What makes something intrinsically bad/good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
I was thinking that perhaps, its participation in being is what made it so. But if that were true, then why would something that had being like same-sex sex, be intrinsically bad? Wouldn’t it be only extrinsically bad?

So in general, why are things intrinsically bad or good?
 
If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa
 
user "VeritasLuxMea":
If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa
Click to expand...
where does that leave extrinsically good things, especially RE natural law.
 
Thaelros said:
If it is antagonistic to the human dignity, then it goes against natural law.
Click to expand...
But how do we determine what is or is not antagonistic to human dignity? Is that ultimately a subjective judgement call? My goal is not to tear the concept down, but if you know how it works, then please explain.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
But how do we determine what is or is not antagonistic to human dignity? Is that ultimately a subjective judgement call? My goal is not to tear the concept down, but if you know how it works, then please explain.
Click to expand...
You bring out a valid point. Many people do not believe in objective truths anymore and instead embrace relativism. This is one of the main issues that Catholics have trouble with when we are arguing morality against secularists and those of other denominations. No one accepts self-evident truths anymore. So to answer your question… We should be determining antagonism based on objective, logical truths that make sense. I wrote this impromptu argument against gay marriage using science (to satisfy secularists) as an example of logical truths: Human reproduction is only possible through the actions of a male and female. Thus, evolutionarily it is most advantageous for the offspring to have male and female parents, which subconsciously promotes the reproductivity that is necessary to bring about the continuation of the species. Natural selection shows that humans have survived because we have stuck to our natural instinct.
 
user "Swiss Guy":
If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa
Click to expand...
but again, this statement covers intrinsically good/bad stuff but not extrinsically good/bad stuff.

so are these latter somehow outside the natural law determination of morality?
 
fakename said:
I was thinking that perhaps, its participation in being is what made it so. But if that were true, then why would something that had being like same-sex sex, be intrinsically bad? Wouldn’t it be only extrinsically bad?

So in general, why are things intrinsically bad or good?
Click to expand...
Bad or evil does not have an object. Its a privation. The object that does evil is not an evil object, but rather it is an object that participates in evil; or rather, it participates in the privation of good. The devil, as an object or being, is not evil; he merely does evil things.

Sexual Attraction in and of its self is not evil. To be Sexually Attracted to an object that does not fulfill the good of your nature, is a disorder of somebody’s nature. Gay is not a being; its a disorder or privation of the good of your sexuality as a male or female. But an “evil” has not yet occurred until the person seeks to act on that disorder. The objects or beings involved are not evil.

Everything that has a being is good even if it has a disorder, so long as you understand disorders or evil as a privation of being rather than an actual being in and of itself.
 
I’m not sure I fully understand the question. But since the word intrinsically is being used I would like to add that the concept of intrinsic can be difficult. Some examples of where it can be difficult might help.

I think owning gold, especially in these times, is good. But gold does not have intrinsic value as many people say. The value is not in the gold itself but in the desire of men to own it. It is extrinsic.

Murder is intrinsically wrong but only because murder contains within it the idea that the killing was wrong. An accidental killing or a purposeful killing in self defense is not wrong. Murder is just short hand for an intrinsically wrong killing.

I think something is intrinsically wrong if it is wrong in all circumstances, at all times, for all people.
 
user "MindOverMatter2":
Bad or evil does not have an object. Its a privation. The object that does evil is not an evil object, but rather it is an object that participates in evil; or rather, it participates in the privation of good. The devil, as an object or being, is not evil; he merely does evil things.

Sexual Attraction in and of its self is not evil. To be Sexually Attracted to an object that does not fulfill the good of your nature, is a disorder of somebody’s nature. Gay is not a being; its a disorder or privation of the good of your sexuality as a male or female. But an “evil” has not yet occurred until the person seeks to act on that disorder. The objects or beings involved are not evil.

Everything that has a being is good even if it has a disorder, so long as you understand disorders or evil as a privation of being rather than an actual being in and of itself.
Click to expand...
But some things are both beings and bad, like unreasonable sex. Sex is a thing, and yet it is sometimes bad. So why is this if all good=being and all non-being=bad? Is the relation to correct order somehow a being? Is it even a relation?
 
