tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post2831113675738468755..comments2024-01-20T00:00:10.459-08:00Comments on Mudblood Catholic: Natural Lawyer Jokes, Part IIIGabriel Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-15598617396882961572017-05-03T20:34:16.013-07:002017-05-03T20:34:16.013-07:00There I agree with you wholeheartedly. The tactics...There I agree with you wholeheartedly. The tactics used by so many Catholic apologists on subjects like these make me angry sometimes, both for their disrespect and for their lack of practicality.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-35614937751573357692017-05-03T12:56:47.927-07:002017-05-03T12:56:47.927-07:00The frustrating thing about NLT, and Feser's f...The frustrating thing about NLT, and Feser's formulation of it in particular, is that people hold it up as proof that it's okay to (for instance) ban gay sex or birth control, because "it's not a revelation thing, it's a natural law thing and therefore knowable to natural reason, this guy Feser said so." And I hate that because they're basically saying, "I don't have to respect others' beliefs so long as I can theoretically prove them wrong, with an argument that convinces no one, without reference to the Bible."<br /><br />Used as a "why is morality the way we already believe it is" type thing, natural law is a lot less infuriating.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-26862780192792056282017-05-01T15:38:16.325-07:002017-05-01T15:38:16.325-07:00I definitely agree with you that Natural Law Theor...I definitely agree with you that Natural Law Theory seems problematic in a lot of ways, and that Dr Feser's formulations (at least in this essay; I don't have a thorough acquaintance with his work) don't show a full appreciation of that. Personally I think it can be salvaged, and that it is illuminating enough to be worth salvaging what's more. Whether most Thomists will like the way I (try to) salvage it remains to be seen, since it involves a departure from Thomist epistemology.<br /><br />About his conclusion being predetermined, that's true. However, in the context of the book, that's actually fine: Dr Feser didn't write this as apologetics, but as intra-Catholic debate, defending one version of NLT against another. I didn't make it very clear that he was doing that, but it's entirely clear in its original context. I'm engaging with him for much the same reason he's engaging with other Catholics: we're both saying something like, "Given the *data* of Catholic belief, what must reality be like, philosophically, to explain or 'produce' Catholicism?" Which is valid -- though obviously not the sort of conversation everybody would be interested in.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-68959408512488474442017-04-29T05:21:45.503-07:002017-04-29T05:21:45.503-07:00He kind of tips his hand here: "If there is t...He kind of tips his hand here: "If there is to be an absolute prohibition on contraceptive acts, masturbatory acts, and the like as such, even though there is no such prohibition on merely refraining from sex or on sex between sterile spouses, then there must be something about the nature of the former acts that makes them inherently contrary to the good for us."<br /><br />In short, the conclusion is decided at the outset: here we set out to come up with a philosophical argument which will separately confirm *exactly* what the Church already teaches. To which I would argue, first, how can you be sure you're doing it right when you're simply trying to reconstruct a teaching you already know -- isn't that going to bias your reasoning? And second, how can we call it an argument knowable by natural reason, which even unbelievers should be able to be convinced by, if it is directed at the outset by revelation?<br /><br />There are lots of other objections to Feser's arguments. For instance, rather than saying "the ends of sex are unity and procreation," we really ought to say that the end of the unity produced by sex is also procreation -- there is no point to the pair-bond except to encourage both parents to stick around to raise the child. So isn't pair-bonding by the infertile just as perverted as sex that is infertile? He sort of touches on this, as well as the problem of saying each individual act ought to be unitive and procreative rather than that the relationship as a whole will be both. This is problematic given that the unity is needed throughout the entire marriage, whereas the procreation is not necessarily appropriate at all times.<br /><br />And the whole "large family" thing shuts it down at the get-go. Having a large family is naturally what evolution "wants," but I don't see any reason why this should be what God wants. Now that we *have* filled the earth and subdued it, and there is no real lack of warm bodies on the planet, is it really wise for *everyone* to have a large family? It's easy to excuse when practicing Catholics are a minority; a few familes of 10 are no big deal. But if *everyone* on the planet had an average 10 children, that would quintuple the world's population in one generation. Can the earth carry 35 billion people? And isn't God's intention for people to love and serve him, and love one another, rather than simply to multiply as fast as they possibly can?<br /><br />Totally with you on the giraffes and bonobos thing. I have been told that the way we know what is "natural" is simply by what the majority is/does, so that we know that a clubfoot is a defect because most people don't have them. But a lack of wings is not considered a defect, because we all lack them in common.