I used to know Ed when we both went to grade school and high school and were close friends who used to collect comic books. Then I got into punk rock and Ed got into becoming a professor. I will always have great memories of being great friends with him and wish him the best in his future!
If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
5:20 start 29:19 perverted faculty argument 30:40 morality applies to rational agents 31:13 having more than one natural end 31:38 destroying the faculty -- principle of totality 32:26 consciously intending using the natural end 33:14 using man-made devices 33:56 psychological defects to misuse faculties 34:43 physical and psychological factors 35:23 not using a faculty 36:05 having sex during pregnancy and infertile periods 36:57 wanting to conceive during sex 37:15 manual/oral stimulation 38:51 Viagra/vibrator 39:23 contraception 40:00 masturbation 41:01 bestiality and homosexuality objections 43:28 interference / removing organs 45:55 counterexamples 47:47 using man-made devices 49:08 what a genuine counterexample must show 50:31 voluntary faculties vs. ongoing involuntary physiological processes (hair growth, breathing, lactation) 51:52 ethics vs. practicality (cleaning too much ear wax example) 54:00 what a genuine counterexample must show Q&A 56:05 how is a "faculty" distinguished from a "function", what constitutes activity "contrary to", what does it mean for a faculty to exist "for the sake of" a certain end, what does it mean for a faculty to exist for the sake of a certain end "by nature" it exists to serve, sexual use organs vs. general use organs, why does episodic use vs. continuous use matter from a moral point of view? (answered at 1:05:50) 58:10 people seek sex for more than just pleasure (answered at 1:02:38) 59:51 is contraception a sexual act? (answered at 1:1:00) 1:13:25 why does nature determine what's good? 1:18:49 is it wrong to walk on your hands to the point of damaging them? 1:20:50 why do natural law theorists always focus on sex? 1:25:15 applying natural law to animals, sex has more than one function, frustrating the function of pain, and refraining from using a faculty vs. actively frustrating it 1:32:23 lying 1:33:38 is "pulling out" on par with only having sex during infertile periods? 1:40:03 is there any other episodic powers besides procreation? 1:42:08 transgenderism 1:47:10 do people defend natural law to reinforce their religious prejudices?
Thanks for publishing the talk! It's terrific to see rigorous defenses of tenets of classical natural law theory in a world increasingly driven by naturalistic materialism. Robert's questions of Ed were also helpful in understanding the points made in Ed's talk.
it is great indeed, the whole world can observe how stupid these religiotards are. one day all you religious fucks will die out and your silly fairy tales will fade into memory.
Feser claims that he does not have an “is-ought” problem. Maybe so, but he has merely replaced it with a “natures’s End - ought” problem that is equally tenacious. 12:30. He still faces the question of “So nature intends that I X. But why *should* I X?” Seems to me he has gained nothing from that move.
under natural law theory the "is" is identical to the "ought" much like how when you get to the first cause of the universe "existence" becomes equivalent to "essence"
@@MZONE991 yes, thank you for putting it so clearly. I just don’t think that can be accomplished by fiat. The “is/ought” problem survives natural law attempts to dissolve it. Or so it seems to me.
@@MZONE991 Yes. And to claim that it really is that way is to beg the question. Please tell me how “stealing is the taking of the property of another without their consent” is “identical“ to “one ought not steal.”
@@friendlybanjoatheist5464 if you claim it then I agree it is begging the question, similarly if you only claim that God has to be simple without proving it you are begging the question however you can supplement it with Thomistic-Aristotelian ideas that things are oriented towards perfection and a position where full potential is reached
The problem with sex toys isn't that they are man made, it's that St Thomas taught that nature is designed in such a way that the sex organs fit together in a specific way and thus are to be used in a specific way. Only when they are used properly can the licit end of sex be accomblished. This means that the male organ does not go in any other holes where it doesn't belong, and that you don't use sex toys because forign objects do not belong inside the woman's body.
on the last point, how would you counter that the woman routinely introduces foreign objects into her body via her mouth when she uses a spoon or fork or toothbrush? I hope that doesn't sound to silly!
This is a poor caricature of the Thomistic argument. It's about function, not fit. Using a suppository is not sodomy, nor is hiding valuables in the vaginal or anal cavities the same, although those uses are not the natural function of those orifices. The use of artifacts or man-made things is not in opposition to the natural ends of man, one of which is learning and coming to know. Some use eyeglass lenses so that they can read better or make better observations, which while artificial are entirely complementary to that natural end. Thus under the scholastic natural law theory, the use of a sex toy or a bit of oral stimulation of the penis is licit if it complements or at least does not frustrate the natural end of the sexual faculty.
If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
@@michaelflores9220 He would respond by saying that these are sophomoric objections to Christian theism that have been dealt with over and over and over ad infinitum
I watched the whole vid and found it informative. Dr.Feser is great bought 2 of his books cant wait to read them! There is 1 question I have at 1:08:32 there was an interesting input that pleasure can be regarded as an end purpose like procreative or unitive ends. So I dont understand why someone simply interested in sexual pleasure is considered morally wrong? Can anyone explain this, im a little lost here...
Pleasure is a subordinated end to that of procreation-which is really the ultimate end of sex. Take a comparison that I got from his book, The Last Superstition. Why do you get pleasure from eating (especially when really hungry)? Well, the pleasure is your mind and body’s subordinated calling for you to fulfill the natural end of getting nutrients in. Likewise, pleasure in sex is the way your body and mind calls you to fulfill the natural end of procreation. Merely eating for pleasure is obviously bad because it frustrates the primary natural end of eating (which is to get nutrients in), likewise, merely having sex for pleasure is bad because it frustrates the natural end of sex (which is procreation). But if pleasure complements the natural end of getting nutrients in or procreation then it’s perfectly normal. It isn’t wrong to have sex merely for procreation and neither is it wrong to eat merely for nutrients because these things are the primary natural ends of its distinctive functions. I hope I explained it well enough. I’m not a philosopher but I’m learning from intellectual giants for sure. God bless!
George catches Feser in a fatal circle at 1:12:25 when he asks Feser for an identifiable harm that results from frustration of (or acting “contrary to”) a faculty. (IOW, that the “frustration“ in and of itself is insufficient.) Feser can only reply that the notion of the good or the harm is already built in to the notion of frustration. George politely suggests that that’s where Feser must do some more work. Seems to me Feser is caught in a fatal bit of question begging. I’d love to hear thoughts from others on this. 🙏🪕
I see it that way too. Deviation from form (frustration) is dogmatically associated with moral evil (harm). But there is no logically necessary link between the two. It is simply postulated (since it cannot be further substantiated) that frustration always entails harm. To be fair, ethical theories mostly have to deal with similar fundamental problems. A very persuasive ethics, in my humble opinion, I have outlined here: spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/completing-kants-ethical-approach.html
well George is correct. theres no actual pragmatic harm with what he refers to as "frustration", thus his whole proposition of these being legitimate ethics falls on its face. It's just fancy sounding abstract rules for the sake of rules.
I think chewing gum is to eating as masturbation is to sex? It's not clear what makes a use "other than" rather than "contrary to". Masturbating is wrong under the reasoning that ,it s the usage of the sexual organ for an self-centered, non-procreative end rather than a partner-centered, procreative end. Sex is pleasurable so as to serve this end I think?. Eating is for nourishment and I guess enjoyment (though I would label the enjoyment as serving to motivate eating), but chewing gum is clearly not for nourishment despite using the same organ. As for ear plugs, they are not facilitating hearing prima facie, but moreso the complex desires and plans of the human. It seems like the natural end of the ears, then, is to serve the human, and the human is free to manipulate hir ears (with obstructions, alterations, decorations) so as to serve hirself. This makes me think that it seems the same description ,the natural end being to serve the human/society, would be more apt for the sexual organs. those body parts seem more specific than hands, arms, legs, etc. The allowance of "continuous" perversion of faculty (anti-perspirant, wasted breast milk, smoking) seems extremely ad hoc. Would that make a long-term homosexual teasing without climax not a perversion of faculty? (Which I assume you are against.) Well, I suppose the perverted faculty argument should only apply to homosexual sex because it refers to the contrary usage of the sexual organ, and not of the mental faculty which does not have a specific purpose -- though maybe if you could separate it out into the "arousal" faculty, then you would have the argument again. Also, you mention speech as an episodic act; would sign language be considered an episodic act? If signed communication can be considered episodic, then I think smoking and breast-feeding can also. Although they seem to be redirections of continually occuring processes (breathing, lactating, moving the hands), that redirection has a clear start and end -- at least as well-defined as the initiation of a sex act. "Walking on your hands to the point of damage" seems to be sort of a red herring because the criticism against bad sex acts is not on the basis of physical disablement. Humans (even children? I don't remember psychology) can easily lie. Which suggests to me that speech, although having a communicative purpose, also serves to manipulate others. This seems immoral for practical (consequentialist) reasons, but it doesn't seem that it's against it's purpose. Natural family planning is fine because it is not a "positive contrary act". Really? I guess my intuition is just different because I tend to think of presence of a negative as being very similar to absence of a positive. I can't think of a counterexample. Are super critical fluids (i.e. blurring the distinction between gas and liquid) actually gas or liquid, and we just don't know? It seems neater to just say that people are molecules that we label; and of course there's a genetic basis and tendency for the appearance of biological gender, just as there is a chemical basis for the three commonly encountered states of matter, but it seems unnecessary to say that deviations must in fact be reflections of one or the other category. Though I guess this is going back to metaphysics which I'm super reductionist about it and was the whole assumption so it can't really be a criticism.
well said. re the positive vs negative counterexample, how about not saving a baby on train tracks? almost everyone would agree that doing nothing would be wrong, yet it would be a negative action. so i am curious how this system accounts for that. but it's pointless because i am convinced that this system is merely a grandoise justification to reach a pre-selected conclusion.
@@aisthpaoitht to your last point, thats precisely what it is. Its the only practical reason why anyone would desperately settle for such bizarre abstract rule-making as a theory of ethics.
yep. it clearly points out the stupidity in this whole framework. There's nothing actually pragmatically WRONG with "misusing" something for some other purpose other than what it was "meant for", and theres no actual clear unarbitrary distinction between "Other than" and "contrary to"
It's no problem. As I listened to the whole thing while I was working, I realized the nature of the problem. The first couple of minutes I thought it might be something on my end- then I realized it was the recording/mic system. At any rate it was worth listening to, given the topics in the news and in the public debate forum these days. A rather boring topic in and of itself in my opinion, but political and cultural dynamics make it very relevant.
Final causation. Essentialism. The transcendentals. These are the metaphysical theses the ethical system rests on. Then I look in the comments. Yikes . . . . .
@@paradoxo9111 If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
@@michaelflores9220 For some reason, when I came onto this video to respond, the system wouldn't show me one of your responses. According to my notifications, you said: _Nothing to do with religion?_ _His teleological arguments_ _are about what things are "for",_ _["for"] means "[Designed by] a_ _mind for a goal', IE God, and_ _God=[a] religious concept,_ _therefore his case is 100%_ _religious._ But that text is nowhere to be found on the thread anymore. I'm hoping it's not appearing because you were wise enough to delete that ridiculous argument. But in light of the other comments that I'll address shortly, I'll make no assumptions. Here are your mistakes in order: 1. Possible etymological red herrings aside, saying "X has a final cause (or telos)" is not the same as "X has a purpose." The former statement means that there is something about X such that it tends towards some effect or range of effects. The latter says that X tends towards some effect because somebody set it up that way. Clearly, the former statement doesn't assume that an intelligent designer endowed X with some purpose precisely because it is silent about "where this final cause comes from," and hence allows us to offer any reasonable explanation we please. This wouldn't need to be spelled out if you kept in mind that: (a) Feser is a Thomist, and therefore an Aristotelian, and (b) Aristotle believed in teleology, but saw it as an innate feature that didn't need an explanation, and therefore didn't appeal to it to prove that God exists. The only way to equate teleology with purpose is to show that the only way for something to tend towards any kind of behavior or effect is for some intelligent designer to have endowed it with purpose. And in that case, you'll made a good case that God exists, for this kind of regularity is present on all levels of the universe. Consequently, as can be seen, talk of purposes is a special case of talk of final causality, much in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. I.e., "squares are a special case of rectangles." 2. The argument made in this video doesn't hinge on saying "X has a purpose." It will suffice to hold that: (a) Human nature includes a hierarchy of final causes, and (b) These final causes define what is good for us. If we accept these, we do not assume that God is somehow behind human nature. But we nevertheless arrive at: (c) If we want what is good for us, we will live in accordance with our final causes. The rest of the argument will get off just fine, at least if we accept what should be relatively non-controversial claims, such as: (d) The telos of sex is reproduction, and perhaps: (e) Stable families are the best way for furthering the end of reproduction. 3. "God" is not "a religious concept," unless your notion of "religion" is so broad as to be innocuous. You ought to define your term. Deism is not usually considered a religion, but deists believe that God exists, and for a host of different reasons, none of which amounts to "Because my holy book says that He does." Of course, if "God" is "a religious concept," it also follows that the Declaration of Independence is a religious document (our "Creator," obviously, means "God"), but nobody wants to say *that,* either. So the idea of "God" isn't just something from the domain of ignorant goat-herders. So, even if the argument amounts to "What we know implies that God intends for us to live this way, so this is how we should live," it doesn't amount to a religious argument. But, as seen above, the argument doesn't amount to anything like that. In an independent comment, you complained that Dr. Feser was using "nature" as a substitution word for "God." That's complete nonsense. The idea of "nature" that philosophers have in mind is better rendered as "essence," and in this context, it shouldn't be too hard to conclude that he was using "nature" to talk about "human nature." In other words, those first few minutes where he talks about "nature," he is talking about our essence as a type of rational animal. That's a far cry from talking about God euphemistically, even if we deny that humans have a nature, or say that he's wrong to construe it in Aristotelian terms. Now, in the response that I *can* see on this video, you said: _ If I were to walk up to Feser_ _and ask him "Why arent' you_ _overwhelmingly depressed,_ _since you believe in Hell?" and_ _"How can you call a deity that_ _allows something so_ _boundlessly horrible as Hell to_ _exist praiseworthy rather than_ _a monster" how do you think_ _he'd respond? And what if_ _someone said "Stealing is_ _wrong because it' hurts people_ _and society, not because it's_ _'against teleology'"._ That you raised this question to several other people without changing the wording suggests that your real problems lie here. But in this context, the first two points are obvious red herrings. Your third is just plain embarrassing. To say that theft is wrong " because it hurts people and society" is *not* to object to teleology per se. For one thing, the very suggestion that sexual intercourse, something that involves more than one individual, has a telos should've steered you clear of assuming that teleology is somehow always about individuals. It includes the individual, his family, his tribe, up the levels of social organization, precisely because humans are social animals; we need to cooperate with others to attain our good. For another, justice is one of our final causes, and to steal from others is always contrary to their due. To hurt others who have done nothing wrong is contrary to justice. We find, then, that your objection is not doing the hard work, here; a brute assertion of utilitarian ethics is doing the heavy lifting. Your objection only makes sense insofar as it begs the question against natural law theory and scholastic metaphysics. Coming back to the first two points: 1. I'm not terribly depressed about Hell because: (a) God has given us a way to keep out of Hell, and therefore I have hope for myself and others, (b) While I recognize that "many souls" will finally go there, I also recognize that: º It's not on me to if they reject salvation, which is easy to attain º It was their free decision to reject mercy and instead receive justice (c) God is infinitely better than anything else, and the thought of being able to see him as he is is a source of joy. 2. "Hell" is ambiguous with regards to *why* its torments are everlasting, but among the suggested explanations, I favor two: (a) Those who are down there continue to unrepentently sin, and so must continue to be punished for these new sins. (b) The sins of this life, insofar as they are against an infinite God, are infinitely grave, and so merit an infinite punishment. In both of these explanations, God acts justly. To say that God is "a monster" because he carries out his justice is ludicrous emotion-mongering of the worst kind, for it ignores the gravity of our offenses.
