My religious education was *never* this good. I would ask a deep question, and they would give me a coloring book of white Jesus. No wonder so many left the church.
Daniel Hopkins I am interested in the sources of this if you wouldn’t mind. My understanding was that archeologists now believe celts can from tribes in what is now known as the caucuses, possible the Scythian, who migrated around the Mediterranean a few thousand years ago. The Levantine would have already been populated at that time though.
Prof Tim Hsiao doesn't seem to realize that homosexual behavior has been shown in an extremely wide variety of animals FOR A PURPOSE. If natural law theory is about what we see in nature, this is a great counterpoint. Gay/bi partnerships in animals occur for a variety of reasons some of which include: promoting success of sibling kin (gay uncle theory), a way of establishing hierarchy, a way of raising kin when little mates of the opposite sex exist, some species rapidly mate with any member of their species (some flies I think) - anyway they do this because it is actually faster for them (yeah i dunno how that works but its a thing) and other reasons we don't know yet (e.g in sheep)
He addressed this point. Under his view this would fall under the issue of not using the organs for it's intended function (of procreation). "If natural law theory is about what we see in nature" he also addressed this in the video 9:35.
I’m curious how natural law theory would deal with practises such as coitus interruptus, oral sex, non-penetrative same-sex intercourse, or intercourse in post-menopausal marriages. If all of these are less than ideal, it holds a very narrow view of sexuality indeed.
@Gabriel Patrasso Zelaquett Oral sex would have the same deficiency as the rest--it is considered mutual masturbation, not fulfilling the function of ejaculation (procreation and union).
The part of this viewpoint I’m not sure about is the idea that the unitive part of sex is dependent on the procreative part. It makes sense that sex is both unitive and procreative but it just doesn’t seem to ring true that the unitive is subject to the procreative. It seems that people find sex unitive even when they are not in line with procreation (ie birth control, homosexual relations, etc). Also with the analogy of the blind eye, he said at the beginning that the goodness (functional not moral) of an object is based on how well it meets its function. So a blind eye would be a bad eye bc it is not meeting its function of seeing. Therefore if a couple is infertile that would mean the procreative part of their sex is bad/broken and if the unitive part is dependent on the procreative part that seems to mean that the unitive part would not be able to work either. But reality shows us that couples can engage in unitive sexual relations even if they are infertile.
3 problems I found. There's probably more, but I found Prof. Hsiao to be hard to listen to with his droning monotonous speech (That's not meant to be insulting, just an opinion), and I don't feel the need to subject myself to watching the video a 3rd time. 1) 3:13 "If it's not good for me, then i'ts bad". This is a Black and White fallacy. th-cam.com/video/eqz53d-fYL8/w-d-xo.html --Just because X is not good does not automatically make it bad. X could be neutral, and, just because X is not moral does not automatically make it immoral. X could be amoral. 2) He does not justify his assertion about the comprehensive unity aspect of sex? This aspect seems to be an assertion that is not based on anything but belief. 3) 13:15 About animals engaging in homosexual sex is alright for animals, but not for humans, but he doesn't justify why there is a difference. This a special pleading fallacy. th-cam.com/video/yeRsLb6nvfg/w-d-xo.html
Your first objection does not work in the case of sex. If you are not using sex for its proper purpose, you are almost certainly using it AGAINST its function (i.e you are actively preventing procreation from taking place). It is therefore bad, like a firefighter who keeps buildings on fire, whatever other motivation he might have for doing so (i.e sadistic pleasure). Animals have no rationality, meaning they lack the ability to think about what is good for them, and what is not. Any moral judgement of their actions is meaningless. I am not sure what is meant by comprehensive unity, so I can't address that. But as far as I can see, the case is that sex unites two people because it brings them together to fulfill a purpose neither one can on their own (reproduction).
@@innocentiii7329 1) Not necessarily. By argument, the two functions of sex are Procreation and Comprehensive Unity. Engaging in intercourse that is prevented from causing Procreation (either by intercourse with an infertile/same sex partner or by the use of technology to prevent conception) does not preclude the possibility of the function being performed rightly later. By contrast, if the firefighters don't stop the fire, the building will burn down. 2) Regarding Comprehensive Unity, the Professor lists it as a separate function from Procreation. Take the case of an infertile sexual partner, male or female, in a heterosexual relationship. If Procreation was the only valid pursuit of sex, intercourse with an infertile/barren partner would be immoral. This does not seem to be alleged or even addressed in the video. Comprehensive Unity seems to be a function solely affecting the two partners. 3) Per animals, so far as we know, they do not operate with a moral understanding. I agree that assessing the actions of primates from a perspective of moral law as applied to humanity is generally counterproductive.
its also from the get-go just a set of abstract rules that provide no incentive or appeal to follow them. they're not real pragmatic ethics. No type of harm is being done in these acts he's condemning. they just break this rule
Yes Christians used to be against contraception. They also didn't live in countries where the government made it brutally prohibitive to have large families. That's something that only happened since WW2.
This interview was awesome, you posed so many great questions and he answered them so well with pointing back to his original argument, being to reproduce and unity. I learned a lot in terms of defending the argument and faith position.
@BMore Um, I have studied the subject -- I have multiple peer-reviewed publications on this issue. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like you've understood the approach I'm taking, since your question has nothing to do with the arguments I make.
@BMore Animals and humans natures are different, similar, but different. As well as the standard in which God views it. So for one to uphold the same standard is a fallacy, as Prof.Tim gave example on what is in their nature and what is of human nature. An example in terms of Bible Reference : 1 Cor. 15:39 ( clear distinction)
This is inherently thoughtless and not considering the overpopulated and over polluted planet. Why should we be creating new life when a billion are already are going hungry, and orphanages are overflowing with disadvantaged kids that need their parents?
So when is sex wrong? Whenever its not the "proper function" as determined by someone who doesn't see it as the proper function. Throw around the term "natural law theory" and pretend you've done some other than providing a completely subjective assessment.
You can easily dismiss all moral assessments as being subjective, and for that matter, I can just dismiss your criticism here as being subjective. Maybe his arguments aren't sound (I certainly disagree with him), but it'd be nice to actually engage with his arguments.
@@kevintaylor1638 From what I can tell, he simply declares some act not to be proper, to be a violation of natural law, and therefore its wrong. That's really not an argument. Maybe I missed it, but if you can lay out the argument you see him making, I'd be happy to engage it.
@@madmax2976 But that is an argument, not a very good one maybe, but its still an argument. But it's not exactly what he said. To determine the proper function of certain aspects of human beings, he seems to use a purely biological/evolutionary argument: From a biological perspective, the purpose of sex in nature is indeed reproduction; there's no doubt about that. He then goes on to argue that since that is the fundamental purpose of sex, any sexual act that goes against this purpose is morally wrong. The hidden premise here is also the most controversial: "If a particular action, call it X, goes against the fundamental purpose, or the proper function of a moral agent, then X is morally wrong." I am sure he would word it differently, and there's a lot more to his argument.
Kevin Taylor I mean if it’s from a biological/evolutionary perspective, than he’s wrong so mistaken. Ask any evolutionary psychologist what the purpose of sex is, and I’m sure they can write a book on the amount of purposes it has. Even if natural law theory is true, it’s still a laughably bad argument.
I am honestly not trying to draw fire from my Protestant brothers in Christ, but the man is laying official Catholic teachings quite well. It’s very nice when new logic and reason dovetails with traditional beliefs. It’s too bad that many Catholics, myself included in earlier years, do not embrace those teachings, nor are we taught them in a way they were explained and not just presented as arbitrary rules. Just saying...
Agreed as someone who was raised catholic, but not raised as a proper catholic the teachings became convoluted and shameful. They were hindering of my spiritual growth. As I’ve become more awakened and aware it’s much easier to see the many good practices Christianity and Catholicism have, but are misrepresented or misguided for power and control. Overall integration of Christ consciousness AND Lucifer consciousness instead of separation of the two are key in my opinion and not viewing spirituality as solely external or solely internal but both. Most people search for ‘God’ out of fear, but you can never find him until you have faith.
One problem that arises is Natural Law's theory of an ordered society, homosexual sex could be prohibited under this theory in order to promote an ordered society. Likewise, the unity that was discussed can be achieved by two homosexual partners alongside two sterile heterosexual partners.
Biggest problem here seems to be he is arguing backwards from the bible, rather than forwards toward. Contraceptives can be morally good if it means that families can limit the amount of children they can afford to take care of. Vasectomies can help prevent high risk/dangerous pregnancies in the later years. Proper function seems to be a slippery argument in the sense that 'proper function' must necessarily yield to 'proper utility'. Children used to be, economically speaking, assets. Now, they are liabilities. Thus, people have less children. Intentionality seems to be irrelevant in natural law. Is it wrong to have sex while married if you cannot afford a child? If so, then is it only acceptable to remain chaste while married? Following, is it wrong to desire sex while married even though you are not financially stable enough for children, despite the greater union sex brings? The problem with the natural law argument, it seems, is that an object can have multiple purposes. A great point of this is the sterile couple. If their were a medical procedure to cure their sterility, then they are morally bad if they do not pursue such a procedure. Rules which lack even semblances of utility are not very useful.
Brennan Rialti Ugh. Vomit. People should be allowed to have as many kids as they want. And has no one ever heard of natural family planning? It’s as accurate as using a condom. It’s just that people don’t want to use self control or have any responsibility. You can use your nasal body temperature and your vaginal mucus to know when you’re ovulating. And it’s more personal. You can get the husband involved and he can be even closer to you by knowing your cycle. It’s what I used to get pregnant. If I can use it to get pregnant, people can use it to avoid pregnancy and practice self control. It’s a beautiful thing.
@@junelledembroski9183 Your argument is different than the videos. If it is acceptable to frustrate one of the functions of sex, then the means is irrelevant. Otherwise your simply making an argument that it is acceptable to mitigate a natural function of sex, and only wrong if using an artificial means. Which is a different argument entirely. So the question is whether it is wrong to have sex with intention of preventing pregnancy. If so, natural family planning is wrong, because you are inhibiting a natural, intended function. If not, the type of family planning used, natural or artificial, is irrelevant, because they are being used with the same intention towards the same end. Further more, some forms of birth control are many, many more times effective than condoms or natural family planning. Therefore why is it wrong to use, say, an IUD. If you want to have sex without getting pregnant, why is it wrong to choose to use the method with the highest efficiency?
Brennan Rialti My argument wasn’t supposed to be the same as the video’s. No, natural family planning doesn’t go against nature it uses nature to rightly guide the process. It also teaches self control, being responsible for your actions, and makes the process a truly shared experience with partners. I understand the want to just stop the process, but it teaches no self control. Go ahead and act on your feeling immediately with no consequence. I’m just saying, if you want the world to be better teaching kids self control is the way to go. It takes effort and denying yourself until the right time. There’s quite a few days that someone can have sex with their partner in a month when watching the signs of the times. 😉
@@junelledembroski9183 That's fair enough. I'm not saying people can't use natural family planning. I just think it's wrong to demonize people who use other methods for the same purpose. There's a reason every major Christian denomination is accepting of contraceptives, with the exception of the Catholic Church. Natural family planning may work for some people, other methods for other people, different strokes for different folks. Not to mention natural family planning is not inherently a sign of self control, particularly for women with irregular periods www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/4084891/.
Sacrificing a healthy function to save oneself from a deadly medical outcome is not the same as sacrificing a healthy function for convenience sake. I think the professor is talking about convenience sake.
@@lepp6598 That's where self-discipline and responsibility come in. Intentionally destroying healthy function is not the best way to exercise responsibility.
As a Christian channel, when you start talking about immorality and Christian practice, it would be nice at some point to bring in scripture to substantiate what you and/or your guests are saying. In 1 Cor 7, I see Paul saying that a husband and wife should not deprive each other of sex and only if it's for a season of prayer, and to actually reunite quickly so that both are not tempted. This says nothing about children here and so we could rightly argue that a proper function of sex is purely relational and to keep us from temptation and I wouldn't see any Biblical evidence to suggest that it also _must_ retain an end goal as well of the possibility of children or it is then going against a proper function. I don't think you can make a Biblical case against birth control, but if you do (as Dr. Hsiao did) it would be great to bring in scripture and not pure philosophy. Thanks, Cameron.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation. The other function is unitive. The reason why Dr. Hsiao isn't appealing to the Bible is because you don't need revelation to know whether or not an action is wrong. Natural laws ethics is not based on religious argumentation.
LogosTheos One purpose is procreation, but another is unification. What I am saying is that I would need a biblical mandate to say that the removal of intentional procreation and solely for unification would be sin if it is still within the confines of an already outlined biblical marriage.
@@LogosTheos the problem here then becomes that proper function requires a judge to determine proper function. Otherwise it must be a self evident realization, which is silly. For example, define the proper and improper functions of a hand. The problem here becomes who gets to determine proper function. Dr. Hsaio's argument is both biological and theological. Marriage isn't an inherent biological construct in humans and is largely cultural, particularly in terms of monogamy. The problem with this is that biological purposes of sex and cultural purposes of sex are often in conflict with one another. Thus the problem of proper function: proper function according to what? Biology? Theology? Culture? Choosing multiple fields in cherry picking.
@@br8745 --->"The problem here then becomes that proper function requires a judge to determine proper function" This is probably one of the worst arguments you can raise against natural law ethics. So what? We can discover the proper function of things using reason. For example we would agree that the proper function of the heart is to pump blood or for the lungs it is to intake oxygen. Some things have multiple functions. We can use science to discover further functions. Heck the practice of medicine is based on knowing the proper function of organs in order to heal them. "Dr. Hsiao argument is both biological and theological" It's not theological. Natural law ethics is secular. ---"The problem with the this is that biological purposes of sex and cultural purposes of sex are often and conflict with one another" So you don't think an elderly man in a 3rd world country having sex with a 8 year old girl who hasn't reached puberty is wrong? In that instance should we accept the culture that says marrying an 8 year old girl is ok or biological purpose?
Well, my doctor recommended tubal ligation because my last two births were bad, like my child and I both nearly died. And I had placental abruption with both. So, as I somewhat agree with this guys views, there are always situations that are going to be more complicated. I didn’t want a tubal ligation and I’d have loved to have more kids, but my husband cried. He wanted to raise our kids together, not without me. I took his feeling into the matter, and decided not to risk anymore births. I’d rather trust God, but my doctor was also christian, so I’d like to trust the doctor God have me. She was amazing. I had 3 vbacs because of her. My first birth, which was a cesarian, May have caused the two placental abruptions. The doctors when I was younger said I would not have any kids (more chance of winning a lottery, they said). I have four now, so I think I’ve done pretty good.
You're correct and I don't think his intention was to condemn someone in your position (though I could be wrong) but your reasoning was medical and seeking to preserve life. While I think he made some good points we have to be careful with sweeping generalities, but also if we go around trying to qualify everything we may end up getting nowhere and qualifying the point away.
You lost me at "contraception is immoral". I think the problem is the the idea or things being good or bad based on fulfilling their function is a little over simplistic. It's also a little over simplistic to state that the function of sex is only 2 fold - to procreate and to develop a union. Don't get me wrong, I share many of the same morals around sex as this man does but he isn't about to influence anyone who disagrees with that argument.
What does "over simplistic" mean? Why would any argument be negated because of its simplicity? Unless you articulate your reasoning we suspect you just don't like the argument.
@@yeboscrebo4451 I also disagree with Hsiao's view that contraception is immoral. I agree that the functions of sex are procreation and union, but it doesn't mean that procreation is the only and absolute purpose of union. To be one with our spouse is to be a more complete image of God. In some difficult circumstances, it is simply unwise to have more biological children, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the union with our spouse. Biological children can be compensated with spiritual children through evangelization. That way, we still obey God's command to multiply.
@@davewahd182 Do some history. All of Christianity agreed that contraception was immoral until the early 1900s when the Anglicans wanted sex without kids, and then the rest of Christianity went along except for the Catholic Church.
Dave Wahd one could argue that by artificially and intentionally inhibiting the procreative aspect of sex that it implicitly involves a selfish desire for sexual gratification. In essence, by using contraception you are also putting into jeopardy the loving, unitive aspect of sex.
@@preasidium13. You could make a similar argument about chewing gum. Chewing gum in order to diet (if it helps you avoid eating) involves "artificially and intentionally inhibiting" the chewing up food for your bodies nutrition part of gum. You don't need to fulfill all of a body parts functions each time you use it. You may as well argue that people need to talk every time they chew on their food in order to fulfill all of their mouths biological functions. And vice versa. The part about selfishness isn't a very good argument, no offense. Concern with your own wellbeing is not only not wrong, it is moral. You matter just as much as anyone else. To say that taking care of your own happiness is wrong, or morally nuetral, while helping that of others is moral, is arbitrary discrimination. On natural law, humans are clearly designed to seek their own happiness. Thus doing so is moral and failing to do so is immoral. Of course if it involves failing to respect another person's rights or whatever it can be immoral. And finally, in so far as love is not selfish (which it pretty much always is), sex for the sake of bonding can be done with your spouse. That isn't "selfish" in any objectionable way. Of course, in reality love is almost always selfish. And this is a good thing. Could you imagine telling your wife the day before you get married: "Honey, I don't enjoy this relationship at all. I am only doing this for you. Being in this relationship adds no value to my life, but I am going to selflessly stay in it just to make you feel better, even though it costs me dearly." You would probably get slapped!! (I got this analogy from Yaron Brook, even though I don't agree with Objectivism.) The point remains, love is naturally self interested and that's a beautiful thing!!
Reducing human sexuality down to a single function is rather absurd. Just as the mouth can be validly used for eating, breathing, and kissing, so too can the sex organs be used for multiple valid purposes in relationships beyond a singular “proper function” of biological procreation. It seems that non-heterosexual couples can be unified as a couple and successfully raise happy and healthy children, so why deny them the opportunity to express their love to one another physically?
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas already addressed this centuries ago. They would say that organs have _mulitiple powers_ and they would make a distinction between a unnatural use and natural use of a power. An unnatural use is using a power contrary to it's purpose while a natural use is always compatible with it. Kissing, eating and breathing are all using the locomotive power of the mouth and are natural uses, but to eat spikes and razors that destroy the locomotive power of mouth is to using the locomotive power of the mouth contrary to it's purpose. Likewise the reproductive power of the sex organs is for reproduction but to use them for masturbating to porn, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, homosexuality, etc is to use the reproductive power directly contrary to the purpose of reproduction.
@@theroguejester6412 I've seen actors shoot people in movies. Isn't it immoral to shoot people? By answering this question you answer your own objection.
@@LogosTheos You misunderstand. I did not witness an illusion, I have seen people actually physically eat glass. David Blaine and Derren Brown both do it for real, and they teach others how to do it. Glass is dangerous and offers no nutritional value. I’ll ask again, is it actually inherently immoral to eat glass?
@@LogosTheos I’ve seen people get shot in real life too. Is that act of shooting someone always inherently immoral too? Not even the Catechism would support this blanket assertion, opting instead to provide layers of nuance depending on the context. I merely ask that we do the same with same-sex relationships, as opposed to sweeping generalizations.
Is the proper function of a chicken leg to be eaten? It depends right? Ask a vegan! Who decides? Am I committing an immoral act eating the chicken leg? At best, it’s utterly subjective.
Natural Law seems based on the belief that people, and their component parts were created with a purpose by a Creator, and that that Creator has made that purpose clear. I believe that's called "Begging the Question", and is a logical fallacy. First demonstrate we were not just created, but that we are also beings designed with a purpose, and then demonstrate that that purpose itself is moral. Then Natural Law would then logically follow. Until that you have accomplished that, Natural Law is fatally flawed.
even beyond that, they fail to explain why using something "against its purpose" or for something other than its "meant for" means that doing so is positively immoral rather than just a benign neutral act. Like nobody is actually being harmed in any way from gay sex or contraception.
I don't think anything in the bible precludes a married couple using contraceptives. I understand his logic about natural a law, but I'm not convinced that it's biblical.
The argument against contraception that I use is the same argument that Paul deploys against homosexuality in Romans 1 -- I just apply the same reasoning to contraception. At any rate, even if the Bible is silent on contraception, it doesn't mean that it's permissible.
@@timhsiao9642Thanks for taking the time to interact with me.You're much better educated than I, and you have clearly spent a lot of time formulating your ideas. That said, I see how you could make that argument from Romans 1, but I don't see it as a necessary logical outworking. It gives a specific way in which they "abandoned the natural function, " and that was by having sex with the same gender. I don't think that gives us the liberty to say that it's wrong for a married couple to limit the function to sexual pleasure within marriage, which is still a natural function that God designed. I also think that if we applied this logic to other areas of life could create a lot of extra rules. For example, is having a piece of cake a sin? A piece of cake doesn't benefit our bodies very much, and surely there are foods that would better compliment our bodies' natural functions. I'm not saying that overeating, having a food addiction, etc. cannot be sin, but making a rule that eating cake is a sin seems silly and legalistic to me. Yet, I could see "natural law theory" coming to that conclusion.
@@danielcartwright8868 Think about why Paul rejects homosexuality. He appeals to the natural function of men and women. The reason why homosexuality is wrong is because homosexual activity uses sex in a way that it's not supposed to be used. How is it supposed to be used? Answer: procreation. OK, well, that exact same reasoning applies to contraception. It uses sex in a way that it isn't supposed to be used. You object on the grounds of pleasure, but that objection won't work for you. After all, if we can completely reject the procreative purpose of sex for pleasure, then that ends up justifying homosexuality (which I don't think you want to do). In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too: if homosexuality is wrong, then so is contraception. I discuss this and your second objection in more detail in my published work. See my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory."
Very interesting argument, however I have a few objections. 1. The logic you have employed could also be used to prove that chewing gum is wrong. When you chew gum, you are using your mouth merely for pleasure, rather than in order to chew your food so that your body can get nutrients. Thus according to the reasoning you have employed, chewing gum is immoral. I read your paper however, and you respond that it is ok to use a body part for something other than it's natural function occasionally as long as it doesn't interfere with it's normal function. Ok, this means that it is ok to have sex with no possibly of procreation occasionally. Arguing that the mouth is made to sustain us, while the sexual organs are made for "other centered purposes" like procreation and the unity you mentioned, will not help. Sugarless gum does not help you sustain yourself and can be used to help you get the pleasure related to eating without eating. And finally, there is a deeper reason related to the hierarchy of needs objection. Happiness and pleasure are important needs. Having sex for pleasure fufills that need, just as chewing gum does. As long as the activity doesn't contradict the essential purposes, doing it for happiness/pleasure isn't wrong. 2. Using an organ for only some of it's functions during one use isn't necessarily immoral. You may as well argue that eating without talking to someone at the same time is immoral, since you aren't using all of your mouths functions at the same time. Temporarily hindering an organs functions isn't necessarily wrong either. If I put on a friend's glasses, for fun, this may cause my sight to be altered, I may misjudge how far away something is. This temporarily prevents my eyes from fulfilling their proper function, in order for me to use them to produce another experience. Is this really wrong, provided I am doing so in a safe environment? Similarly, contraception hinders you from having children at a specific time, (when it would be bad for you to do so) in order so that you can have sex without pregnancy during that time. 3. To strengthen your argument, I will anticipate a possible change you could make similar to the one you made in your paper: It isn't wrong to for example to do something that an organ wasn't intended for. It isn't misusing a water bottle to put lemonade in it. Why? Because I am not using it in a way that is contrary to it's intention. However, I would be misusing it if I used it to poison someone, since that is contrary to what it was designed for. This seems to undermine your position, however it could be revived. (Well some of it. Your arguments against contraception cannot be saved even if the argument I am about to give, was correct, however.) You could argue that sex outside of marriage, is contrary to the design of forming a life long, child producing bond with the person you are having sex with. This could be strengthened by pointing out what an emotional impact that level of physical intimacy naturally has. It could be contrary, because by doing so, you are forming a bond with a bunch of people and messing up your ability to form one later. And you could argue that it is immoral to take such a sacred bond and put it into a casual relationship. Thus sex outside of a permanent, committed relationship is wrong. (Also a ground for being against divorce.) Homosexuality cannot be said to be wrong for that reason, if it involves a lifelong committed relationship however. (Although, I suppose you could argue about the impossibility of ever having children, but see point 4 and point 5 for my rebuttal.) However, this argument fails quite severely. Because this new claim would argue that sex without a long term commitment and bond is wrong. However, this logically entails that divorce is not only not wrong, but obligatory. After all, once a couple discovers that they no longer have that bond, (or never did in the first place, due to self deception) they are forbidden from having sex, as this is contrary to this bond and connection. To strengthen this, romantic desires are clearly designed to love people who care about you and treat you well. It is highly natural in the relevant sense to want to end a relationship with a spouse, who is abusive or Negligent. In fact, it is unnatural to want to stay with someone who repeatedly beats you or neglects you. This is a malfunction of your romantic desires. The appropriate reaction is to get yourself out and find a more healthy relationship. This would mean that they should split up and find someone new to raise any kids they may have had in the previous marriage. Thus, marriages are rendered so unstable that they are indistinguishable from more long term co-habitation. Thus this possible argument you could make, only proves that prostitution and casual sex are wrong. Not Fornication between a man and a woman who love each other and are cohabiting in a long term relationship that is intended to last forever, but may not if they decide they aren't right for each other. 4. I don't see the real point of your response to the argument that having sex with a spouse who is unable to have children is wrong, if your argument is correct. The fact that it is still contrary to the purpose of their creation. They are only fulfilling two of the purposes of their sex organs - pleasure and the bonding you mentioned. Procreation is not among them. In fact, if one of the partners is fertile, he/she is not only not using all of the functions of their sex organs, they have locked themselves into a marriage where they cannot fulfill that function. Thus, if you applied your argument consistently, you would say that a fertile and an infertile person getting married is just as immoral as homosexuality allegedly is.
5. An additional argument for the morality of contraception. There are times when it is clearly immoral or unwise to have kids. If you are in dire circumstances and cannot afford more kids you must prevent yourself from having them. Thus, that part of your bodies function is clearly harmful to you and temporarily stopping it from functioning is acceptable. If you have a severe genetic disease that will cause excricating pain to a child, if they inherit it, a vasectomy is clearly an appreciate solution. Or if you clearly would be a bad parent due to personality defects you have. Thus in those cases, birth control or vasectomy is appropriate. This also shows that some people shouldn't have kids. Thus, if they were to have long term homosexual relationships, that would be ok.
There are a number of problems with your own arguments. 1) To your first objection, yes happiness is important. But you are putting the horse before the cart. Pleasure is meant to provide motivation to do those things that we are supposed to do--such as eating for sustenance or having children to create a family and sustain society. Pleasure isn't an end in itself. Another distinction to make is whether it is short-term pleasure vs long-term pleasure. Drugs result in pleasure, too. Should we then engage in drug abuse, because we need to have happiness? No, of course not. It provides short-term pleasure in return for long-term harm. Using sex within marriage, to have children and a family, provided you raise your family right, provides long-term happiness. Also, another way to evaluate function is to look to harm. Does sex outside of marriage and procreation cause harm? Yes. It contributes to the spread of STDs. It contributes to divorce rates, which harms children. Studies have shown that the more sex a person has outside of marriage, the higher the likelihood of divorce. On the other hand, what harm does chewing gum cause? Taken together, this reinforces the argument that sex outside of procreation and marriage is immoral. 2) The functions of the mouth are different from the unitive and procreative functions. Eating and talking aren't functions that work together. The bonding the sex creates, on the other hand, dovetails perfectly with the caring of the child that is the result of the procreative function. And this is very, very important. Practically every study ever done on the subject has shown that children of marriages do far better than children of any other type of family arrangement, including cohabitation, divorced parents, and single parents. As for contraception being good, there's science that suggests this is wrong. There is a study showing that those that get married while using hormonal contraception and then stop using it after getting married have a higher divorce rate. Hormonal contraception has been shown to flip what a woman is attracted to in a man. There have been stories of women who go off of the pill and become totally repulsed by their partners. Another example is barrier methods of contraception, which have been shown to increase the rate of preeclampsia in the woman. Yes, interfering with the proper functioning of sexual functions of the body are harmful and immoral. If you're not ready for a baby--don't have sex.
3) Your third point doesn't really make any sense. 4) He never actually argues that infertile couples may not have sex. He says this is ok. I would argue to the contrary. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. If you can't have kids, I would argue that the proper course of action would likely be to seek out a surrogate mother. Iirc, in the Bible, when there was a barren wife, she would select one of her handmaids as a surrogate wife, to fulfill her role to bear a child, in her place. Having children was seen as a duty one must fulfill. If you can't understand why this is important, google 'declining fertility rates.' I think it's ok to have sex a few times in an infertile couple to cement the emotional unification. But only insofar as it strengthens the couple's bond so that they stick together to care for the child. Once they start caring for the child, the sex should stop, imo.
@@justcallmebookworm7543. 1. I disagree with that. Being happy is an end to itself. My point was that if pursuing happiness isn't contrary to the proper function of sex, it is ok. Not all forms of sex carry the risk of pregnancy. As for STD's, almost all activities carry risks. I have heard about the studies you mention. All they say is that sex outside of marriage correlates with divorce. Correlation does not equal casuation. 2. The fact that something requires something else to work doesn't entail that meeting with that other part is a goal. That said, I will grant that a long term bond is a goal of sex. Once again, appealing to side effects is a bad argument. Most activities have risks. In many cases, the benefits of contraception outweigh the costs. Also, for the point that children in marriage do better, that merely proves that marriage is the best relationship to raise a child in. Not that the other environments aren't acceptable per say.
Great video, but I don’t understand the negative contraceptive claim. Hsiao says the concept of complementarity in sex supercedes procreation on the grounds of the comprehensive unity it promotes for the male and female, making a couple in an infertile situation, for example, still able to have a sexual purpose in sex. If that is true, then it seems that contraceptives (in a non-fertilization context) wouldn’t necessarily violate the greater goal of establishing comprehensive union. Am I missing something?
All of natural law theory hinges on whether Aristotles metaphysics is accurate. The problem is that a Christian doesn't have to accept Aristotles metaphysics and therefore doesn't need to subscribe to natural law theory.
No, it doesn't. It hinges more on teleology. Natural law is not specifically Aristotlelian. You can find traces in Asian philosophy such as in Confucianism, the emphasis on harmony with nature that is present in Taoist thought (captured in the concept of Wu Wei) and in Buddhist thought. For example here is a paper by Japanese Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki titled, "The Natural Law Tradition" in Buddhism: scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=8&article=1005&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional Even an atheist can hold to a variation of natural law such as the late Philippa Foot in her book, "Natural Goodness". Also most of all the apostle Paul, who was familiar with stoic philosophy, alludes to natural law (Romans 2:15).
