Natural Law
I lied when I said this will be the last post on the subject. There is one coming later today.
The time has come to talk of natural law. As others have pointed out, natural law remains a powerful moral force in our lives. You can see it most clearly in food issues. When people argue against junk food or in favour of eating"organically" all sorts of natural law arguments surface almost by instinct.
There is a legitimate and an illegitimate use of natural law arguments however. The illegitimate use isn't really a natural law argument at all but a consequentialist argument. In it's most naked form: "Eat junk food and you'll get cancer." You can also see this in the hopes many Catholic moralists obviously nurse that there will be some scientific discovery proving birth control pills cause breast cancer.
Before going into how this misguided consequentialist view shows up in Alice von Hildebrand, let me explain the distinction a bit. Natural law is an argument based on the belief that there is a moral purpose visible in nature when rationally considered. Food tastes good but, if we step back and consider it in a rational way, the real end of eating is to supply nutrition for our bodies and we shouldn't eat just anything we feel like eating.
Most people, I think, instinctively agree with that position.
But, and this is important, there is a positive end here and that is nutrition and nutrition is ultimately desirable because it leads to health and health leads to a happy and balanced life.
Consequentialist arguments, on the other hand, say do X because it will produce good results or don't do X because it will produce bad results. These good and bad results are not defined in terms of some overall end. And that distinction is important because under natural law it is often required of us to do something that will produce bad results.
A consequentlialist argument can be used to reinforce a legitimate natural law argument but it should never be mistaken for something that it isn't. To take the example of birth control. Suppose someone did prove that the pill causes some side effect negative enough to justify everyone stopping using the pill. If you are a pill opponent that may sound like a good thing. But imagine that immediately this hypothetical bad news comes through, scientists set to work on some other form of birth control that does not have these negative side effects and they succeed. Now what's the argument against the pill?
And the pill is a good example in a sense because pill opponents (and not all are Catholics) have been raising side-effect objections for decades now and none of these have panned out. The health news related to the pill have been very positive. There is even a credible argument to be made that younger women who take the pill will actually be healthier as a result.
Hildebrand's essay is littered with bad consequentialist arguments. Most telling, are her comments on pornography.
But even if there were a link between degrading porn and violence, it's hard to see how Playboy, which consisted of pictures of naked women and little of the sort degradation of women so common today might reasonably be said to have such an effect. We might also wonder how there aren't a lot more serial rapists about given that Playboy sold some seven million copies a month at its height.
Before moving on, let me note how common this sort of glib argument based on no apparent evidence or logic is with Hildebrand. Earlier I dealt with her shallow handling of the story of David and Bathsheba but lets return now to one fascinating line she tosses off in the course of making that argument: "Adulteries lead to murder." They do? Then why aren't the streets piled deep with bodies? There is a lot of adultery out there. Walk down any street and at least 40 percent of the married men and women you will walk by have committed adultery at some point.
The way Hildebrand argues is the way children argue not the way mature adults such as university professors should be expected to argue (well, actually, a disturbingly large number of university professors argue like that but that is a subject for another day).
This series starts here.
Last post up later today.
I lied when I said this will be the last post on the subject. There is one coming later today.
The time has come to talk of natural law. As others have pointed out, natural law remains a powerful moral force in our lives. You can see it most clearly in food issues. When people argue against junk food or in favour of eating"organically" all sorts of natural law arguments surface almost by instinct.
There is a legitimate and an illegitimate use of natural law arguments however. The illegitimate use isn't really a natural law argument at all but a consequentialist argument. In it's most naked form: "Eat junk food and you'll get cancer." You can also see this in the hopes many Catholic moralists obviously nurse that there will be some scientific discovery proving birth control pills cause breast cancer.
Before going into how this misguided consequentialist view shows up in Alice von Hildebrand, let me explain the distinction a bit. Natural law is an argument based on the belief that there is a moral purpose visible in nature when rationally considered. Food tastes good but, if we step back and consider it in a rational way, the real end of eating is to supply nutrition for our bodies and we shouldn't eat just anything we feel like eating.
Most people, I think, instinctively agree with that position.
But, and this is important, there is a positive end here and that is nutrition and nutrition is ultimately desirable because it leads to health and health leads to a happy and balanced life.
Consequentialist arguments, on the other hand, say do X because it will produce good results or don't do X because it will produce bad results. These good and bad results are not defined in terms of some overall end. And that distinction is important because under natural law it is often required of us to do something that will produce bad results.
A consequentlialist argument can be used to reinforce a legitimate natural law argument but it should never be mistaken for something that it isn't. To take the example of birth control. Suppose someone did prove that the pill causes some side effect negative enough to justify everyone stopping using the pill. If you are a pill opponent that may sound like a good thing. But imagine that immediately this hypothetical bad news comes through, scientists set to work on some other form of birth control that does not have these negative side effects and they succeed. Now what's the argument against the pill?
And the pill is a good example in a sense because pill opponents (and not all are Catholics) have been raising side-effect objections for decades now and none of these have panned out. The health news related to the pill have been very positive. There is even a credible argument to be made that younger women who take the pill will actually be healthier as a result.
Hildebrand's essay is littered with bad consequentialist arguments. Most telling, are her comments on pornography.
In the sexual sphere, pornography, not puritanism, is the cancer destroying our society. It is so widespread that it is practically impossible to protect one's children from its venom; it is on the internet, on television, at malls, in department stores, in book stores, at the A&P. Serial rapists often confess that they have been fed on Playboy since they were teenagers. This is where our main concern; should be focused.The whole issue would be very simple if it turned out to be the case that pornography could easily be linked to crimes such as rape but it cannot be. Moralists (both Christian and feminist) have been trying and trying to make such a link for decades now and no one has come up with anything that looks like a connection. And I sometimes wish it were so myself when I see some of the very angry porn out there but not only is there no provable link, sexual crimes have actually declined as porn has become more prevalent and even as porn has become more degrading towards women.
But even if there were a link between degrading porn and violence, it's hard to see how Playboy, which consisted of pictures of naked women and little of the sort degradation of women so common today might reasonably be said to have such an effect. We might also wonder how there aren't a lot more serial rapists about given that Playboy sold some seven million copies a month at its height.
Before moving on, let me note how common this sort of glib argument based on no apparent evidence or logic is with Hildebrand. Earlier I dealt with her shallow handling of the story of David and Bathsheba but lets return now to one fascinating line she tosses off in the course of making that argument: "Adulteries lead to murder." They do? Then why aren't the streets piled deep with bodies? There is a lot of adultery out there. Walk down any street and at least 40 percent of the married men and women you will walk by have committed adultery at some point.
The way Hildebrand argues is the way children argue not the way mature adults such as university professors should be expected to argue (well, actually, a disturbingly large number of university professors argue like that but that is a subject for another day).
This series starts here.
Last post up later today.
This is absolutely true. Its really the consequentialist arguments that are most often used against same-sex marriage and homosexuality--well really any sex outside of a valid (in the Church's eyes) heterosexual marriage, even masturbation. And they don't hold up either, I still haven't grown hair on my palm.
ReplyDelete