03.19
Babies may be born atheists, but few are born to atheist parents. Here are some excerpts from an interesting Telegraph article entitled “Atheism is doomed: the contraceptive pill is secularism’s cyanide tablet”:
The 1960s counterculture slogan “make love, not war” could have been invented for the Hutterites, a conservative, pacifist Anabaptist community in the US and Canada. Numbering 400 at the end of the 19th century, when they moved to Dakota on the point of extinction, there are almost 50,000 Hutterites today, despite conversion being extremely rare (they speak an archaic form of High German and live in the middle of nowhere, which makes it unlikely they’ll turn up at your doorstep with a funny grin).
They are not alone. The Mormons continue to grow by 40 per cent every decade, largely thanks to a high birth rate, so much so that by 2080 there will be anywhere between 63 and 267 million Mormons, depending on whether that figure falls to 30 per cent or 50 per cent.
And Evangelical Christians now account for two thirds of white American Protestants, while the ultra-Orthodox account for 17 per cent of British Jewry, but 75 per cent of children.
Across the western world the fertility rate of religious conservatives far outstrips that of non-believers, so much so that modern liberal secularism is endangered. That, anyway, is the thesis of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, a fascinating new book by Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck University, which is published later this month. It may well be one of the most significant books of our era.
It used to be taken for granted that, just as liberal democracy meant the end of history, so it also meant the end of religion. Once people became rich, educated and sexually liberated, they left irrational beliefs and other such nonsense behind.
Christianity declined steadily from the mid-19th century but it wasn’t until the 1960s that European societies were able to fully abandon the emotional baggage of their civilisation’s infancy, and especially its repressive attitude to sex.
But if what Kaufmann is saying is true – and the demographic data suggests it is – then the contraceptive pill was not so much secular Europe’s liberation as its cyanide tablet.
Today we view the ancient world’s attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way – that’s not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow.
Yet another reason why atheists should feel conflicted over abortion and birth-control.
Does this demographic trend worry you? What can be done to mitigate or reverse the trend? Perhaps if more atheist groups had sexually suggestive names like ours, we wouldn’t have such low birth-rates. Ha ha.
*The title is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Fox News commentator John Gibson’s remark that whites ought to “do [their] duty” and “make more babies” in order to prevent a Latino majority in the United States.
I don’t want atheists to have more babies per se; rather, I’d prefer that religious people have fewer. “We don’t want a population footrace with fundamentalism”, wrote author Eric Kaufmann in an interview with The Friendly Atheist. To call for population growth in light of climate change and other environmental concerns would be irresponsible.
How about: Atheists! Adopt more babies! ?
Oh no! What will the world do without heathens???
But seriously though, I don’t know that there actually is a trend change. What was the percentage of ‘atheists’ to religious in 2000 BC? 0 BC? 1000 AD? Now?
I would bet that the numbers would be about the same, maybe a little more leaning towards secularism as the number of superstitions are decreasing with the advance of science. If the number of current superstitions are the same, I would argue that they are at least more rational now. I notice that while religion is unreceptive to change, it is not completely avert to it.
While I think it would be nice if there was less religion in general, I think the important thing is the percentage of people with highly dogmatic faith. (Extremist potential) I think it is up to the masses to decide the fate of the human race, if they want to be ruled by fear or reason.
Although some religions now have a strong tendency towards high birth rate I think that these beliefs will be challenged in the next few hundred years when we finally see a higher limit of population growth. We have not reached that yet, and they are proving it with numbers. It may be a traumatizing experience that teaches it, but it may be one that the human race won’t forget. Humans responded to the pain of the dust bowl with laws and regulations or whatever (the point is that they changed), and religion does too, just more gradually.
Even if all the atheists didn’t have babies, there will always be the personality archetypes (often the thinker personality archetype) that will tear away from dogmatic agencies. Heathen babies, as I call them.
Fascinating study. Thanks for posting this.
Liberal secularists might still think ‘make love, not war’. And they are making plenty of love, I would think, and making that love in all manner of ways. But their real motto is “make artificial love, not war”. The problem is that their contraceptive/abortive culture has removed one of the natural ends of sex from their lovemaking.
I disagree with Jon that having large families (“calling for population growth”) is environmentally irresponsible. I think the overpopulation is a myth and the view is based upon an instrumental view of the value of human life. “How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers.” – Mother Theresa. Human life is intrinsically valuable, it is not an instrumental value. Being an intrinsic value, it can never not be a value.
What those who perpetrate the overpopulation myth really mean is “there are too many people for us to have the quality of life that we want.” But that gets right to the issue. Overpopulation is typically blamed for two things: poverty and environmental damage. But the problem – both in terms of poverty and environment – is not that there are too many people or that there is a shortage of sustainable resources. Rather the problem is two-fold: westerners consume way too much and goods are not justly distributed.
The way to solve the environmental problem is not to promote intrinsically evil things like abortion and birth control. The way to help solve environmental problems is to CONSUME LESS. That means you and I – westerners who are driving the planet to the brink. It is NOT countries with high fertility rates that are driving the planet to the destruction. I have not looked this up, but my guess is that national fertility rates are inversely proportional to national greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than trying to change the behavior of others, how about we start with the real problem – our consumption rate. Start by not wasting. Americans waste over 100 billion pound of food a year. We just throw it away. That by itself is enough to feed 49 million people. This does not even consider how environmentally irresponsible and wasteful our meat-based diet is. In terms of greenhouse emissions, a single American produces as much tonnage of greenhouse gases in a year as 238 Tanzanians (and if you compare by various countries in Africa you will see numbers ranging from 50-250).
So, should some Africans be discouraged from the joy of children because you want to drive your car to the grocery store instead of walking? Should some Indians not be allowed to live because you want to live in a 3500 square foot home when a 1200 square foot home would do fine? (But, I “need” a study and a 3 car garage and you don’t expect my kids to share a room and … …).
I would hope that the moral obnoxiousness of casting stones at the fertility rates of poor countries (because that is where fertility rates are high) is starting to become obvious.
