Perhaps I’m under thinking this but I don’t find the Diet Coke example convincing because its primary purpose is hydration. In fact you can derive 100% of your fluid hydration from Diet Coke if you so choose.
Things don't taste good or bad solely because of their nutritious value, so it is ridiculous in the first place to say that enjoying certain flavors that do not provide nutrients is a perversion of your faculties. Things can taste good in different ways, in ways such that we have a hard time treating them as scalars. Because taste serves as a way of differentiation, rather than just evaluation, it is possible for certain flavors to be "beautiful". We like certain things because they are complex, not just because they are fatty or sugary. Sometimes, even bitterness is good. Humans have been using bitter medicines for thousands of years now, and sometimes we even like bitteriness in our drinks, even though it likely evolved to stop us from consuming poison. Sourness also, can be both good and bad in different contexts... There's nothing wrong with enjoying a tasty drink, there is something wrong with becoming attached to that drink for unproductive reasons... There are many people out there who drink so much flavored drinks, that they don't like water anymore, and I would consider this a perversion. Similar to how psychologists differentiate between a fetish/paraphilia and a penchant based on how much the subject's attachment to it makes ordinary sexual desire more difficult. However, it must be clarified that sexual ecstasy is not like taste. You may be attracted to many different kinds of things, but the sensation is entirely internal and is fundamentally always the same.
Homosexuality is wrong for multiple reasons, not solely because it is unproductive sexual behavior. It runs contrary to the human form. The human male body and its organs are designed complementary to the human female body and its organs. It is not just a perversion of sex drive but of the entire form of the human body itself. It is disgusting.
The case against diet coke and cycle tracking seems obvious, the one for drugs was... a lot better than I expected? I think stimulants for productivity is already the consequentialist reasoning from later sneaking in - being tired has its natural functions, too. The unnatural pleasure that comes with drug exploration can be permissible under double effect doctrine, but propably should count as a negative in the consequentialist version. I do think that psychedelics can also produce a feeling of fake insight, frustrating natural curiosity, which makes the argument for them at least very dangerous.
Note that a ruined orgasm usually does produce ejaculation and potentially reproduction - its the pleasure response thats broken. Still violates natural law in the other direction, but isnt analogous to cycle tracking.
>According to Natural Law proponents, the purpose of sex is reproduction and therefore masturbation, homosexuality, artificial contraception and coitus interruptus are morally wrong.
No, it's also for human bonding, but you can't defy the potential for reproduction from said bonding. JPII's "Love and Responsibility" talks about this in length.
Keep reading on Natural Law. There's a lot of good stuff there.
I like wine not because of its social lubrication but because the complex flavors complement a well prepared meal. Often I drink a single glass with a meal, which has no noticeable intoxicating effect. I’d say the telos of fine wine is accompanying a good meal.
Which means that drinking wine alone is morally required.
I find it hard to believe that a single glass of wine has no noticeable intoxicating effect. Are you saying that you feel no effect at all from the wine - you feel the same as if you had drank a glass of water? Or are you using the word intoxication differently?
Probably not exactly the same as a glass of water, but it’s quite subtle. Now if I were to shotgun a nine ounce pour of wine, I suppose I could feel it. But my example was a glass consumed over time with a meal. Under those circumstances, the taste of the wine; the complexity of flavors, and the way those flavors compliment (and are complimented by) the flavors of the meal are what is important— the telos, if you will, of the wine. The intoxication is minimal.
Ultimately, I think the whole “natural law” idea is just a way for Catholics to rationalize opposition to sex they find icky. Diet Coke and sugarless gum are just examples of the theory breaking down. Sex between married couples, one of whom is sterile, is another.
Your example of drinking alone stuck in my craw, in part because I’m an aficionado of wine and food. Obviously, if my wife goes out of town on business and I down shots of tequila until passing out, it suggests a problem. If I have a single glass of wine paired with short ribs for dinner — a good Shiraz, say — it’s less so.
That seems orthogonal to my point about wine drinking alone. Are you conceding that in some cases, drinking wine paired with a meal alone can be acceptable?
