- darthbarracuda
- Member
Offline 
- Registered: 2/02/2016
- Posts: 16
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
iwpoe wrote:
I understand this, and yet you see religious people condemning homosexuals, for example, for sodomy, or religious people picketing abortion clinics.
So? While I don't necessarily agree with the political value of either fight, it is entirely understandable why one might conclude abortion a grave moral failure (indeed considering the gravity of abortion if they're right, picketing is a rather civil and upstanding response) and while less obvious I agree with Roger Scruton that the traditional prohibition against homosexuality has been dismissed in a foolish and jejune way on the back of typical and equally foolish modern ideas about how to conduct one's life- as if it were just obvious that we should encourage others to act in any way they might be inclined sexually.
I would like to know why you think it is problematic that people are able to conduct their own private sexual affairs in any way they want (so long as they do not physically or psychologically harm others). From my perspective, this is merely an appeal to a "because I said so".
If natural law is such an important thing to follow, one would think that god would make a little more effort in laying down exactly what laws are what.
Whether you think the core aspects of natural law obscure- and I don't think they are -it's by no means obvious that they even require special effort on the part of God to be known. That is, natural law is not ecclesiastical law: is not revealed.
What's the difference?
Two, what you mean by the word normal manifestly will not adequately account for notions of health. You are supposing a strictly quantitative notion of normal when you talk about health. This would be as if to pretend that in a population where everyone has cancer, cancer is normal, and therefore healthy. You are relying upon an ambiguity in the word normal to make your account sound plausible. It is however entirely implausible and fails to make sense of anything like medicine.
Of course we wouldn't call a cancerous population healthy. A cancerous population doesn't survive. Normally, a normal society is one that survives.
Simply because it is the norm, simply because it has worked in the past and helped people survive, does not make it moral.
Good thing nobody is making that argument.
Please enlighten me, because I am thoroughly confused why this is not the case.
Do not put words in my mouth
Why? *Oughtn't* I do so?
Because I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like a dick and had some compassion, which is, under my view, the source of morality (pace Schopenhauer).
Learn to trim your sail, not curse the wind. -Epictetus
Linguam latinam est molestiae et ambitiosior
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
I would like to know why you think it is problematic that people are able to conduct their own private sexual affairs in any way they want (so long as they do not physically or psychologically harm others). From my perspective, this is merely an appeal to a "because I said so".
Are there any more ways to beg the question on this matter?
I mean, among the reasons why sexuality is a public interest there is included:
1. It isn't even a "private" (not that "private" activities, either in the proper sense or in your broad sense are obviously deserving of public deference) but an interpersonal activity.
2. It is a core and often extremely even compulsively preoccupying part of a person's life.
3. It often causes physical and psychological effects that are difficult for the parties involved to either foresee or, at least at certain point, control.
4. Between heterosexual couples sexual activity is the genesis of children and family, which is obviously of public significance.
That list goes on. I think that rather common sense and I invite you to draw from your own sexual experience and that of others if you don't believe me.
What's the difference?
Revealed law would amount to religious rules revealed in scripture and religious tradition. Something like "Don't take the host without having confessed your sin" is a revealed law.
Natural law is what follows from our understanding of the sort of things we are, from our understanding of what is good for us given our nature.
Of course we wouldn't call a cancerous population healthy. A cancerous population doesn't survive. Normally, a normal society is one that survives.
Yes, and in such a hypothetical population they would normally (in the quantitative sense) not survive.
Please enlighten me, because I am thoroughly confused why this is not the case.
Enlighten you in what respect? I mean, no one has made the claim you're rejecting.
Because I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like a dick and had some compassion, which is, under my view, the source of morality (pace Schopenhauer).
Ought I follow compassion? Why not follow felicity, anger, boredom, jealousy, pleasure, ...
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- darthbarracuda
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/02/2016
- Posts: 16
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
I mean, among the reasons why sexuality is a public interest there is included:
1. It isn't even a "private" (not that "private" activities, either in the proper sense or in your broad sense are obviously deserving of public deference) but an interpersonal activity..
Between two consenting adults, unless it is masturbation, in which case it is entirely personal.
2. It is a core and often extremely even compulsively preoccupying part of a person's life.
...and? This supports my position; since sex is such an important a compulsive part of someone's life, they should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm another person.
3. It often causes physical and psychological effects that are difficult for the parties involved to either foresee or, at least at certain point, control.
Are you assuming that gay sexual relations somehow have a tendency to lead to more problems than straight sexual relations?
