The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction

Quote: FrGamble

My answer on how much a child is worth is inestimable and infinite.

Which means they're worth something
or nothing. What's the correct answer
to this question. Who's life is worth more,
an educated, successful, 40 year old doctor
who has devoted his life to finding new
drugs to help people. Or a 5 year old kid
who is nothing but potential, who has no
idea what the future holds.

The 40 year old doctor wins every time. His
life has far more value because we know
where he's going, we know what to expect.

So 'a child is worth is inestimable and infinite',
is kind of true. He's can be worth a lot, or
just be another burden on society. I'll put
my money on the doctor, thanks anyway.

Quote: FrGamble

Okay so you don't get it,...sigh.

Of course I get it:

It's "natural" when it's something you like, or when the deity of an ancient desert tribe says so or doesn't object. It's not "natural" when you don't like it, or when Jehovah thinks it's icky.

What you don't get is that it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests. Some of these actions, as to humans, are good, and some are not. "Natural" has as much moral content as "blue."

If you want to make a moral case against contraception, you may try something other than "It's not blue."

Quote: Nareed

Of course I get it:

It's "natural" when it's something you like, or when the deity of an ancient desert tribe says so or doesn't object. It's not "natural" when you don't like it, or when Jehovah thinks it's icky.

What you don't get is that it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests. Some of these actions, as to humans, are good, and some are not. "Natural" has as much moral content as "blue."

This has been an idea that has never "fit" into my head. Your statement, "it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests", hits me like the easiest truth. It fits every concept I know and believe, and just rings true to me. However, thinking of what we do as humans, and then adding your sentence, does give justification for acts of ours that I do not like and/or agree with.

It's a tough thing to do, reconciling these two ideas. Your truth is one for which I can find no argument. It therefore must be the thing from which you build your beliefs. Yet, something as simple as driving past the Buffalo waterfront causes a severe clash. Love Canal in the Falls, Peter Cooper in my hometown, I can't find the "nature" in stashing seriously toxic chemicals we've created into the land haphazardly. Even in trying to draw analogies between us and what I consider "natural" (to me, from nature), I find myself unable. What other living thing can cause so much damage, the scope of which can/has been widespread and/or complete? Additionally, what benefit to the rest do our actions supply? A deer, for example, might be "damaging" to the oak tree population, but it sure fertilizes other areas, still transports seeds in benefit to other flora. There seems to be a balance. Do our efforts and actions offset the damage we do?

I have never, and I mean never, felt like we are a net positive, or even close to even. Makes it really hard to reconcile what I know/believe with what I believe/know, if that makes sense =p

Quote: Nareed

What you don't get is that it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests. Some of these actions, as to humans, are good, and some are not. "Natural" has as much moral content as "blue."

You have to more careful and nuanced. It is not true that doing anything we are capable of doing is natural. We are capable and might even have a desire or interest to do some things that would cause us and others harm. This is not natural and these actions that are bad for us are morally wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

It is not true that doing anything we are capable of doing is natural.

Of course it's true! It can't be anything else
but true. That's like saying mixing the colors
blue and yellow together to make green isn't
'natural'. You seem to have a twisted view
of what natural means. You want to change
it to fit your agenda.

Quote: Nareed

Of course I get it:

It's "natural" when it's something you like, or when the deity of an ancient desert tribe says so or doesn't object. It's not "natural" when you don't like it, or when Jehovah thinks it's icky.

What you don't get is that it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests. Some of these actions, as to humans, are good, and some are not. "Natural" has as much moral content as "blue."

If you want to make a moral case against contraception, you may try something other than "It's not blue."

New tack:

Contraception is OK if you go about it by withholding sex when the woman is fertile.

Infanticide is ok if you go about it by withholding food. Let nature take its course. 100% natural, and an act of timing and inaction rather than a deliberate action using artificial means.

Argument of absurdity, but another demonstration of how "natural" and "inaction" is no justification for a means.

Quote: FrGamble

You have to more careful and nuanced. It is not true that doing anything we are capable of doing is natural.

You have to start reading what I say, rather than your interpretation of what the evil atheist must surely have meant.

Quote: Face

This has been an idea that has never "fit" into my head. Your statement, "it's natural for all beings to act in accordance to their capabilities, desires and interests", hits me like the easiest truth. It fits every concept I know and believe, and just rings true to me. However, thinking of what we do as humans, and then adding your sentence, does give justification for acts of ours that I do not like and/or agree with.

That's precisely why I said the term "natural" has as much moral weight as the term "blue."

Or at least it does as the term is used now.

In philosophical systems, the hierarchy begins in the foundations and builds up. These are the major branches of philosophy, which are:

Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Esthetics

Metaphysics deals largely with questions such as what is the nature of the universe, what laws and principles govern it and so on. More important is the set of similar questions regarding humanity. So the "nature" question is important. But all this comes before ethics, and indeed it's a morally neutral field of study, more akin to science.

It is natural for human beings to distrust, fear and hate that which is different from them, though this happens in varying degrees. So things like discrimination, oppression, and even genocide can be seen as "natural." It's also easy to see they're not good things. What's amazing is how deep this natural part of humanity goes and how small a difference can trigger a massive overreaction.

And that's what ethics are for.

But justifying something because it's "natural" gives carte blanche for any and all atrocities you can think of, and then some.

Nareed, that was an excellent post and it helped me clarify a little better where you are coming from.

I don't mean to use "natural" in the strict sense as only referring to what our bodies and minds can do or have the desire to do. What I mean is that the nature of us as human beings, body, mind, and soul are instructive to what is beautiful, good, and true. All the levels of philosophy you mentioned are done by human beings in a body. Our bodies, and the world around us, instruct us and help us to discover the ends of these philosophical disciplines.

For example a proper understanding of natural law would reject your statement that it is "natural" for human beings to distrust, fear, and hate. Reflecting on the human person Ethics, Epistemology, and Metaphysics would all say the natural state of man is trust, love, and service.

Quote: FrGamble

For example a proper understanding of natural law would reject your statement that it is "natural" for human beings to distrust, fear, and hate.

If you want to have a fruitful discussion, you have to stop this intellectually dishonest trick of cherry-picking parts of my statements.

But if your radically different statement is true, then why do you hate atheists?