Regarding poverty: Malthus and his doomsday followers have been wrong EVERY single time they have predicted catastrophe because of overpopulation. Malthus’ first prediction was that we would have calamitous starvation (up to 1/5 of the world population) by 1890. Huh. The contemporary version of the story, put forth by Paul Ehrlich in the 1968 book “The Population Bomb” has done no better. The problem for the overpopulation myth is that it gets the causal story backward. It presumes that high fertility rates cause poverty/starvation. But, in fact, poverty/starvation causes high fertility rates. As people rise out of poverty, their fertility rates go down. The problem for Africa and other chronically impoverished places is not children. The problem is chronically unjust and inept governments, tribal warfare / jihadism, and an unjust global socio-economy.
Americans need to consume less but have more children. We are so far from poverty that are fertility rates are dangerously low! All throughout the west and beyond there is a looming demographic crisis. Populations are not replacing themselves, and the burden of caring for the elderly and their entitlements will crush the economies of those countries who do not have enough workers to pay into the system. Some statistics: by 2020, half of the population of Italy will be above the official retirement age. By 2030, China will be an older country than the United States. Can you imagine the entitlement crisis they will face? It will make our Social Security and Medicare solvency issues look like a pittance.
So atheist and religious alike, take up your moral responsibility to the future and be fruitful and multiply! (Amy and I are expecting our 3rd in July!
)
Congrats on the new baby.
A few notes on Kleiner’s comment;
Everyone knows we can argue all day about the moral issues surrounding abortion, but birth control? That is your opinion and not widely shared outside your religion.
On your opinion that overpopulation is a myth: While I completely agree that western society massively over-consumes, consider the fact that the only reason the world’s carrying capacity for humans, cattle, chicken, etc. is at the moment so great is strictly due to the petrochemical industry. Without the massive infusion of organic fertilizer, use of organically derived pesticide, oil driven farm machinery and transport, etc. the actually sustainable human population would be much less. You might say that we are living in a “population bubble” inflated by a transient overabundance of energy — one that may be reaching its end. This, I believe, is why Malthus’s, and others numbers were off. It would be premature to dismiss the entire concept of overpopulation just because of the fluke discovery of one massive — and temporary! — source of high energy. Our world is certainly very out of balance. Whether it will ever be one that can be joyfully filled with children and moderately consuming adults is for the future to determine. I have read that the real carrying capacity of the world in terms of people is scarcely over 2 billion. In 2100, long after many think peak oil will have come and gone, the world population is supposed to equilibrate at around 10 or 11 billion. The math is pretty simple: 10 billion mouths; food for 2 billion.
Last, I agree with your prediction that birth rate and environmental impact is probably inversely related. In other worlds, developing nations that don’t consume much energy bear many children. However, it’s crucially important to understand why this is. Families in poor countries also experience higher infant mortality, they also have few of the “entitlements” to ensure security to disabled and the elderly. The only real security for them is to produce healthy sons and daughters so that some of them might provide for those that cannot or who are too old. It’s not going too far to describe this as a cycle of misery. It’s simply not the mode of a healthy society.
In summary, I think you should rethink your position that breeding like rabbits to compensate for attrition and social welfare is a good idea.
Hunt is right, my view (and the Catholic view) on contraception is not widely held, but that does not make it a sectarian view or a “mere opinion”. The moral argument against contraception is rooted in the natural law and so makes no reference to religion or God.
“I have read that the real carrying capacity of the world in terms of people is scarcely over 2 billion.” Based on what? A presumption of pre-industrial technology? The presumption that Malthusians always make is that technological development is flat or slow when it isn’t. When we run out of oil, this does not mean we’ll be shot back to primitive technologies and the relatively small “carrying capacity” of those times. Petro-chemical products and energy will need to be replaced by more sustainable practices. That is what is happening now, though I think we would all agree that it is not happening fast enough. Bottom line: I am skeptical of any speculation on max carrying capacities because I don’t think human ingenuity is limited.
On your last point – I understand why the birth rate and environmental impact are inversely related, and you do a nice job of articulating one factor. But what you say makes my point – poverty causes high fertility rates, not vice versa. The real security for them will come through governmental and social stability, women’s rights, and sustainable economic development, not cutting their fertility rates.
I think Hunt is underestimating the demographic crisis the west faces. Perhaps economically crippling tax rates of 50% and higher in the coming decades will change his view. Rates are already that high in Sweden and yet they are still facing an entitlement crisis.
“The moral argument against contraception is rooted in the natural law and so makes no reference to religion or God.”
Well, the stage is yours…convince me.
I’d be misrepresenting myself if I claimed to be an expert on theories of carrying capacity, however I think the argument depends on how much land is actually arable without chemical fertilizer, oil pumped irrigation, and the general mechanization of farm production that provides us cheap and abundant food. I’m quite open to the possibility that future innovation may improve the prospect of abundance once our oil reserves run out, but the fact is that our present food economy is utterly dependent on mechanization and petrochemicals. My view may not be definitive, but neither is yours, hardly.
In my opinion Demographic Winter alarmism stems more from fear of immigrant population movement and the loss of Christian dominance. It has most traction with Christian Paternalist movements that think Islam is taking over Europe — which, to be honest, it may be. I think the probability that there will ever be too few able people to actually run western society is slim at best.
I’m in closer agreement with your second to last paragraph, but to complete the thought, once those social corrections are enacted, fertility rates won’t need to be cut, they’ll come down on their own. This is the reason developed countries get spooked by rising birth rates in developing countries; they’re looking at things from the vantage of a stabilized population, not one that is growing out of control.
“Perhaps economically crippling tax rates of 50% and higher in the coming decades will change his view.”
This is an aside, but I’ve read that people in these heavily taxed Western European nations often end up with more take-home income than Americans do once you consider all the services that their taxes are covering. I’m having the damndest time finding a source for that though, so perhaps my memory is failing me.
And a brief and general response to your points on overpopulation: I didn’t mean to imply that we ought to curb fertility rates in the developing world. My argument was instead that it’d be irresponsible to call for atheists to have more babies, because atheists predominate in the developed world where large families are in fact very taxing on the environment.
You’re right to finger our consumption habits and the distribution of resources for many of the problems attributed to population growth, but population growth nevertheless exacerbates these problems. A less consumptive society with a just distribution of resources is still a strain on the environment if it’s large.
A population of 300 million that consumes 30 million barrels of oil per day has a similarly detrimental effect on the environment that a population of 900 million that consumes 10 million barrels does, no? They’re both consuming the same amount of oil.
I will try to get to the contraception argument tomorrow. For now:
Like Jon, I have read that “take home” income is actually higher in the social welfare states in Europe. This may or may not be so, but that was not my point anyway. My point concerned the sustainability of those entitlement structures when the population does not replace itself. There is no “lockbox” (to borrow a term from Gore’s campaign) – the entitlements of the old (retirement, health care) are paid for by those currently working. But you don’t have to be a mathematician to see that when there are many more retirees drawing from the system than workers paying into it, you have a problem. This problem is set to be delivered onto us in the coming decade with the retirement of the baby boomers. This, and the nearly unavoidable national debt crisis that will travel with it, should seriously trouble you. The CBO’s projection is that by 2035 federal debt held by the public will be nearly 200% of our GDP!
My broader point is that large populations are only a strain when they have unsustainable consumptive practices. But targeting the population (here or elsewhere) only targets the proximate cause; the ultimate cause is the consumptive practice. Now sure, if there were only 20 million people in the world we could consume like mad with little ill effect. But is my desire to consume a greater value than the creation of new – and intrinsically valuable – human life? Jon’s last point is accurate but misses the point. The issue is not how many people there, the issue is whether people are engaging in sustainable and just consumptive practices.
Bottom line is that I don’t see that this claim is necessarily true: ” A less consumptive society with a just distribution of resources is still a strain on the environment if it’s large.” Large population = strain on environment does not look like an analytic truth. In fact, I am rather suspicious that it is true at all. Again, the Malthusians have been insisting on this for over 100 years, making doomsday predictions that have invariably been altogether off. Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb”, published in 1968, predicted hundreds of millions of starvations deaths in the 1970s. But technological advances keep outsizing the predictions. Have many of those advances been built on unsustainable resources? Yes. But who says that this must be so? Not even Al Gore thinks such regress is a necessity!
I don’t know Kleiner, I just think in an age when human impact on the environment and global climate is far from certain, and given the truly alarming spike in total Earth population from mid-20th century onward, it’s just, let us say, “imprudent” to give free rein to our impulse for expansion — regardless of how off Ehrlich and a few pundits were. I really think it’s a bit reckless to think we can just open the floodgates and boost the pop up through the 20 billion mark, certain that the impact and possible ramifications will be naught. I have to say it’s a little surprising that you, the conservative, are willing to charge on ahead, fully confident that advancing technology will always be there to save us. Uncharacteristic.
I think there are good reasons to limit the size of a family, so I am not proposing that everyone go and have 12 children. My point is this: in the West there is actually considerable evidence that our fertility rate is too low, so there are good reasons for westerners to have kids even above the replacement rate. As for developing countries (places with the highest fertility rates), I do not think we should focus our efforts on directly reducing fertility. Rather we should focus our efforts on just economic development, stable governance and society, and womens rights. If we do those things, as you say, the fertility rate will naturally fall. I rather suspect that if we followed both of these programs, overall population growth would fall (since the vast majority of projected population growth is in the developing world). So I don’t see my view as being particularly “reckless”. I don’t know if it is “conservative” or not, and I don’t really care since I am not always sure I am a “conservative” (talk to me about social justice and I will sound pretty “liberal”). Catholic social morality does not tidily fit in our conservative-liberal framework.
In other words, where fertility rates are high the solution is not to target the fertility rates. And in the West fertility rates are too low. Bottom line – talk about reducing the “problem” of overpopulation which focuses on fertility (and it nearly always does, with the tie ins of abortion and contraception) misses the boat on both scores.
Feel free to share your thoughts on contraception, but I’m not holding you to it. However, if you actually did convince me that wearing a condom is evil, without recourse to God or religion…let me just say, that would be something.
“My point is this: in the West there is actually considerable evidence that our fertility rate is too low, so there are good reasons for westerners to have kids even above the replacement rate.”
Okay, I see your point now. Well then forget the asterisk on the title. I do want atheists to have more babies. Well, in Western Europe at least. I care more about the solvency of Europe’s social welfare system than I do global warming. While I am only guardedly optimistic about technology’s potential to mitigate global warming, I don’t know how science could mitigate Europe’s social welfare system at all. In other words, technology may rescue us from the worst of global warming, but it can’t rescue Europe’s social welfare system—perhaps only population growth can.
Hmm, I didn’t articulate that well. Hope it made sense all the same.
I like talking about sex, so I will take up Hunt’s challenge. I think sexual questions are so important. If I might make a plug, John Paul II’s book “The Theology of the Body” is one of the most important and personally influential books I have ever read. I did not always have the views I now hold (keep in mind I was a lefty sartrean atheist college kid who traveled around the country following Phish for several summers).
Hunt – I certainly don’t expect to convince you. And I am not sure I am ready to devote a serious amount of time to defending these arguments in this forum. But it is worth at least laying the arguments on the table. If nothing else, I hope this at least demonstrates that objections to contraception are rooted in a thoughtful and frankly humanistic morality. Two kinds of arguments:
An argument the more “continental/pomo” SHAFTers might be attracted to:
Very briefly (this is highly undeveloped), it concerns the meaning of the gift. Loving sex is a reciprocal self-gift, a mutual and “total” self-giving. To truly love the other one must the other as given. Love means loving the person in front of you, not an idealized version of that person nor a reduced version of that person. To love is to love the Other as the Other is given over to you. But when you “embrace” the other in contracepted sex, you are not loving the Other as given. Rather, you are saying “yes, but”. Yes I love you, but not as you are made, not as you are. I love you only if you intentionally stifle a natural part of yourself and your given nature. To use JPII’s language (from the Theology of the Body), you “falsify the gift” and the other. “The person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such a means to an end … the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love.” (JPII Love and Responsibility). But contraception reduces the other to a utilitarian instrument, an object to be used for another’s end (even if this is consensual).
Long story short: contraception is technological thinking applied to sexuality.
A more traditional natural law argument:
Aristotle is often cited as the father of natural law, but the most systematic natural law theory can be found in (surprise!) St. Thomas Aqinas. In a nutshell: morality is governed by laws built into human nature that are discoverable by reason. To know what is good, man must know himself. When he knows himself, he knows which actions are in accord with his nature and his natural ends (those actions are good) and which actions are contrary to his nature and his natural ends (those actions are bad).
Wikipedia and the online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy are pretty good resources for a basic introduction to the natural law.
But we are here interested in applying it to the question of contraception. To work out the natural law, one must needs get clear on the meaning and intentionality of an act. The sexual act has two natural purposes – the unitive and the procreative. That is, sex has two natural purposes or aims – to bring two people together in an expression of love and the creation of new life. So, any act that is contrary to those natural ends is wrong while sexual acts that are in accord with the natural meanings and purposes of sex are good. The goodness of the act can fail on either or both scores. For instance, rape is wrong – even if it is procreative – because it does not satisfy the first unitive end. Contraception is wrong because it is anti-procreative, the actors intentionally frustrate the natural procreative end of sex. In other words, the goodness of sex comes in the unification of the two ends.
It is worth saying something about NFP / natural family planning (which is not just a Catholic thing anymore – I have more lefty environmentalist friends that do it than Catholic friends, because they want to be natural and are sick of pumping heavy doses of medicine into their bodies). If you use NFP correctly you can actually have more success in avoiding pregnancy (if you so choose) than by using the pill or condoms. BUT, the objector immediately wants to add, if you are using NFP to intentionally avoid procreation then how is that any different or better than using contraception?
Good question. In order to sort out the difference we have to look carefully at intention. There is a legitimate moral distinction between the immediate intent of an act and the further intent of an act. For example: I make a desk. That is an intentional action because I am doing just that on purpose. I have the further intent of making money by selling the desk.
Now there might be cases where two people have the same further intent, but different immediate intents. For example: imagine two people, John and Jane. John holds a garage sale to raise money (immediate intent) with the further intent of giving the money he raises to a charity. Jane forges checks to raise money (immediate intent) with the further intent of giving the money she raises to a charity.
John and Jane have the same further intent. A further intent can be either praiseworthy or not, but in this case it is praiseworthy. But the praiseworthiness of the further intent does not vindicate the wrongfulness of Jane’s immediate intent.
The same could be said of nfp intercourse and contracepted intercourse. They both might have the same further intent (avoiding conception). That further intent might be good or bad. There are good reasons to avoid conception – you can’t afford a child, you have not finished your schooling, it would be a medical risk, etc. And there are some bad reasons – being selfish. But let us suppose that both the nfp couple and the contracepting couple have both have a good and justifiable further intent.
Contracepted intercourse is not faulted for its further intent, it is faulted for its immediate intent. When you intentionally frustrate the natural procreative end of sexuality you are purposely rendering the act infertile and hence making the act something it is not (your intention is not in accordance with the natural telos of the act). This is not so with NFP, even when you have sex during naturally infertile times of the woman’s cycle. Because you are not doing anything to intentionally make the act non-procreative. In short, contracepted sex is anti-procreative and hence contrary to the natural end and meaning of sexuality, while NFP is NFP is sometimes non-procreative but is never anti-procreative.
It is worth making a few quick asides (I won’t develop any of these thoughts):
- On the natural law view, homosexuality and contraception (as well as hetero oral and anal sex to ejaculation) are all wrong for the same reason. Each frustrates the natural procreative end of sex. But, presuming the argument holds, this means that most people who rant and rave about homosexuality are hypocrites – since a huge number of those people freely use contraception and engage in these other sorts of acts that are contrary to the natural law. I don’t see that there should be particularly more focus on homosexuality than on these other things.
- Saying the same thing in another way: I would argue that contraception is perhaps the most basic question in sexual ethics. If contraception is morally permissible then I see absolutely no reason why homosexuality would not be equally morally permissible. In both cases, people seek to have the unitive end of sex without the procreative (I have argued that the natural law requires both). So we see that the liberal protestant churches (which first broke with traditional natural law views of sexuality beginning at the Anglican 1930 lambeth conference) are actually just working out their own inner logic – they began approving contraception in 1930 and it was then only a matter of time before they approved homosexuality.
Again, I am not optimistic that either of these arguments will move SHAFTers much. I still hope it was worth the 10 minutes I took (I can roll this out pretty quick since I’v presented on this dozens of times and teach a NFP course with my wife at our Catholic Church). Anyway, I’ll be happy if SHAFTers walk away thinking, “Well, I don’t agree but I do now see that this is not a religious or sectarian argument.”
Have you thought about writing a paper on contraception as an unwillingness to five the gift? I’d be very interested in further development of that argument.
Source –
I have been working on a paper on just that. I am trying to work through the relationship between John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (with its relational ontology and personalist phenomenological ethics of “the gift”) and more traditional natural law arguments about sexual ethics in general (including contraception). Working on this article was one of the reasons I had so many long winded things to say about it on this blog – I’ve been thinking a lot about it and posting here provided me with some opportunities to work out some arguments.
Oops. Forgot to add that when I have something organized enough to be presentable, I will offer to present it to the USU Philosophy Club or some other forum. I would also encourage you to look at Pope John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’.
Taking up with your last sentence: As a religious or sectarian argument I won’t touch it since I’m really not interested in dealing with any juggernauts of unfounded belief, but as a secular argument, natural law is an epic fail.
Here’s why:
Is fat free cheese evil? You have to believe so if you think the natural essence of eating is to fortify ourselves. How about artificial sweeteners? Are cars thwarting the natural function of using our legs to transport ourselves, and what business do we have walking in space? Is spaceflight evil?