@@paradoxo9111 I know you wrote this a while ago but that was genuinely an amazing reply to him I hope you keep on your journey in scholastic philosophy
Your "metaphysical thesis" are based on the antiquated ravings of ancient Greek philosophers who believed in the five elements of nature and a geocentric universe. Maybe that should give you a clue why no one takes you seriously anymore?
I do not understand why having sex with an infertile spouse does not pervert the sexual faculty. It seems that, because homosexuality frustrates the procreative purpose of sex, having sex with an infertile spouse also frustrates the procreative purpose. In both cases, reproduction is not possible. I suppose that, in the case of infertility, you still retain the unitive purpose of sex, where each person's love is directed to a person of the opposite sex. And, as long as someone does not intentionally marry an infertile person to avoid having children, I guess infertility is morally different from contraception because the former does not involve any positive frustration of the procreative purpose by the spouses. Is that the answer?
You got it. As far as I understand it is only morally wrong if you actively seek infertile people as sexual partners precisely because they can't have children.
7 років тому+1
But gay people don't seek each other out precisely because we can't have children. Lots of gay couples get married and ADOPT the unwanted children of straight couples, a clear social good.
Yet, Kyle, we are increasingly seeing the use of surrogacy and artificial insemination among homosexual couples, wherein a human life is created with the express purpose of excluding the biological mother (in the case of a gay couple paying a surrogate) or the biological father (in the case of a lesbian couple using a sperm donor at a fertility clinic). It is especially cruel (and, I would add, evil) to bring a child into this world for the purpose of not having his biological mother as his mother, yet that is exactly what is being celebrated in the LGBT community and in the media, as the recent example of Andy Cohen demonstrates.
Pretty much. You're not acting to frustrate the natural end of your own faculty just because that end does not end up being realized. It's your moral act that is subject to judgment, because you have reason. You act contrary to reason when you do two things 1) use a natural faculty you have and 2) try to frustrate the natural end of that act. When you have sex with a spouse who happens to be infertile, the situation that causes the faculty to fail to achieve its natural end is not something you have done or even willed, so you have not acted contrary to reason. I don't even think it's wrong to marry an infertile person knowing children are practically impossible so long as you are actually lovingly committed to that person, willing and able to have sexual relations with them, and open to any children who may miraculously be conceived. But if you are just marrying someone to obtain sexual release from their body, that kind of lust could destroy charity and cause you to fail to live up to the unitive end of marriage even if they are fertile. But I'm not an expert.
I like Feser quite a bit. But I wonder what he would say about the use of pacifiers with babies. It would seem that they frustrate the natural ends of the child. Is it okay to use one, or no? The only answer that I could conjure on the fly is that the child is not a morally responsible being yet, so it's not wrong *per se* for the child to use the pacifier- but from the parents' end, is it okay to give your child the pacifier? I'm (humorously) imagining the doctrine between doing and allowing being relevant here ("well he found the pacifier that we just happened to set in his crib! We didn't make him use it, but we allow him to.")
its clear that these people only refer to this type of abstract reasoning when they have no pragmatic ethical arguments against doing such things (in this case sex for a purpose other than procreation), and they don't follow these abstract logical conclusions to their true ends. For example; eating candy would be always evil, because the real purpose of eating is for nourishment, not pleasure on it's own. Or doing a hand stand, since your hands are made for holding/grabbing things, not walking like your feet.
You would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic natural law theorist who would actually say this, though. There is, of course, the vice of gluttony which concerns, not the desire for the pleasure of food per se, but an *inordinate* desire for the pleasure of food. And the point about a *pragmatic ethical argument* is moot. Do you mean pragmatic as in following the school of pragmatism? Then of course natural law theory wouldn't have recourse to such reasoning.
@@Unclenate1000 Not at all. You're confusing the distinction between using a faculty for an end *other than* its natural one, and using it for some end *contrary to* it. You haven't shown that 'eating candy' is contrary to this end. Your example about standing on your hands is even worse, for the same reason. But even supposing you did that your examples succeeded, that wouldn't suffice to show that these acts are *gravely* wrong, rather than only little evils which can be tolerated to an extent...
@@paradoxo9111 who is to say the end of eating is nourishment? Different types of food are made with different ends in mind, Candy for pleasure, though a steak and salad is for nourishment. If we speak of sex, nature's end is a child, the pleasure associated with the act is simply nature's way to urge animals to engage in it.
No because you have emotional faculties as well. Romantic and sexual desires have an end as well. Sexual desire is ordered towards getting us to engage in sexual activity that results in reproduction. Romantic feelings are ordered towards getting men and women to stay together and take care of children. Thus willfully directing your romantic and sexual faculties towards someone of the same sex is contrary to the purpose of sexual and romantic feelings and is therefore immoral on natural law theory.
@@aisthpaoitht precisely what it is. its all abstract rule-making thats just guised in this eloquent sounding framework. and probably done to retroactively fit in what they already want to believe is immoral, even though this has no bearing on real pragmatic ethics
And what of sterile heterosexual couples? People can take a sense of completion and bonding and have that as a sexual end even when procreation is not possible. If Natural Law would not prohibit sterile heterosexual married couples from engaging in biologically "futile" sex, why treat homosexual couples any differently?
+Andrew Jeffery Because homosexual couples, by the nature of their relationship, cannot procreate, whereas an infertile heterosexual couple is not infertile by nature but by accident, through an external factor (disease, injury, etc.). So the act of sex between an infertile couple is still procreative in nature even if the end of procreation cannot be realized.
In cannon law surgical sterilization, or concealed knowledge of infertility gained before marriage, can be ground for an annulment. Additionally the inability to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment.
that is called a false equivocation fallacy. they are conflating meaning to mislead the audience. btw, homosexuality would still be natural by that definition as well.
Some people do get treatments (surgery?) done so they don't sweat anymore in their under arms. Just worth noting on the whole anti-antiperspirant thing; his rebuttal doesn't seem to include such decisions.
@@Unclenate1000 It's nowhere near Divine Command Theory as you can determine the natural end of most things without making direct reference to God. It also escapes the is/ought problem you're trying to imply, we don't have to follow it because "nature" says so. We have to follow it because reason and will also have teleology of their own. Reason determines what is good by determining the nature of things. The purpose of the will is to choose the good that reason determined rather than go contrary to it. Being contrary to nature isn't "disobeying a command" it's stating something like 2+2=5.