The fact that there exists even one gay sexual relationship that is not plagued by these problems means that there is no causal connection between the two.
4. Between heterosexual couples sexual activity is the genesis of children and family, which is obviously of public significance.
And also the cause of all suffering, might I add...
That list goes on..
I would like to hear more of this list.
Revealed law would amount to religious rules revealed in scripture and religious tradition. Something like "Don't take the host without having confessed your sin" is a revealed law.
Natural law is what follows from our understanding of the sort of things we are, from our understanding of what is good for us given our nature.
I see. Could it be that homosexuals have a different nature than heterosexuals?
Because I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like a dick and had some compassion, which is, under my view, the source of morality (pace Schopenhauer).
Ought I follow compassion? Why not follow felicity, anger, boredom, jealousy, pleasure, ...
Because we are all fellow suffers on this godforsaken planet, and the world works a little bit better if we all play nice. Again, there is no ought. It's a suggestion.
Learn to trim your sail, not curse the wind. -Epictetus
Linguam latinam est molestiae et ambitiosior
- •
Thread Starter- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
If natural law is such an important thing to follow, one would think that god would make a little more effort in laying down exactly what laws are what.
No offense but you do realize that Theism doesn't follow from Natural Law?
Simply because it is the norm, simply because it has worked in the past and helped people survive, does not make it moral.
True but I think the person making the case for the beginnings of a Natural Law account would claim that being healthy at puts one in a position of having greater capacity to pursue one's aims.
...and? This supports my position; since sex is such an important a compulsive part of someone's life, they should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm another person.
This 'should' has normative implications and you've previously denied or at least expressed skepticism re the existence of objective moral values.
Are you assuming that gay sexual relations somehow have a tendency to lead to more problems than straight sexual relations?
NL accounts might expect something like that to be the case, but the real criticism is that homosexual activity does not lead to children.
The fact that there exists even one gay sexual relationship that is not plagued by these problems means that there is no causal connection between the two.
Unfortunately NL accounts often appeal to a notion of 'the Common Good' in such cases.
I see. Could it be that homosexuals have a different nature than heterosexuals?
Perhaps, If one wanted to defend homosexuality on an NL account one would either have to argue that it was naturally ordered towards some advantage (say group-bounding) or that the nature of human beings, both heterosexual and homosexual, is not what common NL theorists take it to be.
Because I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like a dick and had some compassion, which is, under my view, the source of morality (pace Schopenhauer).
Because we are all fellow suffers on this godforsaken planet, and the world works a little bit better if we all play nice. Again, there is no ought. It's a suggestion.
See the point about objective 'oughts'. What meaning do the 'better' and 'nice' in this suggestion have if not a normative one? One might enjoy the suffering of, say, Utilitarians or Jewish comedians, and thus hold that a world wherein a large proportion of these groups suffer to be 'nice' and 'better' than one where they don't. Again there appears to be this suggestion that one is obliged to care about the happiness or unhappiness of others.
Last edited by DanielCC (2/05/2016 6:19 am)
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
Are you assuming that gay sexual relations somehow have a tendency to lead to more problems than straight sexual relations?
The fact that there exists even one gay sexual relationship that is not plagued by these problems means that there is no causal connection between the two.
Daniel got most of it, but it's also worth pointing out that this is patently false reasoning. I mean, for instance, were this formally correct the following would be true to say:
If there exists just one case of a smoker who doesn't develop lung cancer that means there is no causal connection between the two.
That said, I was nowhere committed to claiming that homosexuals suffer special problems sexually. There has been in the past both strong legal and social rules regarding common ways heterosexual relationships can go wrong. Breach of promise suits come to mind, for instance.
I am, however, utterly unconvinced that (at least male) homosexual relationships are, on the whole, as benign and vanilla in character as the popular sitcom image would have us believe. I mean, go watch a documentary like Gay Sex in the 70s or watch something like Queer as Folk (Brian Kinney is a predatory sociopath the show wants to pretend is lauditory) or visit a gay club or go on Grindr. It does seem prone to special extremes that are at least unusual for heterosexual relationships. Hell, it's a theme in Plato, for Christ's sake. It's not as if men don't do or try these things in heterosexual relationships, but women usually check them, not celebrate and build a "culture" up around them.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- darthbarracuda
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/02/2016
- Posts: 16
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
Are you assuming that gay sexual relations somehow have a tendency to lead to more problems than straight sexual relations?