<br /><br />But that's nuts, and not just because heterosexuality is not so universal as all that. It also introduces absurdities like "right-handedness is natural and left-handedness is abnormal," or "an IQ of 130 is equally as defective as an IQ of 70." Whereas really what is a "defect" and what is simply a difference depends greatly on what people want. My oldest is autistic. It's very mild, really, he needs some adaptations from the school but he's a happy and funloving kid whom we all enjoy being around even when he can't get off the topic of Minecraft for days. According to "natural law," his ASD is a defect, full stop, because most human brains are not like his. But to him it's really not one; the only thing that makes it undesirable for him is that other people expect a certain level of social ability and isn't that impressed by his high intelligence in certain specialized areas. Natural law theory, as Feser expresses it, would insist that he spend his life trying to be neurotypical, rather than spend it trying to be the best version of himself he can be. That .... bothers me a great deal.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-21609739440239946582017-04-28T12:53:30.731-07:002017-04-28T12:53:30.731-07:00A very good argument; thank you. And it anticipate...A very good argument; thank you. And it anticipates one of the arguments I'm planning to make in my next post.Gabriel Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17607504369762849930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5766538007498037282.post-53576922794802741922017-04-27T21:40:59.605-07:002017-04-27T21:40:59.605-07:00Of course, even if sexual behavior could be interp...Of course, even if sexual behavior could be interpreted (with animal examples, etc) as a sort of "grooming" behavior for bonding (is this the "unitive" end?)...as rational human beings, we still have to ask, why is THAT behavior effective or indicative in that regard?<br /><br />Well, presumably because it is a sign of intimacy. Why? Well, presumably because those body parts aren't usually touched and stimulated by one whom one is not intimate with; intimacy is indicated by the "unusualness" of boundary-breaking. Why? Just arbitrarily, as if they're a special button evolved purely for bonding as an end in itself? No. Rather, it would seem, exactly *because* they are the genital organs. They are relatively taboo (and hence intimate) *because* of their role in procreation. <br /><br />Sexual contact indicates a degree of intimacy to be sure, and hence has this sort of "grooming" aspect, to be sure. I don't think Catholic moral thought was ever unaware of this. But what sort/degree of intimacy is indicated, is the question. Why, presumably, precisely that of mates! Isn't that the whole coherent logic of it? <br /><br />Even when done "for bonding/to express intimacy"...the primal logic/reason for that is "because we're doing what mates do, so it indicates us being as intimate as mates." But that very idea would seem undermined and "in bad faith" if the people being "as intimate AS mates" are, actually, at the same time, actively withholding mating. Then it becomes almost a deception of oneself, and thus implies a sort of internal self-division, because if the pleasure of the intimacy is derived from "This is mate-like intimacy!" but then, simultaneously, it isn't (quite deliberately) *really* the intimacy of mates...well, there's an internal contradiction there.<br /><br />This is the sort of reason I think "Natural Law" is supposed to involve.<br /><br />It also would help to look at human beings (human nature is the nature in question, after all...) anthropologically. Very few societies have had a "modern" view of the role of sexuality. Why? Are we to imagine that humans are so stupid that somehow we collectively "forgot" that sexuality can really be just about bonding/grooming and that modern man "rediscovered" this fact about our own nature by observing bonobos and giraffes?? <br /><br />Is it really that sensible to posit that somehow so many cultures which have linked sex and marriage (and which have proscribed sodomy, heterosexual and homosexual) all just at some point (when, exactly?) "forgot" and "mistakenly" condemned a faculty of bonding/grooming that is actually perfectly natural to human beings??<br /><br />And yet, these societies all seem perfectly aware that, say, cuddling a child or *other* forms of (non-sexual) physical affection among family and friends are for bonding.<br /><br />Sure, there are rumors in anthropology of this or that tribe in New Guinea who preform oral sex on their infants to soothe or bond or whatever. But this doesn't seem to be the norm, and strikes many of us with horror! And most of us are struck with a sense that "This is the perverted result of delusional fundamentalist logic about intimacy" when we hear of cases like Muslim men being told by this or that imam to breastfeed from their female coworkers so that some sort of legal fiction of kinship is established that magically will get rid of all the concerns about lust...<br /><br />It seems the general trend across mankind, though, understands that the bonding promoted by sexual intercourse is precisely the intimacy "logically" indicated BY said intercourse; namely, the intimacy OF mates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com