tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post5856212397797878449..comments2023-10-21T03:54:12.029-04:00Comments on A Gift Universe: Why I don't believe in natural lawSheilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-37936875180904211042016-08-03T17:31:49.708-04:002016-08-03T17:31:49.708-04:00But I thought your only reason for saying Romeo an...But I thought your only reason for saying Romeo and Julius' relationship was bad for them was because they were "addicted" to one another in a relationship that wasn't outwardly-focused through the raising of children. At least that's the only argument you gave that made any sense.<br /><br />Are fathering and mothering so different that a child could never succeed without both? Did children turn out defective when raised by nuns? Other than breastfeeding (which some babies don't get and turn out fine), there's not a whole lot I do that my husband doesn't, and basically nothing at all he does that I don't. Our personalities seem to affect this more than our genders do.<br /><br />Again, if you say "gay parents might lead to a child not developing proper gender roles or growing up gay," that too is begging the question, because it would only be convincing if I thought it was a tragedy that the child might grow up gay, or might not be masculine or feminine enough for some standard. Unless you can explain what thing a father could teach that a mother couldn't, or vice versa, and also explain why other relatives and adult mentors couldn't, I don't think you've proved anything just by saying that a child needs a father and a mother.<br /><br />In the case of gay couples who take in foster children or adopt unwanted children, they aren't breaking a family, they are fixing a family. They're making a family for a child that doesn't have one. I'm leaving out the case of artificially-conceived children simply because there are additional issues there, some of which I might find convincing, but not because I'm convinced about the global issue.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-86530326750506347442016-08-03T11:00:40.312-04:002016-08-03T11:00:40.312-04:00I'm pretty sure I didn't start with "...I'm pretty sure I didn't start with "homosexual acts are bad" as a principle, but got there from other considerations, so I don't know what question I'm supposed to be begging.<br /><br />~~~~~<br /><br />[The attachment Romeo and Julius might have to the idea of raising children] entailing [attachment to something-going-wrong] is example of how their relationship is <i>bad for themselves and eachother</i>, not how it's bad for baby Clark.<br /><br />Charity for neighbour is always a good thing. Therefore, receiving an orphan or child from a broken home, when you're the best option, <i>is a good thing</i>.<br /><br />Romeo and Julius are a better option than letting a child starve or disappear into the streets. But Romeo and Julius are not a better option than Jonathan and Martha, who may well in turn be superseded by Arthur and Molly... the Kents because they <i>are</i> complementary, and can offer little Clark both fathering and mothering; the Weasleys because, having raised their own children, they already have close experience with what children need.<br /><br />Romeo and Julius can maybe offer stability and material security. Fin. In the meantime, they cannot be both fathering and mothering, nor can they exemplify a Jonathan-and-Martha relationship, they cannot foreshadow Harry-and-Ginny.<br /><br />~~~~~<br /><br />It seems very strange to me that I have to keep pointing out the relationship of the moral to the intellectual: that a marriage starts in promises, which is a communion between two minds (and particular promises of a sort that cannot exist between two men); that two-man childrearing requires broken families and they <i>can't not <b>know</b> it</i>... We only have moral questions <i>because</i> we are rational animals; a pair of male penguins might get attached to eachother for a season and <i>that's</i> not a moral tragedy, it's just that penguins are animals swimming in the usual mix of hormones, they can get confused. People, meanwhile, are <i>supposed</i> to give some thought for what they're doing.<br /><br />~~~~~<br /><br />Yes, some people break up their own families, or produce new families already-broken. In the former case, to the extent they're trying to make up for it, good: to the extent they are refusing to <i>actually</i> heal their actual family, not so good. In the latter case: <i>why</i> deliberately make a broken family?Belfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-36101799861615163582016-07-30T10:23:25.020-04:002016-07-30T10:23:25.020-04:00The thing is, it doesn't seem to BE rational. ...The thing is, it doesn't seem to BE rational. It's weird the way that people seem utterly unable to stop eating, but I suspect there are further physical causes we don't fully understand. I saw the ad for the Aspire Assist and thought it was nasty, but on the other hand I don't know what TO do with a person who claims to want to lose weight, has tried to eat less, and whose health is seriously in danger from their weight. Surely there is a real cure out there somewhere, if we could find out WHY the person can't stop eating or why their body stores everything they eat as fat, but while we don't have one, are we supposed to let people die? <br /><br />Kind of the same deal with heroin; there are lots of people who say they don't like being addicted to heroin and want to get clean, yet rehab and Narcotics Anonymous is not helping. Clearly there is something deeper going on that goes beyond simple willpower.