@@LogosTheos I should have meant "classical" natural law theory. Because I know new natural law doesn't derive from metaphysics and I think it's more defensible given that it doesn't reject the is/ought distinction. Furthermore I don't think morality can exist at all under atheism so any morality I think assuming God doesn't exist is fallacious.
But who defines what the function is? Sexual organs could be also be (more abstractly) for the creation of something new that surpasses the creators, namely children. But its not that simple because other things can live on as well, like houses, culture, being kind and caring about the community... What about that!
Beware of the accounts he provides of the classical natural law tradition, because it is not robust against critics. I suggest reading some of the stuff written by the authors of the "New Classical Natural Law Theory", who offer a developed account of Aquinas' original account of Natural Law, such as Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Robert P. George, among others. For example, the following quotes from Finnis' book "Natural Law & Natural Rights" clearly show the wrongness of Hsiao's account of natural law theory: "Both [Aristotle and Aquinas] would go along with Hume’s view that the speculative discernment of ‘eternal relations’, even relations of ‘fitness to human nature’, leaves open the question what motive anybody has for regulating his actions accordingly (. . .) Aquinas would reject the assumption of Clarke, Grotius, Suarez, and Vazquez that the primary and self-evident principles of natural law . . . initially grasped as principles concerned with self-evident relations of conformity or disconformity to human nature . . ." (p. 47-8) “A late but traceable descendant of the Vazquez-Suarez conception of natural law is the argument, which looms large among the modern images of natural law theory, that natural functions are never to be frustrated or that human faculties are never to be diverted (‘perverted’) from their natural ends. But, as a general premiss, in any form strong enough to yield the moral conclusions it has been used to defend, this argument is ridiculous.” (p. 48)
I would like to ask a question in regards to contraception. If contraception is immoral, then is pulling out before ejaculation immoral? And if so, does that mean we are only allowed/ meant to have sex for procreation?
This is my opinion friend, so take it how you will. I am inclined to say yes. Contraception is immoral, so is pulling out before ejaculation and the same can be said for masturbation as well. If we are only having sex for our own pleasure, then it's empty despite what we feel in that moment. LIFE that's what it is all about.
"The parts are being used correctly" so basically correctly means... what he believes to be correct, an assertion without evidence. human minds give meaning and function to things. therefore something you have no function for, may have function to someone else who sees it differently. For example a hammer is typically used as a construction tool, however, someone with a different mentality can find a different use for it. Hammers have been used as murder weapons. Even though we see it as a bad function, it is a function to that person nonetheless. He has an interesting view I must say. I wish religious people would use this concept towards everything, including their invisible friend god.
The first person to make a hammer, made it with a purpose/function. That purpose is known. One using a hammer to murder is misusing the hammer. That is wrong.
This seems like a very flawed basis for morality. It sounds to me like they are looking for a moral system that fits their existing biases. It does not take into account any psychological factors of human existence which is largely where our morality is based. This moral code would be great for a species of robots who didn't have to worry about things like emotions. The comprehensive union piece seems to me like it's just an assertion without any evidence for why it makes sense. The wellbeing argument for morality is far more compelling.
Agreed. The functions of sexual behaviors are not limited to unifying individuals to procreate, that is the function of marriage which is what I would say he was laying a foundation to justify with this argument. There are all sorts of chemical reactions that occur with/without sex in any given situation. They dismissed the argument of animals having sex without any reasonable defense from someone who understands it. The purpose of sex varies within species as much as it can within individuals. Male giraffes, for instance, are often aggressive towards other males as theyve been naturally selected to give sexual selection to the dominant male. However, larger groups with multiple males can arise through homosexuality as it dilutes the aggression between them, making the act entirely moral. Bonobos, close relatives to the chimpanzees and likewise, ourselves, also use sexual intercourse to dilute aggression and have been naturally selected to replace their aggressive behaviors with sexual desire, vastly limiting the consequences of interspecies fighting. They litterally solve their disputes by hashing out a quickie in the bushes. You're unlikely to stumble upon arguments from Christian's that apply neuroscientific knowledge to their arguments as it ultimately leans towards the idea of determinism through understanding that all of our actions and thoughts are linked to desires that stem from physical properties within our brains and our ability to demonstrate free will ultimately vanishes at that point and free will is ultimately a necessity to the religion. (That being said, I'm not entirely a determinist due to the quantum interactions that can also occur within the brain, however it is useful as a generalization of the brains functioning)
@@markk34 giraffes have morality, albeit much more rudimentary then say that of an elephant, chimpanzee, or a dolphin. Most social species have some sense of good and bad behaviors. This is learned through experience as good behaviors help the group while bad behaviors result in retaliation. A good indicator is that most social groups have a leader, or an alpha male/female of some sort. These leaders generally demand order within groups and will punish other individuals for things like stealing food and they'll reward behaviors such as cooperation and altruism. Giraffes are a bit weird in respect to similar animals in that they establish dominancy among the males, but that male does not assume a alpha, or superior rank. It's just so he gets the choice of who to make with. Their behaviors you'd have to look into specifically, but I would assume based on knowledge of other animals that the males might demonstrate altruism towards females and mother's towards their children.
There's a few issues with this. For one, sex has more than one purpose. Sure, it's used for reproduction, but it also has a lot of health benefits and it really deepens the bond between two married people, and it gives you a very deep sense of intimancy. On the other hand, a heart only has one main function, which is to pump blood. Also you could argue that having kids could be a bad thing for you. They're bad for the environment, if you don't want kids then you risk screwing them up psychologically, and if you believe in an eternal Hell then it means you're knowingly subjecting a human life to a very bad fate. Plus the world is overpopulated as it is.
Good points except about overpopupation. The planet isn't overpopulated, big cities are, and besides, the global population is going to start decreasing naturally around much of the world (for better a,d for worse) simply due to birth rates anyway. Also, your point about hell presupposes the mainstream belief that most people are doomed to the mainstream view of hell, even though there are other legitimate interpretations of these things that haven't been denounced as heretical in ecumenical councils of dominant forms of Christianity.
@@ChispaluzYes, and he "literally" said that the unitive function *supervenes* on the procreative function. That the act is unitive at all is just a functional result of procreation requiring a man and a woman to have sex.
Yes, if you presume sex is oriented towards procreation and unity, this reasoning works. However, it seems to me that excluding very important aspects of sex (like expressing identity, love, happiness, amusement etcetera) results in a question-begging conclusion. Thus, your conclusion is not natural at all. It is a strongly pious distillation of what sex is. That your pious destillation leads to a pious conclusion is very logical, but it is not natural law.
Saying that Infertile couples don't violate this law because they are "trying" to procreate or becasue "in principle" they could have a child is weak. Any time an infertile person has sex its because of pleasure and/or "unity". And there is no reason that this mentality can't be similar in a homosexual person. Also if we are trying to boil things down to their purpose then you have to consider every body part. And every body part is biologically used for the survival of yourself and our species. So if you applied this argument to say your eyes and ears, then doing something like watching a movie or a TH-cam video would violate their original purpose.
@@junelledembroski9183 Consider these independent objections: (i) NLT says moral obligations are grounded in the basic human goods (life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability), an account of moral obligation I just don't feel is as convincing as alternative accounts of moral obligation. I just don't see why promoting these basic humans goods is obligatory. (ii) There is a plurality of basic human goods. . Thus, the rules generated by the basic human goods can come into conflict, and there is no determining principle for adjudicating between two conflicting rules. In many cases, that means right action is indeterminate. Contrast this to other deontological theories that put forward a hierarchy of obligations (e.g., W.D. Ross's deontology; divine command theory) where right action is always determinable. (iii) NLT can be adopted by the atheist, but it seems that moral nihilism follows from atheism. If we adopt theistic NLT, we grant intellectual permission to the atheist to adopt atheistic NLT. I don't think we want to do this. Maybe we could make the concession that moral value can be accounted for on atheism, and that there are basic human goods even on atheism. But I just don't see why we would be obligated to promote those goods.
@@acephilosopher5146 Against your first objection: Moral obligations aren't grounded in "basic human goods" under Aquinas. You are mixing classical and new natural law theories. Classical natural law is based in the understanding goodness as a function of what a thing does. X is good if X is a good K, where X is a being a K is the kind of being X is. A watch is a good watch if it properly tells time. A tree is a good tree if it can photosynthesize. A man is a good man if he worships God. And so on. The "basic human goods" are simply what fulfills us as human beings. Against your second objection: You clearly don't know anything about the Natural Law theory if you think there's no determining principle between two obligations imposed on us from Natural Law. The entirety of Natural Law Theory rests on the idea that goodness is hierarchical. In particular, Aquinas identifies three levels of welfare conditions that generate ethical duties: welfare conditions that we have in common with all living things, welfare conditions we have in common with all other animals, and welfare conditions specific to us as rational beings. There's a clear hierarchy here, or do you think that rational beings are equal to non-rational beings? Against your third objection: A version of natural law theory could be adopted by an atheist, but the premises of Classical Natural Law theory are the same premises that lead to God's existence. In any case, I don't see how convincing nihilistic atheists to not be nihilists is a bad thing. You also imply that natural law theory somehow leads to atheism, which is a highly implausible claim.
@@acephilosopher5146 You are describing what's called the new natural law theory, which is quite distinct from classical natural law theory. Their main difference is that you need an Aristotelian/thomistic metaphysics to ground the latter, while you dont for the former. Thus, classical NL has the drawback of requiring mor prep work, but the advantage of beinf right.
That's a common objection, given by Hume I think. Because classic natural law theory is based on teleology. An answer a natural law theorist would give is that the ought is implicit in the is because it talks about how a good human being is (one whos faculties meet their proper functions). Of course one could say well i dont ought to be a good human being, but that seems too rationalistic. Nevertheless, im not sure if the argument is correct, what do you think?
yep. why Ought I follow these abstract and seemingly arbitrary rules? how does it benefit me or others? They dont take that into account. No actual harm is being done with these sexual acts that they deem "immoral" with this abstract rule
My questions- what’s ur take on a heterosexual couple who are not married but have sex that resulted in a child. 2)- a couple who are in love but aren’t ready to get married yet. 3)- a married couple having sex but don’t want to have kids yet/anymore
I would like to answer this in the Natural Law approach that Prof. Hsaio uses: 1) the unmarried parents can stay together and form comprehensive union, start sharing their entire life together. 2) The couple in love can express their love for one another in non-genital ways until they decide they are ready for children & comprehensive union in marriage. 3) the married couple can use natural means of abstinence during fertile periods to prepare for a family--always respecting the funtion/purpose of their shared sexuality.
"Natural Law means in accordance with proper function". And whom, pray tell, gets to decide what that function is? Natural Law, as described by Tim Hsiao, means that things are immoral if he doesn't like them. That's it. Everything else is an ad hoc justification. Unmarried sex is immoral. However, if you are married, consent is irrelevant. Sex and marriage serve the purpose of procreation. Therefore, marital rape is moral. That's where this line of questioning started.
Reason. Things have an orientation. A houses function among other things is to provide shelter. The purpose of s book is to be read. Things have purposes when we examine them
@@bskec2177 no, things have purposes when we discover them in reality. It aligns with scientific examinations of the body like what is the purpose of sperm
Turned this off when he said homosexuality & bisexuality is wrong. Also, why is he talking about this when he doesn’t know how to pronounce bisexuality?
its actually the whole point of them making up this whole framework, to serve as a clever sounding, abstract series of rules and pretend it counts as real ethics, all to retroactively reaffirm the religious preconceived notions of sexual ethics
As much as i agree with this analysis, id like to know what natural law says about the elderly and very disabled people? Naturally, they don't have a function in society so why do we take care of them?
The answer to your question is in this video. What is natural to the human person is to live. It becomes the duty of individuals and society to foster a culture of life.... Sooo the elderly, homeless, sick-bound, and all the casted out members of society are to be cared for by aiding to the restoration of their liberality. Here liberality meaning to have the means in himself to pursue what conducive to living.
The idea that sex only has two purposes as a black-and-white fallacy. Or something like that anyway. You can think that it only has two purposes, but from an evolutionary, or a biological perspective you’d be incorrect. Sex has a myriad of functions. Some examples beneficial for mental health, the exercise, beneficial for physical health, can be used for deeper emotional connection, and many many others. So anyway,I just don’t think that the Piction that sex only has two purposes is entirely correct
Morals are for the better interest of humans Nature is just nature not evil not good we were given free will not allways in accord with human or relegious laws. If you hurt someone thats a direct damage to someone whether intentionaly or not .Got to think
So in natural law theory a person can't have an ice cream cone if a salad is there. The ice cream cone can produce more harm than can the salad. It ice cream cone "detracts" from our function. The problem with natural law theory is that it address what is best for the physical function of the organism and nothing else. If you live your life according to natural law theory you will not go on the Ferris wheel because it is a useless waste of personal resources, a woman will not wear high heels shoes, and a healthy person will ride his bicycle to the store rather than drive his car.
Yeah, no. That doesn't follow. Your objection rests on a very shallow understanding of NLT. See my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory" for a much more detailed explanation.
@Tim Hsiao I have a comment section to work with and explain my position. Obviously your reply is less informative than is my comment. But I will add this to my thoughts; there is a whole another view on what constitutes, and what can, and should define morality. It comes down to the fact that humans, and probably most animals to some degree, do not have to rigidly follow natural law for their species to survive. And so we are free to seek that which gives us pleasure with morality putting up a boundary when the pursuit of pleasure interferes with others.
@@timhsiao9642 It doesn't follow that she is wrong, her point is valid. The consumption of less nutrious food inhibits the proper functioning of the body, and therefore would be immoral. By the same standard, being overweight is immoral. So fat people are immoral, I guess?
@@timhsiao9642 Hi Tim. There was this discussion Brennan had with Logos Theos on another thread here maybe you can weight in. Brennan asked what is the purpose of a hand. In Logos Theos's response he change this to a heart and said it pumps blood. I actually think trying to provide and answer for the HAND exposes a serious problem with NLT. Is the hand for punching someone? In some cases this might be a good thing. Is NLT broad enough to say whether or not it would be moral to punch someone?
@@WhtetstoneFlunky And once again, I would point you towards my larger body of written work to see why that view is mistaken. www.academia.edu/23301482/Consenting_Adults_Sex_and_Natural_Law_Theory
It disrespects the natural function of sex, to unify TWO people. Not more than that. Lets say theres one man and two women. When he has sex with one of them he unifies with her. When he has sex with the other, it takes away from their union in HIS eyes because he is focused on union with the other woman. Just like if you are trying to read two books at once, you cant just split your vision and read both at once.
@Estefanía So this natural law only applies to humans then? Why? Additionally, how could it be a natural law if the very same nature it's based off of disobeys it?
@@chavezharding7820 The video answers that question. Natural law recognizes that humans are not the same as every other organism in nature and that different organisms have differing needs and functions. Humans are shown to naturally have qualities above of that of rest of the animal kingdom, so what's good for a bird is not necessarily good for a human. And natural law isn't simply based on nature. Its based on the healthy functioning of nature. When nature is functioning in a way that wrecks it's own healthy functions, we know something is off in the environment. This is why we get alarmed when we see disease.
There's no evidence for 5:20 "[the unitive fuction] is in virtue of the procreative function", this is just a claim. Lol 7:20 you "resepect the orientation of the organ", but not the orientation of the individual.
