Dekusta
New member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2015
- Messages
- 48
- Location
- Goiânia
- Basic Beliefs
- Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
Hey. As I've been continuing my studies on medieval scholastic, Aristotle's principles and so forth, I saw this argument written by Edward Feser:
"If we consider the structure of the sexual organs and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its biological function, its final cause, is to get semen into the vagina. That is why the penis and vagina are shaped the way they are, why the vagina secretes lubrication during sexual arousal, and so forth … The point of the process is not just to get semen out of the male, but also into the female, and into one place in the female in particular. [144]
It cannot possibly be good for us to use them in any other way, whether an individual person thinks it is or not. "
I wanted to see your opinions on it. Feser's God is obviously the God from classical theism, and defined in terms of pure actuality. I don't think this thread is suited for a discussion on Thomism, though, so if I may ask, keep the discussion on the logical structure of the argument.
My opinion is that this argument is not valid, which means the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but if we add that it was a morally perfect being who created us with our nature, then things might get different.
"If we consider the structure of the sexual organs and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its biological function, its final cause, is to get semen into the vagina. That is why the penis and vagina are shaped the way they are, why the vagina secretes lubrication during sexual arousal, and so forth … The point of the process is not just to get semen out of the male, but also into the female, and into one place in the female in particular. [144]
It cannot possibly be good for us to use them in any other way, whether an individual person thinks it is or not. "
I wanted to see your opinions on it. Feser's God is obviously the God from classical theism, and defined in terms of pure actuality. I don't think this thread is suited for a discussion on Thomism, though, so if I may ask, keep the discussion on the logical structure of the argument.
My opinion is that this argument is not valid, which means the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but if we add that it was a morally perfect being who created us with our nature, then things might get different.