In the end this really nothing more than ethics based on abstract rule-making to try and rationalized pre-existing religious views on sexual practice. One of the reasons why consequentialism is logically superior. By this logic, it is intrinsically evil to, for example, do a handstand or eat sweets; since the hands are made with the end of grabbing and holding things, not walking, while the main purpose of eating is nourishment, not simply eating for pleasure alone. Now you can see how dumb it sounds to assert that sterile sexual acts are evil simply because they go outside of the original "purpose" of sex. It's just abstract rule-making; following a norm for it's own sake. Not real ethics where actions are judged on a cause / effect basis like they should be.
and his rebuttal of the counterarguments like the ones i noted fails horribly. There's no reason why contraception, masturbation and sodomy can't be interpreted as using the sexual faculty simply for a different purpose as opposed to "frustrating" and "going against" the primary end. It's all just word play.
You would still be eating the sweets. I think a better analogy would be putting food in your mouth, chewing, but never swallowing. As long as you eat the sweets I don't see how it's not nourishment? Also doing a handstand or temporarily walking on your hands doesn't quite hold up but I see your point. My rebuttal would be part of having a body is developing strength and coordination, both of those activities contributes to that. I don't think a handstand would qualify as sinning. Finally I think you're getting the order backwards. Good luck on your journey for truth.
@@veritawesome That is not the point, to the contraty, if there really where natural law theorist who would say these things his point would have less merit.
its just long-winded, eloquent sounding, abstract rules made for their own sake... or in this case made for the sake of reinforcing preconceived religious beliefs about sex retroactively... with no real reference to actual pragmatic ethics
I would like to ask Feser how he does'nt feel ashamed of creating six children who could, for all he knows, potentially end up in Hell. It would be better to sterilize oneself and have sex that way than to procreate, in the Catholic worldview, due to such infinitely horrible possible consequences.
We are expected to reproduce because Jesus called us to populate Heaven with His children so they might know His love. It is an act of charity and justice to give children the opportunity to know and to love God. It's up to the parents to teach them how and do everything in their power to guide their kids to Heaven. If the kids end up in Hell, it would be because they or their parents exercised their God-given freewill to make the wrong decisions. It's a Modernist worldview, not a Catholic one, that would say it's better to avoid life or to kill it than to run the risk of them going to Hell.
First of all, who cares about nature's purposes? Nature doesn't care us, for she allows animals to be tortured, starved, eaten, fatherless, motherless, etc. Birth control for the win...which you guys allow anyway in the form of NFP. Second, it only takes one word to refute Catholicism: desire. All our voluntary actions are based on what we desire to do. One cannot 'choose' one's desires, and even if one could, they'd arise from nothingness or from what one desires to desire. What one desires to desire would arise from darkness or from what one desires to desire to desire. One's third-order desire would be random or based on what one desires to desire to desire to desire. There is no free will, there is no moral responsibility, and hence no reason for punishment. Atheism is true. You're welcome.
One word refutes Catholicism .....DESIRE . I assume that you believe this because people have the desire for sex wihich you think justifies gratuitous sexual activity .. Well most people desire other feeling too but are not justified for the mere disregard that arises from those feelings . This why Murder is wrong as an expression of hatred . So I suppose according to your understanding , we shouldn't punish people who murder others because they are only acting out their desire
Meta-character “there is no free will” (when you disconsider free will as a limited free will, limited by biological and neuroscientific limits, but still observed since the earlies times) “There is no moral responsibility” (yes, so if we finally measured the “dimensions” of free will, and they do not seem enough for my judgement of how and how much punishment is fair, such as none, and how much of our brains (us) are actually responsible for our own mistakes and impacts, I can say there is not moral respondability) “Punishment is irrational” (yes, no coercion, magically organized societies, happy life) “Atheism is the right answer” (no metaphysical or mystical events are actually real, because we did investigated any claimed one to understand its just fake, or know we have the absolute truth due to probability and logic derived methods). Even the French feel better than this. Baseless BS. And SOMEHOW I must comply to your Anglo post analytic, new atheistic, unfairly coercive, sage like, intolerant, oppressive and imperialistic neo enlightenment (and even the world slowly give out power to the same Anglo ethicists, law theorists and whatever with few actually seeing it, not bringing any risks within it, why would it), otherwise you play me as stupid or as a threat to humanism. Fuck you.
@@eduds6 I believe moral responsibility can exist without free will. If fate degreed someone stab my mom, I'd still want the person to go to prison so that others would hear about it and think twice before stabbing someone so that they don't do that and end up the same way. I'm not the only or first person to think this way.
@@michaelflores9220 Yes but you are far from the only who would know about a lack of free will, in the way that most people could misunderstand the implications of it, either ethical or behavioral, sociopolitical... Anyway, I'm not someone who believes in that.
Foremost, thank you for reading, but I still believe that the natural law described by Feser only works within a very specific theological-philosophical paradigm. And that paradigm, I admit, may well be true. Who knows? But outside it, no one will take Feser seriously. For me, teleology is still only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for natural law.@@eapooda
I used to know Ed when we both went to grade school and high school and were close friends who used to collect comic books. Then I got into punk rock and Ed got into becoming a professor. I will always have great memories of being great friends with him and wish him the best in his future!
Why thank you, Christard.
Contra Bullshit haha look at this loser
was he such a fucking idiot back then too?
Ha ha nice.
If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
5:20 start
29:19 perverted faculty argument
30:40 morality applies to rational agents
31:13 having more than one natural end
31:38 destroying the faculty -- principle of totality
32:26 consciously intending using the natural end
33:14 using man-made devices
33:56 psychological defects to misuse faculties
34:43 physical and psychological factors
35:23 not using a faculty
36:05 having sex during pregnancy and infertile periods
36:57 wanting to conceive during sex
37:15 manual/oral stimulation
38:51 Viagra/vibrator
39:23 contraception
40:00 masturbation
41:01 bestiality and homosexuality
objections
43:28 interference / removing organs
45:55 counterexamples
47:47 using man-made devices
49:08 what a genuine counterexample must show
50:31 voluntary faculties vs. ongoing involuntary physiological processes (hair growth, breathing, lactation)
51:52 ethics vs. practicality (cleaning too much ear wax example)
54:00 what a genuine counterexample must show
Q&A
56:05 how is a "faculty" distinguished from a "function", what constitutes activity "contrary to", what does it mean for a faculty to exist "for the sake of" a certain end, what does it mean for a faculty to exist for the sake of a certain end "by nature" it exists to serve, sexual use organs vs. general use organs, why does episodic use vs. continuous use matter from a moral point of view? (answered at 1:05:50)
58:10 people seek sex for more than just pleasure (answered at 1:02:38)
59:51 is contraception a sexual act? (answered at 1:1:00)
1:13:25 why does nature determine what's good?
1:18:49 is it wrong to walk on your hands to the point of damaging them?
1:20:50 why do natural law theorists always focus on sex?
1:25:15 applying natural law to animals, sex has more than one function, frustrating the function of pain, and refraining from using a faculty vs. actively frustrating it
1:32:23 lying
1:33:38 is "pulling out" on par with only having sex during infertile periods?
1:40:03 is there any other episodic powers besides procreation?
1:42:08 transgenderism
1:47:10 do people defend natural law to reinforce their religious prejudices?
