Transcript Philosophy 220

Philosophy 220
Natural Law Theory and Human Sexuality
Putting Nature in Natural Law
 Natural Law Theory is based on the
assumption that there are objective facts about
human nature that can serve as the ground for
objectively true moral principles.
 Because of this, NLT is a value-based moral
theory, one that focuses our attention on the
value of the intrinsic characteristics of human
nature highlighted by the specific version of
NLT that is employed.
Aquinas on Intrinsic Value
● The chief historical
proponent of NLT is St.
Thomas Aquinas (12251274).
● According to his theory of
human nature, there are
four basic intrinsic goods.
● Human Life
● Human Procreation
● Human Knowledge
● Human sociability
● These four values serve
as the basis for his NLT.
Basic Principle of NLT
 However we conceive of human nature and its
intrinsic value, the theory of right action (TRA)of
NLT is:
 NLT: An action is right if and only if (iff) in performing the
action one does not directly violate any of the basic
(intrinsic) values.
 Thus stated, NLT seems to straightforwardly and
non-controversially satisfy both the theoretical and
practical aims of Moral Theory. But this picture is
more complicated than it first appears.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
● In many cases, a proposed action both potentially protects
one and violates another of the basic values.
● To deal with these cases, proponents of NLT rely on the
Doctrine of Double Effect.
● DDE: An action that would bring about at least one evil and one
good effect is morally permissible if and only if:
● Intrinsic Permissibility: action (minus effects) is permissible.
● Necessity: good effect requires the action.
● Nonintenionality: evil effect is not intended
● Proportionality: evil effect not out of proportion with good effect.
●
Example: Ectopic Pregnancy
NLT in Context: Catholic
Teachings on Sexual Morality
 In a series of teachings (notably Casti Connubii and
Humanae Vitae), the Roman Catholic church has
spelled out the consequences of Aquinas’s version of
NLT for a range of human sexual practices.
 This is a particularly challenging area in which to apply
NLT, as the opening paragraphs of our reading
highlight.
 Sexuality is clearly a basic and natural part of our
humanity, but the Church, for complicated historical
reasons, cannot merely affirm it as one of the basic
intrinsic goods.
What Type of Moral Theory?
 Church teachings are further complicated by the fact
that in addition to the NLT tradition, it also looks to
“divine law” as a justifying basis for its theory of intrinsic
value.
 This raises the specter of Divine Command theory,
which we have already seen provides only dubious
foundation for MT.
Guiding Principle of Catholic
Sexual Morality
 Consistently, the church has argued that human nature
and the divine law point in the same direction.
 From both perspectives, the specific character and
dignity of human sexuality is grounded in marriage and
“the finality of the function proper to marriage,” in other
words, reproduction (80c1).
Applications
 Premarital Relations?
 NO, “any human genital act whatsoever [must] be placed only
within the framework of marriage” (80c2).
 Homosexuality?
 Hell no! The propensity may be natural, but the act is
objectively evil, “Homosexual relations are acts deprived of the
essential ordination they ought to have” (81c2).
 Masturbation?
 Tempting, but no, “…masturbation is an intrinsically and
seriously disordered act” (82c1), once again because it is
counter to the finality that, according to the Catholic tradition of
NLT, is consistent with the intrinsic value of sex.
Corvino’s Defense of
Homosexuality
 Corvino takes aim at those critics of
homosexuality that decry it as unnatural or
claim that there are special harms that
accompany it.
 His positive position is straightforward.
 Homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is both
pleasurable and supportive of fundamental human
relationships.
 Children are not a necessary product of either.
 There are no special harms resulting from homosexuality.
 Therefore, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.
But it’s Unnatural!
 Corvino is responding to a common ground for the
condemnation of homosexuality.
 Ranging from mere revulsion to a consideration of
the finality of sexual practices, many claim that
homosexuality is unnatural.
 One problem with this claim is that the term “unnatural” can and
is used in a number of different ways.
 An important step to untangling this charge is distinguishing the
various senses.
 With the help of Burton Leiser, Corvino does just this.
Unnatural as Unusual or Unique
 Some people claim that homosexuality is
unnatural because it is uncommon or because
it is not part of the behavior of non-human
animals.
 With regard to the first of these two senses,
Corvino notes that many types of behavior or
uncommon, but we don’t for that reason label
them as unnatural.
 With regard to the second, Corvino merely
notes that the claim is false.
What is not Innate is Unnatural
● A more compelling claim is that behaviors that do not spring
from natural human tendencies is unnatural.
● One common (but mistaken) way to respond to this claim is
to start arguing about whether homosexuality is in fact
innate.
● The real issue concerns the moral significance of the
relation between behavior and tendency. All behavior,
whether grounded in tendency or not is to some degree in
our control. As such, the moral evaluation of the behavior is
independent of the tendency.
That’s not what that’s for.
● Another argument that is sometimes made is that
homosexuality is unnatural because it makes use
of human sexual organs in a way that is contrary
to their natural function (this is an instance of the
finality argument).
● Of course, many of our organs admit of many
possible uses. It would be arbitrary to
acknowledge the appropriate use of sexual
organs in a wide range of instances where
procreation isn’t possible, but deny it in the
context of same-sex relations.
Enough about Finality, Let’s Talk about
Filth
 Many people have objected to homosexuality on the
basis of the claim that it is obscene. Corvino’s response
to this claim is fairly typical.
 Of note is his discussion of aesthetic revulsion that
some people attest to in connection to homosexual
practice.
 Leaving aside the obvious psychological rejoinder (we
are often strongly repulsed by that to which we feel an
uncontrollable attraction), we should note that aesthetic
concerns of this sort do not rise to the standard of
moral condemnation.
What about the Harm Question?
 Corvino considers both the possibility that
homosexual behavior can harms its practitioners
and that it can harm third parties.
 With regard to the first, he just points out that there
is no evidence to suggest any special harm from
the behavior itself.
 With regard to the latter, he considers the special
cases of children and species existence, arguing
that there are no special concerns in either case.
Question to Corvino
● One thing we should note is that the conceptual
analysis of “unnatural” does not directly refute the NLT
position.
● An evaluation of NLT based arguments against
homosexuality must ultimately come down to a dispute
about human nature and values and ends appropriate
to it, and that’s not a discussion which Corvino joins