I think you get the picture. Natural Law as a principle for conducting our lives is absurd and not terribly far from the kind of inanity that prevents parents from seeking proper medical attention for sick infants.
Moreover, without some kind of religious mandate to back it up with authority, there is simply no reason to think we need to obey any kind of natural “telos.” So what if we don’t follow it? Will the sky fall? No, we can do as we please. And, as if I need to spell it out, it’s often pleasurable to have sex without the encumbering worry of aftermath.
So, Kleiner, you are quite correct. You didn’t convince me.
Needless to day, I think Hunt is being ridiculously unfair to the natural law. Really, Hunt, do you think eminent contemporary philosophers who defend the natural law (like Ralph McInerny) have not thought of such things? I always find it remarkable when people think they can dismiss robust philosophical positions – the sorts of things defended by the likes of Aristotle and Aquinas – in a one paragraph easy swipe. Come on.
The argument does not concern “natural vs artificial” in the sense Hunt describes. It is not that contraception is “artificial” that makes it wrong, it is that it intentionally frustrates the natural ends of sexuality. “Artificial” things are made by art, and man – as embodied rationality – is by nature a maker of artifacts. Artifacts can be a great good when they facilitate natural desires, but not good when they frustrate natural desires and ends. Cars don’t violate nature. Artificial contraception does.
But I am going to save my breath on this. Look if you don’t want to take a serious philosophical position seriously, fine. If you do, read the links I suggested above.
Regarding authority, doesn’t every moral system have this problem? Moral systems concern oughts – things that we ought to do but need not. No moral system forces you to do good. Moral action is not necessitated by a theory. Morality prescribes but is not compulsory. For example: I suspect most SHAFTers are utilitarians (whether they realize it or not). But if you disobey the Greatest Happiness Principle, “will the sky fall?” No. But a utilitarian would say that you have done something wrong. That is what moral knowledge allows us to do – judge the uprightness of actions.
Point is, there is no “mandate” here other than the truth. You are free to be immoral. I do think there are consequences – I think “casual sex” makes you shallow.
But here is why I think the natural law should be more welcomed by SHAFTers – it roots morality in human nature. It is moral system grounded in man that is discoverable by natural reason. It is, in other words, profoundly humanistic!! Where else are you going to root morality? Does Hunt have a moral system that has greater mandatory force than this one?
Hunt really plays his hand at the end. Is the moral identical with the pleasant, Hunt? Sure it might be pleasant to have [allegedly] consequence free sex. But that is not the question we are asking. We are asking if it is right or good to do so.
Is it my brief counter argument that strikes you as ridiculous or am I simply rephrasing the Natural Law argument in terms that highlight its essential ridiculousness?
Artificially fat-free cheese thwarts the natural ends of eating and this is a direct analog to contracepted sex. To make a distinction you can flail your arms all you want, hand-waving about the meaning of natural union and experiencing the true person, but in the end using a pill or condom is like eating fat free cheese. The absurdity of caring about the one informs us about the absurdity of the other.
Yes, Kleiner, people have sex to feel pleasure. Shocking, I know. People give each other foot massages also. No moral intent or content. They cook for one another and do other pleasurable things as well — usually unencumbered with doubts that they might be working evil by giving pleasure. Perhaps I tip my hand here, but you’re right there on a parallel track, Catholic cautionary to all things “pleasure” and their moral peril. You’re as much a stereotype as I am.
I think I was unclear about what I meant by the role of authority in any secular argument to Natural Law. Perhaps I should use the word “warrant” instead. There is no warrant or reason one should heed a Natural Law argument, though I can see why some people might feel obliged to do so. Interestingly, this kind of ties in with your post on the USU Phil site about Avatar and romanticised nature. Contrary to the opinion you favored there, you’ve crossed to the other side and are now saying that, yes, there really IS something in nature that we should find morally compelling, that nature defines our place in it and not we ourselves. Really, Kleiner, you’ve got to get your story straight.
I’m in the flip position as well, which is probably why I knew I was on shaky ground when I talked about some kind of moral content in nature. I certainly believe we should give consideration to nature and our interactions with it when formulating moral theories, but keep in mind that nature is not our friend. Nature is neutral to our wellbeing. It is the wellspring of life, but also the source of disease and the sink of death. We owe no great allegiance to natural law, and as much as we are able, should not allow it to dictate the terms in which we live our lives. That is how I think about it and how I form my opinion regarding things like contraception.
With all due respect, Hunt, your argument does not demonstrate the alleged ridiculousness of the natural law. I can certainly understand people not being compelled by the view. But the notion that natural law morality is so plainly stupid that it could not handle the very basic observation that humans create and use artifacts is, well, just incredibly uninformed. I don’t mean to be too hard on you here, but I don’t know what else to say except that there is incredible hubris involved in thinking that you would recognize such an obvious and silly shortcoming when the likes of McInerny, much less Aristotle and Aquinas, would not.
For those interested in reading something: Ethica Thomistica by Ralph McInerny is a fine book on the natural law. Most Christian Humanists that I know (myself included) are really attracted to the natural law in large part because it is so humanistic.
Regarding my position on sexuality and pleasure, your remarks on that score demonstrate that this has ceased to be a serious discussion. That is too bad. I never said pleasure was bad, I never said the pleasantness of sex was bad. I just don’t think that all pleasant things are necessarily good because I think pleasure is morally neutral (people take pleasure in the things they love so people with ill-formed characters can take pleasure in bad things). I don’t have any of the caricature Catholic guilt about pleasure and moral peril. That is a seriously uninformed stereotype too – read JPII’s Theology of the Body and then ask yourself if Catholics are hung up about sexuality. I just don’t want to reduce sexuality to pleasure. It can travel with it to be sure, but it is not the whole story. If it is the whole story, then it strikes me that sex is always just using the other as a means to an end (even if it is consensual). But where is the dignity of the person in that? Is this a humanism – the instrumentalization of the other?
