Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



7/13/2016 1:46 am  #1


Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

Here I want to criticize some points in Dr. Feser's article "In Defense of Perverted Faculty Argument" which appeared in his book named" Neo-Scholastic Essays".

I start from general sexual ethics based on natural law and take a quote from the book stating that the end of sex is procreation in large numbers.

"So, sex exists in animals for the sake of procreation and sexual pleasure exists for the sake of getting then to indulge in sex, so that they will procreate. And were built in such a way that sexual arousal is hard to resist and occurs very frequently and such that it is very difficult to avoided pregnancies resulting from indulgence of that arousal. The obvious conclusion is that the natural end of sex is (in part) not just procreation but procreation in large numbers."

I disagree with the final conclusion because it’s limited in its vision. It does not take into account that large number of children is favorable as long as they can be raised properly and benefit humanity.  Therefore, for example in cases where large number of children hinders raising them, having more children is not beneficial and so on. Therefore, reproduction must be limited.

Dr. Feser also adds that the key to understanding sexual faculties is that they have unitive and procreative end. Considering this statement and the last paragraph, Can't we say that in a family with enough number of children, protected sex between parents is beneficial and therefore morally right as long as it strengthens the bonds between them?

Dr. Feser mentions that according to perverted faculty argument there is nothing with wrong with sterile couples having sex because the sterile couple are not actively frustrating the nature's end. However, this seems to be problematic. If it is impossible for the couple to conceive a child, what intention other than unity they have for having sex? Therefore, the couples are intending to have sex for unitive purpose not the procreation which seems to be morally wrong. Moreover, we can add that, it is in fact the fault with their reproductive organ that is acting as a contraceptive and they are using sex merely for unitive purposes which seems to be against the perverted faculty argument (one might say that they are not actively frustrating the nature's end but this objection does not seem convincing to me, because I do not see any difference between sterile couples and normal couples who have protected sex).

Adding to the case of sterile couples, we can go to homosexuals. First, Dr. Feser does not show that homosexuality is a grave sin as it is viewed in Catholicism. Moreover, suppose that homosexuals adopt enough number of children. Therefore what is wrong for them to marry each other and have sex because they fulfilled the nature's end of having sex-which is suitable reproduction- by adoption  ( just like the couples who have enough children or can’t we say that or just like the sterile couples who have sex )? or at least can't we say that they commit much less sin if they adopt children?

 

7/13/2016 4:51 am  #2


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

nojoum wrote:

Adding to the case of sterile couples, we can go to homosexuals. First, Dr. Feser does not show that homosexuality is a grave sin as it is viewed in Catholicism. Moreover, suppose that homosexuals adopt enough number of children. Therefore what is wrong for them to marry each other and have sex because they fulfilled the nature's end of having sex-which is suitable reproduction- by adoption  ( just like the couples who have enough children or can’t we say that or just like the sterile couples who have sex )? or at least can't we say that they commit much less sin if they adopt children?

Can I add a quick qualification here - the issue is not so much with homosexuality or contraception being irrational, that conclusion is inescapable if one excepts the teleology of organs dictating morality premise (although one might try to argue the genitals as centres of orgasmic stimulation serve another function in the case of homosexuality), but how one gets from irrational to gravely immoral, a jump which is usually made by appealing to issues of the 'Common Good'.
 

 

7/13/2016 7:11 am  #3


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

"The obvious conclusion is that the natural end of sex is (in part) not just procreation but procreation in large numbers."
By the same logic, wouldn't the natural end of eating be not just consuming calories, but consuming calories in large numbers?  Our ancestors needed to procreate in large numbers because there was a very high infant mortality and high maternal mortality, so that becoming pregnant many times in the life of most women was necessary to even maintain the population.  Just like we find high calorie foods highly pleasurable because our ancestors were almost always in want and needed to eat high calorie foods when they could find them.

Last edited by ArmandoAlvarez (7/13/2016 7:17 am)

 

7/14/2016 6:44 am  #4


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

DanielCC wrote:

Can I add a quick qualification here - the issue is not so much with homosexuality or contraception being irrational, that conclusion is inescapable if one excepts the teleology of organs dictating morality premise (although one might try to argue the genitals as centres of orgasmic stimulation serve another function in the case of homosexuality), but how one gets from irrational to gravely immoral, a jump which is usually made by appealing to issues of the 'Common Good'.
 