The fact that there exists even one gay sexual relationship that is not plagued by these problems means that there is no causal connection between the two.Daniel got most of it, but it's also worth pointing out that this is patently false reasoning. I mean, for instance, were this formally correct the following would be true to say:
If there exists just one case of a smoker who doesn't develop lung cancer that means there is no causal connection between the two.
Perhaps I made a poor statement when I said the existence of only one flourishing gay relationship disproves the causal connection.
Rather, it would seem that there are far more complicated and complex variables involved in the success of a relationship, not merely whether or not it is heterosexual or homosexual. What are the age differences? What is the education of both spouses? What is the annual income? Do they have kids/adopt kids? How compatible are the spouses? It is not that successful homosexual relationships are the weird statistical anomalies, there are plenty of successful homosexual relationships.
If you are going to argue that it is wrong for homosexuals to have relationships because they don't produce children (as DanielCC alluded to), then this is fundamentally a consequentialist argument that needs to be supported: why are children so important?
I am, however, utterly unconvinced that (at least male) homosexual relationships are, on the whole, as benign and vanilla in character as the popular sitcom image would have us believe. I mean, go watch a documentary like Gay Sex in the 70s or watch something like Queer as Folk (Brian Kinney is a predatory sociopath the show wants to pretend is lauditory) or visit a gay club or go on Grindr. It does seem prone to special extremes that are at least unusual for heterosexual relationships. Hell, it's a theme in Plato, for Christ's sake. It's not as if men don't do or try these things in heterosexual relationships, but women usually check them, not celebrate and build a "culture" up around them.
Is there something "wrong" with the way these men act? Do you, personally, have an issue with how other men live their own personal lives?
The fact that you find it unusual, or "icky", does not mean there is anything wrong with it.
Learn to trim your sail, not curse the wind. -Epictetus
Linguam latinam est molestiae et ambitiosior
- •
Thread Starter- darthbarracuda
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/02/2016
- Posts: 16
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
If natural law is such an important thing to follow, one would think that god would make a little more effort in laying down exactly what laws are what.
No offense but you do realize that Theism doesn't follow from Natural Law?
Correct, but often natural law follows from theism.
...and? This supports my position; since sex is such an important a compulsive part of someone's life, they should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm another person.
This 'should' has normative implications and you've previously denied or at least expressed skepticism re the existence of objective moral values.
My skepticism of objective moral values does not prevent me from voicing my opinion on morality. The lack of any objective morality does not prevent one from arguing and potentially changing someone else's ethical intuitions.
Are you assuming that gay sexual relations somehow have a tendency to lead to more problems than straight sexual relations?
NL accounts might expect something like that to be the case, but the real criticism is that homosexual activity does not lead to children.
So it is consequentialist, then?
The fact that there exists even one gay sexual relationship that is not plagued by these problems means that there is no causal connection between the two.
Unfortunately NL accounts often appeal to a notion of 'the Common Good' in such cases.
The Common Good is not affected by the personal sexual relations of a homosexual couple.
Because I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like a dick and had some compassion, which is, under my view, the source of morality (pace Schopenhauer).
Because we are all fellow suffers on this godforsaken planet, and the world works a little bit better if we all play nice. Again, there is no ought. It's a suggestion.See the point about objective 'oughts'. What meaning do the 'better' and 'nice' in this suggestion have if not a normative one? One might enjoy the suffering of, say, Utilitarians or Jewish comedians, and thus hold that a world wherein a large proportion of these groups suffer to be 'nice' and 'better' than one where they don't. Again there appears to be this suggestion that one is obliged to care about the happiness or unhappiness of others.
I take it that suffering is a bad thing that is bad insofar as there are entities that can experience it. It is a brute fact that suffering is a negative state of feeling.
Our empathy and our sense of compassion allow us to understand when another person is suffering, and we are moved to help them. This makes the other person feel good, and you feel good. There is no ought involved at all, just a genuine care for the well-being of other people.
Learn to trim your sail, not curse the wind. -Epictetus
Linguam latinam est molestiae et ambitiosior
- •
Thread Starter- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
My skepticism of objective moral values does not prevent me from voicing my opinion on morality. The lack of any objective morality does not prevent one from arguing and potentially changing someone else's ethical intuitions.
It doesn't stop you critiquing the moral theories of others. It does stop you from being consistent if you are moralising in favour of same-sex marriage, a liberal position on sexual ethics or any other position. You are admitting that your moralising is empty.
I take it that suffering is a bad thing that is bad insofar as there are entities that can experience it. It is a brute fact that suffering is a negative state of feeling.
