catholic, or not even a believer. Therefore “morality” (whatever it may be) can be discussed and considered without referring to God.

There may be substantial overlap, so labelling the person “moral” vs “immoral” is unhelpful. What we can say is that acts one sees as moral, the other will not, and vice versa. If you believe no part of morality derives from God, then morality can be discussed without reference to God.

Accepted, but that is only your personal opinion (shared by many others, of course), UNLESS you can provide a rational (secular) argument for it. Plato has already failed to provide such an argument.

Your need to exclude God makes anything I have to say “irrational” for you. Absent God, I may well be with you!

Yes, that is correct. I am willing to concede that I am wrong, if you can bring evidence that God actually exists.

Evidence is not in short supply, it’s proof you’re after. It is called “Faith” for a reason.

The trouble is that your definition of “immoral” is very different from mine. So how can a “heathen” be moral, if his definition of “moral” is not the same? You are between a rock and a hard place. Either you must maintain that non-Catholics and unbelievers are “immoral” by definition, or you concede that morality can be defined without referring to the Christian God. Which one will it be?

Of course, the picture you paint there would have to cut both ways. You would face the same problem - unable to consider a person who adopts the “ends don’t justify the means” maxim as moral.

But regardless, I never find myself in that particular place. It’s never occurred to me to describe persons as moral or immoral (other than in the generic “humans are moral creatures”) - only their actions. And yes, I decide which acts are moral or immoral by reference to my system, as you do with by reference to yours. Surely there is nothing in that surprising? In my system, it is also possible that a person may have little of no culpability for an immoral act - which further supports the view that it is the act, rather than the person, deserving of a label.

 

[Bradski]

IMHO, you can have moral humanistic secularism and be a non-Christian. Wouldn’t this be where the “natural law” fits in?

If you replace ‘natural law’ with ‘reason’, then I’d think we’d be on the same page.

 

[Bradski]

What we can say is that acts one sees as moral, the other will not, and vice versa.

This is the crux of the matter. If there is a difference of opinion we should both be able to put forward reasonable arguments as to why each of us thinks we are right. If any of the reasons on your side of the argument are based on the divine (effectively ‘it’s immoral because God says so’), then there can be no discussion.

If you start with God and then tack on a few secular arguments to try to justify it from a non-religious perspective, then we can say either…

The secular arguments are good enough to stand on their own and there is no need to bring God into the debate. You win all reasonable people over. Or…

The secular arguments are not good enough and those without a belief in God will ignore them and those with belief will find themselves in a quandary - at loggerheads with the church. Which is where we’ve been for a very long time in regard to contraception and where we are heading at an increasing rate in regard to homosexuality and SSM.

 

[Rau]

This is the crux of the matter. If there is a difference of opinion we should both be able to put forward reasonable arguments as to why each of us thinks we are right. If any of the reasons on your side of the argument are based on the divine (effectively ‘it’s immoral because God says so’), then there can be no discussion.

If you start with God and then tack on a few secular arguments to try to justify it from a non-religious perspective, then we can say either…

The secular arguments are good enough to stand on their own and there is no need to bring God into the debate. You win all reasonable people over. Or…

The secular arguments are not good enough and those without a belief in God will ignore them and those with belief will find themselves in a quandary - at loggerheads with the church. Which is where we’ve been for a very long time in regard to contraception and where we are heading at an increasing rate in regard to homosexuality and SSM.

Or to make it simpler - the absence of shared premise makes reaching shared conclusions most difficult.

 

[Tomdstone]

Or to make it simpler - the absence of shared premise makes reaching shared conclusions most difficult.

Shared conclusions are oftentimes difficult to reach even if you have shared premises. Take for example, what Roman Catholics think about artificial birth control or same sex marriage. Many polls and elections indicate that the conclusions of many Roman Catholics are not in synch with the Vatican. OTOH, the Russian Orthodox Church does not have shared premise with the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of papal infallibility, indulgences, leavened bread, profane music during liturgy, church approved divorce, etc. And yet, polls show that at least 85% of Russian Orthodox are in synch with the conclusion of the Vatican on same sex marriage.

 

[icamhif]

I think Mr. Plato’s argument fails if you consider that some women have their tubes cut and some men have a vasectomy either of which would rule out procreative sex.

I think the Catholic answer to that is that one is only required to be open to procreate if he/she is able to procreate.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think the Catholic answer to that is that one is only required to be open to procreate if he/she is able to procreate.

I don;t believe that the Catholic Church allows an unmarried couple to be intimate, even when there is no possibility of children.

 

[icamhif]

I don;t believe that the Catholic Church allows an unmarried couple to be intimate, even when there is no possibility of children.

The key word here is “unmarried.” The Catholic Church doesn’t allow premarital sex, period, regardless of whether the couple wants to procreate or not.

 

[Rau]

Shared conclusions are oftentimes difficult to reach even if you have shared premises. Take for example, what Roman Catholics think about artificial birth control or same sex marriage. Many polls and elections indicate that the conclusions of many Roman Catholics are not in synch with the Vatican. OTOH, the Russian Orthodox Church does not have shared premise with the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of papal infallibility, indulgences, leavened bread, profane music during liturgy, church approved divorce, etc. And yet, polls show that at least 85% of Russian Orthodox are in synch with the conclusion of the Vatican on same sex marriage.

Reading that nearly gave me a headache!