<br /><br />Bat, I've left your comment hanging so long because I don't really know what to say that I haven't already said. You continue to beg the question. And you seem to be acting like taking in a foster child without a home is somehow a sketchy, morally-suspect thing, whereas if I did it you'd be all in favor. (Of course, also, some gay couples have children who are genetically related to one of them, either from a previous relationship or conceived artificially, and while you would frown on that, I doubt you'd frown so much on a rape victim letting her child be adopted by the *husband* she later marries.) Again, the arguments you use only seem to work if someone already agrees with you! Not sure there is anything further that could be said.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-27182794499121468462016-07-27T17:28:02.448-04:002016-07-27T17:28:02.448-04:00I am going to limp in here right at the end and ig...I am going to limp in here right at the end and ignore everything but the weight loss surgery. :)<br /><br />I have been doing some reading about the obesity epidemic and possible fixes for it. Weight loss surgery is really quite disturbing and I wonder what the Church thinks of it? In one form of the surgery, they cut out a large chunk of the stomach, mutilating a healthy organ to make it smaller and worse at its job. People who have the surgery will have to struggle against malnutrition for the rest of their lives, as the price of being thin. Eating certain foods will trigger violent vomiting. <br /><br />A device called the AspireAssist was recently approved by the FDA. It is even more blatantly screwed up: they create a port in your abdominal wall that goes directly into your stomach. After eating, you attach a tube and vacuum a third of the food straight into the toilet. I find it hard to conceive of, say, a Benedictine monk being allowed to do this by his order. It is basically like a condom for your stomach. These surgeries are done because people are addicts--unwilling or unable to stop overeating. <br /><br />I got very depressed reading the statistics of how few people manage to stick with their weight loss attempts. I fear that soon "educate kids about healthy eating!" will become the new "abstinence only education." We are going to give up on treating overweight people as rational actors and just fund medications and surgeries for them.Meredithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02275790985990503744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-91907102303805746772016-07-23T17:02:10.064-04:002016-07-23T17:02:10.064-04:00About heroin, again: why is the "bad" ou...About heroin, again: <i>why</i> is the "bad" outcome bad? (I agree that it is bad, but <i>why do we agree?</i> I have to ask because there <i>are people who disagree</i>.)<br /><br />A man cannot give a man what a man cannot receive or hold. That's straight-forward enough,right?<br /><br />Expanding: Before there are babies, there is the <i>possibility</i> of babies (marriage, in the developed tradition, comes before there are or even might be any), and there <i>can be</i> the promise to care for them together, and care for eachother through them, and to complement eachother's care. Even within an accidentally-infertile couple ("medically infertile"?) one can <i>reasonably doubt</i> ultimate sterility --- sometimes bodies heal; sometimes miracles happen.<br /><br />Between two men, between two women, there might be a promise to take care of eachother when they get sick or old* (or when they <i>make eachother</i> sick...) but there <i>cannot be doubt</i> that any children they end up raising will be <i>strangers'</i> children. If they <i>are</i> counting on raising children, then they are <i>counting on</i> something going wrong. The physical acting out of how the wedding promise is sealed between man and woman becomes, between two men or between two women, totally unconnected (knowably, by <i>nature</i>) from any children they might promise to raise. Their play won't moderate itself and <i>cannot</i> satisfy what it's naturally directed towards. <i>And everyone knows it</i><br /><br />At the same time two men (two women) cannot be complementary in the same way as a man and a woman are; women and men are different, (not <i>hugely</i> different, but different enough) and that's a very good thing; and children want both around to grow up well.