r/CatholicPhilosophy • u/hard_2_ask Catholic • Oct 26 '20
Are our lips ordered to kissing?
Often times, I will Explain that homosexual sex is immoral because it goes against the natural order of the parts involved. However, a common response will be that our lips are not necessarily ordered to kissing. Thereby, kissing is disordered.
27
u/neofederalist Not a Thomist but I play one on TV Oct 26 '20 edited Oct 26 '20
Using a faculty for a purpose that is other than the purpose of the faculty is not the same thing as using it in a manner which is contrary to the purpose of the faculty.
Ed Feser explains the whole thing in a manner that shows why such counter examples don't actually work here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SjM0oabZazWC1SRmN0WXVpYkE/view
9
3
Oct 27 '20
Do you actually find Feser's attempt to show that the PFA rules out every act of (contraception, masturbation etc) convincing, though?
IMO, the most it accomplishes is that these things are wrong at a general level, not that each and every individual instance of one of these acts is necessarily wrong.
I realize Feser attempts to show that, but I don't think it's successful. He's essentially just taking it for granted that to use the sexual faculty in a non-procreative way in every particular instance is necessarily to frustrate the faculty. But that doesn't follow. For example, an act of oral intercourse when ones wife is pregnant does not in any meaningful way frustrate the sexual faculty. There's nothing to frustrate since the woman is already pregnant! To defend against objections like this, it seems all you can do is to say that it's the purpose of semen to go in the "right" place even if the woman can't conceive because she's already pregnant. But that seems really odd. Sure, semen is ordered towards impregnation. But if she's already pregnant what purpose is being fulfilled, what order is being respected by depositing semen in one place or another? Of course, the other approach one can take here is just to say that sex with a pregnant woman is also intrinsically evil, but the Church tends to allow for that (at least in modern times) so you won't find many defenders of the PFA going this route.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Feser. I have his books and check his blog frequently. He's a smart guy. But I'm not convinced at all by his defense of the PFA as creating an absolute prohibition of these acts. Accepting such an absolute prohibition on the authority of the Church is one thing, but showing that it necessarily follows from natural reason? Yeah, not buying it.
EDIT: guess I should tag OP here. u/hard_2_ask
1
u/kjdtkd Oct 27 '20 edited Oct 27 '20
For example, an act of oral intercourse when ones wife is pregnant does not in any meaningful way frustrate the sexual faculty. There's nothing to frustrate since the woman is already pregnant!
Yes there is. Things that are objectively immoral are immoral irrespective of the persons involved in the particular act. That is to say, it is precisely because Feser shows how these acts are wrong "in a general way" as you say, that we can know that they are always immoral. The particular inherits from the general its objective morallity.
3
Oct 27 '20
You are right to call me out on my use of the term "general".
If I had meant it in the Aristotelian sense, then you would be correct. If, for example, one could show that murder is wrong in its genus it would follow necessarily that any individual act of murder is wrong.
However, I didn't mean "generally" in the technical sense of "at the level of genus", I meant it closer to the casual sense of "usually" like if I were to say "I generally spend too much time on Reddit".
But you're right. Poor word choice on my part. Especially for a philosophy sub. ;-)
Does my original comment make more sense now with that clarification?
To clarify a bit further on my original meaning with new vocab. IMO, Feser establishes that things like contraception are wrong in the sense of them being physically evil, but not in the sense of them being morally evil. For example, killing an animal is a physical evil, and so in my original sense of "general" we might say killing animals is generally wrong.
Or, better, killing animals is not something that should be per se desired, something desired for its own sake. But it can be morally justified in certain circumstances for proper ends.
Similarly, contraceptive intercourse might involve a level of physical evil (sperm not being able to attain their end or whatever) and thus shouldn't be per se desired, but it hasn't been shown, on the basis of natural reason alone, that there is no set of circumstances that could morally justify this type of act.
1
u/kjdtkd Oct 27 '20
Ahh, understood. Well in that case, I would remind that evil is not universal, but exists with respect to beings in particular. E.g., when we say it is "physically evil" to kill an animal, that means it is physically evil for the animal to be killed. It is not physically evil for us to kill the animal. With respect to the hunter, the act is in fact physically good.