There is a difference between the natural law and romanticized nature that was discussed in the Avatar post. You are equivocating on the meaning of “nature”. In the natural law (and in Thomistic philosophy generally) “nature” refers to the essential form or essence of a thing. So the natural law concerns the essence of man, the meaning of what it is to be human. In the Avatar discussion we were using “nature” to refer to the collection of entities that are the natural world. My rejection of the romanticization of nature there should not be understood as an anti-nature viewpoint. Few philosophers take the natural world as seriously as St. Thomas.
Regarding warrant: natural law views are almost always connected with eudaimonian virtue ethics. See Aristotle – the reason to develop virtue and to act in accordance with your nature is because doing so will make you happy (and there is a view of happiness operative that is considerably more robust than mere “feeling good”).
For what it’s worth, I like Alfonso Gomez-Lobo’s Morality and the Human Goods much more than McInerny’s Ethica Thomistica. Have you read it, Kleiner? It’s not as Thomistic as McInerny’s book, but I think it would go over easier for most SHAFTers.
I think the “fat free cheese problem” still stands as a significant rebuttal, but I concede that the Avatar digression was an equivocation and missed the mark completely.
But, getting back to fat free cheese
I draw your attention to the fact that condoms and pill contraception are also artifacts meant to interfere with our natural body function, just as fat free cheese and saccharine are specifically designed to counteract specific bodily function, that of naturally nourishing ourselves. So I put it to you again, is fat free cheese evil, and if not, please outline exactly why.
You should get over your incredulity with regard to my ambitions. I don’t prostrate myself to authority, and I don’t think you should either. We both have 700 years of perspective that Aquinas didn’t, and I assure you, there are vast tracts of Summa Theologica that people dumber than me think are utter nonsense — and are probably right. Never hesitate to call bullshit on anyone. That is a principle that will stand you in good stead, my friend.
I can’t help myself: have you read these “vast tracts of the Summa” in order to make the judgment that they are “utter nonsense”? Really Hunt, settle down. It is one thing to “reject authority”, quite another to brush off one of the greatest intellectual achievements in the history of the West (the Summa) having probably not read more than 50 pages of it (if you have read any of it at all). Do you think all of the Thomists in the world (now and in the past) are just idiots? THAT is bullshit.
About pleasure and sex: I agree that pleasure can’t be equated with moral good, and pleasure seeking can be a net bad. Drug addiction, and yes, the emotion implications of unwise sex are clear examples where pleasure seeking can be ethically problematic. But you say “I never said pleasure was bad, I never said the pleasantness of sex was bad.” However you’ve clearly stated that sex simply for pleasure is not only bad but actually evil.
“I just don’t want to reduce sexuality to pleasure. It can travel with it to be sure, but it is not the whole story.” But don’t you see that your claim is a whole lot more than this earnest request? Not only don’t you want to reduce sex to pleasure, but again you want us to see sex for pleasure as evil! So yes, you ARE the Catholic caricature, protestations aside. Perhaps you’re too close to the fray; take a few steps back and I think you’ll find that you’re soaking in it.
“But where is the dignity of the person in that? Is this a humanism – the instrumentalization of the other?” Where’s the lack of dignity? If we can get over the programmed response that “SEX” elicits from us, we will find that there is no grand implications here, it can have as neutral a content as other pleasures, while not diminishing its role in meaningful intercourse. We eat for both survival and pleasure, and actually meals can have both pedestrian and superlative significance. One mode doesn’t contradict the other. I think the same kind of thing can be said of sex.
Point of clarification: I use the term “evil” as synonymous with “bad” – both say that something is not what it ought to be.
Instead of making attacks on caricature Catholicism and my alleged “soaking” in this caricature, take up the actual argument. You know nothing about me, Hunt, yet you make bold to proclaim that I have disordered guilt complexes concerning sexual pleasure. Ease up a bit. I don’t have a “programmed” negative response to sex. Again, read JPII’s Theology of the Body. It is as pro-sex as you can get.
It is my view that sex MERELY for pleasure is disordered (in the good ole days we called that “lust”). You say something close to this in your last post (“unwise sex are clear examples where pleasure seeking can be ethically problematic”) though we almost certainly disagree on what would count as unwise or imprudent sex.
Anyway, obviously the sharing of sexual pleasure is an important part of the unitive telos of sexuality. But that means that there is something sought more than just pleasure that is sought – unity and shared intimacy. I don’t think one should seek sex just to “get their rocks off” – rather genuinely meaningful sexual interaction means sharing something and coming closer to another person. Pleasure travels with that unitive end, to be sure, but it is just a part of that unitive end. If pleasure is the sole end of sex, I think you are going to fall into an instrumentalization and objectification of the of the person. I don’t think sex ever has “neutral content” in this sense, because sex invariably involves the most intimate sharing possible between persons. That is why sex is capable of being one of the greatest goods, but also one of the greatest evils (there are few things more good and beautiful than true loving sexuality, but also few things more heinous and ugly than rape).
The confidence with which you brush aside some of the great thinkers does amaze me. It is hard to not see it as simple chronological snobbery (as if the mere passage of time means wisdom increases). I am slow to call things “bullshit” when they are spoken by the wisest of the wise. That doesn’t mean everything in the great books is true. I don’t genuflect to texts. I am not a Platonist, but Plato is not full of shit either. What you call “prostrating to authority” I call a bit of freaking humility. It is worth pointing out that the natural law theory is not just a vestige of the past. Contemporary eminent philosophers (recently deceased Ralph McInerny is but one) have defended the position.
So I will not be taking your advice to “never hesitate to call bullshit on people”. In fact, that looks like a pretty inhumane principle to me. I would rather that we all learn to listen and understand. Every human person must take up the question of human life, and the many ways in which people respond to that question deserve dignified listening and care. It is not that I won’t call out a falsehood when I see one (bloggers here know that!). But I don’t know all the answers and the sun does not rise and set over my ass. One of the things I hate most about our culture (and our political culture in particular) is that we all scream “bullshit” to people on the other side before we have even listened and understood. Before calling the natural law “bullshit”, you might seek to actually understand it first. Read a few books. Be generous enough to read those books, at first, with a principle of charity. Assume that those writing about it have serious and thoughtful things to say. I always try to read books in this way, and I always try to engage in conversation in this way (I know I do not always succeed). Doing so puts a human face on ideas, and it treats that human face with the dignity that it deserves.