<br /><br />~~~~~<br /><br />*) presumably, they're going to get old and decrepit about the same time, so <i>unless</i> they've a plan to provide eachother devoted children, theirs is a <i>bad plan</i> and the promise is <i>rash</i>.Belfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-42671346941192022892016-07-21T12:15:47.247-04:002016-07-21T12:15:47.247-04:00Right, I just don't see what a man *couldn'...Right, I just don't see what a man *couldn't* give John that I give. (Well, aside from the fact that he's not into that kind of relationship.) What things are you thinking of? Just babies? Because, like I said, not everyone manages that one and that's okay. So what is the mysterious thing that a man and woman can do for each other that a same-sex couple can't? Emotional support? Kindness? Mutual assistance at the struggles of life?Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-14183237155176377112016-07-20T23:40:49.841-04:002016-07-20T23:40:49.841-04:00Bat,
Though on the other hand I'm not sure wh...Bat,<br /><br />Though on the other hand I'm not sure why you've got so attached to this idea that two men (or women) can't give each other what a straight couple can.<br /><br />Sorry, that was facetious.<br /><br />But about the heroin. I'd say it is because the consequences of heroin are clearly understood to be harming people, or at least the person using the drug. The connection between two people of the same sex being in a long-term romantic friendship recognized as marriage by society and anyone being harmed is a little more tenuous. I mean, like a straight infertile couple they can give each other love, support, kindness and friendship. And you could make an argument that making same-sex marriage illegal does hurt people, since it removes partner benefits, stigmatizes people, etc.<br /><br />Thoughts?Ember Wordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16216662006264697219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-59905916794822250462016-07-20T11:58:55.661-04:002016-07-20T11:58:55.661-04:00I don't know why you've got so attached to...I don't know why you've got so attached to this idea that what two men might do can be so <i>like</i> a marriage that objecting to it sounds like doubting <i>a particular real marriage</i>. A man cannot give another man what you have given John, nor even give another man what John has given you.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there are ways to feel blissed-out that are not happiness. I mean, if <i>feeling</i> "happy" about whatever is what matters most, then what <i>is</i> the objection to someone enjoying heroin so much it kills him?<br /><br />I <i>have known</i> people, also, who don't want to escape, but they <i>don't look</i> happy.<br />Belfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-23369114515935183892016-07-20T07:41:30.949-04:002016-07-20T07:41:30.949-04:00If your only source is people who found that life ...If your only source is people who found that life unsatisfying and unhappy and thus left it, is it possible you're not hearing the whole story? Because many people don't leave it, and they certainly claim to be happy. Don't know if you could find one of these people and ask them about it. Personally I expect they'd feel the way I would feel if you started picking my marriage apart -- in short, why should I have to justify a happy, loving relationship to you? John and I didn't *have* to get married, we could have stayed friends, but we wanted to get married. The sort of relationship we had wasn't the kind that's happy to stay on the level of "just friends," it was the kind that wants further intimacy. And if we hadn't been able to have children, that wouldn't have taken away our justification for getting married; we might have adopted children, but if we hadn't, again, that wouldn't mean our marriage wasn't real.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-9199684756564632552016-07-19T17:52:39.630-04:002016-07-19T17:52:39.630-04:00The dangers are illustrative of instinct interrupt...The dangers are illustrative of instinct interrupting our rational natures, not the substance of the objection: we <i>are</i> rational animals, and though there are reasonable ways/times to suspend reasoning, still one has to do <i>some initial</i> thinking first to get there properly.<br /><br />I've never experienced this sugar "high" I hear tell of, but never mind: it's certainly possible to <i>abuse</i> sugar, to make oneself sick with it, and this I <i>have</i> done (not on purpose...); salt can make you sick, too. To all of these things, I re-echo: their use ought to be <i>reasonable</i> ("reasonable" has plenty of lee-way to it!). Caffeine (in moderation) can sharpen attention; alcohol (in moderation) can relax, can help set aside useless worry.<br /><br />Your claim is: there may be a deep and abiding intimacy that can be reinforced by such-and-such. I've had deep friendships with fellow fellows, so that's fine; but I'm not convinced that literally sexualizing a friendship between men (or between women) <i>can</i> reinforce depth or intimacy. I rather think (that is, I am told <i>by folk who know from experience</i> and have escaped it) that it becomes a distraction, a shallowing, and a cheapening; and, unlike the various kinds of self-abuse, it's a distraction et.c. involving the willing cooperation of [at least] two individuals. It's also a distraction et.c. that sets up their brains and bodies to be expecting children to raise, while their reasoning minds should be perfectly clear that <i>by nature</i> there can't be any children to raise without something actually going very wrong.<br /><br />And I really don't think that kind of intellectual dissonance can be healthy.<br />Belfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-83738162791471988472016-07-18T16:51:38.454-04:002016-07-18T16:51:38.454-04:00I think most people would have an issue with your ...I think most people would have an issue with your characterization of sex as dangerous. In a place where we have houses with locks on the doors, it hardly puts us at risk of predators. And it's not like it takes so much time as to prevent eating or socializing.<br /><br />Caffeine produces a habit-forming high, but most people in our culture have weighed the pros and cons and decide to use it daily. Alcohol makes people sleepy, but as long as it isn't done to excess, nobody thinks it's wrong. Heck, you get a very strong high off of foods like sugar, and yet you probably eat dessert sometimes. What makes this case so different?<br /><br />I don't think we need to approach all pleasures with a "hermaneutic of suspicion," so that they have to justify themselves in order to be moral. Rather, I'd say the fact that one enjoys it is a reason to do it, and to forbid people to do it would require a serious argument. If Romeo and Julius don't just enjoy the momentary pleasure of sex, but also a deep abiding intimacy reinforced by their sexual relationship, I can't think of a justification for attempting to take that away from them *unless it can be proved to be immoral.* Your presumption seems to be that we should assume it's immoral and dangerous unless we have adequate proof to the contrary!Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-74433152553249253172016-07-18T16:08:54.506-04:002016-07-18T16:08:54.506-04:00So, in people, there's this thing done in pair...So, in people, there's this thing done in pairs that over-rides wanting to eat, that over-rides worrying about predators, and abstract thinking, and (for whatever reason, ordinarily) makes us very shy of <i>other</i> people. When things "go well", there's a distracting high at the end, and often an overwhelming tendency towards sleep (again: suppressing hunger and defensive fear and sociability). And it's strongly habit-forming.<br /><br />There had <i>better be</i> a very good reason for it, because dropping one's guard and neglecting food and hiding from helpful friends are all <i>dangerous</i> things to do.<br /><br />And more: in creatures whose nature includes <i>reason</i>, on which is founded responsibility and morality, <i>deciding</i> to do a thing that is dangerous may be dangerous for the soul as well, if not done <i>reasonably</i>.<br /><br />So the suspicion remains to be dispelled. Set aside the casuistry of how to maintain a healthy marriage-in-the-ancient-sense: what very good reason can Romeo and Julius have to indulge the dangerous instinct, to chase their distracting and habit-forming high?Belfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-18891167813331964482016-07-16T13:58:11.235-04:002016-07-16T13:58:11.235-04:00I was making a general comment, not a particular o...I was making a general comment, not a particular one about your case.Ariadnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974270928059434503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-48931626573416502172016-07-16T13:55:14.006-04:002016-07-16T13:55:14.006-04:00I really don't think my objections here are em...I really don't think my objections here are emotional -- I did try to be convinced by these, but in the end I felt revelation was the only reasonable basis for Catholic sexual morality.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-48993921560779640912016-07-16T11:55:17.885-04:002016-07-16T11:55:17.885-04:00Having said that,I do think the arguments for Cath...Having said that,I do think the arguments for Catholic sexual morality hold water quite well. However, I think the subject is more difficult because sexuality is such a naturally emotional subject (which can get in the way of reasoning), and it depends on certain premises that are not widely taught or held in the world today.Ariadnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974270928059434503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-81930438890397008352016-07-16T11:52:03.389-04:002016-07-16T11:52:03.389-04:00Well, that is different and makes more sense to me...Well, that is different and makes more sense to me than rejecting natural law altogether. Ariadnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974270928059434503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-92225147823324493382016-07-16T11:50:48.457-04:002016-07-16T11:50:48.457-04:00Insofar as "natural law" simply means &q...Insofar as "natural law" simply means "those things everyone can figure out about morality," I have no real objection to it. I simply disagree that Catholic sexual morality is one of those things, and the Thomistic attempt to prove it is is not at all convincing to me.