Viewer Discretion He’s claimed that “Sex has two purposes which are procreation and unity. No one would deny that procreation is at least a purpose of sex. What makes a union? What makes something united as a whole? Think of an airplane. The wings, The avionics etc all work together to fulfill a common function. So something is a unity of its parts are working together as a coordinated whole. Similarly, the parts of a human all work together for the whole. This is called homeostasis”. *Homeostasis-* the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes. “The unitive purpose of sex relies on the sexual organs working together towards a common function. *There’s only one function to which every human being alone is inherently incomplete and that’s procreation.* To support this he says: “Not the mere rubbing together of two body parts! A surgeon who sticks his hand into a patient isn’t uniting with his patient. If you bump into somebody, you’re not uniting with that person.” “If a couple is sterile or, either the couple or the organs are striving towards proper function, it is morally permissible . What matters in morally permissible sex is that you strive towards the ends of the sexual organs. So even if the effect cannot be achieved, so long as the person you’re acting on is a fitting subject for that action, in that it’s the proper function for the sexual organs, that you’re using, it’s morally permissible. Similar to a football team which plays well but never wins.” “Good sex respects the purpose of sex. Any sex that doesn’t seek to fulfill its proper function is immoral. This includes homosexuality, oral sex, bestiality, contraception, masturbation, anal sex etc.” “Because human beings can deliberate and reason, we speak of good and bad at the moral level. So the ability to reason is what turns non moral goodnesses into moral goodness”. I’m guessing that when human beings violate the proper function of their organs, that would be by definition the misuse of those organs.
@@LtDeadeye Yes, all that can be done is for particular people to assert their definitions. But asserting a definition is just a claim. There is actually no evidence that if I have 2,000 instances of homosexual sex in my life that I have done anything immoral - because immoratily here is just a definition that is asserted. A completely adequate response is, "I do not agree with the assertion of natural law or this version of morality" Natural law seems quite incapable of dealing with diverse purposes, because it rewards academics for publishing simplistic purposes.
Viewer Discretion This reasoning of his will only work, I suppose, for those who already believe in moral realism. Otherwise, attempting to convince someone who doesn’t believe that morality is real that we have moral obligations would be like trying to convince a blind person that the sky is blue. It’s almost impossible!
That might fall under the purview of Comprehensive Unity as argued in the video. I wish they had elaborated more on exactly what was meant by that term.
Yikes, so many unjustified assumption and so much ad hoc reasoning to get around objections. He did a much better job discussing abortion. How did he come to the conclusion about what sex is for? The worst part was trying to justify sex for those are infertile. If a teacher taught students knowing that she did not understand the material would she still be a good teacher? Of course not. If her function is to impart knowledge it is still immoral for her to try if she knows she can't. I don't think it is immoral for infertile people to have sex, but I do believe his natural law explanation is flawed (there is an additional and independent purpose for sex).
@@timhsiao9642 Fair enough, I'm sure you had to do much condensing. Can you give the title(s) of some of your work that you would suggest on this topic?
I don't think he did that good of a job on abortion either. He confuses personhood with citizenship several times, and never explains that the unborn have never been considered legal persons.
Tim Hsiao you discuss two functions of sex. But there are more than two. This isn't natural law because it doesn't apply to nature. It's human law, or more specifically human religious law.
@@JL0007 I think you are misunderstanding that argument. The basic gist is that there is no reason to exclude the unborn as persons that would not apply to some people who have been born. Legal personhood is irrelevant to his argument.
Girl is attracted to boy. Boy is attracted to girl. Boy goes in for kiss. Girl kisses back. Things evolve from there. Consent. Sex. Not consent: Boy goes in for kiss, girl doesn't kiss back and tries to move away from him, but he presses and pushes her down. Girl freezes in fear. Sex happens. Not. Consent.
The professor is making a deeper statement. Consent alone doesn't make something moral. Say an adult father, in a sexual manner, kisses his adult daughter, and the adult daughter (also in sexual manner) kisses her adult father back. Here exists consent, but this situation is not moral.
@@paltic1254 Every part of the act is immoral. Firstly, God has declared it to be immoral. Secondly, biology itself clues us in to its immorality by the statically higher chance of deformed children being a result of such unions between closely related relatives. It's impossible to list every reason it's harmful on a social level. Socially, incest relationships annihilate the healthy boundaries that support healthy families. Platonic relationships are a vital element of society. Nothing of lasting worth can happen in a society without them. When such a basic thing isn't even modeled within a family, it eviscerates healthy notions of privacy and appropriateness. And the logical conclusion is a drastic erasing of all notions of ethics being tied to sex.
My understanding is that there is some debate among natural law over oral sex. All natural lawyers hold that oral sex which culminates in male climax is in violation of the natural end/final cause of sex. However, some hold that oral sex as foreplay [for example, non-ejaculatory fellatio] may be permissible, while others reject all forms of oral stimulation.
Given the difficulty that "proper function" is open for all sorts of debate, and that there seem to be so many circumstances that he has to find ways to skirt around, it is very difficult to see this argument as anything other than a manifestation of the confirmation bias. As a transgender person, I feel this argument has the added burden that it appears to be extremely detrimental to the mental health of people in my LGBT+ community. Though there are a lot of interesting arguments presented on this channel, this one feels particularly hollow.
I think you'd have to make the case against it. Your post seems mostly to be that it might hurt peoples feelings. We really need to start moving away from this fear and moving toward truth and truth can only be found if we present our cases, with as much respect as possible.
Does the fact people debate the idea of "proper function" from various perspectives actually mean that there is no objectively moral position on the issue of proper function? Similarly, does subjective morality serve humanity's progress? Can there be harmony with great sectors of society rejecting objective moral absolutes?
@Not My Real Name secular values have resulted in kids playing pretend strip dancer in gay bars. That seems to be what progress is in the modern world. Just look into "desmond is amazing dancing in gay bar" where adult toss cash at him and currently drag queen story hour is encouraging this type of behavior as it has been seen where a drag queen teaches kids to twerk and one actually did a strip like dance where the drag queen ripped off their skirt which revealed a thong to these kids. This is considered "progress" in the secular world.
@@clintonwilcox4690 bruh, the arguments presented are "I have decided the purpose of this, therefore things that go against their purpose are immoral" Some problems with that are: He does not get to decide what the purpose of something is. Many things have multiple conflicting purposes.
@@LogosTheos You cannot discover something's "purpose". Things do not have a purpose defined by the universe and you cannot follow a process to find it out. Purpose is a purely subjective idea.
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785 That is just begging the question against natural law ethics. You can reject purpose in nature but many ethical consequences will follow and you will have to come up with ad hoc definitions of what is considered good and what is considered bad. For example let me ask you. How would you define a good action?
This doesn't work for me, and I'm a Christian. If you want to defend traditional values, this isn't the best way. Granted, not everyone follows the Bible, so what's the non-Biblical argument for traditional values? How about the obvious? No other system has worked. Honestly, who has the Sexual Revolution benefitted? To take just one example, I used to watch Sex in the City & I just felt bad for them - they seemed so miserable. Look around us: the Sexual Revolution keeps failing to deliver on its promises & we're told we just need more of it. At this point, the Sex Rev is a bit like socialism: both fail, but both persist. That's the more persuasive argument.
The argument your making utilitarian/pragmatic argument, in the sense that it addresses the value of an idea based on its performance, and I would argue is a better argument altogether.
Why do you think it doesn't work? None of my premises are based on scripture. I would invite you to read my published work -- esp my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory" -- for a detailed presentation of the points I make here.
@@br8745 Utilitarianism consequentialism is not Christian. It is an Enlightenement theory that was born out of materialist metaphysics and is full of holes: www.academia.edu/35310760/Fundamental_Objections_to_Consequentialism_The_Aggregate_versus_Thomistic_Account_of_the_Common_Good
@@LogosTheos To respond to your question, what is the correct amount of children to have? According to what? If your argument is that function can be determined by observation, then the only observation necessary is to understand humans, then the entire field of Economics would like to have a word with you. If we suppose that medical advancements are good because they promote life, which is also observed to be good, and that contraceptives are bad because they inhibit life, and that procreation is good because it produces life, then we are now left with the overpopulation problem. Exponentially increasing population is a recipe for destruction as malthus observed. It's why we cull deer, but you are arguing we should act as the overpopulated deer do? Or do you posit that war, famine and disease are good because they act as natural population control?
Contraception is not immoral, it is in fact moral as it is using your reproductive ability that God has given you responsibly. God asks us to be responsible with our bodies (hence why he asks us not to have sex before marriage) & his world. If we need to stop having children then it's our responsibility to stop our selves from creating them & that means using some form of contraception if we are going to continue in the intimacy of marriage. Jesus had the power to make food when ever he wanted, could fly & walk on water & many other things but he didn't do that all the time 'just because he had that gift' & he could do it, no he used his powers reponsibly & only when God wanted him to do so. To say that every time we have sex it should be unprotected, is essensially saying God wants us to pump out kids after kids after kids everytime we have sex, which is both stupid, as it is using the gift of life God gave us irresponsably, & completely untrue, because to act irresponsibly with our bodies is against Gods will for our lives. There is no biblical basis for being irresposible with our reproductive ability.
On the same topic so I take it Prof. Tim Hsiao doesn't shave? Because that is trying to stop the "proper natural function" of the beard hair buy cutting it off & stopping it's "proper natural function" & goal of growing long. & since he hasn't got much facial hair I can assume he either does shave/cut his beard hair or he can't grow it very long.
@@Ryo-sj8wn Shaving objection doesn't work. See my reply in my published work: “Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory” Philosophia 44:2 [2016] -- www.academia.edu/23301482/Consenting_Adults_Sex_and_Natural_Law_Theory (see the section "Alleged Counterexamples")
My simple definition of natural law is reason's reading of human nature to know what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, many people begin with what they want and then rationalize why they should be able to have it.
Lotta interesting points in here about Natural Law theory. Pretty neat stuff! === I feel a good point was missed, though: that of 'pair bonding' in women. An equivocal physiological response is not found in men, but women are physically designed to bind emotionally to their partner in such a relationship. This process includes hormones washing over the brain to change it to desire the specific partner with which consummation was achieved. An interesting point about this pair bonding? The human body can build up a tolerance to this hormone 'wash': it will likely not happen again to the strength of the 'wash' from the initial consummation the woman experiences. In short: women are not neurologically built for 'one-and-done' or 'one-night-stands', as their bodies are built for ONE partner, and change themselves to desire their first partner even if that partner is disloyal. A man taking advantage of this greatly disrespects his partner, and a woman unaware of this loses out on (dare I say) a major gift that is best saved for her husband. Human beings are designed for monogamous union. May be a bit off on some points, so correction would be appreciated, but that's my general understanding of the topic. A similar hormone 'wash' occurs throughout a woman's first pregnancy, better gearing her physically and mentally for transitioning to the role of motherhood, but that's outside the scope of this video, I think.
I find this way of thinking extremely shallow to say the least, i could write a full response but i'd rather not spend so much energy on this. Instead i'll just point out that if we based our daily lives on this point of view, many of our actions would be considered immoral in one way or the other. In fact, i just think he's assuming some many things about goals, right after he decides to which degree the goal as been reached, tags it good or bad and then if it is bad it is somehow immoral. Because you can't have different goals/objectives than the ones already assigned nor can you deviate from it while using the "natural law theory" as an excuse to justify this way of thinking. Such a limited way of thinking.
@@yeboscrebo4451 If you believe Tim's definition of good and your purpose for him and the new testament claims that few get to heaven, then god is not good. You don't even have to wait and see if your one of the few.
Homosexuality among animal species is totally fine. They don’t violate any moral laws, that would be silly. Unlike animals, MANKIND is a moral agent made in the image of God. So we have an obligation to uphold Gods moral law. Animals are a different story. Their only natural duty is to survive and reproduce. Gods not gonna judge a lioness at the end of her life for abandoning her cubs.
False. It leads to humans rights, equality and freedom. Western values are literally based on natural law thinking. You can read, "The Origins of Western Liberalism" by atheist political philosopher Larry Siedentop who admits that.
@@LogosTheos western society is no longer based on rape, killing and plundering so i would disagree. The enlightment luckily put us on a better path. Humanism.
@@LogosTheos ideas develop over time and spread. It takes time before it gains real traction. But the enlightenment is the official demarkationline most historians point to .
@@LogosTheos Natural Law Theory seems to me to conflate purpose and function in regards to organisms broadly and human behaviours specifically, if not always than certainly sometimes. The function of our sexual organs is for reproduction, yes, but it is of course debatable whether or not they ought to always be used exclusively for that purpose.
My religious education was *never* this good. I would ask a deep question, and they would give me a coloring book of white Jesus. No wonder so many left the church.
Yes, unfortunately there is a severe lack of education in the church. Thankfully there's a movement now to try and change that.
Galilee was founded by the Gauls ( Celts) and by his time t hff e Greeks had well Hellenized ( with sperm) the Levant
This isn't good either. This is some weapons grade stupidity being dressed up as 'knowledge'.
Daniel Hopkins I am interested in the sources of this if you wouldn’t mind. My understanding was that archeologists now believe celts can from tribes in what is now known as the caucuses, possible the Scythian, who migrated around the Mediterranean a few thousand years ago. The Levantine would have already been populated at that time though.
People who are determined to leave would leave whether or not they were listening to philosophical arguments about sex.
Prof Tim Hsiao doesn't seem to realize that homosexual behavior has been shown in an extremely wide variety of animals FOR A PURPOSE. If natural law theory is about what we see in nature, this is a great counterpoint.
Gay/bi partnerships in animals occur for a variety of reasons some of which include: promoting success of sibling kin (gay uncle theory), a way of establishing hierarchy, a way of raising kin when little mates of the opposite sex exist, some species rapidly mate with any member of their species (some flies I think) - anyway they do this because it is actually faster for them (yeah i dunno how that works but its a thing) and other reasons we don't know yet (e.g in sheep)
He addressed this point. Under his view this would fall under the issue of not using the organs for it's intended function (of procreation). "If natural law theory is about what we see in nature" he also addressed this in the video 9:35.
I’m curious how natural law theory would deal with practises such as coitus interruptus, oral sex, non-penetrative same-sex intercourse, or intercourse in post-menopausal marriages. If all of these are less than ideal, it holds a very narrow view of sexuality indeed.
@Gabriel Patrasso Zelaquett Oral sex would have the same deficiency as the rest--it is considered mutual masturbation, not fulfilling the function of ejaculation (procreation and union).
He discusses that question in the Q&A as part of this presentation found here: th-cam.com/video/NZy481NG3jM/w-d-xo.html
The part of this viewpoint I’m not sure about is the idea that the unitive part of sex is dependent on the procreative part. It makes sense that sex is both unitive and procreative but it just doesn’t seem to ring true that the unitive is subject to the procreative. It seems that people find sex unitive even when they are not in line with procreation (ie birth control, homosexual relations, etc). Also with the analogy of the blind eye, he said at the beginning that the goodness (functional not moral) of an object is based on how well it meets its function. So a blind eye would be a bad eye bc it is not meeting its function of seeing. Therefore if a couple is infertile that would mean the procreative part of their sex is bad/broken and if the unitive part is dependent on the procreative part that seems to mean that the unitive part would not be able to work either. But reality shows us that couples can engage in unitive sexual relations even if they are infertile.
3 problems I found. There's probably more, but I found Prof. Hsiao to be hard to listen to with his droning monotonous speech (That's not meant to be insulting, just an opinion), and I don't feel the need to subject myself to watching the video a 3rd time.
1) 3:13 "If it's not good for me, then i'ts bad". This is a Black and White fallacy. th-cam.com/video/eqz53d-fYL8/w-d-xo.html
--Just because X is not good does not automatically make it bad. X could be neutral, and, just because X is not moral does not automatically make it immoral. X could be amoral.
