Sexual Ethics & Natural Law: A Philosophical Debate



Besong plans to divorce his wife after they're done procreating; right? Or, if "marriage" has a purpose that isn't about procreating, is marriage still "natural"? Will he and his "wife" at least stop having sex (forever after) once they are done trying to procreate? Also, I hope they never have sex while she's already pregnant. Also, I hope they never do anything sexually pleasurable that can't lead to pregnancy, *even if* doing so has psychological health benefits, and/or helps them stay bonded, intersocially healthy, and together. Or wait ... maybe they should? When I think back to their "modal" arguments about chewing gum vs straws, ... it seems like Besong simultaneously does and doesn't think indirect health benefits count as sufficiently satisfying "Natural Law". What about reducing the chances of testicular cancer, by the guy "cleaning out the pipes" during prolonged absence? Surely that counts as maintaining reproductive health. What about maintaining emotional health via non-procreative sexual acts? That will help the guy/gal/couple be better spouses, providers, and parents. Does "Natural Law" love or disdain that?
This debate got so hung up on Wollen's modal hypotheticals that the critical flaws of Besong's God-smuggling rhetoric were able to skate right on by.
Also, in the meantime, do they carefully track her fertility with available technologies, to make sure they are never having sex that *can't* result in impregnation so that they aren't making the "Natural Law"-giver cry? Also, doesn't monogamy result in fewer chances to procreate? It seems to me that the "Natural Law"-giver must surely be offended at all the time Besong spends not-impregnating other women. What matters more to Father "nature"? More people? Or Healthier people? Besong doesn't seem to know. But based on the larger data pool of other living creatures, ... the answer seems to be "as many offspring as the ecosystem can sustain; even at the cost of suffering and violence.".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why "Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong"

Image
 An Introduction To Christianity.  Why "Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong" Our journey begins with this YouTube video. My own thoughts about that video are mixed. It makes great points. Granted,  rather than having the old man speak for himself,  the more accurate illustration would be several old men claiming (without evidence) to speak for "The" Old Man. However, I am reminded that Darkmatter2525 doesn't usually bother to clarify this either; since everyone familiar with these issues already realizes how it really works.  --  In response to this short video,  one man (a Christian) wrote: " In the actual story the "children" ran through the house like nothing happened and lived of him, destroying and subjugating him I'm talking about the Roman pagans of course, and how Christianity humanized the world by reforming whatever was that Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong" --- I am translating that to mean this: --- "In th...
Read more

Responding To Ryan Pauly (Christian Fundamentalist) About De-Conversion And Secularism

Image
  These statements (made by you (Ryan) and your guest) are building upon a narrative which is incredibly unreasonable and unethical. First, you frame the narrative as: 'rather than allow "Scripture" to tell us who we are...' This one almost slipped under the radar. The fair and honest way of saying that part of your rhetoric would be: "Rather than allowing 1. my subjectively chosen sect's 2. subjective interpretation of 3. our subjectively chosen religious texts tell you who you are ... ". Although, even that wording wouldn't be totally fair. Since HUMANITY does actually NOT instinctively know that your sub-niche religious faction even exists; nor that your over-arching religious umbrella (or "theme") of "Christianity" is anything they should give attention or credence to. In fact, even the people who are leaving your specific religious sub-culture are only ACTUALLY leaving because they REALIZED it doesn't a...
Read more

The War On Christmas. Is that a real thing? And is it really a war against Jesus?

Image
 Today, our journey begins here.   In reply,  someone wrote: "Unfortunately this was true at one point, and would still be if the people with common sense fighting back." --- In reply, I said: There's still no "war on Christmas". Everyone can still say "Merry Christmas". Christian fundamentalists still enjoy pretending to be oppressed." [Note: I made some other observations; offering many points of common ground. However, Kelly didn't really want to talk about any of that. So I've decided not to include it here]  ---- In reply, they said:  "you apparently have forgotten when many companies forbid their employees from saying Merry Christmas, and when companies turned away from Merry Christmas and using the generic Happy Holidays. Apparently you missed our current Vice President and her speech on how terrible it was to say Merry Christmas because it was not inclusive. It is a reality that some folks dismiss. They want Christ erased at e...
Read more