Wow thanks!
having just looked up edward freser with no context and not know what he does and what this is about, these timestamp labels are really funny
Thanks for publishing the talk! It's terrific to see rigorous defenses of tenets of classical natural law theory in a world increasingly driven by naturalistic materialism. Robert's questions of Ed were also helpful in understanding the points made in Ed's talk.
it is great indeed, the whole world can observe how stupid these religiotards are. one day all you religious fucks will die out and your silly fairy tales will fade into memory.
louis cyfer you do realise that secularists have the lowest reproduction rates?
how is that relevant?
louis cyfer crybaby
louis cyfer religion will never wane out, it will actually gain relevance again. Your sociological knowledge seems very limited.
I wonder how many people will actually watch the whole video.
CantusTropus Well, there's me.
CantusTropus and me
Don't you mean watch it to its climax?
Feser claims that he does not have an “is-ought” problem. Maybe so, but he has merely replaced it with a “natures’s End - ought” problem that is equally tenacious. 12:30. He still faces the question of “So nature intends that I X. But why *should* I X?”
Seems to me he has gained nothing from that move.
under natural law theory the "is" is identical to the "ought"
much like how when you get to the first cause of the universe "existence" becomes equivalent to "essence"
@@MZONE991 yes, thank you for putting it so clearly. I just don’t think that can be accomplished by fiat. The “is/ought” problem survives natural law attempts to dissolve it. Or so it seems to me.
@@friendlybanjoatheist5464
but if the "is" is identical to the "ought" then it makes no sense to say that natural law derives an ought from an is
@@MZONE991 Yes. And to claim that it really is that way is to beg the question.
Please tell me how “stealing is the taking of the property of another without their consent” is “identical“ to “one ought not steal.”
@@friendlybanjoatheist5464
if you claim it then I agree it is begging the question, similarly if you only claim that God has to be simple without proving it you are begging the question
however you can supplement it with Thomistic-Aristotelian ideas that things are oriented towards perfection and a position where full potential is reached
sounds like starting from a conclusion and building the rationale around it.
precisely what it is, which is why they need to use abstract concepts to come up with these "rules" and then unjustifiably deem it as real ethics.
The problem with sex toys isn't that they are man made, it's that St Thomas taught that nature is designed in such a way that the sex organs fit together in a specific way and thus are to be used in a specific way. Only when they are used properly can the licit end of sex be accomblished. This means that the male organ does not go in any other holes where it doesn't belong, and that you don't use sex toys because forign objects do not belong inside the woman's body.
on the last point, how would you counter that the woman routinely introduces foreign objects into her body via her mouth when she uses a spoon or fork or toothbrush? I hope that doesn't sound to silly!
Does a woman regularly put forks, spoons, and toothbrushes inside her vagina? No, clearly not.
+Pro Fide hokay
This is a poor caricature of the Thomistic argument. It's about function, not fit. Using a suppository is not sodomy, nor is hiding valuables in the vaginal or anal cavities the same, although those uses are not the natural function of those orifices.
The use of artifacts or man-made things is not in opposition to the natural ends of man, one of which is learning and coming to know. Some use eyeglass lenses so that they can read better or make better observations, which while artificial are entirely complementary to that natural end.
Thus under the scholastic natural law theory, the use of a sex toy or a bit of oral stimulation of the penis is licit if it complements or at least does not frustrate the natural end of the sexual faculty.
WorBlux who are you replying to?
I like the edward feser sir's philosophical thoughts!!
If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
@@michaelflores9220 He would respond by saying that these are sophomoric objections to Christian theism that have been dealt with over and over and over ad infinitum
@@TheBrunarr you here big fan sir
@@michaelflores9220 For Thomists like Feser, being in hell is better than not being at all.
I watched the whole vid and found it informative. Dr.Feser is great bought 2 of his books cant wait to read them! There is 1 question I have at 1:08:32 there was an interesting input that pleasure can be regarded as an end purpose like procreative or unitive ends. So I dont understand why someone simply interested in sexual pleasure is considered morally wrong? Can anyone explain this, im a little lost here...
Pleasure is a subordinated end to that of procreation-which is really the ultimate end of sex. Take a comparison that I got from his book, The Last Superstition. Why do you get pleasure from eating (especially when really hungry)? Well, the pleasure is your mind and body’s subordinated calling for you to fulfill the natural end of getting nutrients in. Likewise, pleasure in sex is the way your body and mind calls you to fulfill the natural end of procreation.
Merely eating for pleasure is obviously bad because it frustrates the primary natural end of eating (which is to get nutrients in), likewise, merely having sex for pleasure is bad because it frustrates the natural end of sex (which is procreation). But if pleasure complements the natural end of getting nutrients in or procreation then it’s perfectly normal.
It isn’t wrong to have sex merely for procreation and neither is it wrong to eat merely for nutrients because these things are the primary natural ends of its distinctive functions.
I hope I explained it well enough. I’m not a philosopher but I’m learning from intellectual giants for sure. God bless!
You can have sex for pleasure, it’s just immoral to deny the other purposes of sex such as by using contraception
@@mrepix8287 why?
@@aisthpaoitht no good reason, just like theres no good reason to say why eating candy is simply evil even though it doesn't nourish you
Is there clean audio somewhere of when they open it up to the Q&A or is a transcript possible?
Does anyone know if/where we can get that paper in text form?
It is in his book Neo-Scholastic Essays.
George catches Feser in a fatal circle at 1:12:25 when he asks Feser for an identifiable harm that results from frustration of (or acting “contrary to”) a faculty. (IOW, that the “frustration“ in and of itself is insufficient.)
Feser can only reply that the notion of the good or the harm is already built in to the notion of frustration.
George politely suggests that that’s where Feser must do some more work.
Seems to me Feser is caught in a fatal bit of question begging.
I’d love to hear thoughts from others on this. 🙏🪕
I see it that way too. Deviation from form (frustration) is dogmatically associated with moral evil (harm). But there is no logically necessary link between the two. It is simply postulated (since it cannot be further substantiated) that frustration always entails harm.
To be fair, ethical theories mostly have to deal with similar fundamental problems. A very persuasive ethics, in my humble opinion, I have outlined here:
spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/completing-kants-ethical-approach.html
well George is correct. theres no actual pragmatic harm with what he refers to as "frustration", thus his whole proposition of these being legitimate ethics falls on its face. It's just fancy sounding abstract rules for the sake of rules.
I think chewing gum is to eating as masturbation is to sex? It's not clear what makes a use "other than" rather than "contrary to". Masturbating is wrong under the reasoning that ,it s the usage of the sexual organ for an self-centered, non-procreative end rather than a partner-centered, procreative end. Sex is pleasurable so as to serve this end I think?. Eating is for nourishment and I guess enjoyment (though I would label the enjoyment as serving to motivate eating), but chewing gum is clearly not for nourishment despite using the same organ.
As for ear plugs, they are not facilitating hearing prima facie, but moreso the complex desires and plans of the human. It seems like the natural end of the ears, then, is to serve the human, and the human is free to manipulate hir ears (with obstructions, alterations, decorations) so as to serve hirself. This makes me think that it seems the same description ,the natural end being to serve the human/society, would be more apt for the sexual organs. those body parts seem more specific than hands, arms, legs, etc.
The allowance of "continuous" perversion of faculty (anti-perspirant, wasted breast milk, smoking) seems extremely ad hoc. Would that make a long-term homosexual teasing without climax not a perversion of faculty? (Which I assume you are against.) Well, I suppose the perverted faculty argument should only apply to homosexual sex because it refers to the contrary usage of the sexual organ, and not of the mental faculty which does not have a specific purpose -- though maybe if you could separate it out into the "arousal" faculty, then you would have the argument again.
Also, you mention speech as an episodic act; would sign language be considered an episodic act? If signed communication can be considered episodic, then I think smoking and breast-feeding can also. Although they seem to be redirections of continually occuring processes (breathing, lactating, moving the hands), that redirection has a clear start and end -- at least as well-defined as the initiation of a sex act.