2) He does not justify his assertion about the comprehensive unity aspect of sex? This aspect seems to be an assertion that is not based on anything but belief.
3) 13:15 About animals engaging in homosexual sex is alright for animals, but not for humans, but he doesn't justify why there is a difference. This a special pleading fallacy. th-cam.com/video/yeRsLb6nvfg/w-d-xo.html
Your first objection does not work in the case of sex. If you are not using sex for its proper purpose, you are almost certainly using it AGAINST its function (i.e you are actively preventing procreation from taking place). It is therefore bad, like a firefighter who keeps buildings on fire, whatever other motivation he might have for doing so (i.e sadistic pleasure).
Animals have no rationality, meaning they lack the ability to think about what is good for them, and what is not. Any moral judgement of their actions is meaningless.
I am not sure what is meant by comprehensive unity, so I can't address that. But as far as I can see, the case is that sex unites two people because it brings them together to fulfill a purpose neither one can on their own (reproduction).
@@innocentiii7329 1) Not necessarily. By argument, the two functions of sex are Procreation and Comprehensive Unity. Engaging in intercourse that is prevented from causing Procreation (either by intercourse with an infertile/same sex partner or by the use of technology to prevent conception) does not preclude the possibility of the function being performed rightly later. By contrast, if the firefighters don't stop the fire, the building will burn down.
2) Regarding Comprehensive Unity, the Professor lists it as a separate function from Procreation. Take the case of an infertile sexual partner, male or female, in a heterosexual relationship. If Procreation was the only valid pursuit of sex, intercourse with an infertile/barren partner would be immoral. This does not seem to be alleged or even addressed in the video. Comprehensive Unity seems to be a function solely affecting the two partners.
3) Per animals, so far as we know, they do not operate with a moral understanding. I agree that assessing the actions of primates from a perspective of moral law as applied to humanity is generally counterproductive.
its also from the get-go just a set of abstract rules that provide no incentive or appeal to follow them. they're not real pragmatic ethics. No type of harm is being done in these acts he's condemning. they just break this rule
Yes Christians used to be against contraception. They also didn't live in countries where the government made it brutally prohibitive to have large families. That's something that only happened since WW2.
This interview was awesome, you posed so many great questions and he answered them so well with pointing back to his original argument, being to reproduce and unity. I learned a lot in terms of defending the argument and faith position.
@BMore Um, I have studied the subject -- I have multiple peer-reviewed publications on this issue. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like you've understood the approach I'm taking, since your question has nothing to do with the arguments I make.
@BMore Animals and humans natures are different, similar, but different. As well as the standard in which God views it. So for one to uphold the same standard is a fallacy, as Prof.Tim gave example on what is in their nature and what is of human nature. An example in terms of Bible Reference : 1 Cor. 15:39 ( clear distinction)
BMore I will pray for you !! I love you !!
@BMore seems like a false claim. Please provide evidence.
@BMore Stop spouting your
I've never heard of this professor but I'm impressed with his reasoning and ability to explain concepts. I'll be looking for more of him.
This is inherently thoughtless and not considering the overpopulated and over polluted planet. Why should we be creating new life when a billion are already are going hungry, and orphanages are overflowing with disadvantaged kids that need their parents?
So when is sex wrong? Whenever its not the "proper function" as determined by someone who doesn't see it as the proper function. Throw around the term "natural law theory" and pretend you've done some other than providing a completely subjective assessment.
You can easily dismiss all moral assessments as being subjective, and for that matter, I can just dismiss your criticism here as being subjective. Maybe his arguments aren't sound (I certainly disagree with him), but it'd be nice to actually engage with his arguments.
@@kevintaylor1638 From what I can tell, he simply declares some act not to be proper, to be a violation of natural law, and therefore its wrong. That's really not an argument. Maybe I missed it, but if you can lay out the argument you see him making, I'd be happy to engage it.
@@madmax2976 But that is an argument, not a very good one maybe, but its still an argument. But it's not exactly what he said. To determine the proper function of certain aspects of human beings, he seems to use a purely biological/evolutionary argument: From a biological perspective, the purpose of sex in nature is indeed reproduction; there's no doubt about that. He then goes on to argue that since that is the fundamental purpose of sex, any sexual act that goes against this purpose is morally wrong. The hidden premise here is also the most controversial: "If a particular action, call it X, goes against the fundamental purpose, or the proper function of a moral agent, then X is morally wrong." I am sure he would word it differently, and there's a lot more to his argument.
Kevin Taylor I mean if it’s from a biological/evolutionary perspective, than he’s wrong so mistaken. Ask any evolutionary psychologist what the purpose of sex is, and I’m sure they can write a book on the amount of purposes it has. Even if natural law theory is true, it’s still a laughably bad argument.
@@is44ct37 Care to outline some of these purposes? In nature, reproduction is the rule. That's the primary purpose of sex.
I am honestly not trying to draw fire from my Protestant brothers in Christ, but the man is laying official Catholic teachings quite well. It’s very nice when new logic and reason dovetails with traditional beliefs. It’s too bad that many Catholics, myself included in earlier years, do not embrace those teachings, nor are we taught them in a way they were explained and not just presented as arbitrary rules. Just saying...
Agreed as someone who was raised catholic, but not raised as a proper catholic the teachings became convoluted and shameful. They were hindering of my spiritual growth. As I’ve become more awakened and aware it’s much easier to see the many good practices Christianity and Catholicism have, but are misrepresented or misguided for power and control. Overall integration of Christ consciousness AND Lucifer consciousness instead of separation of the two are key in my opinion and not viewing spirituality as solely external or solely internal but both. Most people search for ‘God’ out of fear, but you can never find him until you have faith.
One problem that arises is Natural Law's theory of an ordered society, homosexual sex could be prohibited under this theory in order to promote an ordered society. Likewise, the unity that was discussed can be achieved by two homosexual partners alongside two sterile heterosexual partners.
Biggest problem here seems to be he is arguing backwards from the bible, rather than forwards toward. Contraceptives can be morally good if it means that families can limit the amount of children they can afford to take care of. Vasectomies can help prevent high risk/dangerous pregnancies in the later years. Proper function seems to be a slippery argument in the sense that 'proper function' must necessarily yield to 'proper utility'. Children used to be, economically speaking, assets. Now, they are liabilities. Thus, people have less children. Intentionality seems to be irrelevant in natural law. Is it wrong to have sex while married if you cannot afford a child? If so, then is it only acceptable to remain chaste while married? Following, is it wrong to desire sex while married even though you are not financially stable enough for children, despite the greater union sex brings? The problem with the natural law argument, it seems, is that an object can have multiple purposes. A great point of this is the sterile couple. If their were a medical procedure to cure their sterility, then they are morally bad if they do not pursue such a procedure. Rules which lack even semblances of utility are not very useful.
Brennan Rialti Ugh. Vomit. People should be allowed to have as many kids as they want. And has no one ever heard of natural family planning? It’s as accurate as using a condom. It’s just that people don’t want to use self control or have any responsibility. You can use your nasal body temperature and your vaginal mucus to know when you’re ovulating. And it’s more personal. You can get the husband involved and he can be even closer to you by knowing your cycle. It’s what I used to get pregnant. If I can use it to get pregnant, people can use it to avoid pregnancy and practice self control. It’s a beautiful thing.
@@junelledembroski9183 Your argument is different than the videos. If it is acceptable to frustrate one of the functions of sex, then the means is irrelevant. Otherwise your simply making an argument that it is acceptable to mitigate a natural function of sex, and only wrong if using an artificial means. Which is a different argument entirely.
So the question is whether it is wrong to have sex with intention of preventing pregnancy. If so, natural family planning is wrong, because you are inhibiting a natural, intended function. If not, the type of family planning used, natural or artificial, is irrelevant, because they are being used with the same intention towards the same end.
Further more, some forms of birth control are many, many more times effective than condoms or natural family planning. Therefore why is it wrong to use, say, an IUD. If you want to have sex without getting pregnant, why is it wrong to choose to use the method with the highest efficiency?
Brennan Rialti My argument wasn’t supposed to be the same as the video’s.
No, natural family planning doesn’t go against nature it uses nature to rightly guide the process. It also teaches self control, being responsible for your actions, and makes the process a truly shared experience with partners. I understand the want to just stop the process, but it teaches no self control. Go ahead and act on your feeling immediately with no consequence. I’m just saying, if you want the world to be better teaching kids self control is the way to go. It takes effort and denying yourself until the right time. There’s quite a few days that someone can have sex with their partner in a month when watching the signs of the times. 😉
@@junelledembroski9183 That's fair enough. I'm not saying people can't use natural family planning. I just think it's wrong to demonize people who use other methods for the same purpose. There's a reason every major Christian denomination is accepting of contraceptives, with the exception of the Catholic Church. Natural family planning may work for some people, other methods for other people, different strokes for different folks. Not to mention natural family planning is not inherently a sign of self control, particularly for women with irregular periods www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/4084891/.
According to your logic, I should have remained fertile after having a baby almost killed me and the baby.
How immoral of you to save yourself
@@He.knows.nothing Not to mention ensuring that my daughter was able to have her mother around.
Sacrificing a healthy function to save oneself from a deadly medical outcome is not the same as sacrificing a healthy function for convenience sake. I think the professor is talking about convenience sake.
trenton9 Just because a person CAN have a baby doesn’t mean that they must, or even that they should.
@@lepp6598 That's where self-discipline and responsibility come in. Intentionally destroying healthy function is not the best way to exercise responsibility.
As a Christian channel, when you start talking about immorality and Christian practice, it would be nice at some point to bring in scripture to substantiate what you and/or your guests are saying. In 1 Cor 7, I see Paul saying that a husband and wife should not deprive each other of sex and only if it's for a season of prayer, and to actually reunite quickly so that both are not tempted. This says nothing about children here and so we could rightly argue that a proper function of sex is purely relational and to keep us from temptation and I wouldn't see any Biblical evidence to suggest that it also _must_ retain an end goal as well of the possibility of children or it is then going against a proper function. I don't think you can make a Biblical case against birth control, but if you do (as Dr. Hsiao did) it would be great to bring in scripture and not pure philosophy. Thanks, Cameron.
Agreed. This is the problem I see with his argument, that their can be multiple purposes to a single act/object.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation. The other function is unitive. The reason why Dr. Hsiao isn't appealing to the Bible is because you don't need revelation to know whether or not an action is wrong. Natural laws ethics is not based on religious argumentation.
LogosTheos One purpose is procreation, but another is unification. What I am saying is that I would need a biblical mandate to say that the removal of intentional procreation and solely for unification would be sin if it is still within the confines of an already outlined biblical marriage.
@@LogosTheos the problem here then becomes that proper function requires a judge to determine proper function. Otherwise it must be a self evident realization, which is silly. For example, define the proper and improper functions of a hand. The problem here becomes who gets to determine proper function. Dr. Hsaio's argument is both biological and theological. Marriage isn't an inherent biological construct in humans and is largely cultural, particularly in terms of monogamy. The problem with this is that biological purposes of sex and cultural purposes of sex are often in conflict with one another. Thus the problem of proper function: proper function according to what? Biology? Theology? Culture? Choosing multiple fields in cherry picking.
@@br8745
--->"The problem here then becomes that proper function requires a judge to determine proper function"
This is probably one of the worst arguments you can raise against natural law ethics. So what? We can discover the proper function of things using reason. For example we would agree that the proper function of the heart is to pump blood or for the lungs it is to intake oxygen. Some things have multiple functions. We can use science to discover further functions. Heck the practice of medicine is based on knowing the proper function of organs in order to heal them.
"Dr. Hsiao argument is both biological and theological"
It's not theological. Natural law ethics is secular.
---"The problem with the this is that biological purposes of sex and cultural purposes of sex are often and conflict with one another"
So you don't think an elderly man in a 3rd world country having sex with a 8 year old girl who hasn't reached puberty is wrong? In that instance should we accept the culture that says marrying an 8 year old girl is ok or biological purpose?
Well, my doctor recommended tubal ligation because my last two births were bad, like my child and I both nearly died. And I had placental abruption with both. So, as I somewhat agree with this guys views, there are always situations that are going to be more complicated. I didn’t want a tubal ligation and I’d have loved to have more kids, but my husband cried. He wanted to raise our kids together, not without me. I took his feeling into the matter, and decided not to risk anymore births. I’d rather trust God, but my doctor was also christian, so I’d like to trust the doctor God have me. She was amazing. I had 3 vbacs because of her. My first birth, which was a cesarian, May have caused the two placental abruptions. The doctors when I was younger said I would not have any kids (more chance of winning a lottery, they said). I have four now, so I think I’ve done pretty good.
You're correct and I don't think his intention was to condemn someone in your position (though I could be wrong) but your reasoning was medical and seeking to preserve life. While I think he made some good points we have to be careful with sweeping generalities, but also if we go around trying to qualify everything we may end up getting nowhere and qualifying the point away.
Pro choice people use this same argument.
You lost me at "contraception is immoral". I think the problem is the the idea or things being good or bad based on fulfilling their function is a little over simplistic. It's also a little over simplistic to state that the function of sex is only 2 fold - to procreate and to develop a union.
Don't get me wrong, I share many of the same morals around sex as this man does but he isn't about to influence anyone who disagrees with that argument.
What does "over simplistic" mean? Why would any argument be negated because of its simplicity? Unless you articulate your reasoning we suspect you just don't like the argument.
@@yeboscrebo4451 I also disagree with Hsiao's view that contraception is immoral. I agree that the functions of sex are procreation and union, but it doesn't mean that procreation is the only and absolute purpose of union. To be one with our spouse is to be a more complete image of God. In some difficult circumstances, it is simply unwise to have more biological children, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the union with our spouse. Biological children can be compensated with spiritual children through evangelization. That way, we still obey God's command to multiply.
@@davewahd182 Do some history. All of Christianity agreed that contraception was immoral until the early 1900s when the Anglicans wanted sex without kids, and then the rest of Christianity went along except for the Catholic Church.
Dave Wahd one could argue that by artificially and intentionally inhibiting the procreative aspect of sex that it implicitly involves a selfish desire for sexual gratification. In essence, by using contraception you are also putting into jeopardy the loving, unitive aspect of sex.
@@preasidium13. You could make a similar argument about chewing gum. Chewing gum in order to diet (if it helps you avoid eating) involves "artificially and intentionally inhibiting" the chewing up food for your bodies nutrition part of gum. You don't need to fulfill all of a body parts functions each time you use it. You may as well argue that people need to talk every time they chew on their food in order to fulfill all of their mouths biological functions. And vice versa.
The part about selfishness isn't a very good argument, no offense. Concern with your own wellbeing is not only not wrong, it is moral. You matter just as much as anyone else. To say that taking care of your own happiness is wrong, or morally nuetral, while helping that of others is moral, is arbitrary discrimination. On natural law, humans are clearly designed to seek their own happiness. Thus doing so is moral and failing to do so is immoral. Of course if it involves failing to respect another person's rights or whatever it can be immoral.
And finally, in so far as love is not selfish (which it pretty much always is), sex for the sake of bonding can be done with your spouse. That isn't "selfish" in any objectionable way.
Of course, in reality love is almost always selfish. And this is a good thing. Could you imagine telling your wife the day before you get married: "Honey, I don't enjoy this relationship at all. I am only doing this for you. Being in this relationship adds no value to my life, but I am going to selflessly stay in it just to make you feel better, even though it costs me dearly." You would probably get slapped!! (I got this analogy from Yaron Brook, even though I don't agree with Objectivism.) The point remains, love is naturally self interested and that's a beautiful thing!!
