What makes something intrinsically bad/good?

fakename · #1 Jan 4, '12, 5:44 pm

I was thinking that perhaps, its participation in being is what made it so. But if that were true, then why would something that had being like same-sex sex, be intrinsically bad? Wouldn't it be only extrinsically bad?

So in general, why are things intrinsically bad or good?

Swiss Guy · #2 Jan 4, '12, 6:38 pm

If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa

VeritasLuxMea · #3 Jan 4, '12, 6:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa

What makes something go against natural law?

Thaelros · #4 Jan 4, '12, 7:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

What makes something go against natural law?

If it is antagonistic to the human dignity, then it goes against natural law.

fakename · #5 Jan 4, '12, 8:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by user "VeritasLuxMea"

If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa

where does that leave extrinsically good things, especially RE natural law.

VeritasLuxMea · #6 Jan 4, '12, 9:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaelros

If it is antagonistic to the human dignity, then it goes against natural law.

But how do we determine what is or is not antagonistic to human dignity? Is that ultimately a subjective judgement call? My goal is not to tear the concept down, but if you know how it works, then please explain.

Thaelros · #7 Jan 5, '12, 3:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

But how do we determine what is or is not antagonistic to human dignity? Is that ultimately a subjective judgement call? My goal is not to tear the concept down, but if you know how it works, then please explain.

You bring out a valid point. Many people do not believe in objective truths anymore and instead embrace relativism. This is one of the main issues that Catholics have trouble with when we are arguing morality against secularists and those of other denominations. No one accepts self-evident truths anymore. So to answer your question... We should be determining antagonism based on objective, logical truths that make sense. I wrote this impromptu argument against gay marriage using science (to satisfy secularists) as an example of logical truths: Human reproduction is only possible through the actions of a male and female. Thus, evolutionarily it is most advantageous for the offspring to have male and female parents, which subconsciously promotes the reproductivity that is necessary to bring about the continuation of the species. Natural selection shows that humans have survived because we have stuck to our natural instinct.

fakename · #8 Jan 5, '12, 7:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by user "Swiss Guy"

If something is intrinsically bad it goes against natural law. It is always bad. Vice-versa

but again, this statement covers intrinsically good/bad stuff but not extrinsically good/bad stuff.

so are these latter somehow outside the natural law determination of morality?

MindOverMatter2 · #9 Jan 6, '12, 2:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

I was thinking that perhaps, its participation in being is what made it so. But if that were true, then why would something that had being like same-sex sex, be intrinsically bad? Wouldn't it be only extrinsically bad?

So in general, why are things intrinsically bad or good?

Bad or evil does not have an object. Its a privation. The object that does evil is not an evil object, but rather it is an object that participates in evil; or rather, it participates in the privation of good. The devil, as an object or being, is not evil; he merely does evil things.

Sexual Attraction in and of its self is not evil. To be Sexually Attracted to an object that does not fulfill the good of your nature, is a disorder of somebody's nature. Gay is not a being; its a disorder or privation of the good of your sexuality as a male or female. But an "evil" has not yet occurred until the person seeks to act on that disorder. The objects or beings involved are not evil.

Everything that has a being is good even if it has a disorder, so long as you understand disorders or evil as a privation of being rather than an actual being in and of itself.

exnihilo · #10 Jan 6, '12, 6:14 pm

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. But since the word intrinsically is being used I would like to add that the concept of intrinsic can be difficult. Some examples of where it can be difficult might help.

I think owning gold, especially in these times, is good. But gold does not have intrinsic value as many people say. The value is not in the gold itself but in the desire of men to own it. It is extrinsic.

Murder is intrinsically wrong but only because murder contains within it the idea that the killing was wrong. An accidental killing or a purposeful killing in self defense is not wrong. Murder is just short hand for an intrinsically wrong killing.

I think something is intrinsically wrong if it is wrong in all circumstances, at all times, for all people.

fakename · #11 Jan 6, '12, 6:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by user "MindOverMatter2"

Bad or evil does not have an object. Its a privation. The object that does evil is not an evil object, but rather it is an object that participates in evil; or rather, it participates in the privation of good. The devil, as an object or being, is not evil; he merely does evil things.

Sexual Attraction in and of its self is not evil. To be Sexually Attracted to an object that does not fulfill the good of your nature, is a disorder of somebody's nature. Gay is not a being; its a disorder or privation of the good of your sexuality as a male or female. But an "evil" has not yet occurred until the person seeks to act on that disorder. The objects or beings involved are not evil.

Everything that has a being is good even if it has a disorder, so long as you understand disorders or evil as a privation of being rather than an actual being in and of itself.

But some things are both beings and bad, like unreasonable sex. Sex is a thing, and yet it is sometimes bad. So why is this if all good=being and all non-being=bad? Is the relation to correct order somehow a being? Is it even a relation?

stevekehl · #12 Jan 6, '12, 11:23 pm

In Genesis God called all of His creation "good." How God's creation is used by us makes it good or bad. Drugs aren't "bad" it it using them in to numb emotions or escape reality instead of to heal or alleviate symptoms of sickness. Sex is intended to strengthen the bonds between husband and wife ( Mark 10:6-9, Matt. 19:4-6) which strengthens the family unit as well, and, of course, to produce children (Gen. 1:28). Sex outside of these purposes is sinful. So nothing is intrinsically bad, even disease and injury can serve a positive end.

MindOverMatter2 · #13 Jan 7, '12, 12:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

But some things are both beings and bad, like unreasonable sex. Sex is a thing, and yet it is sometimes bad. So why is this if all good=being and all non-being=bad? Is the relation to correct order somehow a being? Is it even a relation?

Sex is never bad. Its what we do with sex that will determine whether we are respecting the gift of sexuality or not.

fakename · #14 Jan 7, '12, 9:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by user "MindOverMatter2"

Sex is never bad. Its what we do with sex that will determine whether we are respecting the gift of sexuality or not.

but gay sex is intrinsically bad and yet by your definition, sex can only be extrinsically bad.

Also the answer doesn't seem, to me, to define where extrinsically good or bad things are in relation to being. Are these goods and bads also defined by being or something else?

MindOverMatter2 · #15 Jan 7, '12, 9:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

but gay sex is intrinsically bad and yet by your definition, sex can only be extrinsically bad.

Also the answer doesn't seem, to me, to define where extrinsically good or bad things are in relation to being. Are these goods and bads also defined by being or something else?

Gays don't have real sex any more than masturbation is real sex.