As to your hypothetical, I think it’s disgusting. It also seems to me to be a form of self-mutilation, which I oppose. However, it’s possible that this is motivated reasoning on my part. Just like the Catholics who oppose whacking off.
By the way, do you know the “official” natural law/Catholic position on whether it’s ok for a married couple to continue conjugal relations after the female partner undergoes menopause? I genuinely don’t know what they say, and I’m curious.
I never claimed to be a Great Moral Philosopher! I’ve read lots of people who claim they can build a Moral Philosophy from the ground up, and I never find those attempts particularly successful.
I agree that my objection to the tattoo example could be motivated reasoning on my part. However, to the extent I have a moral philosophy, I’d call it Rand-influence self actualization with side constraints for rights violations of third parties. So I’d say to develop your best self with the constraint that you can’t violate the rights of others. So if your best expression of your self is to be an artist or poet or welder or plumber, go for it. If it’s to be the best serial killer ever, then you have to skip the self-actualization.
Within that framework, I object to self-mutilation. And that’s consistent with my observation of humans — the more tats and piercings, the more messed up people seem to be.
I agree with your reasoning, except on marijuana. Based on my experiences with weed, it also tricks the brain's circuits into having an artificial experience of your own intellectualism or creativity that does not align with reality.
I actually like the taste of Diet Coke, regular Coke tastes revolting to me. I also like black coffee, sugar and sweetener completely ruins the taste for me, ditto for milk. Is my meta-preference for bitter caffeinated drinks intrinsically disordered?
Libertarian defending drug use. More at 11. In all seriousness though NFP is pretty controversial so people arguing against it have a point (though the people that do are usually hardcore hedonists so their criticisms seem hollow).
Perhaps I’m under thinking this but I don’t find the Diet Coke example convincing because its primary purpose is hydration. In fact you can derive 100% of your fluid hydration from Diet Coke if you so choose.
Things don't taste good or bad solely because of their nutritious value, so it is ridiculous in the first place to say that enjoying certain flavors that do not provide nutrients is a perversion of your faculties. Things can taste good in different ways, in ways such that we have a hard time treating them as scalars. Because taste serves as a way of differentiation, rather than just evaluation, it is possible for certain flavors to be "beautiful". We like certain things because they are complex, not just because they are fatty or sugary. Sometimes, even bitterness is good. Humans have been using bitter medicines for thousands of years now, and sometimes we even like bitteriness in our drinks, even though it likely evolved to stop us from consuming poison. Sourness also, can be both good and bad in different contexts... There's nothing wrong with enjoying a tasty drink, there is something wrong with becoming attached to that drink for unproductive reasons... There are many people out there who drink so much flavored drinks, that they don't like water anymore, and I would consider this a perversion. Similar to how psychologists differentiate between a fetish/paraphilia and a penchant based on how much the subject's attachment to it makes ordinary sexual desire more difficult. However, it must be clarified that sexual ecstasy is not like taste. You may be attracted to many different kinds of things, but the sensation is entirely internal and is fundamentally always the same.
Homosexuality is wrong for multiple reasons, not solely because it is unproductive sexual behavior. It runs contrary to the human form. The human male body and its organs are designed complementary to the human female body and its organs. It is not just a perversion of sex drive but of the entire form of the human body itself. It is disgusting.
The case against diet coke and cycle tracking seems obvious, the one for drugs was... a lot better than I expected? I think stimulants for productivity is already the consequentialist reasoning from later sneaking in - being tired has its natural functions, too. The unnatural pleasure that comes with drug exploration can be permissible under double effect doctrine, but propably should count as a negative in the consequentialist version. I do think that psychedelics can also produce a feeling of fake insight, frustrating natural curiosity, which makes the argument for them at least very dangerous.
Note that a ruined orgasm usually does produce ejaculation and potentially reproduction - its the pleasure response thats broken. Still violates natural law in the other direction, but isnt analogous to cycle tracking.
>According to Natural Law proponents, the purpose of sex is reproduction and therefore masturbation, homosexuality, artificial contraception and coitus interruptus are morally wrong.
No, it's also for human bonding, but you can't defy the potential for reproduction from said bonding. JPII's "Love and Responsibility" talks about this in length.
Keep reading on Natural Law. There's a lot of good stuff there.