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-49548851071536151512016-07-16T11:35:43.842-04:002016-07-16T11:35:43.842-04:00Sheila, I think that's actually the point of n...Sheila, I think that's actually the point of natural law: that there are some things we know are wrong without believing in God. Murder, stealing, and cheating on one's spouse are great examples.Ariadnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974270928059434503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-37771076634716583832016-07-16T09:15:17.334-04:002016-07-16T09:15:17.334-04:00Do I believe in sexual morality? Yes. I believe ...<br />Do I believe in sexual morality? Yes. I believe in sexual morality based on consequences. Sex has some pretty huge consequences, and no one ought to have sex without considering all of them, from emotional consequences on oneself and one's partner (it would be terrible to, say, sleep with someone when they will take it as proof of a serious relationship when you don't mean it that way), to STD's, to pregnancy. Using birth control may be a part of taking mind for the consequences, but of course all birth control fails sometimes so one ought to have a plan for that. It's certainly gravely wrong to bring a person into the world while in a situation where they will be harmed or neglected. Better not to have sex in that situation.<br /><br />As a married woman, and married to a serious Catholic, obviously my own choices are constrained by a lot more than what I just described. <br /><br />Why not try a thought experiment: imagine that God somehow revealed to you, in a way that completely convinced you it was really him, that all sexual choices were now permissible to you. Would you turn around and cheat on your husband? Of course not, because you love him and your love impels you to fidelity regardless of whether anyone's commanding it. The same goes for nonsexual morality. While Catholics like to insist that morality would be impossible without God, it's not like they *want* to lie, murder, and steal -- at least I hope not! They don't desire to do those things because those things are harmful and other people are important to them. But seriously Andrea, if you want to talk any further about morality without God, please do a search on this blog for posts about morality and read them. We'll have a much more fruitful conversation if you're informed.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-4153634577473250272016-07-16T09:14:42.506-04:002016-07-16T09:14:42.506-04:00But about the first objection, I studied Thomism f...But about the first objection, I studied Thomism for three years in college. At no point were its initial premises proven. Most of the professors admitted that they *could not be* -- they must either be accepted, or not. Sort of like a religion that way. When a Thomist says "I can prove the validity of natural law," or "I can prove the existence of God," what he really means is, IF you accept things like hylomorphism (matter and form), formal causes, final causes, natures, etc., then he can bring you to the belief he wants to prove. But very few people alive today believe these things, in part because they are unprovable, and in part because better ways of describing the universe have been devised by other philosophers since the 1300's, and in part because it doesn't seem to agree with modern science.<br /><br />For instance, I think that evolution (here I'm starting to address something you said, Bat) disproves the idea of natures for different species because it shows that a species is not a fixed thing. A beaver NOW is different from a badger, but there was a time when they were the same species and one batch started chewing on treees and the other started doing .... whatever it is badgers do. You can't tell at the outset of an evolutionary tree which mutations are "defects in a creature's nature" and which are going to be useful later on. For a hawk to go blind would be a defect, but for a cave fish it's a good way to save energy. And you don't know ahead of time if the creature in question is going to be a cave fish or not!<br /><br />Fish have swim bladders. Is it a "defect" for them to use their swim bladders to breathe, or a misuse of a faculty? But once upon a time certain fish (lungfish) started exchanging gasses through their swim bladders, which was useful in the stagnant water they lived in. Generations down the road they started hobbling on their fins (gasp! another misuse!) from puddle to puddle, and further along they became what we would think of as amphibians. At which point did the "end" or "function" of their swim bladders and fins change? I would say, at the point they started using them that way. They couldn't know, when they tried it, if that would wind up being "fit" or "unfit" -- it was an experiment, like all evolution is an experiment, with death being the way you get negative results.<br /><br />That seems to completely destroy the idea that organs or body systems have "ends" which are unchanging or should be unchanged. Rather, we should use our reason to use them in ways that don't hurt us -- or, for that matter, our species. If everyone had no kids, that would be bad (though I don't think it's likely -- most people want babies) but I also think that if everyone had a child a year from 15 to 45, that would also be bad. Evolution favors the fastest reproducer, so no wonder humans are so prolific, but in a world where we are already dominant in the environment, where we've eliminated predators and most causes of child mortality, where we are limited only by the resources on the planet, extreme prolificness is no longer fit. I don't think the earth is overpopulated now (so no need to bring out the arguments I'm sure you have against this!) but if everyone had 20 children each generation, it shortly would be. So it's fair to say that unlimited reproduction no longer serves our species' survival, so even from the point of view of "doing what evolution wants" it wouldn't be the wise thing to do.<br />Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-68069561961698492582016-07-16T09:13:08.746-04:002016-07-16T09:13:08.746-04:00The other thing is, you can't have natural law...The other thing is, you can't have natural law without Thomism. I've been reading LOTS of this Feser guy in order to ensure that the constant accusation that I just "don't really get it" isn't justified. I haven't been finding it so; yes, he answers my objections, but no, his answers are not credible. All you have to do is read the comments on any of his posts to realize that his readers, even the Catholic ones, are as confused as me. I feel people are convinced more by his self-confidence than his reasoning -- he SAYS this is ironclad proof, so everyone assumes that it must be.<br /><br />Anyway, he himself agrees in the comments that Natural Law doesn't work without Thomism: "So, as I also say there, for a genuine natural law theory one really needs some kind of classical realist (i.e. Platonic, or Aristotelian, or Thomistic) metaphysics. This might seem like a major problem for natural law theory, but I would say (a) Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is _true_, so it's no problem at all, and (b) _no morality at all_ is possible anyway without some kind of classical metaphysics -- all the alternatives fail miserably, or collapse into mere conventionalism or something equally amoral and anti-climactic -- so there's no special "problem" for natural law here. (Large claims, I know, but what the hell, I'm on a roll...)"<br /><br />His second clause simply offends me -- he completely wrote off centuries of ethical philosophy because *he* finds it "amoral and anti-climactic." Or perhaps he never read any in the first place. I have talked A LOT on this blog about the different sources of morality and I find morality based on human ends to be compelling and consistent. The fact that it doesn't appeal to him is somewhat irrelevant.<br /><br />Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-24060359880769154682016-07-16T09:11:31.282-04:002016-07-16T09:11:31.282-04:00The problem, Andrea, is that *you* don't seem ...The problem, Andrea, is that *you* don't seem to really understand what you are talking about either. You're insisting that distinctions exist, and it's true that in Natural Law theory these distinctions are made. But these distinctions are not justified -- they aren't really based on anything! I don't see the difference between sperm going into an infertile vagina versus going into any other place that can't procreate, because the end of procreation is still impossible. Being per se not procreative and per accidens not procreative seems, to me, a distinction without a difference. I've asked a lot of people about it and they simply say "You don't get it. it's different." If it's so different, why are people unable to explain it? The idea that an intermediate end (like swallowing, or ejaculating inside a vagina) should have a moral dimension is by no means self-evident, but neither you nor Feser has proven it.<br /><br />One doesn't swallow the gum. There aren't "gum juices" really, either, unless there's sugar in there -- there's just your own spit, flavored slightly from the gum. We could also talk about the way wine tasters or other professional food tasters spit out the food they taste so they don't get sick from so much tasting. And again, to swallow something and have it go about the process of digestion even though it is not food seems the same as to have sex even though the man has been made sterile through a vasectomy. You're going through the motions but not getting the result -- and that's deliberate.<br /><br />But Anon is entirely right and probably we're wasting time on quibbles as I point out these inconsistencies. The root of the problem is the same. If one believes that evolution is our "creator," then we have to accept that our creator is not a moral being. It wants us to survive -- and we share that goal -- but it also wants us to have as many babies as possible and there is no reason for us to share that goal. Most of us want to have some, but evolution prioritizes reproduction over life if there's a conflict, and we don't. (Example: the female mantis bites off the male's head when they mate, and that counts as a win for evolution because the male's genes get passed on! But I wouldn't want to be a male mantis.) So the whole argument that it is *morally* required to fulfill the ends for which we were created does not work. If I was an orc created by Sauron, it wouldn't be "moral" for me to kill hobbits, just because Sauron wanted me to! If I decided to have mercy instead, that wouldn't be a disorder or a sin, though perhaps Sauron would get mad at me. Only if our creator is good and defined by goodness are his wishes morally relevant.<br />Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-9128714922603993512016-07-16T03:47:59.803-04:002016-07-16T03:47:59.803-04:00Hey, Anon! A belief in a Creator really isn't ...Hey, Anon! A belief in a Creator really isn't necessary to define the essence (nature) of a particular thing/action. I imagine we would both come to the same conclusions in defining the purpose of the heart. The heart has a particular purpose and even every atheist would agree (I think) that its final cause is to pump blood. This is all we mean when we say final cause. One doesn't need the assumption of a designer to observe that this is the heart's function. It is an essential aspect of the heart.<br /><br />I don't think this discussion can go anywhere because she has a different perception of what natural law is and I keep trying to say "that isn't what natural law says" but she keeps using the same objections that misuse what natural actually states. It would be different if she was talking about what natural law actually says and then states that she doesn't think the arguments hold any water. It's kind of like when people will claim that Catholics worship the Saints or Mary. I can try to explain that we don't and why, but some will still just keep reiterating that I do. At that point, what can be done? I don't know. <br /><br />Andreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13253894471336737960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-2788673427428030292016-07-16T02:40:36.574-04:002016-07-16T02:40:36.574-04:00-Andrea-
I suspect that Sheila will disagree with...-Andrea-<br /><br />I suspect that Sheila will disagree with the "end for which it was meant" bit. I know at least I do. Because, unless you are working from the perspective that there is in fact a god that designed the human body for specific purposes, then that sentence seems meaningless. For example, if you believe that the human body evolved simply due to the constraints and demands of evolution, then humans are "meant" to survive and sub-Saharan Africa and little else, yet no one objects to living in North America.<br /><br />Of course, as far as I understand the argument so far, you and Sheila will disagree on starting points, since you are arguing about teleology. If you believe that a god made the human body, it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that this god might have had specific intentions in mind for specific body parts. But if you don't, the question becomes, what is this "end" and how can you talk about it being "meant" for anything? Again, and you two have already brought this up, but it seems you both do understand teleology, and the terms used in it. It's just that you accept it, while Sheila does not.<br /><br />-Sheila-<br /><br />If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your argument I apologize profusely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-17947722329192395452016-07-15T16:27:53.955-04:002016-07-15T16:27:53.955-04:00And now I'm thinking that I didn't answer ...And now I'm thinking that I didn't answer your chewing gum example very well. Remember that we can do other things with our mouths (kissing, singing) and thus we can do other things with our teeth too! Chewing gum is just one of those extra things we can do that provides pleasure but doesn't impede the natural end of eating. If it isn't a zero calorie gum, we'll still get those calories. If it is zero calorie, well, then we are just chewing for the pleasure of chewing. I guess one could use the sex analogy in that a couple may give each other pleasure without it ending in a climax and just build up to a climax for later. But when the man does reach a climax, the proper end is for him to be inside the woman. Sorry if I'm being too detailed or rambling. Andreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13253894471336737960noreply@blogger.com