In Genesis God called all of His creation “good.” How God’s creation is used by us makes it good or bad. Drugs aren’t “bad” it it using them in to numb emotions or escape reality instead of to heal or alleviate symptoms of sickness. Sex is intended to strengthen the bonds between husband and wife ( Mark 10:6-9, Matt. 19:4-6) which strengthens the family unit as well, and, of course, to produce children (Gen. 1:28). Sex outside of these purposes is sinful. So nothing is intrinsically bad, even disease and injury can serve a positive end.
 
fakename said:
But some things are both beings and bad, like unreasonable sex. Sex is a thing, and yet it is sometimes bad. So why is this if all good=being and all non-being=bad? Is the relation to correct order somehow a being? Is it even a relation?
Click to expand...
Sex is never bad. Its what we do with sex that will determine whether we are respecting the gift of sexuality or not.
 
user "MindOverMatter2":
Sex is never bad. Its what we do with sex that will determine whether we are respecting the gift of sexuality or not.
Click to expand...
but gay sex is intrinsically bad and yet by your definition, sex can only be extrinsically bad.

Also the answer doesn’t seem, to me, to define where extrinsically good or bad things are in relation to being. Are these goods and bads also defined by being or something else?
 
fakename said:
but gay sex is intrinsically bad and yet by your definition, sex can only be extrinsically bad.

Also the answer doesn’t seem, to me, to define where extrinsically good or bad things are in relation to being. Are these goods and bads also defined by being or something else?
Click to expand...
Gays don’t have real sex any more than masturbation is real sex.
 
user "MindOverMatter2":
Gays don’t have real sex any more than masturbation is real sex.
Click to expand...
Is this Church teaching? If it is, then why would the Church call it “sex”?

In any case, they seem to be doing “something” and if no thing is bad, then why is their “something” bad? What does this imply for extrinsic actions? What is the rule for extrinsic actions?
 
fakename said:
Is this Church teaching? If it is, then why would the Church call it “sex”?

In any case, they seem to be doing “something” and if no thing is bad, then why is their “something” bad? What does this imply for extrinsic actions? What is the rule for extrinsic actions?
Click to expand...
That an action is bad, only means that an object is not fulfilling its nature. It is behaving in a way that does not correspond teleologically to some aspect of its being. Catholic morality is teleological. Natural law is teleology.

The act of reality is intrinsically Love; Love is a nature and an action. Thus any being that contingently participates in the act of reality is loved, and thus also it follows that its nature is loved insofar as it participates in reality. When a personal object, made in the image of love, chooses not to fulfil its intrinsic nature, the action by definition is selfish in so far as the act of reality itself in which the person participates is Love. It is selfish because to truly love your nature is to act for the greatest good of your nature; and in the case of a things “nature” this translates in to the fact that a thing must seek to full-fill the natural end of its nature. To fulfil the natural end to which your nature is in act is to be fulfilled in the good of your nature; it is to love. Actions to the contrary is to be at war with reality; it is to be at war with love; it is to be at war with your own nature; it is to be at war with God. Evil is not a “thing” which exists by itself. But rather evil is a perversion of good things.
 
fakename said:
I was thinking that perhaps, its participation in being is what made it so. But if that were true, then why would something that had being like same-sex sex, be intrinsically bad? Wouldn’t it be only extrinsically bad?

So in general, why are things intrinsically bad or good?
Click to expand...
Fakename:

That which is intrinsically bad is that which is in direct violation of its maker’s intent. That which is intrinsically good is that which directly comports with its maker’s intent.

By “directly” I mean that there is no intermediary. So, a bow and arrow have neither intrinsic goodness, nor intrinsic badness. They are intended for an intermediary. It is the intermediary that can be intrinsically good, or bad.

A Satan who tempts another soul to violate its Maker’s intent, is intrinsically bad. The turned soul, while not intrinsically bad in the beginning, becomes intrinsically bad upon acquiescing to the temptation to violate its Maker’s intent.

God bless,
jd
 
fakename said:
but gay sex is intrinsically bad and yet by your definition, sex can only be extrinsically bad.

Also the answer doesn’t seem, to me, to define where extrinsically good or bad things are in relation to being. Are these goods and bads also defined by being or something else?
Click to expand...
Fakename:

We are commanded by God to go forth and multiply. (And, He didn’t mean, go into a classroom and participate in mathematics.) Thus, it is His intention that we go forth and multiply. Gay sex is a violation of God’s intent in making us and commanding us. It is the sin itself that is “bad,” not the person, in this case. Sex is used against its intended intent. It is used selfishly and for momentary pleasure. Otherwise, sex, per se, is neither-nor.

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top