Reducing human sexuality down to a single function is rather absurd. Just as the mouth can be validly used for eating, breathing, and kissing, so too can the sex organs be used for multiple valid purposes in relationships beyond a singular “proper function” of biological procreation. It seems that non-heterosexual couples can be unified as a couple and successfully raise happy and healthy children, so why deny them the opportunity to express their love to one another physically?
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas already addressed this centuries ago. They would say that organs have _mulitiple powers_ and they would make a distinction between a unnatural use and natural use of a power. An unnatural use is using a power contrary to it's purpose while a natural use is always compatible with it. Kissing, eating and breathing are all using the locomotive power of the mouth and are natural uses, but to eat spikes and razors that destroy the locomotive power of mouth is to using the locomotive power of the mouth contrary to it's purpose. Likewise the reproductive power of the sex organs is for reproduction but to use them for masturbating to porn, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, homosexuality, etc is to use the reproductive power directly contrary to the purpose of reproduction.
@@LogosTheos I’ve seen magicians eat glass. Is such an act inherently immoral according to the “natural use” philosophy?
@@theroguejester6412 I've seen actors shoot people in movies. Isn't it immoral to shoot people? By answering this question you answer your own objection.
@@LogosTheos You misunderstand. I did not witness an illusion, I have seen people actually physically eat glass. David Blaine and Derren Brown both do it for real, and they teach others how to do it. Glass is dangerous and offers no nutritional value. I’ll ask again, is it actually inherently immoral to eat glass?
@@LogosTheos I’ve seen people get shot in real life too. Is that act of shooting someone always inherently immoral too? Not even the Catechism would support this blanket assertion, opting instead to provide layers of nuance depending on the context. I merely ask that we do the same with same-sex relationships, as opposed to sweeping generalizations.
Is the proper function of a chicken leg to be eaten? It depends right? Ask a vegan! Who decides? Am I committing an immoral act eating the chicken leg? At best, it’s utterly subjective.
Max Maximus if it’s been cooked well, bit of salt added, seasoned to taste, yes.
yep. its just an abstract framework for them to make up abstract and arbitrary rules, then turn around and call that "ethics"
Natural Law seems based on the belief that people, and their component parts were created with a purpose by a Creator, and that that Creator has made that purpose clear. I believe that's called "Begging the Question", and is a logical fallacy. First demonstrate we were not just created, but that we are also beings designed with a purpose, and then demonstrate that that purpose itself is moral. Then Natural Law would then logically follow. Until that you have accomplished that, Natural Law is fatally flawed.
even beyond that, they fail to explain why using something "against its purpose" or for something other than its "meant for" means that doing so is positively immoral rather than just a benign neutral act. Like nobody is actually being harmed in any way from gay sex or contraception.
Do we call an invalid not good because they can’t fulfill their purpose?
I don't think anything in the bible precludes a married couple using contraceptives. I understand his logic about natural a
law, but I'm not convinced that it's biblical.
Contraception is evil and leads to the destruction of the moral fabric of society.
@@lololauren55 Evidence?
The argument against contraception that I use is the same argument that Paul deploys against homosexuality in Romans 1 -- I just apply the same reasoning to contraception. At any rate, even if the Bible is silent on contraception, it doesn't mean that it's permissible.
@@timhsiao9642Thanks for taking the time to interact with me.You're much better educated than I, and you have clearly spent a lot of time formulating your ideas. That said, I see how you could make that argument from Romans 1, but I don't see it as a necessary logical outworking. It gives a specific way in which they "abandoned the natural function, " and that was by having sex with the same gender. I don't think that gives us the liberty to say that it's wrong for a married couple to limit the function to sexual pleasure within marriage, which is still a natural function that God designed.
I also think that if we applied this logic to other areas of life could create a lot of extra rules. For example, is having a piece of cake a sin? A piece of cake doesn't benefit our bodies very much, and surely there are foods that would better compliment our bodies' natural functions. I'm not saying that overeating, having a food addiction, etc. cannot be sin, but making a rule that eating cake is a sin seems silly and legalistic to me. Yet, I could see "natural law theory" coming to that conclusion.
@@danielcartwright8868 Think about why Paul rejects homosexuality. He appeals to the natural function of men and women. The reason why homosexuality is wrong is because homosexual activity uses sex in a way that it's not supposed to be used. How is it supposed to be used? Answer: procreation.
OK, well, that exact same reasoning applies to contraception. It uses sex in a way that it isn't supposed to be used.
You object on the grounds of pleasure, but that objection won't work for you. After all, if we can completely reject the procreative purpose of sex for pleasure, then that ends up justifying homosexuality (which I don't think you want to do).
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too: if homosexuality is wrong, then so is contraception.
I discuss this and your second objection in more detail in my published work. See my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory."
Very interesting argument, however I have a few objections.
1. The logic you have employed could also be used to prove that chewing gum is wrong. When you chew gum, you are using your mouth merely for pleasure, rather than in order to chew your food so that your body can get nutrients. Thus according to the reasoning you have employed, chewing gum is immoral. I read your paper however, and you respond that it is ok to use a body part for something other than it's natural function occasionally as long as it doesn't interfere with it's normal function.
Ok, this means that it is ok to have sex with no possibly of procreation occasionally. Arguing that the mouth is made to sustain us, while the sexual organs are made for "other centered purposes" like procreation and the unity you mentioned, will not help. Sugarless gum does not help you sustain yourself and can be used to help you get the pleasure related to eating without eating. And finally, there is a deeper reason related to the hierarchy of needs objection. Happiness and pleasure are important needs. Having sex for pleasure fufills that need, just as chewing gum does. As long as the activity doesn't contradict the essential purposes, doing it for happiness/pleasure isn't wrong.
2. Using an organ for only some of it's functions during one use isn't necessarily immoral. You may as well argue that eating without talking to someone at the same time is immoral, since you aren't using all of your mouths functions at the same time. Temporarily hindering an organs functions isn't necessarily wrong either. If I put on a friend's glasses, for fun, this may cause my sight to be altered, I may misjudge how far away something is. This temporarily prevents my eyes from fulfilling their proper function, in order for me to use them to produce another experience. Is this really wrong, provided I am doing so in a safe environment? Similarly, contraception hinders you from having children at a specific time, (when it would be bad for you to do so) in order so that you can have sex without pregnancy during that time.
3. To strengthen your argument, I will anticipate a possible change you could make similar to the one you made in your paper: It isn't wrong to for example to do something that an organ wasn't intended for. It isn't misusing a water bottle to put lemonade in it. Why? Because I am not using it in a way that is contrary to it's intention. However, I would be misusing it if I used it to poison someone, since that is contrary to what it was designed for. This seems to undermine your position, however it could be revived. (Well some of it. Your arguments against contraception cannot be saved even if the argument I am about to give, was correct, however.)
You could argue that sex outside of marriage, is contrary to the design of forming a life long, child producing bond with the person you are having sex with. This could be strengthened by pointing out what an emotional impact that level of physical intimacy naturally has. It could be contrary, because by doing so, you are forming a bond with a bunch of people and messing up your ability to form one later. And you could argue that it is immoral to take such a sacred bond and put it into a casual relationship. Thus sex outside of a permanent, committed relationship is wrong. (Also a ground for being against divorce.) Homosexuality cannot be said to be wrong for that reason, if it involves a lifelong committed relationship however. (Although, I suppose you could argue about the impossibility of ever having children, but see point 4 and point 5 for my rebuttal.)
However, this argument fails quite severely. Because this new claim would argue that sex without a long term commitment and bond is wrong. However, this logically entails that divorce is not only not wrong, but obligatory. After all, once a couple discovers that they no longer have that bond, (or never did in the first place, due to self deception) they are forbidden from having sex, as this is contrary to this bond and connection.
To strengthen this, romantic desires are clearly designed to love people who care about you and treat you well. It is highly natural in the relevant sense to want to end a relationship with a spouse, who is abusive or Negligent. In fact, it is unnatural to want to stay with someone who repeatedly beats you or neglects you. This is a malfunction of your romantic desires. The appropriate reaction is to get yourself out and find a more healthy relationship. This would mean that they should split up and find someone new to raise any kids they may have had in the previous marriage.
Thus, marriages are rendered so unstable that they are indistinguishable from more long term co-habitation. Thus this possible argument you could make, only proves that prostitution and casual sex are wrong. Not Fornication between a man and a woman who love each other and are cohabiting in a long term relationship that is intended to last forever, but may not if they decide they aren't right for each other.
4. I don't see the real point of your response to the argument that having sex with a spouse who is unable to have children is wrong, if your argument is correct. The fact that it is still contrary to the purpose of their creation. They are only fulfilling two of the purposes of their sex organs - pleasure and the bonding you mentioned. Procreation is not among them. In fact, if one of the partners is fertile, he/she is not only not using all of the functions of their sex organs, they have locked themselves into a marriage where they cannot fulfill that function. Thus, if you applied your argument consistently, you would say that a fertile and an infertile person getting married is just as immoral as homosexuality allegedly is.
5. An additional argument for the morality of contraception. There are times when it is clearly immoral or unwise to have kids. If you are in dire circumstances and cannot afford more kids you must prevent yourself from having them. Thus, that part of your bodies function is clearly harmful to you and temporarily stopping it from functioning is acceptable. If you have a severe genetic disease that will cause excricating pain to a child, if they inherit it, a vasectomy is clearly an appreciate solution. Or if you clearly would be a bad parent due to personality defects you have. Thus in those cases, birth control or vasectomy is appropriate.
This also shows that some people shouldn't have kids. Thus, if they were to have long term homosexual relationships, that would be ok.
There are a number of problems with your own arguments.
1) To your first objection, yes happiness is important. But you are putting the horse before the cart. Pleasure is meant to provide motivation to do those things that we are supposed to do--such as eating for sustenance or having children to create a family and sustain society. Pleasure isn't an end in itself.
Another distinction to make is whether it is short-term pleasure vs long-term pleasure. Drugs result in pleasure, too. Should we then engage in drug abuse, because we need to have happiness? No, of course not. It provides short-term pleasure in return for long-term harm.
Using sex within marriage, to have children and a family, provided you raise your family right, provides long-term happiness.
Also, another way to evaluate function is to look to harm. Does sex outside of marriage and procreation cause harm? Yes. It contributes to the spread of STDs. It contributes to divorce rates, which harms children. Studies have shown that the more sex a person has outside of marriage, the higher the likelihood of divorce.
On the other hand, what harm does chewing gum cause?
Taken together, this reinforces the argument that sex outside of procreation and marriage is immoral.
2) The functions of the mouth are different from the unitive and procreative functions. Eating and talking aren't functions that work together.
The bonding the sex creates, on the other hand, dovetails perfectly with the caring of the child that is the result of the procreative function. And this is very, very important. Practically every study ever done on the subject has shown that children of marriages do far better than children of any other type of family arrangement, including cohabitation, divorced parents, and single parents.
As for contraception being good, there's science that suggests this is wrong. There is a study showing that those that get married while using hormonal contraception and then stop using it after getting married have a higher divorce rate. Hormonal contraception has been shown to flip what a woman is attracted to in a man. There have been stories of women who go off of the pill and become totally repulsed by their partners.
Another example is barrier methods of contraception, which have been shown to increase the rate of preeclampsia in the woman.
Yes, interfering with the proper functioning of sexual functions of the body are harmful and immoral. If you're not ready for a baby--don't have sex.
3) Your third point doesn't really make any sense.
4) He never actually argues that infertile couples may not have sex. He says this is ok.
I would argue to the contrary. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. If you can't have kids, I would argue that the proper course of action would likely be to seek out a surrogate mother. Iirc, in the Bible, when there was a barren wife, she would select one of her handmaids as a surrogate wife, to fulfill her role to bear a child, in her place. Having children was seen as a duty one must fulfill. If you can't understand why this is important, google 'declining fertility rates.'
I think it's ok to have sex a few times in an infertile couple to cement the emotional unification. But only insofar as it strengthens the couple's bond so that they stick together to care for the child. Once they start caring for the child, the sex should stop, imo.
@@MattNorth9811 5) Abstinence.
@@justcallmebookworm7543. 1. I disagree with that. Being happy is an end to itself. My point was that if pursuing happiness isn't contrary to the proper function of sex, it is ok.
Not all forms of sex carry the risk of pregnancy. As for STD's, almost all activities carry risks. I have heard about the studies you mention. All they say is that sex outside of marriage correlates with divorce. Correlation does not equal casuation.
2. The fact that something requires something else to work doesn't entail that meeting with that other part is a goal. That said, I will grant that a long term bond is a goal of sex.
Once again, appealing to side effects is a bad argument. Most activities have risks. In many cases, the benefits of contraception outweigh the costs. Also, for the point that children in marriage do better, that merely proves that marriage is the best relationship to raise a child in. Not that the other environments aren't acceptable per say.
Great video, but I don’t understand the negative contraceptive claim. Hsiao says the concept of complementarity in sex supercedes procreation on the grounds of the comprehensive unity it promotes for the male and female, making a couple in an infertile situation, for example, still able to have a sexual purpose in sex. If that is true, then it seems that contraceptives (in a non-fertilization context) wouldn’t necessarily violate the greater goal of establishing comprehensive union. Am I missing something?
All of natural law theory hinges on whether Aristotles metaphysics is accurate. The problem is that a Christian doesn't have to accept Aristotles metaphysics and therefore doesn't need to subscribe to natural law theory.
No, it doesn't. It hinges more on teleology. Natural law is not specifically Aristotlelian. You can find traces in Asian philosophy such as in Confucianism, the emphasis on harmony with nature that is present in Taoist thought (captured in the concept of Wu Wei) and in Buddhist thought. For example here is a paper by Japanese Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki titled, "The Natural Law Tradition" in Buddhism:
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=8&article=1005&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional
Even an atheist can hold to a variation of natural law such as the late Philippa Foot in her book, "Natural Goodness". Also most of all the apostle Paul, who was familiar with stoic philosophy, alludes to natural law (Romans 2:15).
@@LogosTheos I should have meant "classical" natural law theory. Because I know new natural law doesn't derive from metaphysics and I think it's more defensible given that it doesn't reject the is/ought distinction.
Furthermore I don't think morality can exist at all under atheism so any morality I think assuming God doesn't exist is fallacious.
But who defines what the function is?
Sexual organs could be also be (more abstractly) for the creation of something new that surpasses the creators, namely children.
But its not that simple because other things can live on as well, like houses, culture, being kind and caring about the community... What about that!
Wow, great interview!💗
Beware of the accounts he provides of the classical natural law tradition, because it is not robust against critics. I suggest reading some of the stuff written by the authors of the "New Classical Natural Law Theory", who offer a developed account of Aquinas' original account of Natural Law, such as Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Robert P. George, among others. For example, the following quotes from Finnis' book "Natural Law & Natural Rights" clearly show the wrongness of Hsiao's account of natural law theory:
"Both [Aristotle and Aquinas] would go along with Hume’s view that the speculative discernment of ‘eternal relations’, even relations of ‘fitness to human nature’, leaves open the question what motive anybody has for regulating his actions accordingly (. . .) Aquinas would reject the assumption of Clarke, Grotius, Suarez, and Vazquez that the primary and self-evident principles of natural law . . . initially grasped as principles concerned with self-evident relations of conformity or disconformity to human nature . . ." (p. 47-8)
“A late but traceable descendant of the Vazquez-Suarez conception of natural law is the argument, which looms large among the modern images of natural law theory, that natural functions are never to be frustrated or that human faculties are never to be diverted (‘perverted’) from their natural ends. But, as a general premiss, in any form strong enough to yield the moral conclusions it has been used to defend, this argument is ridiculous.” (p. 48)
So inconsistent and biased that it hurts XD
yep. with this logic, chewing gum, eating candy, doing a handstand or putting on a blindfold are immoral
I would like to ask a question in regards to contraception. If contraception is immoral, then is pulling out before ejaculation immoral? And if so, does that mean we are only allowed/ meant to have sex for procreation?