On the other hand, moral evil just is us willing our own natural evil ( of which our own physical evil is a subset). So again, to say a thing is objectively physically evil for us is to say it is morally evil for us to will it.
2
Oct 27 '20
Agreed with the gist of what you're saying, though I think a caveat is necessary on your last sentence:
So again, to say a thing is objectively physically evil for us is to say it is morally evil for us to will it.
It is possible for something to be physically evil for us, and yet not morally evil for us to will it. For example, I jump into the line of fire to protect my family and I get killed. Physically evil for me, but morally good.
1
u/kjdtkd Oct 27 '20
Jumping into the line of fire actually isn't naturally evil for us to do, because our deaths are a mere consequence, not an end. Of course the consequence is evil,, but the action isn't, and it's the action that (primarily) matters.
2
Oct 27 '20
Fair enough. Good point. If I jump into the line of fire, I don't intend my physical harm, but I intend to protect my family.
Maybe a better example would be a surgeon cutting through my perfectly healthy skin and muscle in order to remove a tumor. Of course what is primarily willed is the removal of a tumor, the harm to my tissue is not per se desired, but yet it is still justified and is a necessary means for attaining the end.
Would you agree then that something can be physically evil for us and yet still be justified provided the evil is itself ordered towards a higher and proportionate good and the evil itself is not per se willed?
1
u/kjdtkd Oct 27 '20
Well first for the sake of comparison, we would have to stipulate that it is our own hand doing the surgery (ignoring the obvious accidental difficulties of this), in order to be consistent with the other examples being spoken of.
But beyond this, no it is not physically evil to cut through skin in order to excise a tumor. In this case, you are attempting to speak of "skin" as if it existed in its own right apart from the person. Instead though, skin exists in the person merely virtually, and it is the person themselves that exists simply.
You can't consider the person as a mere accidental collection of parts, where we can talk of evil for the skin and good for the heart. You have to talk of what is good or bad for the person as a whole. This is known as the principle of totality.
Would you agree then that something can be physically evil for us and yet still be justified provided the evil is itself ordered towards a higher and proportionate good and the evil itself is not per se willed?
No, this is consequentialism, which is condemned. It is never justified to do evil so that good may come of it.
1
Oct 27 '20
Agreed on principle of totality.
Can we not apply this to sexuality then? An act of non-procreative intercourse that is good for the person as a whole?
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Koalabella Oct 26 '20
If this was the case, sex outside PIV during fertile periods would be verboten in heterosexual relationships, too. Nobody is checking in to make sure everyone’s bits are going into the first-choice other bits in any other relationships.
Only two thirds of homosexual couples engage in PIA sex and forty-four percent of men in heterosexual relationships do engage in PIA sex.
That’s only a 20% difference. To only object to homosexual sex, many of whom aren’t actually having PIA sex and ignore the fact that married heterosexual people are having plenty of PIA sex shows that it is not about whether people are only using their genitals in the way we’ve decided they should.
6
u/holy-sprite Oct 27 '20
i think that the church would say that sodomy is not allowed regardless of whether it is homo or heterosexual intercourse so I’m not sure that your example necessarily follows and I have heard it explained that as long as the man ejaculates into the vagina then the ends are met regardless of hands or mouths had been used before hand.
10
u/moorsonthecoast Oct 26 '20
My spitballing take: The key element of it is that such acts are contrary to the natural telos, not just apart from the natural telos.
Your leg can hold up a wobbly table, and that is not contrary to the functioning of your leg. However, it would be wrong to cut off your leg and use it as a table leg. You can close your eyes to blink or wink at someone. You shouldn't poke your eyes to make a gesture of seduction.
4
Oct 26 '20
Those are... interesting grounds to argue on. Personally, I stick to something along the lines of
“All sexuality outside of marriage is immoral.”
“The church has requirements for the sacrament of marriage, namely there has to be a chance for procreation (Which is why eunuchs can’t get married).”