So that we can stop talking about fat free cheese, I will speak to your argument. Natural law theory typically identifies five basic/natural inclinations of man: to seek the good, to preserve oneself in existence, to preserve the species (to unite sexually), to live in community with others, to use one’s intellect and will (to know and to act).
Some artifacts are in accord with those natural desires, while others frustrate those natural desires. Fat free cheese is not meant to “counteract” the natural desire to preserve oneself in existence (which would include nourishing oneself). It is not as if fat free cheese is not nourishing at all. Eating it does not frustrate a natural good. Fat free cheese is not poisonous. Eating poison is bad, because it frustrates the natural desire to preserve oneself in existence. Medicine, though artificial, is good because is facilitates this natural good. This is why we call intentionally poisoning someone “bad or evil” – because you are intentionally frustrating a natural good for that person.
Point of clarification: I use the term “evil” as synonymous with “bad” – both say that something is not what it ought to be.
Oh, well, in that case, all is in order
Now that we’re done moving goalposts, shall we recommence? I think it’s fair to note that the CC probably wouldn’t go along with your downgrade regarding its condom policy in Africa.
You know nothing about me, Hunt, yet you make bold to proclaim that I have disordered guilt complexes concerning sexual pleasure.
It’s the unfortunate consequence of dogma that I actually already know a great deal about you (but not that you’re guilty about sex, that was not the caricature I had in mind). This is one of the primary points I’m trying to get across. You can’t be a free-thinker; it has been disallowed you. Many of your beliefs have been handed you on a platter. It’s also one of the endearing characteristics of Catholics that you’re so completely confident of the soundness of your argument that you quite willing to engage the secularist with one arm tied behind your back — that is, without recourse to either God or faith. This often ends disastrously for you.
Too bad you won’t take up my advice about calling BS. I really think the world would be a better place. I never said one shouldn’t try to inform oneself beforehand, and at the same time one must always be willing to readily admit error (as I did with my Avatar gaff). I also didn’t say “be quick to call bullshit.” I said always be ready to do it, and that is a good maxim. Of course you think as you do — I already knew that (see above).
You might also want to read the Courtier’s Reply (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Courtier's_reply) for determining how much is enough to know on a subject before launching a counterargument.
In a real debate, citing external references is of little use. Even though that’s not the case, even on blogs it’s usually accepted that the case will be made or not made extemporaneously. In other words, for everyone involved, if you can’t explain or summarize something in clear concise language, it can fairly be assumed that you don’t actually understand it.
Yes, I consider the advantage of time on the great thinkers to be relevant and significant, not simply for the lapse of time and perspective, but also because of the general accumulation of human knowledge in the interim. This is why it is not at all a sign of hubris, rather a simple understanding of human progress. This gets back to the debate over the merits of progressivism vs conservatism.
Re: fat-free cheese. It is a symbol for anything we might impose on our nature (as you realize, I think) therefore, noting that it is not nourishing at all is disingenuous. We could as easily be talking about gastric bypass surgery or saccharine (which does have 0 cal). The general question is must we be slaves at all to our natural state? If I can be permitted to revive the Avatar thing slightly, it does boil down to who’s calling the shots. Proscribing action that may counter our “nature” (as judged by who? nature, us?) is in the end misanthropic.
I’ll end on a humorous note:
“Who says we must be slaves to our natural state?” Yes, I would not want you being ‘oppressed’ by your human nature, like Loretta/Stan here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
Actually not a bad little bit of natural law there. It is no one’s fault, not even the Romans, that Stan can’t have babies – just that damn bit about actually having a human essence/nature that is getting in his way. Anyway, quite a fine example of an unnatural desire (a desire that is contrary to his nature as a man).
You’re going to be sorry you cited Monty Python.
You’re only on number 3. Better get cracking, Kleiner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
I am not sorry at all for citing Python. I love them. ‘Every sperm is sacred’ is a great song. But it is erroneous. All human beings have inviolable dignity. But sperm are not humans beings. Life begins at conception, not before (scientific evidence: sperm do not have a unique genetic code, they are of the father. But after conception there is a new entity with its own unique genetic code).
Contraception is wrong for an entirely different reason than abortion, though it is commonly thought that Catholics reject contraception because of the alleged moral status of sperm. The Monty Python guys are wicked smart, but they were wrong (though funny!) on this one.
Here are some questions for Hunt and other SHAFTers. I don’t mean to start anew the discussion, but these are things to reflect on:
Is there anything morally objectionable about having sex with a corpse? If so, why?
Is there anything morally objectionable about an 18 year old girl having sex with her 50 year old step-father (let’s assume mom is cool with it)? If so, why?
I could come up with a bunch of other related questions: cousins, siblings, animals, etc.
Now maybe those on this blog that approve sex for MERE pleasure and the divorce of sex from any procreative meaning think that there is nothing morally objectionable about these practices. Okay, at least you are being consistent. But if you think there is something morally objectionable about these things, then what is it?
A corpse? You don’t need morals to know that’s disgusting. But regardless, here are the moral implications. Corpses can’t give consent or enjoy it. When someone dies, their inheritance goes to a spouse or kids or someone. Necrophilia is a crime against the memories of a person and the people that hold those memories.
A guardian or parental figure should not have sex with their “child” present or past. That is not their societal function. Although I think you would be very hard pressed to find a situation where all 3 are happily consenting.
Non-baby sex is about reciprocal enjoyment, and both of these cases violate the spirit of that.
Are we slaves to nature? Yes, but I think you are tightening the leash a bit tight.
Cousins? Well its also against societal functions. They are still family and part of the growing up together function. In today’s society, there is enough selection to not have to worry about that. There is also higher associated risks with pregnancy disorders. I haven’t done enough anthropological study, but I think all cultures have a natural taboo about inter-family sex.
Animals? Animals can’t give verified consent. We don’t speak their language. I don’t know that they’d enjoy it.
You’re listing extreme and unuseful examples. Most people are not attracted to corpses, family, cousins, or animals. Testing the philosophical verity of only a bunch of extreme examples is not a good way of seeing if something is right or wrong. You can’t just take one facet “Sex is for fun” and ignore all other surrounding practical circumstances and be taken very seriously.
If you don’t enjoy pleasure for a bit of risk, then by all means abstain.
“You don’t need morals to know that’s disgusting.”
“should not have sex with [X] … That is not their societal function.”
“You’re listing extreme and unuseful examples. Most people are not attracted to [X].
Hmmm. Sounds a lot like what some people say about homosexuality. I never make those “ew it is just gross’ “arguments” since they are not really arguments and that is a very primitive and vulgar reason to disagree with something (I think eating rocky mountain oysters is gross, but I don’t think it is immoral). I’ve made a natural law argument from natural reason.
Let’s make the corpse case more specific in order to take away the only objection you had to it. Let us suppose that the person had no family or friends so that there is no memory of the deceased in living persons that is harmed. He was an absolute hermit and no living person even knew he existed before he died. Now you are right, the corpse cannot consent. But neither can the sex toys that one might use to masturbate. So are those wrong? The corpse is a mere object, you don’t need consent from objects before you use them (they are incapable of giving it!).
But consent is not a sufficient condition anyway, and you seem to recognize that. If you have 3 happily consenting adults (mom, daughter, step-father) then this sex is about “reciprocal enjoyment”. Your only complaint is that it violates a “social function”. Okay, what is that social function based on? Why should they be beholden to it? Is it … [wait for it] … “unnatural”?
Here is another example of where consent is not a sufficient condition: I think women are often harmed by consensual sex. Women in a marriage might “trade” sex for other things. Perhaps to make their husband less grouchy. Perhaps as an enticement for him to do more chores. Or maybe a women consents to sex because she is fearful that if she does not the husband will abandon her and leave her in a desperate situation. But in each of those cases she consented to the sex. But that kind of sex is still harmful – it leads to the women seeing her body and her sexuality as mere instruments. Point is, I think consent too low of a bar for the moral goodness of a sexual interaction. My wife (a phd in counseling psych) sadly has stories like this to tell weekly, and it is her view that this is a particular problem here in Utah (though it is certainly not exclusively a Utah issue). I wish I could say otherwise, but she has told me dozens of stories of women telling her, “I have not enjoyed sex in 10 years but I still do it to keep the family together.” Consent is certainly a necessary condition for the moral praiseworthiness of a sexual interaction, but it does not seem sufficient to me.
Ha ha, I’ll bite the bullet if no one else will: I can imagine a scenario where necrophilia is morally permissible.
If the corpse isn’t diseased, and the relatives of the corpse are ignorant of the necrophilic act, then aside from the yuck factor, I don’t really have any serious moral objection to it.
Oh, I can’t wait for a future political opponent of mine to drudge up that quote in a campaign. Lol.
RIP: Jon’s future political career. It ended on March 30, 2010.
Curious, Jon – what about the stepdad and his stepdaughter?
Jon – are you: (a) just “playing ball” here to see where it goes? (b) consenting to the claim that necrophilia is morally permissible only because you fear that saying it is not is going to advance an argument for other sexual restrictions (contraception, homosexuality (c) or you really think that is would be morally permissible in certain cases?
If (a), okay. If (b), you are probably right but that is not a good reason to believe something. If (c), FREAK!
A hermit with no family or friends? Did he drop out of the sky? How did you find them moments after death?
I noted that it is still an insult to the (dead) person and their memory. I can only appeal to the golden rule on this one if you base morals on not hurting others.
Though I really haven’t thought much about what the basis of morals is. (probably just the golden rule) I think this is not a question of sexual morality though. Isn’t this analogous to the question “Is it okay to beat a recently dead person?” Although moral on a technical level in the most precise circumstance, it still violates the spirit of morality. It is probably more moral to have sex with a person that’s been dead for a few hundred years, since what made them them, is all but gone. Sex toys are composed of particles that have been dead (or never alive) for probably thousands of years.
I’m assuming your aside to homosexuality was only in deference to *Yuck!*, so I won’t address its “function”. Although I am curious whether you consider all homosexuals (human and not) “violators of natural law”. Doesn’t natural occurrence in humans and wildlife propose a problem for sex only being for procreation?
I think the dissatisfaction of women with sex is largely due to selfishness in bed and outside of it, rather than a sexual issue. There are 2 sides of the golden rule, one being the part where you scratch other people’s backs. But if you’re looking for women who are pleased with sex, Utah is generally not the place to look for it.
As for the step-father situation, I find it totally unbelievable that everyone would be cool with that. In-breeding feels immoral, along with those who are just guardians, but I honestly can’t say why. Just a possibility: from an evolutionary standpoint, families get along better when parents don’t have sexual competition from their children. Sick or bizarre as it may sound, there may have been a time when this was the case.
(d) All of the above…?
Mostly (b), but also a bit of (c). I of course find necrophilia repulsive, but the act is victimless. There may be a good secular case against necrophilia, but I haven’t articulated it yet. Maybe it’s as simple as the golden rule: Because we don’t want our own corpses molested, we shouldn’t molest others’. Ha! I can’t believe you have us discussing this.
Fun fact: Utah is one of several states where necrophilia is not explicitly illegal. Makes sense, I guess. I mean, if you can baptize the dead…
I don’t want to belabor the point. All I am trying to do here with these admittedly odd examples is to encourage students to think about what makes a sexual act permissible or good. Mere consent? Mere existence of pleasure? Are there some acts that are consensual of which you would not approve? Some acts that are mutually pleasant of which you would not approve? If so, why? What is missing from those acts?
I am sure the issue of sexuality will be revisited sometime in the future on this blog. These are some questions to let bounce around in your heads.
I am still laughing at Jon’s final joke – if you can baptize ‘em why can’t you BLEEP em?
[...] of this spells religion’s demise, however. If birth rates are any indication, atheists are a dying [...]