"Walking on your hands to the point of damage" seems to be sort of a red herring because the criticism against bad sex acts is not on the basis of physical disablement.
Humans (even children? I don't remember psychology) can easily lie. Which suggests to me that speech, although having a communicative purpose, also serves to manipulate others. This seems immoral for practical (consequentialist) reasons, but it doesn't seem that it's against it's purpose.
Natural family planning is fine because it is not a "positive contrary act". Really? I guess my intuition is just different because I tend to think of presence of a negative as being very similar to absence of a positive. I can't think of a counterexample.
Are super critical fluids (i.e. blurring the distinction between gas and liquid) actually gas or liquid, and we just don't know? It seems neater to just say that people are molecules that we label; and of course there's a genetic basis and tendency for the appearance of biological gender, just as there is a chemical basis for the three commonly encountered states of matter, but it seems unnecessary to say that deviations must in fact be reflections of one or the other category. Though I guess this is going back to metaphysics which I'm super reductionist about it and was the whole assumption so it can't really be a criticism.
well said. re the positive vs negative counterexample, how about not saving a baby on train tracks? almost everyone would agree that doing nothing would be wrong, yet it would be a negative action. so i am curious how this system accounts for that.
but it's pointless because i am convinced that this system is merely a grandoise justification to reach a pre-selected conclusion.
@@aisthpaoitht to your last point, thats precisely what it is. Its the only practical reason why anyone would desperately settle for such bizarre abstract rule-making as a theory of ethics.
yep. it clearly points out the stupidity in this whole framework. There's nothing actually pragmatically WRONG with "misusing" something for some other purpose other than what it was "meant for", and theres no actual clear unarbitrary distinction between "Other than" and "contrary to"
Is this audio choppy or is it my imagination or is it my computer?
Matthew Morris I'm experiencing the same issue.
Matthew Morris Apologies for the audio issues. Note that we asked Prof. Feser to repeat the questions concisely.
It's no problem. As I listened to the whole thing while I was working, I realized the nature of the problem. The first couple of minutes I thought it might be something on my end- then I realized it was the recording/mic system.
At any rate it was worth listening to, given the topics in the news and in the public debate forum these days. A rather boring topic in and of itself in my opinion, but political and cultural dynamics make it very relevant.
Samsgarden Have you checked out how he deals with them in the comments section at his blog?
*****
;-{)
Final causation. Essentialism. The transcendentals. These are the metaphysical theses the ethical system rests on. Then I look in the comments. Yikes . . . . .
Is it really surprising? Even on Dr. Feser's blog, which I'm sure you frequent, people regularly parade their ignorance.
@@paradoxo9111 If I were to walk up to Feser and ask him "Why arent' you overwhelmingly depressed, since you believe in Hell?" and "How can you call a deity that allows something so boundlessly horrible as Hell to exist praiseworthy rather than a monster" how do you think he'd respond? And what if someone said "Stealing is wrong because it' hurts people and society, not because it's 'against teleology'".
@@michaelflores9220
For some reason, when I came onto this video to respond, the system wouldn't show me one of your responses. According to my notifications, you said:
_Nothing to do with religion?_
_His teleological arguments_
_are about what things are "for",_
_["for"] means "[Designed by] a_
_mind for a goal', IE God, and_
_God=[a] religious concept,_
_therefore his case is 100%_
_religious._
But that text is nowhere to be found on the thread anymore. I'm hoping it's not appearing because you were wise enough to delete that ridiculous argument. But in light of the other comments that I'll address shortly, I'll make no assumptions. Here are your mistakes in order:
1. Possible etymological red herrings aside, saying "X has a final cause (or telos)" is not the same as "X has a purpose." The former statement means that there is something about X such that it tends towards some effect or range of effects. The latter says that X tends towards some effect because somebody set it up that way. Clearly, the former statement doesn't assume that an intelligent designer endowed X with some purpose precisely because it is silent about "where this final cause comes from," and hence allows us to offer any reasonable explanation we please. This wouldn't need to be spelled out if you kept in mind that:
(a) Feser is a Thomist, and therefore an Aristotelian, and
(b) Aristotle believed in teleology, but saw it as an innate feature that didn't need an explanation, and therefore didn't appeal to it to prove that God exists.
The only way to equate teleology with purpose is to show that the only way for something to tend towards any kind of behavior or effect is for some intelligent designer to have endowed it with purpose. And in that case, you'll made a good case that God exists, for this kind of regularity is present on all levels of the universe. Consequently, as can be seen, talk of purposes is a special case of talk of final causality, much in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. I.e., "squares are a special case of rectangles."
2. The argument made in this video doesn't hinge on saying "X has a purpose." It will suffice to hold that:
(a) Human nature includes a hierarchy of final causes, and
(b) These final causes define what is good for us.
If we accept these, we do not assume that God is somehow behind human nature. But we nevertheless arrive at:
(c) If we want what is good for us, we will live in accordance with our final causes.
The rest of the argument will get off just fine, at least if we accept what should be relatively non-controversial claims, such as:
(d) The telos of sex is reproduction, and perhaps:
(e) Stable families are the best way for furthering the end of reproduction.
3. "God" is not "a religious concept," unless your notion of "religion" is so broad as to be innocuous. You ought to define your term. Deism is not usually considered a religion, but deists believe that God exists, and for a host of different reasons, none of which amounts to "Because my holy book says that He does." Of course, if "God" is "a religious concept," it also follows that the Declaration of Independence is a religious document (our "Creator," obviously, means "God"), but nobody wants to say *that,* either. So the idea of "God" isn't just something from the domain of ignorant goat-herders. So, even if the argument amounts to "What we know implies that God intends for us to live this way, so this is how we should live," it doesn't amount to a religious argument. But, as seen above, the argument doesn't amount to anything like that.
In an independent comment, you complained that Dr. Feser was using "nature" as a substitution word for "God." That's complete nonsense. The idea of "nature" that philosophers have in mind is better rendered as "essence," and in this context, it shouldn't be too hard to conclude that he was using "nature" to talk about "human nature." In other words, those first few minutes where he talks about "nature," he is talking about our essence as a type of rational animal. That's a far cry from talking about God euphemistically, even if we deny that humans have a nature, or say that he's wrong to construe it in Aristotelian terms.
Now, in the response that I *can* see on this video, you said:
_ If I were to walk up to Feser_
_and ask him "Why arent' you_
_overwhelmingly depressed,_
_since you believe in Hell?" and_
_"How can you call a deity that_
_allows something so_
_boundlessly horrible as Hell to_
_exist praiseworthy rather than_
_a monster" how do you think_
_he'd respond? And what if_
_someone said "Stealing is_
_wrong because it' hurts people_
_and society, not because it's_
_'against teleology'"._
That you raised this question to several other people without changing the wording suggests that your real problems lie here. But in this context, the first two points are obvious red herrings.
Your third is just plain embarrassing. To say that theft is wrong " because it hurts people and society" is *not* to object to teleology per se. For one thing, the very suggestion that sexual intercourse, something that involves more than one individual, has a telos should've steered you clear of assuming that teleology is somehow always about individuals. It includes the individual, his family, his tribe, up the levels of social organization, precisely because humans are social animals; we need to cooperate with others to attain our good.
For another, justice is one of our final causes, and to steal from others is always contrary to their due. To hurt others who have done nothing wrong is contrary to justice. We find, then, that your objection is not doing the hard work, here; a brute assertion of utilitarian ethics is doing the heavy lifting. Your objection only makes sense insofar as it begs the question against natural law theory and scholastic metaphysics.
Coming back to the first two points:
1. I'm not terribly depressed about Hell because:
(a) God has given us a way to keep out of Hell, and therefore I have hope for myself and others,
(b) While I recognize that "many souls" will finally go there, I also recognize that:
º It's not on me to if they reject salvation, which is easy to attain
º It was their free decision to reject mercy and instead receive justice
(c) God is infinitely better than anything else, and the thought of being able to see him as he is is a source of joy.
2. "Hell" is ambiguous with regards to *why* its torments are everlasting, but among the suggested explanations, I favor two:
(a) Those who are down there continue to unrepentently sin, and so must continue to be punished for these new sins.
(b) The sins of this life, insofar as they are against an infinite God, are infinitely grave, and so merit an infinite punishment.
In both of these explanations, God acts justly. To say that God is "a monster" because he carries out his justice is ludicrous emotion-mongering of the worst kind, for it ignores the gravity of our offenses.
@@paradoxo9111 I know you wrote this a while ago but that was genuinely an amazing reply to him I hope you keep on your journey in scholastic philosophy
Your "metaphysical thesis" are based on the antiquated ravings of ancient Greek philosophers who believed in the five elements of nature and a geocentric universe. Maybe that should give you a clue why no one takes you seriously anymore?
He's so affable in person
Samsgarden I think I'd enjoy drinking with Ed. Then again, I enjoy drinking alone, too.
I do not understand why having sex with an infertile spouse does not pervert the sexual faculty. It seems that, because homosexuality frustrates the procreative purpose of sex, having sex with an infertile spouse also frustrates the procreative purpose. In both cases, reproduction is not possible. I suppose that, in the case of infertility, you still retain the unitive purpose of sex, where each person's love is directed to a person of the opposite sex. And, as long as someone does not intentionally marry an infertile person to avoid having children, I guess infertility is morally different from contraception because the former does not involve any positive frustration of the procreative purpose by the spouses. Is that the answer?
You got it. As far as I understand it is only morally wrong if you actively seek infertile people as sexual partners precisely because they can't have children.
But gay people don't seek each other out precisely because we can't have children. Lots of gay couples get married and ADOPT the unwanted children of straight couples, a clear social good.
Yet, Kyle, we are increasingly seeing the use of surrogacy and artificial insemination among homosexual couples, wherein a human life is created with the express purpose of excluding the biological mother (in the case of a gay couple paying a surrogate) or the biological father (in the case of a lesbian couple using a sperm donor at a fertility clinic). It is especially cruel (and, I would add, evil) to bring a child into this world for the purpose of not having his biological mother as his mother, yet that is exactly what is being celebrated in the LGBT community and in the media, as the recent example of Andy Cohen demonstrates.
I learned in Confirmation Class they can also have a "fertility' of great sacrifice.
Pretty much. You're not acting to frustrate the natural end of your own faculty just because that end does not end up being realized. It's your moral act that is subject to judgment, because you have reason. You act contrary to reason when you do two things 1) use a natural faculty you have and 2) try to frustrate the natural end of that act. When you have sex with a spouse who happens to be infertile, the situation that causes the faculty to fail to achieve its natural end is not something you have done or even willed, so you have not acted contrary to reason.
I don't even think it's wrong to marry an infertile person knowing children are practically impossible so long as you are actually lovingly committed to that person, willing and able to have sexual relations with them, and open to any children who may miraculously be conceived. But if you are just marrying someone to obtain sexual release from their body, that kind of lust could destroy charity and cause you to fail to live up to the unitive end of marriage even if they are fertile. But I'm not an expert.
I like Feser quite a bit. But I wonder what he would say about the use of pacifiers with babies. It would seem that they frustrate the natural ends of the child. Is it okay to use one, or no? The only answer that I could conjure on the fly is that the child is not a morally responsible being yet, so it's not wrong *per se* for the child to use the pacifier- but from the parents' end, is it okay to give your child the pacifier? I'm (humorously) imagining the doctrine between doing and allowing being relevant here ("well he found the pacifier that we just happened to set in his crib! We didn't make him use it, but we allow him to.")
How does a pacifier frustrate the natural end?
its clear that these people only refer to this type of abstract reasoning when they have no pragmatic ethical arguments against doing such things (in this case sex for a purpose other than procreation), and they don't follow these abstract logical conclusions to their true ends.
For example; eating candy would be always evil, because the real purpose of eating is for nourishment, not pleasure on it's own.
Or doing a hand stand, since your hands are made for holding/grabbing things, not walking like your feet.
You would be hard-pressed to find a Catholic natural law theorist who would actually say this, though. There is, of course, the vice of gluttony which concerns, not the desire for the pleasure of food per se, but an *inordinate* desire for the pleasure of food.
And the point about a *pragmatic ethical argument* is moot. Do you mean pragmatic as in following the school of pragmatism? Then of course natural law theory wouldn't have recourse to such reasoning.
@@Unclenate1000 Not at all. You're confusing the distinction between using a faculty for an end *other than* its natural one, and using it for some end *contrary to* it. You haven't shown that 'eating candy' is contrary to this end.
Your example about standing on your hands is even worse, for the same reason.
But even supposing you did that your examples succeeded, that wouldn't suffice to show that these acts are *gravely* wrong, rather than only little evils which can be tolerated to an extent...
@@paradoxo9111 who is to say the end of eating is nourishment? Different types of food are made with different ends in mind, Candy for pleasure, though a steak and salad is for nourishment. If we speak of sex, nature's end is a child, the pleasure associated with the act is simply nature's way to urge animals to engage in it.
Q&A... the sound is terrible
would a celibate homosexual relationship be ok?
Well...it wouldn't be sexual would it? A celibate homophilic? relationship would probably be ok. If you were actually celibate. Seems like a risk
Yes
No because you have emotional faculties as well. Romantic and sexual desires have an end as well. Sexual desire is ordered towards getting us to engage in sexual activity that results in reproduction. Romantic feelings are ordered towards getting men and women to stay together and take care of children. Thus willfully directing your romantic and sexual faculties towards someone of the same sex is contrary to the purpose of sexual and romantic feelings and is therefore immoral on natural law theory.
@@MattNorth9811
homosexuals can be friends lol
any relationship without sex or lust is just a friendship or fellowship no matter how strong it is
@@MZONE991 Friends yes. It just can't be romantic or sexual, on natural law theory.
I’d be interested in how this guy might defend celibacy-intentionally frustrating the natural act of reproduction by choosing not to.
Can’t misuse what you don’t use.
Did you not listen to the first 30 minutes? He defines "perversion of the faculty" so as to exclude *disuse*; it only includes *contrary use*
@@awelotta well isn't that convenient. it's almost like the entire system is made up to justify a pre-selected conclusion...
@@aisthpaoitht precisely what it is. its all abstract rule-making thats just guised in this eloquent sounding framework. and probably done to retroactively fit in what they already want to believe is immoral, even though this has no bearing on real pragmatic ethics
And what of sterile heterosexual couples? People can take a sense of completion and bonding and have that as a sexual end even when procreation is not possible. If Natural Law would not prohibit sterile heterosexual married couples from engaging in biologically "futile" sex, why treat homosexual couples any differently?
+Andrew Jeffery Because homosexual couples, by the nature of their relationship, cannot procreate, whereas an infertile heterosexual couple is not infertile by nature but by accident, through an external factor (disease, injury, etc.). So the act of sex between an infertile couple is still procreative in nature even if the end of procreation cannot be realized.