I like wine not because of its social lubrication but because the complex flavors complement a well prepared meal. Often I drink a single glass with a meal, which has no noticeable intoxicating effect. I’d say the telos of fine wine is accompanying a good meal.
Which means that drinking wine alone is morally required.
I find it hard to believe that a single glass of wine has no noticeable intoxicating effect. Are you saying that you feel no effect at all from the wine - you feel the same as if you had drank a glass of water? Or are you using the word intoxication differently?
Probably not exactly the same as a glass of water, but it’s quite subtle. Now if I were to shotgun a nine ounce pour of wine, I suppose I could feel it. But my example was a glass consumed over time with a meal. Under those circumstances, the taste of the wine; the complexity of flavors, and the way those flavors compliment (and are complimented by) the flavors of the meal are what is important— the telos, if you will, of the wine. The intoxication is minimal.
Ultimately, I think the whole “natural law” idea is just a way for Catholics to rationalize opposition to sex they find icky. Diet Coke and sugarless gum are just examples of the theory breaking down. Sex between married couples, one of whom is sterile, is another.
Your example of drinking alone stuck in my craw, in part because I’m an aficionado of wine and food. Obviously, if my wife goes out of town on business and I down shots of tequila until passing out, it suggests a problem. If I have a single glass of wine paired with short ribs for dinner — a good Shiraz, say — it’s less so.
What do you think about people who have scales tattooed on their face and horns implanted in their head?
That seems orthogonal to my point about wine drinking alone. Are you conceding that in some cases, drinking wine paired with a meal alone can be acceptable?
As to your hypothetical, I think it’s disgusting. It also seems to me to be a form of self-mutilation, which I oppose. However, it’s possible that this is motivated reasoning on my part. Just like the Catholics who oppose whacking off.
By the way, do you know the “official” natural law/Catholic position on whether it’s ok for a married couple to continue conjugal relations after the female partner undergoes menopause? I genuinely don’t know what they say, and I’m curious.
I'm not a Catholic, but I believe they say it is permissible to continue conjugal relations after menopause.
I'm not conceding the acceptability of wine alone.
It's hard for me to see how you could oppose self-mutilation on a non-natural-law basis.
By the way, why do you object to my wine analysis? In the framework of natural law analysis I mean
And if it’s immoral for a woman to give her husband a hummer, why wouldn’t it also be immoral for him to nail his post-menopausal wife.
I never claimed to be a Great Moral Philosopher! I’ve read lots of people who claim they can build a Moral Philosophy from the ground up, and I never find those attempts particularly successful.
I agree that my objection to the tattoo example could be motivated reasoning on my part. However, to the extent I have a moral philosophy, I’d call it Rand-influence self actualization with side constraints for rights violations of third parties. So I’d say to develop your best self with the constraint that you can’t violate the rights of others. So if your best expression of your self is to be an artist or poet or welder or plumber, go for it. If it’s to be the best serial killer ever, then you have to skip the self-actualization.
Within that framework, I object to self-mutilation. And that’s consistent with my observation of humans — the more tats and piercings, the more messed up people seem to be.
I agree with your reasoning, except on marijuana. Based on my experiences with weed, it also tricks the brain's circuits into having an artificial experience of your own intellectualism or creativity that does not align with reality.
Simon, high off his nut on weed sitting in underwear in his bedroom: ‘lol football is stupid, amirite?’
I actually like the taste of Diet Coke, regular Coke tastes revolting to me. I also like black coffee, sugar and sweetener completely ruins the taste for me, ditto for milk. Is my meta-preference for bitter caffeinated drinks intrinsically disordered?
No, though the use of concentrated sugar might be disordered.
So my consumption of Diet Coke and black sugarless coffee is not morally suspect?
The consumption of black coffee is fine. The consumption of Diet Coke is morally suspect.
I don’t see why it should be in my case since I genuinely enjoy the bitter taste of artificial sweeteners found in Diet Coke.
Libertarian defending drug use. More at 11. In all seriousness though NFP is pretty controversial so people arguing against it have a point (though the people that do are usually hardcore hedonists so their criticisms seem hollow).
And condemning solitary alcohol use.