tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8978999520047234689..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Whose nature? Which law?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78077113700704403432023-07-14T13:30:06.954-07:002023-07-14T13:30:06.954-07:00Excellent. A candidate for top Ten articles in 202...Excellent. A candidate for top Ten articles in 2023. https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Best_Dozen_Articles_I%27ve_Read_in_2023Eric Rasmusenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01609599580545475695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87844057371945626672021-01-27T14:30:53.244-08:002021-01-27T14:30:53.244-08:00The mechanisms of evolution have nothing to do wit...The mechanisms of evolution have nothing to do with natural law (in the sense in which it is discussed here) and there's no contradiction between the two. In the case of humans, natural selection is about the interaction of human nature (or of accidental characteristics of individual human beings) with the external environment; natural law, instead, is about human nature in itself. What natural selection can tell us is if humans (either the whole human species or a particular group of humans), given their characteristics, can survive and have reproductive success in a particular environment. Natural law, instead, can tell us what humans must do in order to act according to their nature rather than contrary to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59698991360071568762019-07-25T19:22:36.955-07:002019-07-25T19:22:36.955-07:00I am sorry but you are fools. You really think tha...I am sorry but you are fools. You really think that this is all? He is only talking about one specific thing to show how naturalism and scientism fails. One basic thing for you to think about, an effect can never be greater than the cause that produced it, the more cannot come from the less, if you try to get away from this by saying "it is an illusion", then everything suddenly should become an illusion for you, and we ought to take you to an asylum.oihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589029422601805978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47030918808638150092017-07-24T02:59:24.444-07:002017-07-24T02:59:24.444-07:00Tend to agree. This is a real word salad. Confuses...Tend to agree. This is a real word salad. Confuses moral issues with cause and effect. Nature doesn't make laws. Men do. Nature makes rules of cause and effect which cannot be violated, unless you believe in miracles. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07420942098058186730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1914301001288838702012-10-18T17:07:10.162-07:002012-10-18T17:07:10.162-07:00Joe K: You can't take a quote completely out o...Joe K: <i>You can't take a quote completely out of context from the Bible to make an argument about natural law.</i><br /><br />I didn't take it out of context. Read the context: it goes into <i>more detail</i> about how our bodies are not our own but belong to our spouses, etc.<br /><br />There's more going on here than just "good advice".Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82533766740751522522012-10-18T13:00:16.324-07:002012-10-18T13:00:16.324-07:00Mr. Green.
Thanks for your comments. I think the ...Mr. Green.<br />Thanks for your comments. I think the most difficult part is the psychological effect it has on my wife to rely only on NFP. She is a new convert to Catholicism, and as you know, these are the more difficult teachings for some to follow. I think she'd like to practice NFP and do something else as well. Otherwise, the stress on her is great and, as a result, is hesitant to you know what and be on the medication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52840246712431524182012-10-18T08:23:21.523-07:002012-10-18T08:23:21.523-07:00Daniel Smith: He says "Then come together aga...Daniel Smith: <i>He says "Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you". He is saying that sex is a tool intended to keep Satan from tempting us.</i><br /><br />He could have said, "Take a cold shower and go play football so that you won't be tempted", but that wouldn't make that the purpose of showering and playing football. But Joe went into more detail on this point than I could.<br /><br /><i>You are assuming that the only legitimate sex is procreative sex. Many things have multiple uses (and they don't have to be artefacts!)</i><br /><br />No, I'm observing how actual human biology works. I can use my hands to play the violin, or to knit wool, but I can't do both at the same time. The unitive and procreative acts, however, I can't NOT do at the same time, because I'm not referring to two acts but to one act that has multiple effects. If by "not all sexual acts have the potential to be procreative" you mean something like kissing your spouse, then we have been talking at cross-purposes. Yes, of course kissing your mate is good, but then there is no question of frustrating a procreative end which simply is not present. I have been referring to the martial act (so called because a marriage is the only context suitable for both the unitive and procreative effects together), a physiological phenomenon which involves a whole host of chemical and biological reactions, none of which may be legitimately frustrated.<br /><br /><i>Not all sexual acts have the potential to be procreative. Now you can argue that only the sexual act that has the potential to be procreative is legitimate but you must show then why the other potential uses of sex are illegitimate.</i><br /><br />If it involves the activity of one's reproductive organs and processes, then it is legitimate only if those processes are not interfered with. If you are referring to some other activity (e.g. kissing your wife) that does not involve reproduction, then there is nothing to interfere with, so of course it is all right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77444025798294726272012-10-18T08:19:55.288-07:002012-10-18T08:19:55.288-07:00Anonymous: She can take medication to slow progres...Anonymous: <i>She can take medication to slow progression of the disease, but, if we were to get pregnant, it could cause severe birth defects. She is afraid to just go with NFP, and some doctors won't prescribe the medication unless she agrees to go on the pill. What is the right thing for us to do from a Catholic natural law perspective?</i><br /><br />Pray! NFP followed faithfully is as effective as birth control pills, and it seems you have sufficiently serious circumstances. I don't know what the situation is like for doctors where you live, but I really hope you can find a Catholic physician who understands these issues and takes them seriously. You might check out the <a href="http://www.ncbcenter.org" rel="nofollow">Catholic Bioethics Center</a> for more information; you can also send them questions. (And of course, remember to ask everyone else to pray for you, which includes me and anyone reading this.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4967204571350154272012-10-17T21:14:23.902-07:002012-10-17T21:14:23.902-07:00Anonymous: What was the name of the conservative b...Anonymous: <i>What was the name of the conservative blog you used to contribute at? Is that still around?</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/author.php?author_id=0&nic=Edward%20Feser" rel="nofollow">What's Wrong with the World</a> is still around. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080113182802/http://rightreason.ektopos.com/feser.html" rel="nofollow">Right Reason</a> and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050419192637/www.conservativephilosopher.com/edward_c._feser/" rel="nofollow">The Conservative Philosopher</a> are not, but those links go to archives at the WayBack Machine. (Also <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070205160540/www.conservativephilosopher.com/edward_c._feser/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3866434380903082672012-10-17T20:32:20.860-07:002012-10-17T20:32:20.860-07:00Perhaps scratch the last comment, I kind of see ho...Perhaps scratch the last comment, I kind of see how it makes sense to say what you did.<br /><br />Move along, nothing to see here...Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67010781824932846172012-10-17T20:29:53.715-07:002012-10-17T20:29:53.715-07:00Joe K,
"Also note, dguller, that procreation...Joe K,<br /><br />"Also note, dguller, that procreation and survival are different things with different obligations. That is, if I choose not to eat again, I die. I've frustrated the natural end of my entire body: to exist. If I don't have sex, nothing happens to me (aside from a wandering eye and some unfortunate dreams). I don't harm myself by acting contrary to my end in any relevant sense."<br /><br />I of course agree with you. However, the word "contrary" seems to be mistaken in my judgement as it is synonymous with frustration.<br /><br />***hat's off to you.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46354279572691604362012-10-17T20:21:59.638-07:002012-10-17T20:21:59.638-07:00dguller,
You are a persistent fellow, so you will...dguller,<br /><br />You are a persistent fellow, so you will probably read this so late in the post game.<br /><br />"Agreed. I actually think that there is a hierarchy of natural ends such that not actualizing a lower natural end for the sake of actualizing a higher natural end is perfectly reasonable. As such, I can see why a devout Catholic would choose celibacy within the clergy rather than a marital heterosexual relationship. But, it must follow that someone choosing to be sexually active as a homosexual, or sexually active within a marriage that uses contraception, or sexually active in any of the number of ways that differ from traditional heterosexual marital interactions for the purpose of procreation, are also acting reasonably and appropriately, if making that choice allows them to achieve a higher natural end in the process."<br /><br />Not if it involves any evil. A wrong and a right don't give you a net right. True, pursuing celibacy for God is a higher end than fulfilling the human capacity for sex, but ALSO, not engaging in sexual activity is not an objective evil, nor is it sometimes evil in the least. Your examples of homosexual acts, contraception, and others are objectively wrong at least because they all actively frustrate an inherent function. Refraining from sex is different in that humans are not meant to do it all the time; by not having sex you are not damaging your innate capacity to have sex. Also, please do keep in mind those who, by birth defect or other circumstances, cannot have sex at all.<br /><br />"After all, if the distinction between avoiding the actualization of a natural end and frustrating the actualization of a natural end is ultimately unsustainable, then to condemn and criticize non-traditional sexual activity would necessarily have to condemn and criticize the celibacy at the heart of the Catholic clergy." <br /><br />I don't see how such a distinction is unsustainable. It's there. And neither is neglecting a neighbor in need the same as choosing to refrain from intercourse, for the reasons stated above.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77229631934043906562012-10-17T18:56:14.905-07:002012-10-17T18:56:14.905-07:00I guess I should throw up my translation since tha...I guess I should throw up my translation since that gloss above may be pretty difficult to read or understand. It can be translated:<br /><br />Don't deprive one another (of sex), unless you both agree to become temporarily celibate in order to have more time to pray. But then come back together again (have sex with one another again), otherwise Satan is going to tempt you through your sexual frustration.Joe K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59302071731174525572012-10-17T18:29:54.598-07:002012-10-17T18:29:54.598-07:00continued...
The rest of your arguments are alrea...continued...<br /><br />The rest of your arguments are already addressed in this post, in the comments, and elsewhere numerous times. I recommend Edward Feser's The Last Superstition! Most importantly, though, everything about the sexual process is aimed at the creation of life. The penis has to get stiff to get into the lubricated vagina. That's why we have sexual arousal. That's why we ejaculate things that have life-giving material in them. Yes, sex brings people closer together. Okay. But it brings people closer together So That they have sex again and put more life-creating material into one another.Joe K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1158257755925295462012-10-17T18:29:27.581-07:002012-10-17T18:29:27.581-07:00Daniel Smith,
I am incredibly skeptical of this s...Daniel Smith,<br /><br />I am incredibly skeptical of this sort of prooftexting. It stinks of unsophisticated Protestantism. (Not that all Protestantism is unsophisticated; just this stuff is.) You can't take a quote completely out of context from the Bible to make an argument about natural law. But I'll bite:<br /><br />First, that "so that" purpose use in the verse you quote is not always translated that way. The Greek (and I assume you're quoting 1 Corinthians 7:5) uses a "ἵνα" (a notoriously difficult word to work with) which can be translate as "so that" Or something like "with the result that" or even something like "lest" when it's used with "μὴ." In fact, just looking quickly at the Greek, you do not have to translate it in the strict natural-law-y kind of purpose as you're trying to argue here. Here, I'll do a quick gloss:<br /><br />μὴ (do not) ἀποστερεῖτε (deprive) ἀλλήλους (one another), εἰ μήτι (unless/except) ἂν ἐκ (by means of) συμφώνου (agreement) πρὸς (to/for) καιρὸν (a time) ἵνα (so that) σχολάσητε (you can have time) τῇ προσευχῇ (to pray) καὶ (and) πάλιν (again) ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ (together (really it's like "to one another")) ἦτε (you might be), ἵνα μὴ (LEST/or else/otherwise) πειράζῃ (tempt) ὑμᾶς (you) ὁ Σατανᾶς (the Satan) διὰ (through) τὴν ἀκρασίαν (incontinence/intemperance) ὑμῶν (of you).<br /><br />This gloss obviously does not carry the same natural law sense of purpose you're arguing here. The "so that" you use is definitely not obvious.<br /><br />To bolster this a little bit, the "ἵνα μὴ" construction employed here is also used in the "Judge not, (ἵνα μὴ) lest ye be judged" verse (Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε) from Matthew 7:1. Now, this Can have that purpose sense, like "do not judge so that you won't be judged." But it can also have the other, more natural-result sense like "when you judge, you are going to be judged" or "don't judge or else you'll be judged too" or something similar. This latter sense makes a little more sense considering what follows in Matthew 7:2. This is obviously nothing like the natural law sense of purpose, even though it uses that same "so that" word.<br /><br />Now, the ἵνα above in 1 Corinthians really might mean something closer to strict purpose and less result. Or it may be both. (Jews tended to not like separating the two ideas.) My point is merely that pulling that quote out like that is unconvincing when you're discussing this topic.<br /><br />Second, that verse may not have Anything to do with natural law even if it's a purpose ἵνα. To make some sort of argument here that Paul is necessarily saying something about natural law is just sloppy---especially considering the above illustration of how language is used differently depending on context and nuance. Paul may be correct in noting that sex with your wife tends to help you avoid temptation. In fact, Everyone says this. It's just good advice. To quote the Bible to give that observation special meaning, though, or to imply that Paul really was speaking transcendent truths about the nature of sexuality as related to natural law is just silly. Not everything in the Bible is drenched with that deep meaning about nature's purposes. "Purpose" does not mean Purpose in the natural law sense all the time. It depends entirely on context. If Paul (or anyone) wrote "have sex with your wife so that you can burn some calories," he would be using the "so that" properly, and he wouldn't be saying Anything about the natural law.<br /><br />continued...Joe K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65326455977617706122012-10-17T16:16:21.748-07:002012-10-17T16:16:21.748-07:00Mr. Green: Well, that's not really an end; jus...Mr. Green: <i>Well, that's not really an end; just a side-effect.</i><br /><br />That's not how St. Paul describes it. He says "Then come together again <i>so that Satan will not tempt you"</i>. He is saying that sex is a tool intended to keep Satan from tempting us.<br /><br /><i>"not sinning" is not an act at all, but refraining from an act</i><br /><br />Only this time we are instructed to "come together" (an act) in order to defeat temptation. <br /><br /><i>We should never commit one sin to avoid another.</i><br /><br />That begs the question whether non-procreative marital sex is a sin or not.<br /><br /><i>It is one and the same act that accomplishes both the unitive and procreative ends, and thus to engage one aspect while thwarting the other is to pervert one's nature.</i><br /><br />You are assuming that the only legitimate sex is procreative sex. Many things have multiple uses (and they don't have to be artifacts!) Our hands, for instance, have multiple uses, is it necessary or even practical that we always seek to utilize every "natural end" our hands possess? <br /><br />Think about it in terms of act and potential: every sexual act a married couple can perform has the potential to be a unitive force, a pleasurable experience, and a defeater of temptation. Not all sexual acts have the potential to be procreative. Now you can argue that only the sexual act that has the potential to be procreative is legitimate but you must show then why the other potential uses of sex are illegitimate.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1218269603137805122012-10-17T08:41:03.532-07:002012-10-17T08:41:03.532-07:00I know, what you mean, but think what you just tol...I know, what you mean, but think what you just told me. you say that Reality is not suppose to be defined, but then you went on to define reality is something that is experienced only. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong, but it seems that you believe in some form of self evident features. Which is a metaphysical commitment, but one that happens to be more common among the Old school thinkers.<br /><br />You see it seems to me the divide here is something like this. Classics believe that you can propose a metaphysical truth and argument about it, to the point you can discover by arguments and reason, plus some experience of some sort, these new features of reality.<br /><br />You seem more focused on outside information, and you seem believe that the reality is just that outside information. Excluding any other claims or something like that, am I right?<br /><br />Now, like I said, these metaphysical features proposed by A-T are based also in experience, now sorry, I most likely know less than you about philosophy, but it looks like these metaphysical claims are based on experience and interpretation, followed by arguments that try to confirm its truth.<br /><br />So you disagree with the interpretation of the experience... What about saying that these metaphysical claims are also feeble attempts to talk about reality?<br /><br />By the way... Feeble according to what? Anyways it seems that you have some sort of self evident philosophy, so I tend to conclude your interpretation of experience is completely different from A-T's interpretation that is all. <br /><br />As an end note, I made this too long already, I sort of get your point, and I tend to think sort of like you, or use to at least.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5677763600584010012012-10-17T05:27:16.194-07:002012-10-17T05:27:16.194-07:00Eduardo,
I don't know if I have any metaphysi...Eduardo,<br /><br />I don't know if I have any metaphysical commitment. I am trying to be open-minded and not to be too biased by modernity. Still...<br /><br />If there is a metaphysical commitment, it is to a kind of empiricism, that reality is something experienced, not defined, words cannot be more real than experiences. Mathemathics, geometry are nice and useful toys, but by no means a higher reality than experiences. We aren't throwing words at the wind, we are trying to predict, explain etc. experiences, but only experiences are the ultimate reality. Words and the logical connections we make between word are nice and useful, but we need to frequent reality checks because experience does not necessarily conform to logic.<br /><br />BTW by experience I don't just mean sense experience, anything goes from religious experience to general life experience and common sense.<br /><br />Is this a methaphysical commitment? I think it is just common sense.<br /><br />I mean the whole Classical tradition began by Plato saying geometry and words are somehow more real than experiences. How comes it was not immediately obvious to everyone that it is wrong? Am I missing something? Aristotle thankfully dragged the whole thing halfway towards experience-ism, but why don't we go the whole way and officially announce that words and math and logic are feeble human attempts to describe the reality of experience and they need to be frequently reality-checked? And always keep the map-terrain distinction in mind?Miklos Hollendernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66241540856789394872012-10-16T22:30:03.767-07:002012-10-16T22:30:03.767-07:00Dguller: Saying that one happens by action and one...Dguller: <i>Saying that one happens by action and one by inaction does not change the ultimately end point at all, and seems to be a distinction without a difference.</i><br /><br />As Michael noted, there is a difference because in this example the child already exists to be neglected. If the end is (in simplified terms), "it is part of human nature to help one's fellow man in need", then yes, you have a natural moral obligation to help the child. But if there were nobody else (or nobody else who had any needs going unfulfilled) then there would be nothing to do, and no obligation to perform. As soon as you introduce this needy child, you have half the picture — and at that point, the picture must be finished, brought to its natural fulfilment. If you do not employ your sexual faculties, then there is no problem. If you <i>start</i> to employ them, if you employ them in some partial way, <i>then</i> it follows that you have to complete the act in a natural way and not frustrate it unnaturally.<br /><br /><i>If this is correct, then the Thomist response of saying that there is a difference between choosing not to fulfill a natural end (e.g. celibacy) and choosing to actively frustrate a natural end (e.g. sexually active homosexuality) is a difference that makes no difference, and ultimately collapses into the same category of “evil”.</i><br /><br />But what makes you think that every possible end must be fulfilled? If that were true, then the wrongness of lying would imply that we have to keep talking (truthfully) twenty-four hours a day. Indeed, we would have to be doing everything all the time — so clearly there is a meaningful distinction between doing something the wrong way and not doing it. ("If you can't do it right, don't do it at all!") <br /><br /><i>it is completely irrelevant whether a portion of the population chooses to engage in sexual activity that is not directed towards procreation, or in some other non-traditional fashion.</i><br /><br />Yes to the first half, no to the second. Individuals are quite free to choose not to engage in sexual activity directed towards procreation (by choosing not to engage in sexual activity at all). They just may not choose it unnaturally. Otherwise you would be arguing that bulimia is fine and dandy. Sure, not all the time, or you'd starve (comparable to the human race dying out). But as long as you hold down enough nutrients to stay alive, then it would be good to vomit up your food the rest of the time… but of course, it isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35362449531551470842012-10-16T22:26:08.956-07:002012-10-16T22:26:08.956-07:00Daniel Smith: From this we can gather that one of ...Daniel Smith: <i>From this we can gather that one of the natural ends for marital sex is the staving off of temptation.</i><br /><br />Well, that's not really an end; just a side-effect.<br /><br /><i>This suggests to me that since the sex drive (as we all know) is such a powerful natural urge, marital sex is the legitimate outlet - lest we indulge the urge sinfully.</i><br /><br />Right — for example, by hiring a prostitute (violates the unitive aspect) or by using contraceptives (violates the procreative aspect). "Not sinning" is in one sense a better act than procreation, but of course "not sinning" is not an act at all, but refraining from an act, and it is not mutually exclusive with procreation. I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting oneself to only procreative sex may not be enough to stop temptation from entering in"; some temptations can be prevented, others need to be fought against. We should never commit one sin to avoid another.<br /><br /><i>If I only use the hammer to drive nails today, am I frustrating the legitimate use of the hammer because I'm not pulling nails? Of course not! The two uses are not connected</i><br /><br />That's the key difference (well, other than that a hammer is an artefact, not a substance, but we can ignore that for the sake of the analogy). The two uses <i>are</i> not connected — they could even be (and sometimes are) implemented in two separate tools! As I said before, if human beings had two separate powers, one of "unitive sexualty" and one of "procreative sexuality" that could be exercised independently as well as in concert, then yes, all these objections would work (whether for contraception, homosexuality, etc.). But human beings do not work that way. It is one and the same act that accomplishes both the unitive and procreative ends, and thus to engage one aspect while thwarting the other is to pervert one's nature. If it were part of your nature, then you could do it without needing to thwart anything in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63373519570812783422012-10-16T22:21:30.109-07:002012-10-16T22:21:30.109-07:00Zachary Alain: We might think it strange if it is ...Zachary Alain: <i>We might think it strange if it is insisted on or designated as a paperweight, but we might also think it strange that one insists upon using a broken hammer to drive nails instead of a wholly different implement. </i><br /><br />The reason why we can use (or abuse) a hammer in different ways is that it is not a substance — it has no nature of its own, only the ends that are imposed by us externally. Thus we are free to "redefine" those ends at will. (This should make sense since you know some Aristotle — a human being is not merely a collection of parts, but a single substance. This is a theme Feser frequently deals with on this site; see for example, <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/nature-versus-art.html" rel="nofollow">Nature vs. Art</a>.) So a hammer has only ad hoc ends, not natural ends to be perverted or frustrated in the same way as a human does. Animals are also substances, which is one reason why it is not moral for us to treat them like things. Even so, it is generally against reason to use a tool in a way contrary to its purpose. Using a hammer as a paperweight does not really do this (after all, it is part of the "nature" of a hammer to have mass, and thus using it to hold down paper does not thwart its properties or functions).<br /><br /><i>I see little reason to employ it unless that logic does work that the various other accounts of ethics I find useful do not, and much reason to not employ it if the only novel results are not robust.</i><br /><br />In one way, natural law will not reach empirical conclusion much differently from consequentialism, or utilitarianism, etc. — for example, observing that human beings need to eat and studying which foods are most healthy and so on is something to be determined by biology, etc. I would say the most important reason for natural law is that it is by its, er, nature rooted in objective reality. Other systems have trouble grounding morality because of the so-called "is-ought" problem; but the point of natural law is that "is" is "ought": morality simply consists in properly following our nature, so the two cannot be disconnected. (Other things will follow from that, of course, but if you plan to learn more about it, this may provide a bit of useful context.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9245794776079619432012-10-16T22:14:26.990-07:002012-10-16T22:14:26.990-07:00bls: So where, exactly, have I gone wrong, in your...bls: <i>So where, exactly, have I gone wrong, in your estimation?</i><br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>Homosexuality occurs, it would appear, in some small percentage of human beings naturally. </i><br /><br />Indicating that you missed a key point of the original post. The rest seemed to follow on this misunderstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8985119253198535802012-10-16T22:11:16.970-07:002012-10-16T22:11:16.970-07:00W.LindsayWheeler: So, Mr. Green, we repeat the err...W.LindsayWheeler: <i>So, Mr. Green, we repeat the errors of the Stoics? […] The Stoics redirected natural law to their own means and that is what "Thomistic natural law" is based on--the Stoic bastardization of it. So in no way can it be "classical". </i><br /><br />I wouldnt be surprised; we repeat many errors. Such is the lot of our fallen race. For you to deny that natural law has anything to do with man or morality is to claim that man has no nature (or simply that you've missed the point); either way, you can imagine why people might not take you seriously. And for the record, "classical" means pertaining to ancient Greek or Rome. I think you'll find that Aristotle and the Stoics both qualify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56605710919013006552012-10-16T18:16:33.675-07:002012-10-16T18:16:33.675-07:00Hey, Ben. I am a fellow Catholic, but I get seriou...Hey, Ben. I am a fellow Catholic, but I get seriously depressed when I read situations like yours. I see how Catholic morality proceeds from reason and there's really no avoiding it, but I just get really bummed out over what seems like severe situations - situations like yours. That SEEMS like it isn't a situation conducive to happiness or even health, and that's what kills me about Catholicism sometimes. It seems like it forces you to yourself at risk in those extreme situations. What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88610563608942676532012-10-16T16:37:47.315-07:002012-10-16T16:37:47.315-07:00@Joe K:
Thanks for your response. As a conservati...@Joe K:<br /><br />Thanks for your response. As a conservative Catholic, I think my struggles with alcoholism have given me a certain compassion for homosexuals. <br /><br />I do believe that many "normal" people simply do not understand alcoholism; they wonder "why can't you just stop drinking?!" And, although I believe that I am fully morally responsible for all of my alcoholic binges, the question simply doesn't make sense; when on a binge, I cannot always will myself to "stop" drinking even though I know that there are things I can do to place myself out of the near occasions of sin. <br /><br />The only way to stop the alcoholic from drinking is for him to take certain actions that will arrest the patterns of thought that make the necessity of getting drunk seem inevitable. A.A., for all of its theological flaws, does help alcoholics who are willing to participate in it and who are willing to change. Most will not until they have either lost everything or are on the brink of death. Such is the nature of the pathology; it is an ugly thing.<br /><br />Now, I cannot help but think that a resource similar to A.A. could have been made accessible to homosexuals who wanted to stay celibate. I would imagine that, if the APA had not declared homosexuality a "normal" condition, and had they not vigorously opposed sexual orientation correction programs as they now do in CA, then we would not be where we are now as a culture.<br /><br />I sometimes think that, had alcoholics behaved like modern homosexuals, they would be lobbying the government to have A.A. and MAAD targeted by the DOJ and SPLC as "hate groups", and that they would be lobbying to repeal the statues against drunk driving on the grounds that they "discriminate" against alcoholics who can drive safely with a BAC of .15, and that they would be infiltrating the schools trying to set up "drunk/sober alliances" where they try to recruit heavy drinkers into the alcoholic lifestyle. <br /><br />In other words, what could have happened for the better if only the APA had not succumbed to political pressure? <br /><br />I think the Church needs input from people like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com