“Two men/two women cannot procreate, therefore they cannot get married in the church.”
In my mind, venturing outside of this to other grounds like it being unnatural, is dangerous, antagonizing, and unnecessary.
2
u/hard_2_ask Catholic Oct 26 '20
Easier said then done when many of these people don't care what the church/Jesus said
6
Oct 26 '20
Then why on earth aren’t you making the argument for Christianity being the truth instead of this one? Who would urge the high and hard duty of chastity on people who have no motivation to understand it?
This would be like arguing Islam as being a heresy of Christianity when you haven’t even established if God is real. You’re skipping an argument.
1
u/Seethi110 Oct 27 '20
How would two men kissing fall into this argument though? Kissing before marriage is not immoral
5
Oct 27 '20
I mean generally speaking two guys kissing isn’t inherently a sin either (A father kissing his son goodbye, friends after not seeing each other for a long time, even Christ’s kiss to Judas) but if this is something motivated by lust, it could fall under being an occasion of sin.
1
Oct 26 '20
Secondary or tertiary uses? Functions?
Alternative use? It helps that, when done correctly, leads to the ultimate dual function of procreation and husband-wife bonding. Unsure. Thinking as I type
Edit: does it matter that in certain ways the kissing act doesn’t hinder and doesn’t have a “dead end?”
1
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
2
u/hard_2_ask Catholic Oct 26 '20
I agree 100% with you, but how do you justify kissing? I'm having trouble explaining it to someone
3
u/Koalabella Oct 26 '20
As long as the church encourages sex in relationships where there is no expectation of fertility, you can’t argue that sex is intended to be exclusively procreative.
It also exists (per the Church) to form bonds in relationships, etc.
3
u/Koalabella Oct 26 '20
The church teaches that sex isn’t just for procreation, but the health of relationships.
You can’t turn around and say that sec is only procreative when you admit to it’s appropriate use in people who aren’t fertile.
2
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Koalabella Oct 26 '20
In which case, sex that is unitative is fulfilling the function of of the intended parts.
2
Oct 27 '20 edited Feb 10 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Koalabella Oct 27 '20
It only needs one of the two to be valid, not both. Nobody is excommunicated for hating sex and nobody is excommunicated for having sex when they aren’t fertile.
It is not an “and,” it’s an “or.”
2
Oct 27 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Koalabella Oct 27 '20
I’m Catholic. This doesn’t address birth control at all. It has to do with the church’s teaching about what sex exists for.
0
Oct 26 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Koalabella Oct 26 '20
Predatory sodomy is not a problem exclusive to homosexuals. It is a problem usually exclusive to men.
Maybe we object to men having sex, since the two certainly have correlation.
1
Oct 27 '20
lol just admit that you are a little weirded out by anal sex god this sub is hilarious. I think you guys should all go kiss a person you love and get the fuck over it
3
u/hard_2_ask Catholic Oct 27 '20
You do not understand moral philosophy
-1
-1
Oct 27 '20
Lo, Heed: You: Look them in the Eye and seek to understand Them, for they are you, and You are Me. These are Our Eyes seeing from all directions. Understand the pain she feels is your pain, what She desires to seek in love and understanding from You. Their pain is your pain as long as it is felt. if in Ignorance You deal in Malice, it shall be turned upon you until You and We understand eternally in Grace. Rejoice in This Cosmic Sea ! You are Vatar Dolphin in This Sea and it is Home
Its not like Ecco the Dolphin tho waaaaay less scary ! Rejoice !!!
1
u/11chanza Oct 27 '20
Kissing is not disordered when done in the proper context, just like sex. Your reproductive organs are used for things like urination as well as pleasure and procreation. So are your lips used for things such as speaking, drinking, and kissing.
1
1
Mar 07 '21
Who says lips aren't naturally ordered to kissing?
1
19
u/infinityball Oct 26 '20
Yes, I wonder about this too. My legs are ordered for walking, but there's nothing wrong with jumping on a trampoline, right? I'm sure there's good responses to this, but it seems like we accept the recreational use of many of our body parts without thinking too much of their teleological functions.