Our empathy and our sense of compassion allow us to understand when another person is suffering, and we are moved to help them. This makes the other person feel good, and you feel good. There is no ought involved at all, just a genuine care for the well-being of other people.
Irving Babbitt, Paul Elmer More, and the New or American Humanists were excellent critics of moral sentimentalism. Most obviously, it is notoriously hard to give strong encouragement to the development of personal virtues like temperance and prudence, if one founds one's moral system on sympathy and compassion alone. It also tends to sap any idea of personal responsibility and justice. One fees sympathy for all those suffering, including offenders, and the will to hold individuals to account is undermined.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
Perhaps
In fact.
Rather, it would seem that there are far more complicated and complex variables involved in the success of a relationship, not merely whether or not it is heterosexual or homosexual. What are the age differences? What is the education of both spouses? What is the annual income? Do they have kids/adopt kids? How compatible are the spouses? It is not that successful homosexual relationships are the weird statistical anomalies, there are plenty of successful homosexual relationships.
I don't deny that. I'm a philosopher and a Marxist of some sort. You think I'm unaware that popular discourse and politics is woefully oversimplified and foolish?
The challenge is to see what the simplifications mean. They are usually inarticulate stand-ins for more complex intuitions. The fact that you can't see that speaks more to your "armchair" qualifications than any of our metaphysics.
If you are going to argue that it is wrong for homosexuals to have relationships because they don't produce children (as DanielCC alluded to), then this is fundamentally a consequentialist argument that needs to be supported: why are children so important?
It's not consequentialist per se. I think that Feser is right that the core argument is the perverted faculty argument. I also agree with Daniel that in the end the final picture is uncompelling. I think Feser's argument is tight and good within its own terms but inadequate to the experience. This Is why I mentioned Roger Scruton on sexuality (see also: (book) & You can also find the book on google.). I, myself, have what I call a "romantic" outlook on ethics: I think ethics has to take account of lived-experience, which I think natural law does only indirectly and extremely abstractly. For me, at best, natural law theory seems to me to be an extremely abstract ethical practice.
Is there something "wrong" with the way these men act?
Yes. It's foolish because it harms the soul. Have more wreckless sex if you don't yet understand this.
Do you, personally, have an issue with how other men live their own personal lives?
I personally have a personal difficulty with their personal persons.
The fact that you find it unusual, or "icky", does not mean there is anything wrong with it.
Who are you even pretending to quote? Not me. You have no idea how much anal sex, never mind sex in general I've had. If you'd go out more, you might understand the intuitions I'm working with when I counsel caution, and it has absolutely nothing to do with disgust. I've done things many times more "icky" than the average person, gay or not, and your school-marm finger wagging at me for being uptight is ridiculous.
Indeed, I have total comtempt for this stereotypical namby-pamby politically correct liberal shite you're trying to burden me with. As a Marxist I'm contemptious of it even harder than these conservatives, since you're the weak albatross around the neck of the left that helps prevent any real political change. Go buy some more rainbow mugs at your local coffee shop and pretend you're changing lives- leftist LARPer. If you present me in terms of a ridiculous stereotype again, we're going to have stronger words. You have no idea about me.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Dennis
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 348
Re: Thomistic Natural Law
darthbarracuda, since I won't be home for the next 2 days, I can't really write much, but here goes.
I've read a few telling replies that I had first somehow missed along with the later ones. I'm surprised by the things you insinuate. It's you who's not taking this thing as a critical analysis, and rather just a share of mere opinions. So I'll ask a few questions and see what happens.
Do you realize that you are at least implitly doing the following?
- Denying direct realism, as a result of a 'crude' biological system
- Denying essences and telos while accepting certain features pertaining to it to be 'self evidently' true
- Which in turn makes you think that the Thomistic thesis is 'unscientific'(whatever that would mean)
- you then proceed to call iwpoe a 'dick' when he's simply pointing out your manifest incoherence in doing so given the premises you deny
Here, it seems that you simply assume yourself to be right and that's the end of that.
And this is what bothers me.
By all means you can do that, but since you're posting here, you have to do a lot of work in the argument, and if it's demonstrable that if either 'x' doesn't follow, or that your own position is contradictory, don't give a knee jerk response.
I myself, have a lot of problems with the essence existence distinction(but I'm working through it). Your rhetoric is directed towards an empty chair. Drop the polemic, no one here is exactly preaching to the choir.
Last edited by Dennis (2/05/2016 10:47 pm)