Thank you for your response. I think actually the problem is the teleology of the sexual organs. Using contraception or being homosexual is not like cutting your arms for no reason; especially if you consider a family which has already enough number of children. In such family, what is wrong with parents having protected sex for unitive purposes only?

     Thread Starter
 

7/14/2016 7:17 pm  #5


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

nojoum wrote:

Thank you for your response. I think actually the problem is the teleology of the sexual organs. Using contraception or being homosexual is not like cutting your arms for no reason; especially if you consider a family which has already enough number of children. In such family, what is wrong with parents having protected sex for unitive purposes only?

 ​I think the point is that contraceptives and homosexual acts are contrary to the nature of the sex organs - they are perverting a faculty. In Thomistic natural law, if I understand it correctly, you are not permitted to use a faculty against its natural ends (teleology) even for some higher, good purpose. You might be able to not use a faculty - for example, to be celibate; but you can't misuse that faculty - for example, homosexual acts for unitive purposes. ​If understand it correctly, and I may be wrong, there is more or less an holistic nature to natural law. You can't misuse bodily faculties to achieve spiritual or psychological ends.
 

 

7/14/2016 7:29 pm  #6


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

nojoum wrote:

Dr. Feser mentions that according to perverted faculty argument there is nothing with wrong with sterile couples having sex because the sterile couple are not actively frustrating the nature's end. However, this seems to be problematic. If it is impossible for the couple to conceive a child, what intention other than unity they have for having sex? Therefore, the couples are intending to have sex for unitive purpose not the procreation which seems to be morally wrong. Moreover, we can add that, it is in fact the fault with their reproductive organ that is acting as a contraceptive and they are using sex merely for unitive purposes which seems to be against the perverted faculty argument (one might say that they are not actively frustrating the nature's end but this objection does not seem convincing to me, because I do not see any difference between sterile couples and normal couples who have protected sex).

As I understand it​, what is important according to Thomistic law is not primarily the intentions of the couple (except perhaps in the case where someone who can have children has married someone infertile because they are infertile), but the ends of the organs or faculties involved. The couple are using their sexual organs according to the natural ends of those organs. It is not the couple's fault this does not result in procreation, and there is no perversion of the faculties involved. Procreation is one end of our sexual organs, but we cannot procreate in some other way and then use our sexual organs against their nature. As I mentioned above, there seems to be a holistic quality to natural law thinking.

 

7/14/2016 10:31 pm  #7


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

Jeremy Taylor,

You write: "you are not permitted to use a faculty against its natural ends (teleology) even for some higher, good purpose."

What about the case of amputating a rotting limb? Saving the person's life seems to be a higher end, and in such a case, doctors seem clearly permitted, if not obligated, to amputate the rotting limb. If so, then this opens the possibility of there being other higher ends to which we may use a faculty against its natural end.

 

7/14/2016 10:38 pm  #8


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

I think Dr. Feser discusses such cases. If I recall, as the rotting limb has completely ceased to fulfill its purpose, and may kill the patient, I think he argues it is permissable to cut it off. Maybe someone has his exact words?

It does seem to me like there is a difference here. The limb cannot function whereas the sexual faculties in question (for some reason it is always about them - what would moderns have to discuss if homosexuals didn't exist!) clearly can.

 

7/14/2016 11:08 pm  #9


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

A rotting limb can still function to some extent. A completely dead limb is something else. If the reason we should amputate the limb is because it may kill the patient, then doesn't this just reduce to consequentialism? I might be confused about your point though. 

Last edited by ML (7/14/2016 11:12 pm)

 

7/15/2016 12:57 am  #10


Re: Natural Law and perverted faculty argument

It is still the case, I believe, that the functions of, say, a leg are subordinate to the life of the organism in its entirety. A rotten limb will presumably kill you if not removed. The natural law perspective, though it emphasises the importance of the ends of our faculties, still ultimately subordinates these to the overall end of the human being. There does seems a difference here between the example of homosexual acts or contraceptives, as the same sort of threat to the overall organism cannot be shown - our sexual organs are still functioning and the jettisoning of their ends would be premature.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum