Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Question about natural law

pianoforte611
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I dont know what will help you if you link treadmills with sex. But anyway the reasons is that God didnt create procreation for sexual pleasure. See He did not allow sexual pleasures but procreation. As we fell our desires changed and physical pleasure became a consumption for humans. What you must show is that we used sex for pleasure before Adam and Eve fell. Before we became carnal.
TheAsylum
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:05:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know nothing, but maybe you should ask Contradiction.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:03:20 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I dont know what will help you if you link treadmills with sex. But anyway the reasons is that God didnt create procreation for sexual pleasure. See He did not allow sexual pleasures but procreation. As we fell our desires changed and physical pleasure became a consumption for humans. What you must show is that we used sex for pleasure before Adam and Eve fell. Before we became carnal.


I do not agree..

He made it feel good on purpose Scotty. The purpose was for procreation, and intimacy between a Married man and woman.

There is no way to show that sex was or wasn't pleasing (though we can deffinately imagine it was), because there is no discussion on the matter.

What we do know is, sex is awesome, God made it that way, and once you've become married, you can avoid all the drama premarital sex produces, and enjoy all the benefits. ;)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:07:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:03:20 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I dont know what will help you if you link treadmills with sex. But anyway the reasons is that God didnt create procreation for sexual pleasure. See He did not allow sexual pleasures but procreation. As we fell our desires changed and physical pleasure became a consumption for humans. What you must show is that we used sex for pleasure before Adam and Eve fell. Before we became carnal.

Whoosh.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:13:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I could probably give you an answer but it'd more than likely be botched as I'm not super well-versed in natural law theory. You should check with Contradiction.

http://www.debate.org...

Or maybe reading some of his debates on homosexuality will help.

http://www.debate.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:14:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I don't think there exist Natural law in itself. But rational simply universal Laws.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I don't think walking only has one person. The human body was designed for movement. While eating right helps us stay fit, we won't be in as good condition unless we stay active. All a treadmill does is aid in us staying fit, which is good for the body. It's not immoral to wear glasses because you're helping to repair the natural function of a damaged body part. So treadmills also would not be immoral because they aid in fitness, which is essential for our health. You could just as easily go outside and walk a few miles, as opposed to using the treadmill.
pianoforte611
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@AlwaysMoreThanYou & popculturepooka

Thanks for the recommendation. Contradiction isn't taking comments on his profile though.

@The Fool

I don't believe in Natural Law, but I want to know whether it can be consistently applied. I'm not yet convinced.

@ KeytarHero

Are a natural law proponent? My current understanding of natural law is the version defended by Ed Feser and some other Catholic bloggers. It's very dense but he talks about it here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

In any case, I agree with you regarding the treadmill. I'm just confused as to why the functions of sex (pleasure, procreation and bonding) are not separable in the way that the two functions of walking are. Why are pleasure and bonding not legitimate secondary goals, but fitness is?
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:59:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:03:20 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:20:31 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
Please only post if you are familiar with Thomistic natural law ethics.

One of the aspects of natural law ethics that I find most odd, is the idea that things can only be used when directed towards their natural end. For example, sex can only be done in the context of a marital relationship with the intent of procreation. Frustrating that natural end (for example via contraception) for some other goal (recreation and/or bonding in the case of sex) is immoral.

It seems to me, though, that we use things for purposes other than their natural end all the time. Take for example the treadmill. The natural purpose of walking is locomotion - walking on a treadmill frustrates that natural end for a secondary goal, namely exercise. Why is this not immoral? If it is because walking has multiple purposes (locomotion and keeping one fit) then why is it permissible to divorce those two functions of walking and not the functions of sex?

I dont know what will help you if you link treadmills with sex. But anyway the reasons is that God didnt create procreation for sexual pleasure. See He did not allow sexual pleasures but procreation. As we fell our desires changed and physical pleasure became a consumption for humans. What you must show is that we used sex for pleasure before Adam and Eve fell. Before we became carnal.

Said GOD should have left out the sexual pleasure then.. Last time I checked, sex feels pleasurable... Maybe he should have made it painful instead so people don't have sex? Seems to me this GOD doesn't have any forethought.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:14:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I don't think there exist Natural law in itself. But rational simply universal Laws.

One is the same as the other.. lol
pianoforte611
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:51:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 4:01:41 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:14:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I don't think there exist Natural law in itself. But rational simply universal Laws.

One is the same as the other.. lol

We're talking about Natural Law as an ethical theory, not a description of nature.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:10:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:39:20 PM, pianoforte611 wrote:
@AlwaysMoreThanYou & popculturepooka

Thanks for the recommendation. Contradiction isn't taking comments on his profile though.


You could always private message him.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!