This is my opinion friend, so take it how you will.
I am inclined to say yes.
Contraception is immoral, so is pulling out before ejaculation and the same can be said for masturbation as well.
If we are only having sex for our own pleasure, then it's empty despite what we feel in that moment.
LIFE that's what it is all about.
according to them, and to Catholics yes.
"The parts are being used correctly" so basically correctly means... what he believes to be correct, an assertion without evidence. human minds give meaning and function to things. therefore something you have no function for, may have function to someone else who sees it differently. For example a hammer is typically used as a construction tool, however, someone with a different mentality can find a different use for it. Hammers have been used as murder weapons. Even though we see it as a bad function, it is a function to that person nonetheless. He has an interesting view I must say. I wish religious people would use this concept towards everything, including their invisible friend god.
Is the function of something purely and only determined by the human mind?
The first person to make a hammer, made it with a purpose/function. That purpose is known.
One using a hammer to murder is misusing the hammer. That is wrong.
@@TNJ-gn2gv What if you modify the hammer to change its function
@@andrew9812 If you modify a "hammer" to shoot, it ceases to be a hammer but something new that can perform like a hammer.
This seems like a very flawed basis for morality. It sounds to me like they are looking for a moral system that fits their existing biases. It does not take into account any psychological factors of human existence which is largely where our morality is based. This moral code would be great for a species of robots who didn't have to worry about things like emotions.
The comprehensive union piece seems to me like it's just an assertion without any evidence for why it makes sense.
The wellbeing argument for morality is far more compelling.
Agreed. The functions of sexual behaviors are not limited to unifying individuals to procreate, that is the function of marriage which is what I would say he was laying a foundation to justify with this argument. There are all sorts of chemical reactions that occur with/without sex in any given situation.
They dismissed the argument of animals having sex without any reasonable defense from someone who understands it. The purpose of sex varies within species as much as it can within individuals. Male giraffes, for instance, are often aggressive towards other males as theyve been naturally selected to give sexual selection to the dominant male. However, larger groups with multiple males can arise through homosexuality as it dilutes the aggression between them, making the act entirely moral. Bonobos, close relatives to the chimpanzees and likewise, ourselves, also use sexual intercourse to dilute aggression and have been naturally selected to replace their aggressive behaviors with sexual desire, vastly limiting the consequences of interspecies fighting. They litterally solve their disputes by hashing out a quickie in the bushes.
You're unlikely to stumble upon arguments from Christian's that apply neuroscientific knowledge to their arguments as it ultimately leans towards the idea of determinism through understanding that all of our actions and thoughts are linked to desires that stem from physical properties within our brains and our ability to demonstrate free will ultimately vanishes at that point and free will is ultimately a necessity to the religion. (That being said, I'm not entirely a determinist due to the quantum interactions that can also occur within the brain, however it is useful as a generalization of the brains functioning)
Justin Thillens does a giraffe have morality? (I’m not being facetious, honest question).
@@markk34 giraffes have morality, albeit much more rudimentary then say that of an elephant, chimpanzee, or a dolphin.
Most social species have some sense of good and bad behaviors. This is learned through experience as good behaviors help the group while bad behaviors result in retaliation. A good indicator is that most social groups have a leader, or an alpha male/female of some sort. These leaders generally demand order within groups and will punish other individuals for things like stealing food and they'll reward behaviors such as cooperation and altruism.
Giraffes are a bit weird in respect to similar animals in that they establish dominancy among the males, but that male does not assume a alpha, or superior rank. It's just so he gets the choice of who to make with. Their behaviors you'd have to look into specifically, but I would assume based on knowledge of other animals that the males might demonstrate altruism towards females and mother's towards their children.
There's a few issues with this. For one, sex has more than one purpose. Sure, it's used for reproduction, but it also has a lot of health benefits and it really deepens the bond between two married people, and it gives you a very deep sense of intimancy. On the other hand, a heart only has one main function, which is to pump blood. Also you could argue that having kids could be a bad thing for you. They're bad for the environment, if you don't want kids then you risk screwing them up psychologically, and if you believe in an eternal Hell then it means you're knowingly subjecting a human life to a very bad fate. Plus the world is overpopulated as it is.
Good points except about overpopupation. The planet isn't overpopulated, big cities are, and besides, the global population is going to start decreasing naturally around much of the world (for better a,d for worse) simply due to birth rates anyway. Also, your point about hell presupposes the mainstream belief that most people are doomed to the mainstream view of hell, even though there are other legitimate interpretations of these things that haven't been denounced as heretical in ecumenical councils of dominant forms of Christianity.
The world is overpopulated? Where, Hong Kong?
He literally said there’s two purposes. The second is the unification of spouses.
@@ChispaluzYes, and he "literally" said that the unitive function *supervenes* on the procreative function. That the act is unitive at all is just a functional result of procreation requiring a man and a woman to have sex.
Yes, if you presume sex is oriented towards procreation and unity, this reasoning works. However, it seems to me that excluding very important aspects of sex (like expressing identity, love, happiness, amusement etcetera) results in a question-begging conclusion. Thus, your conclusion is not natural at all. It is a strongly pious distillation of what sex is. That your pious destillation leads to a pious conclusion is very logical, but it is not natural law.
Fornication is not good
@@winolowardichelli2850 In natural law arguments the term "fornication" is begging the question.
@@mrJJvds natural law is bs
An interesting point of view. Don’t particularly agree with his personal understanding/perception of natural law theory though.
Saying that Infertile couples don't violate this law because they are "trying" to procreate or becasue "in principle" they could have a child is weak. Any time an infertile person has sex its because of pleasure and/or "unity". And there is no reason that this mentality can't be similar in a homosexual person.
Also if we are trying to boil things down to their purpose then you have to consider every body part. And every body part is biologically used for the survival of yourself and our species. So if you applied this argument to say your eyes and ears, then doing something like watching a movie or a TH-cam video would violate their original purpose.
Ok might want to adjust the title a little bit. Try separating the '...sex with Prof. Hsiao' part lol
Done!
"I defend what's called classical natural law theory..."
Imma head right out
It's no wonder so many criticisms of natural law theory are terrible. No one bothers to try and understand it.
Why? I like hearing all sides
@@junelledembroski9183 Consider these independent objections:
(i) NLT says moral obligations are grounded in the basic human goods (life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability), an account of moral obligation I just don't feel is as convincing as alternative accounts of moral obligation. I just don't see why promoting these basic humans goods is obligatory.
(ii) There is a plurality of basic human goods. . Thus, the rules generated by the basic human goods can come into conflict, and there is no determining principle for adjudicating between two conflicting rules. In many cases, that means right action is indeterminate. Contrast this to other deontological theories that put forward a hierarchy of obligations (e.g., W.D. Ross's deontology; divine command theory) where right action is always determinable.
(iii) NLT can be adopted by the atheist, but it seems that moral nihilism follows from atheism. If we adopt theistic NLT, we grant intellectual permission to the atheist to adopt atheistic NLT. I don't think we want to do this. Maybe we could make the concession that moral value can be accounted for on atheism, and that there are basic human goods even on atheism. But I just don't see why we would be obligated to promote those goods.
@@acephilosopher5146
Against your first objection: Moral obligations aren't grounded in "basic human goods" under Aquinas. You are mixing classical and new natural law theories. Classical natural law is based in the understanding goodness as a function of what a thing does. X is good if X is a good K, where X is a being a K is the kind of being X is. A watch is a good watch if it properly tells time. A tree is a good tree if it can photosynthesize. A man is a good man if he worships God. And so on. The "basic human goods" are simply what fulfills us as human beings.
Against your second objection: You clearly don't know anything about the Natural Law theory if you think there's no determining principle between two obligations imposed on us from Natural Law. The entirety of Natural Law Theory rests on the idea that goodness is hierarchical. In particular, Aquinas identifies three levels of welfare conditions that generate ethical duties: welfare conditions that we have in common with all living things, welfare conditions we have in common with all other animals, and welfare conditions specific to us as rational beings. There's a clear hierarchy here, or do you think that rational beings are equal to non-rational beings?
Against your third objection: A version of natural law theory could be adopted by an atheist, but the premises of Classical Natural Law theory are the same premises that lead to God's existence. In any case, I don't see how convincing nihilistic atheists to not be nihilists is a bad thing. You also imply that natural law theory somehow leads to atheism, which is a highly implausible claim.
@@acephilosopher5146 You are describing what's called the new natural law theory, which is quite distinct from classical natural law theory. Their main difference is that you need an Aristotelian/thomistic metaphysics to ground the latter, while you dont for the former. Thus, classical NL has the drawback of requiring mor prep work, but the advantage of beinf right.
This guy talking about sex like he has never had any...
I would respond rather that he is talking about ('speaking of') sex in his capacity as philsopher
A professor without even a PhD🤔 is this perhaps a colloquial usage
To me this sounds like the classic is ought fallacy.
Was thinking the same thing
That's a common objection, given by Hume I think. Because classic natural law theory is based on teleology. An answer a natural law theorist would give is that the ought is implicit in the is because it talks about how a good human being is (one whos faculties meet their proper functions). Of course one could say well i dont ought to be a good human being, but that seems too rationalistic. Nevertheless, im not sure if the argument is correct, what do you think?
yep. why Ought I follow these abstract and seemingly arbitrary rules? how does it benefit me or others? They dont take that into account. No actual harm is being done with these sexual acts that they deem "immoral" with this abstract rule
My questions- what’s ur take on a heterosexual couple who are not married but have sex that resulted in a child. 2)- a couple who are in love but aren’t ready to get married yet. 3)- a married couple having sex but don’t want to have kids yet/anymore
I would like to answer this in the Natural Law approach that Prof. Hsaio uses: 1) the unmarried parents can stay together and form comprehensive union, start sharing their entire life together. 2) The couple in love can express their love for one another in non-genital ways until they decide they are ready for children & comprehensive union in marriage. 3) the married couple can use natural means of abstinence during fertile periods to prepare for a family--always respecting the funtion/purpose of their shared sexuality.
"Natural Law means in accordance with proper function".
And whom, pray tell, gets to decide what that function is?
Natural Law, as described by Tim Hsiao, means that things are immoral if he doesn't like them. That's it. Everything else is an ad hoc justification.
Unmarried sex is immoral. However, if you are married, consent is irrelevant. Sex and marriage serve the purpose of procreation. Therefore, marital rape is moral. That's where this line of questioning started.
Reason. Things have an orientation. A houses function among other things is to provide shelter. The purpose of s book is to be read. Things have purposes when we examine them
@@JohnCenaFan6298 No. Things have purposes when we construct them.
@@bskec2177 no, things have purposes when we discover them in reality. It aligns with scientific examinations of the body like what is the purpose of sperm
Turned this off when he said homosexuality & bisexuality is wrong. Also, why is he talking about this when he doesn’t know how to pronounce bisexuality?
its actually the whole point of them making up this whole framework, to serve as a clever sounding, abstract series of rules and pretend it counts as real ethics, all to retroactively reaffirm the religious preconceived notions of sexual ethics
If Good is defined as filling function, then it must be good to make changes as much as possible
That does not follow. A function can also based on its persistency.
As much as i agree with this analysis, id like to know what natural law says about the elderly and very disabled people? Naturally, they don't have a function in society so why do we take care of them?
The answer to your question is in this video. What is natural to the human person is to live.
It becomes the duty of individuals and society to foster a culture of life.... Sooo the elderly, homeless, sick-bound, and all the casted out members of society are to be cared for by aiding to the restoration of their liberality. Here liberality meaning to have the means in himself to pursue what conducive to living.
This is truly food for thought, thank you!
The idea that sex only has two purposes as a black-and-white fallacy. Or something like that anyway. You can think that it only has two purposes, but from an evolutionary, or a biological perspective you’d be incorrect. Sex has a myriad of functions. Some examples beneficial for mental health, the exercise, beneficial for physical health, can be used for deeper emotional connection, and many many others. So anyway,I just don’t think that the Piction that sex only has two purposes is entirely correct
His views are based on the Thomistic concept of Natural Law.
Why is the audio so terrible
We ran into technical issues on this one.
Morals are for the better interest of humans Nature is just nature not evil not good we were given free will not allways in accord with human or relegious laws. If you hurt someone thats a direct damage to someone whether intentionaly or not .Got to think
So in natural law theory a person can't have an ice cream cone if a salad is there. The ice cream cone can produce more harm than can the salad. It ice cream cone "detracts" from our function. The problem with natural law theory is that it address what is best for the physical function of the organism and nothing else. If you live your life according to natural law theory you will not go on the Ferris wheel because it is a useless waste of personal resources, a woman will not wear high heels shoes, and a healthy person will ride his bicycle to the store rather than drive his car.
Yeah, no. That doesn't follow. Your objection rests on a very shallow understanding of NLT. See my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory" for a much more detailed explanation.
@Tim Hsiao I have a comment section to work with and explain my position. Obviously your reply is less informative than is my comment. But I will add this to my thoughts; there is a whole another view on what constitutes, and what can, and should define morality. It comes down to the fact that humans, and probably most animals to some degree, do not have to rigidly follow natural law for their species to survive. And so we are free to seek that which gives us pleasure with morality putting up a boundary when the pursuit of pleasure interferes with others.
@@timhsiao9642 It doesn't follow that she is wrong, her point is valid. The consumption of less nutrious food inhibits the proper functioning of the body, and therefore would be immoral. By the same standard, being overweight is immoral. So fat people are immoral, I guess?
@@timhsiao9642 Hi Tim. There was this discussion Brennan had with Logos Theos on another thread here maybe you can weight in. Brennan asked what is the purpose of a hand. In Logos Theos's response he change this to a heart and said it pumps blood. I actually think trying to provide and answer for the HAND exposes a serious problem with NLT. Is the hand for punching someone? In some cases this might be a good thing. Is NLT broad enough to say whether or not it would be moral to punch someone?
@@WhtetstoneFlunky And once again, I would point you towards my larger body of written work to see why that view is mistaken. www.academia.edu/23301482/Consenting_Adults_Sex_and_Natural_Law_Theory
is polygamy natural???since, it is a comprehensive union of individuals to an individual...
It disrespects the natural function of sex, to unify TWO people. Not more than that. Lets say theres one man and two women. When he has sex with one of them he unifies with her. When he has sex with the other, it takes away from their union in HIS eyes because he is focused on union with the other woman. Just like if you are trying to read two books at once, you cant just split your vision and read both at once.
@@Demi.d3mi I guess polyandrous birds perform an unnatural practice then?
@Estefanía So this natural law only applies to humans then? Why?
Additionally, how could it be a natural law if the very same nature it's based off of disobeys it?
Estefanía yeah it sounds like HUMAN law, not NATURAL law. If it doesn't apply to all nature, then you can't use that term
@@chavezharding7820 The video answers that question. Natural law recognizes that humans are not the same as every other organism in nature and that different organisms have differing needs and functions. Humans are shown to naturally have qualities above of that of rest of the animal kingdom, so what's good for a bird is not necessarily good for a human.
