• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Edward Feser's argument for the immorality of sex (that doesn't result in reproduction)

Dekusta said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is clear that no animal and no plant exists for any purpose other than of reproducing itself; therefore, it cannot possibly be good for us to use them in any other way, whether an individual person thinks it is or not.

Meaning, don't eat no animal and no plant. Just reproduce them.

Come to think of it, I don't see anything that clearly exists for the purpose of feeding us. Whatever anyone thinks about the matter.
EB
 
It is clear that all features of our body exists because their function is to help us survive in the environment in which we live. To use any feature of our body other than that is very bad. So we shouldn't watch television for entertaining ourselves, only for the purpose of steering us away from suicide or for learning about the grand mysteries of the creation if, and only if, this is absolutely necessary to ensure our survival. We should never eat cakes unless there's really nothing else in the fridge and all the shops in a 100-mile radius are closed. We shouldn't read to entertain ourselves, only to help us survive in our environment. Uh, I'm somewhat at a loss to find any useful way to read the Bible. Well, maybe it's the only method you know to find a mate or steer clear of suicide. So, only in these two cases should you read the Bible. Although it is clear that the purpose of the Bible is not to ensure we survive. Rather, it is to make sure we go to Heaven.

Some common-sense commandements:
Don't pick your nose or scratch your bottom unless you can prove it's a life-saving technique;
Don't do anything at all unless doing nothing would makes you mad enough to jump off a ten-story building;
Don't argue with me unless it's for the sake of your life;
Don't change the subject unless it is about how you are going to die sooner or later;
Don't do nothing unless doing anything at all would kill you on the spot;
Don't live in America if you are black.
Don't understand anything if it should lead to your possible death by adventure;
Don't look at me (you never know, it may be dangerous);
Don't stop people walk all over you unless you're sure it is safe to do so;
Don't live because this is a sure way of catching your death;
Don't do this and don't do that it's ennoying and people will kill you if you keep doing it;
Don't submit to any commandement unless you are in fear of your life.
Don't go thinking this is the end of the list! It's not.
EB
 
bilby said:
If we consider the structure of the human hand and the eating of a banana as a process beginning with grasping and ending in swallowing, it is clear that its biological function, its final cause, is to feed bananas to people. That is why the hand and banana are shaped the way they are, why the mouth secretes saliva during mastication, and so forth … The point of the process is not just to get banana out of the peel, but also into the human, and into one place in the human in particular.

It is therefore immoral to use one's hands for any purpose other than the consumption of bananas.

QED.
Click to expand...

Or male masturbation.

It is not licit to be without either eating bananas or masturbating at any given time.
 
Dekusta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the whole thread, but this seems like a weird and invalid argument.

It's like saying that because chairs are designed to be sat on, it cannot possibly be good to use them to stand on to get something from a high shelf. Just because something was designed for one purpose doesn't mean it cannot be used for other equally valid purposes.
 
Dekusta said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does (Con)Feser hold that post-menopausal women shouldn't have sex/ that the withdrawal method and other, more reliable, forms of birth control are wrong?
 
Dekusta said:
"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. ".
Click to expand...
[emphasis mine]

So he's saying it's immoral for men to urinate with their penis?

[edit:I see Bilby has already pointed this out]
 
The penis not engorged with blood isn't of much sexual use so not really a sexual organ when being used to pea unless one is peeing right after a dream where the penis is engorged and the urge to pee dominates.

Shave them off and there are no hairs to split.
 
That's what struck me at three o'clock in the morning when i got up to pee.
The pee-nis is not a single-function part, so it's silly to pretend to have divined it's single true purpose from one of the functions.
I also imagined a picture of me displaying the pee-function of the pee-nis would look pretty fucking silly at 0300. Disheveled, unshaven, bleary-eyed, overweight and mostly undressed.

A poster for that would not convince anyone that God wanted us to only pee with our pee-nis. It might help some people with their weight control for a while. That image would put me off my feed, and i know the guy.

Somehow i suspect a billboard ad campaign of Edward Feser demonstrating what he feels is the one divine purpose God wants us to put the pee-nis to would not be convincing too too many people traveling our once proud highway system.
 
Dekusta said:
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]
Click to expand...

Penises and vaginas are not just sex organs. They are also used for urination. Or is urinating immoral?

I would also point out that not all sexual acts involve penis-vagina intercourse. Also sex does not always end in an orgasm.
 
It looks like we have the basic logical flaw down - that just because something is designed for purpose A, does not imply it is not designed for, or should not be used for, purpose B. So urinating is not sinful, and recreational sex is not less an intended design function for design features intended for procreation.

The argument also fails on the facts - why does it take so long, and so much energy and effort to procreate, if the intention is simply gamete transfer. All that fun has a purpose, and that's bound up in the social structures of humans. Or to put it another way, the fact that you don't conceive every time you have sex is a design feature, and thus recreational sex is more of an intended purpose for the penis and the vagina than precreation is. Or to put it another way, chastity in general, and social pressure towards chaste behaviour, is a violation of God's will. He gave you the equipment for a reason, and by refusing to use it for anything other than procreation, you're spitting on his plan, and by extension, on God.

If they don't like the way that argument turns out, maybe they weren't really following the logic in the first place
 
Last edited:
Togo said:
It looks like we have the basic logical flaw down - that just because something is designed for purpose A, does not imply it is not designed for, or should not be used for, purpose B. So urinating is not sinful, and recreational sex is not less an intended design function for design features intended for procreation.

The argument also fails on the facts - why does it take so long, and so much energy and effort to procreate, if the intention is simply gamete transfer. All that fun has a purpose, and that's bound up in the social structures of humans. Or to put it another way, the fact that you don't conceive every time you have sex is a design feature, and thus recreational sex is more of an intended purpose for the penis and the vagina than precreation is. Or to put it another way, chastity in general, and social pressure towards chaste behaviour, is a violation of God's will. He gave you the equipment for a reason, and by refusing to use it for anything other than procreation, you're spitting on his plan, and by extension, on God.

If they don't like the way that argument turns out, maybe they weren't really following the logic in the first place
Click to expand...

I think the flaw is even more basic than that: even if it were the case that God specifically designed something for purpose A, that in itself does not make it immoral to use it for purpose B. If somehow, it were irrefutably proven that God only wants sex organs to be used for procreation between males and females, it would be no less moral to disobey his command than it would be to disobey a bully's command to give you his lunch money. It is hard to defend the notion that adherence to the will of a powerful person is what makes behaviors praiseworthy, and conversely that "spitting on his plan" is automatically a moral transgression; as if power grants moral wisdom by definition. We need only to look at totalitarian regimes, many of which have the same problem with homosexuals as God, to see why might doesn't make right. Use your sex organs any way you want if it doesn't hurt anybody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom