Another excellent graph by Tim Hsiao. It’s important to sometimes simplify and generalize the overall landscape of this debate to provide others with a good idea of what we’re arguing. These represent some of the most common objections that you’ll see to NL’s position on homosexuality. If you’re not familiar already, you can read up on Tim’s other posts here and here for a more in-depth treatise of this issue.
5 Responses to Graph: Natural Law and Homosexuality
Robert August 2, 2012
Good pens are those which write properly
What it means for a pen to write properly is that it writes in the way we want it to. In most cases, we want our pens to write clearly and smoothly, only because that’s what benefits us the most. If we were, say, trying to forge a letter that was written with blotchy, ink-stained script, a properly functioning pen for the task would be one which writes while spilling ink all over the place.
In most cases, a properly functioning heart is one which pumps blood to all parts of the body. However, if we were to fall into an icy river, we’d want a heart which pumps blood only to the vital organs, because blood in the extremities will quickly chill and lower our body temperature even further as it moves around our bodies.
Similarly, sexual faculties, when working toward procreation, are functioning properly only when we want to procreate. As free and rational creatures, as Tim puts it, we decide what the proper functions are of the physical objects and processes that make up our bodies. Not the other way around.
Tim Hsiao August 2, 2012
There are various metaphysical differences between artifacts and organic substances which implies a disanalogy in the source of teleology for each. Artifacts are extrinsically ordered wholes derive their nature and teleology from the mind of their designer and have separable parts that are prior to the whole. Biological organisms derive their nature and unity from their own intrinsic essence. They are not artifacts that we craft (How could we craft our own nature, given that we are born with it already in place?). Their parts derive their unity and nature from the role they play in the whole organism. Their functions are something that we recognize, not invent. Hearts ought to pump blood, eyes ought to see, and sexual organs ought to reproduce — even if we don’t want them to.
Suppose someone is in a state of mind such that he thinks it is better for him if he amputates his limbs or gouges out his eyeball. Is there anything disordered about his state? Is he mutilating his organs? Is he unhealthy? If their purpose is something he invents, then it’s hard to see what’s wrong with that. Health and disease become relativized to one’s personal intentions. Rational agents recognize their inherent bodily purposes. Affirming the opposite leads to all sorts of counter-intuitive and bizarre consequences.
Robert August 2, 2012
How could we craft our own nature, given that we are born with it already in place?
That’s easy. Like this: http://www.dekaresearch.com/images/deka_arm.jpg
Of course, you’ll say that a prosthetic arm is merely repairing a natural function, but what if the arm ended in a drill instead of a hand (let’s say this guy is a construction worker)? Or anything else?
Suppose someone is in a state of mind such that he thinks it is better for him if he amputates his limbs or gouges out his eyeball. Is there anything disordered about his state?
Depends. If his arm is infected with gangrene, or pinned under a rock, amputating it might be a very good idea. The idea isn’t that we can just make up functions willy-nilly, but that our bodies bend to our will. Look again at the heart example I gave above. If you fell into an icy river, and then (by magic, miracle, chance, or whatever), the veins leading to and from your extremities suddenly locked shut, keeping your blood closer to your vital organs, you would not think, “oh no, my veins aren’t functioning properly, I better restore their proper function!”. No, you’d think that the new function is far better (in every sense) than the old, at least for as long as you’re in the river.
Now, if someone does decide to amputate their limbs for no reason, there is something disordered. But it’s their mental state or their line of reasoning, not their limbs.
Gio August 2, 2012
I have a question on the “medicine” defense of teleology (P2, 2nd response to “there are no such things as ‘functions’”). I have heard the claim that medicine is equally valid if grounded in utilitarianism rather than teleology. What is your response to this alternative?
Gil Sanders August 2, 2012
Tim is free to produce his own response, but I’d refute any alternative to NL in the same way I did here.