And natural law isn't simply based on nature. Its based on the healthy functioning of nature. When nature is functioning in a way that wrecks it's own healthy functions, we know something is off in the environment. This is why we get alarmed when we see disease.
There's no evidence for 5:20 "[the unitive fuction] is in virtue of the procreative function", this is just a claim.
Lol 7:20 you "resepect the orientation of the organ", but not the orientation of the individual.
Viewer Discretion He’s claimed that
“Sex has two purposes which are procreation and unity. No one would deny that procreation is at least a purpose of sex. What makes a union? What makes something united as a whole? Think of an airplane. The wings, The avionics etc all work together to fulfill a common function. So something is a unity of its parts are working together as a coordinated whole. Similarly, the parts of a human all work together for the whole.
This is called homeostasis”.
*Homeostasis-* the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
“The unitive purpose of sex relies on the sexual organs working together towards a common function. *There’s only one function to which every human being alone is inherently incomplete and that’s procreation.*
To support this he says: “Not the mere rubbing together of two body parts! A surgeon who sticks his hand into a patient isn’t uniting with his patient. If you bump into somebody, you’re not uniting with that person.”
“If a couple is sterile or, either the couple or the organs are striving towards proper function, it is morally permissible . What matters in morally permissible sex is that you strive towards the ends of the sexual organs. So even if the effect cannot be achieved, so long as the person you’re acting on is a fitting subject for that action, in that it’s the proper function for the sexual organs, that you’re using, it’s morally permissible. Similar to a football team which plays well but never wins.”
“Good sex respects the purpose of sex. Any sex that doesn’t seek to fulfill its proper function is immoral. This includes homosexuality, oral sex, bestiality, contraception, masturbation, anal sex etc.”
“Because human beings can deliberate and reason, we speak of good and bad at the moral level. So the ability to reason is what turns non moral goodnesses into moral goodness”.
I’m guessing that when human beings violate the proper function of their organs, that would be by definition the misuse of those organs.
@@LtDeadeye Yes, all that can be done is for particular people to assert their definitions.
But asserting a definition is just a claim.
There is actually no evidence that if I have 2,000 instances of homosexual sex in my life that I have done anything immoral - because immoratily here is just a definition that is asserted.
A completely adequate response is, "I do not agree with the assertion of natural law or this version of morality"
Natural law seems quite incapable of dealing with diverse purposes, because it rewards academics for publishing simplistic purposes.
Viewer Discretion This reasoning of his will only work, I suppose, for those who already believe in moral realism. Otherwise, attempting to convince someone who doesn’t believe that morality is real that we have moral obligations would be like trying to convince a blind person that the sky is blue. It’s almost impossible!
You assume that your concept of the purpose of sex is universal and objective.
Mutual pleasure for its own sake is a valid reason for sex.
That might fall under the purview of Comprehensive Unity as argued in the video. I wish they had elaborated more on exactly what was meant by that term.
Yikes, so many unjustified assumption and so much ad hoc reasoning to get around objections. He did a much better job discussing abortion. How did he come to the conclusion about what sex is for? The worst part was trying to justify sex for those are infertile. If a teacher taught students knowing that she did not understand the material would she still be a good teacher? Of course not. If her function is to impart knowledge it is still immoral for her to try if she knows she can't. I don't think it is immoral for infertile people to have sex, but I do believe his natural law explanation is flawed (there is an additional and independent purpose for sex).
I discuss the function of sex and the sterility objection in much more detail in my published work.
@@timhsiao9642 Fair enough, I'm sure you had to do much condensing. Can you give the title(s) of some of your work that you would suggest on this topic?
I don't think he did that good of a job on abortion either. He confuses personhood with citizenship several times, and never explains that the unborn have never been considered legal persons.
Tim Hsiao you discuss two functions of sex. But there are more than two. This isn't natural law because it doesn't apply to nature. It's human law, or more specifically human religious law.
@@JL0007 I think you are misunderstanding that argument. The basic gist is that there is no reason to exclude the unborn as persons that would not apply to some people who have been born. Legal personhood is irrelevant to his argument.
Girl is attracted to boy.
Boy is attracted to girl.
Boy goes in for kiss. Girl kisses back. Things evolve from there.
Consent. Sex.
Not consent:
Boy goes in for kiss, girl doesn't kiss back and tries to move away from him, but he presses and pushes her down. Girl freezes in fear. Sex happens.
Not. Consent.
The professor is making a deeper statement. Consent alone doesn't make something moral. Say an adult father, in a sexual manner, kisses his adult daughter, and the adult daughter (also in sexual manner) kisses her adult father back. Here exists consent, but this situation is not moral.
@@trenton9 Can you explain exactly how that would be immoral?
@@paltic1254 Are you asking me to explain the immorality of incest?
trenton9 yes, what part of the act itself is immoral assuming full consent?
@@paltic1254 Every part of the act is immoral. Firstly, God has declared it to be immoral. Secondly, biology itself clues us in to its immorality by the statically higher chance of deformed children being a result of such unions between closely related relatives. It's impossible to list every reason it's harmful on a social level. Socially, incest relationships annihilate the healthy boundaries that support healthy families. Platonic relationships are a vital element of society. Nothing of lasting worth can happen in a society without them. When such a basic thing isn't even modeled within a family, it eviscerates healthy notions of privacy and appropriateness. And the logical conclusion is a drastic erasing of all notions of ethics being tied to sex.
Would oral sex be considered wrong in natural law theory?
Yes. The mouth isn't made for reproduction.
My understanding is that there is some debate among natural law over oral sex. All natural lawyers hold that oral sex which culminates in male climax is in violation of the natural end/final cause of sex. However, some hold that oral sex as foreplay [for example, non-ejaculatory fellatio] may be permissible, while others reject all forms of oral stimulation.
10:11 "I'm nearsighted"......um, yeah.
Given the difficulty that "proper function" is open for all sorts of debate, and that there seem to be so many circumstances that he has to find ways to skirt around, it is very difficult to see this argument as anything other than a manifestation of the confirmation bias. As a transgender person, I feel this argument has the added burden that it appears to be extremely detrimental to the mental health of people in my LGBT+ community. Though there are a lot of interesting arguments presented on this channel, this one feels particularly hollow.
I think you'd have to make the case against it. Your post seems mostly to be that it might hurt peoples feelings. We really need to start moving away from this fear and moving toward truth and truth can only be found if we present our cases, with as much respect as possible.
Does the fact people debate the idea of "proper function" from various perspectives actually mean that there is no objectively moral position on the issue of proper function? Similarly, does subjective morality serve humanity's progress? Can there be harmony with great sectors of society rejecting objective moral absolutes?
This is just an emotional reaction. It doesn't address the argument.
@Not My Real Name secular values have resulted in kids playing pretend strip dancer in gay bars. That seems to be what progress is in the modern world. Just look into "desmond is amazing dancing in gay bar" where adult toss cash at him and currently drag queen story hour is encouraging this type of behavior as it has been seen where a drag queen teaches kids to twerk and one actually did a strip like dance where the drag queen ripped off their skirt which revealed a thong to these kids. This is considered "progress" in the secular world.
@Not My Real Name How so?
Sorry, but this is simply horrible...
What a thought-provoking criticism of the arguments presented.
@@clintonwilcox4690 bruh, the arguments presented are "I have decided the purpose of this, therefore things that go against their purpose are immoral"
Some problems with that are: He does not get to decide what the purpose of something is. Many things have multiple conflicting purposes.
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785 It is not deciding what a purpose is. It is using rational analysis to discover something's purpose.
@@LogosTheos You cannot discover something's "purpose". Things do not have a purpose defined by the universe and you cannot follow a process to find it out. Purpose is a purely subjective idea.
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785 That is just begging the question against natural law ethics. You can reject purpose in nature but many ethical consequences will follow and you will have to come up with ad hoc definitions of what is considered good and what is considered bad. For example let me ask you. How would you define a good action?
2:10 2:40 2:55 3:02
Got it rollerskating and chewing gum is evil.
yep. doing a handstand, or wearing a blindfold... and so on...
So one can reject the premise of an objective nature or essence. Alright, useless theory, moving on.
This doesn't work for me, and I'm a Christian. If you want to defend traditional values, this isn't the best way. Granted, not everyone follows the Bible, so what's the non-Biblical argument for traditional values? How about the obvious? No other system has worked. Honestly, who has the Sexual Revolution benefitted? To take just one example, I used to watch Sex in the City & I just felt bad for them - they seemed so miserable. Look around us: the Sexual Revolution keeps failing to deliver on its promises & we're told we just need more of it. At this point, the Sex Rev is a bit like socialism: both fail, but both persist. That's the more persuasive argument.
The argument your making utilitarian/pragmatic argument, in the sense that it addresses the value of an idea based on its performance, and I would argue is a better argument altogether.
Why do you think it doesn't work? None of my premises are based on scripture. I would invite you to read my published work -- esp my paper "Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory" -- for a detailed presentation of the points I make here.
@@br8745 Utilitarianism consequentialism is not Christian. It is an Enlightenement theory that was born out of materialist metaphysics and is full of holes:
www.academia.edu/35310760/Fundamental_Objections_to_Consequentialism_The_Aggregate_versus_Thomistic_Account_of_the_Common_Good
@@LogosTheos To respond to your question, what is the correct amount of children to have? According to what? If your argument is that function can be determined by observation, then the only observation necessary is to understand humans, then the entire field of Economics would like to have a word with you. If we suppose that medical advancements are good because they promote life, which is also observed to be good, and that contraceptives are bad because they inhibit life, and that procreation is good because it produces life, then we are now left with the overpopulation problem. Exponentially increasing population is a recipe for destruction as malthus observed. It's why we cull deer, but you are arguing we should act as the overpopulated deer do? Or do you posit that war, famine and disease are good because they act as natural population control?
@@br8745 I'm not answering anymore strawman questions. Go study natural law theory.
Contraception is not immoral, it is in fact moral as it is using your reproductive ability that God has given you responsibly. God asks us to be responsible with our bodies (hence why he asks us not to have sex before marriage) & his world. If we need to stop having children then it's our responsibility to stop our selves from creating them & that means using some form of contraception if we are going to continue in the intimacy of marriage. Jesus had the power to make food when ever he wanted, could fly & walk on water & many other things but he didn't do that all the time 'just because he had that gift' & he could do it, no he used his powers reponsibly & only when God wanted him to do so. To say that every time we have sex it should be unprotected, is essensially saying God wants us to pump out kids after kids after kids everytime we have sex, which is both stupid, as it is using the gift of life God gave us irresponsably, & completely untrue, because to act irresponsibly with our bodies is against Gods will for our lives. There is no biblical basis for being irresposible with our reproductive ability.
On the same topic so I take it Prof. Tim Hsiao doesn't shave? Because that is trying to stop the "proper natural function" of the beard hair buy cutting it off & stopping it's "proper natural function" & goal of growing long. & since he hasn't got much facial hair I can assume he either does shave/cut his beard hair or he can't grow it very long.
@@Ryo-sj8wn Shaving objection doesn't work. See my reply in my published work: “Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory”
Philosophia 44:2 [2016] -- www.academia.edu/23301482/Consenting_Adults_Sex_and_Natural_Law_Theory (see the section "Alleged Counterexamples")
I disagree wholeheartedly with all of this, but it is crucial to hear opposing views.
My simple definition of natural law is reason's reading of human nature to know what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, many people begin with what they want and then rationalize why they should be able to have it.
Lotta interesting points in here about Natural Law theory. Pretty neat stuff!
===
I feel a good point was missed, though: that of 'pair bonding' in women.
An equivocal physiological response is not found in men, but women are physically designed to bind emotionally to their partner in such a relationship. This process includes hormones washing over the brain to change it to desire the specific partner with which consummation was achieved.
An interesting point about this pair bonding? The human body can build up a tolerance to this hormone 'wash': it will likely not happen again to the strength of the 'wash' from the initial consummation the woman experiences.
In short: women are not neurologically built for 'one-and-done' or 'one-night-stands', as their bodies are built for ONE partner, and change themselves to desire their first partner even if that partner is disloyal.
A man taking advantage of this greatly disrespects his partner, and a woman unaware of this loses out on (dare I say) a major gift that is best saved for her husband.
Human beings are designed for monogamous union.
May be a bit off on some points, so correction would be appreciated, but that's my general understanding of the topic.
A similar hormone 'wash' occurs throughout a woman's first pregnancy, better gearing her physically and mentally for transitioning to the role of motherhood, but that's outside the scope of this video, I think.
“Striving to fulfill their end?” And Texas’ new policy is ok? 🤔
This is so 100% on point . He is my brain soul brother
The start of this was so painful.
These questions couldn’t get any better.
Addressing the argument that homosexuality isn't unnatural at 13:13
I bet this dude smacks mad tail
lol sorry but good and bad are both natural
It's in this moment how wise was the Catholic Church when it declared the Sacrament of Marriage.
How powerful St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy is
Brilliant!
SJW's should not have sex.
It's for the best.
Preach.
He sounds like a Catholic. He is correct on contraception!
Ought to??? On Naturalism??? :)
I find this way of thinking extremely shallow to say the least, i could write a full response but i'd rather not spend so much energy on this. Instead i'll just point out that if we based our daily lives on this point of view, many of our actions would be considered immoral in one way or the other. In fact, i just think he's assuming some many things about goals, right after he decides to which degree the goal as been reached, tags it good or bad and then if it is bad it is somehow immoral. Because you can't have different goals/objectives than the ones already assigned nor can you deviate from it while using the "natural law theory" as an excuse to justify this way of thinking.
Such a limited way of thinking.
Informative, very informative.
Wow.
What is the proper function of God?
Golden Alt to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man
@@yeboscrebo4451 And so God is not good because he fails in this function in most cases?
Golden Alt we’ll see
@@yeboscrebo4451 If you believe Tim's definition of good and your purpose for him and the new testament claims that few get to heaven, then god is not good. You don't even have to wait and see if your one of the few.
His function IS to assign function.
This is brilliant. Excellent logic through and through.
Homosexuality among animal species is totally fine. They don’t violate any moral laws, that would be silly. Unlike animals, MANKIND is a moral agent made in the image of God. So we have an obligation to uphold Gods moral law. Animals are a different story. Their only natural duty is to survive and reproduce. Gods not gonna judge a lioness at the end of her life for abandoning her cubs.
This is a bad philosophy. It leads to a barbaric and cruel world.
False. It leads to humans rights, equality and freedom. Western values are literally based on natural law thinking. You can read, "The Origins of Western Liberalism" by atheist political philosopher Larry Siedentop who admits that.
@@LogosTheos western society is no longer based on rape, killing and plundering so i would disagree. The enlightment luckily put us on a better path. Humanism.
@@northernlight8857 Those ideas were already in place before the Enlightenement as Larry Siedentop shows.
@@LogosTheos ideas develop over time and spread. It takes time before it gains real traction. But the enlightenment is the official demarkationline most historians point to .
@@LogosTheos
Natural Law Theory seems to me to conflate purpose and function in regards to organisms broadly and human behaviours specifically, if not always than certainly sometimes. The function of our sexual organs is for reproduction, yes, but it is of course debatable whether or not they ought to always be used exclusively for that purpose.
Incredible thinker!
Based Tim Hsiao
amazing done
Hate speach , Nagh JK I really enjoyed this keep up the great work
This little Chinese dude is Based!