In cannon law surgical sterilization, or concealed knowledge of infertility gained before marriage, can be ground for an annulment. Additionally the inability to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment.
Cannon law is pretty irrelevant. I quite consciously married a post-menopausal bride.
that is called a false equivocation fallacy. they are conflating meaning to mislead the audience. btw, homosexuality would still be natural by that definition as well.
louis cyfer are you fucking stupid? Did you ever read classical philosophy? You didn’t.
Some people do get treatments (surgery?) done so they don't sweat anymore in their under arms. Just worth noting on the whole anti-antiperspirant thing; his rebuttal doesn't seem to include such decisions.
Ten and half minutes in and all he does is say "Nature" when he really means "God" instead.
it really is just a fancy, nuanced Devine command theory view of ethics; don't masturbate, etc, because "nature" says so, instead of God.
Woosh
@@Unclenate1000 It's nowhere near Divine Command Theory as you can determine the natural end of most things without making direct reference to God. It also escapes the is/ought problem you're trying to imply, we don't have to follow it because "nature" says so. We have to follow it because reason and will also have teleology of their own. Reason determines what is good by determining the nature of things. The purpose of the will is to choose the good that reason determined rather than go contrary to it.
Being contrary to nature isn't "disobeying a command" it's stating something like 2+2=5.
Wrong
Hmm... yes. But it's not such a bad thing to restate traditional beliefs in neutral terms. I'm thinking that it's like, axiomitization in mathematics.
In the end this really nothing more than ethics based on abstract rule-making to try and rationalized pre-existing religious views on sexual practice. One of the reasons why consequentialism is logically superior.
By this logic, it is intrinsically evil to, for example, do a handstand or eat sweets; since the hands are made with the end of grabbing and holding things, not walking, while the main purpose of eating is nourishment, not simply eating for pleasure alone.
Now you can see how dumb it sounds to assert that sterile sexual acts are evil simply because they go outside of the original "purpose" of sex. It's just abstract rule-making; following a norm for it's own sake. Not real ethics where actions are judged on a cause / effect basis like they should be.
and his rebuttal of the counterarguments like the ones i noted fails horribly. There's no reason why contraception, masturbation and sodomy can't be interpreted as using the sexual faculty simply for a different purpose as opposed to "frustrating" and "going against" the primary end. It's all just word play.
This is a silly straw-man argument. Can you find a natural law theorist who would actually say these things?
You would still be eating the sweets. I think a better analogy would be putting food in your mouth, chewing, but never swallowing. As long as you eat the sweets I don't see how it's not nourishment? Also doing a handstand or temporarily walking on your hands doesn't quite hold up but I see your point. My rebuttal would be part of having a body is developing strength and coordination, both of those activities contributes to that. I don't think a handstand would qualify as sinning. Finally I think you're getting the order backwards. Good luck on your journey for truth.
@@veritawesome That is not the point, to the contraty, if there really where natural law theorist who would say these things his point would have less merit.
@@markbirmingham6011 What about chewing gum?
The rules of love.
Proper sex education from an early age will be what prepares and protects our children. Not lying to them and hiding them from truths of the world.
He's all about that straight sex but then he delivers this speech with his shirt unbuttoned all low. MIXED SIGNALS.
Such a strange introduction 😄
Idk how he expects me to care about these facts more than about the fact that it’s so much fun
its just long-winded, eloquent sounding, abstract rules made for their own sake... or in this case made for the sake of reinforcing preconceived religious beliefs about sex retroactively... with no real reference to actual pragmatic ethics
15:21 Huhuhuhuh....sex
Beavis and Butthead do Philosophy
You are good at name calling (ad hominem). What is your argument (ad rem)?
CAN I BUY LISA ANN'S NEW PRODUCTS?!
I would like to ask Feser how he does'nt feel ashamed of creating six children who could, for all he knows, potentially end up in Hell. It would be better to sterilize oneself and have sex that way than to procreate, in the Catholic worldview, due to such infinitely horrible possible consequences.
We are expected to reproduce because Jesus called us to populate Heaven with His children so they might know His love. It is an act of charity and justice to give children the opportunity to know and to love God. It's up to the parents to teach them how and do everything in their power to guide their kids to Heaven. If the kids end up in Hell, it would be because they or their parents exercised their God-given freewill to make the wrong decisions. It's a Modernist worldview, not a Catholic one, that would say it's better to avoid life or to kill it than to run the risk of them going to Hell.
Evidently he believes that his children could only end up in Hell if they deserve it.
I like bonovo sexuality : Procreation and pleasure
First of all, who cares about nature's purposes? Nature doesn't care us, for she allows animals to be tortured, starved, eaten, fatherless, motherless, etc. Birth control for the win...which you guys allow anyway in the form of NFP.
Second, it only takes one word to refute Catholicism: desire. All our voluntary actions are based on what we desire to do. One cannot 'choose' one's desires, and even if one could, they'd arise from nothingness or from what one desires to desire. What one desires to desire would arise from darkness or from what one desires to desire to desire. One's third-order desire would be random or based on what one desires to desire to desire to desire.
There is no free will, there is no moral responsibility, and hence no reason for punishment. Atheism is true. You're welcome.
nailed it, most especially with pointing out their contradiction with contraception and NFP
One word refutes Catholicism .....DESIRE .
I assume that you believe this because people have the desire for sex wihich you think justifies gratuitous sexual activity .. Well most people desire other feeling too but are not justified for the mere disregard that arises from those feelings . This why Murder is wrong as an expression of hatred . So I suppose according to your understanding , we shouldn't punish people who murder others because they are only acting out their desire
Meta-character “there is no free will” (when you disconsider free will as a limited free will, limited by biological and neuroscientific limits, but still observed since the earlies times)
“There is no moral responsibility” (yes, so if we finally measured the “dimensions” of free will, and they do not seem enough for my judgement of how and how much punishment is fair, such as none, and how much of our brains (us) are actually responsible for our own mistakes and impacts, I can say there is not moral respondability)
“Punishment is irrational” (yes, no coercion, magically organized societies, happy life)
“Atheism is the right answer” (no metaphysical or mystical events are actually real, because we did investigated any claimed one to understand its just fake, or know we have the absolute truth due to probability and logic derived methods).
Even the French feel better than this. Baseless BS. And SOMEHOW I must comply to your Anglo post analytic, new atheistic, unfairly coercive, sage like, intolerant, oppressive and imperialistic neo enlightenment (and even the world slowly give out power to the same Anglo ethicists, law theorists and whatever with few actually seeing it, not bringing any risks within it, why would it), otherwise you play me as stupid or as a threat to humanism.
Fuck you.
@@eduds6 I believe moral responsibility can exist without free will. If fate degreed someone stab my mom, I'd still want the person to go to prison so that others would hear about it and think twice before stabbing someone so that they don't do that and end up the same way. I'm not the only or first person to think this way.
@@michaelflores9220 Yes but you are far from the only who would know about a lack of free will, in the way that most people could misunderstand the implications of it, either ethical or behavioral, sociopolitical...
Anyway, I'm not someone who believes in that.
You can find critiques of the content of the lecture here: spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/why-old-natural-law-ethics-edward.html
i read it, and most of the objections were strawmans of the natural law position, incredulity fallacy, and false analogies.
Foremost, thank you for reading, but I still believe that the natural law described by Feser only works within a very specific theological-philosophical paradigm. And that paradigm, I admit, may well be true. Who knows? But outside it, no one will take Feser seriously. For me, teleology is still only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for natural law.@@eapooda