There is no "Naturalistic Fallacy" committed here for the very simple reason that no argument has been made; nothing has been claimed to follow logically from evidence, either deductively or inferentially. My entire post here was explicative; that is, explanatory, not an extended argument. The difference is important. The statements made in an explicative way are certainly indicative of, or implicative of, arguments, but when no argument has been explicitly made, no logical connections between premises and conclusions exist. I'm not at all sure how Scratch can analyze a claim for the presence of logical fallacies when no attempt had been made to derive one claim in a logical way from any others.
The Naturalistic Fallacy has two or three forms. One is to try to derive the definition of good from nature, or to claim that ethical or moral qualities can be understood within a definition of the term good in terms of naturally occurring phenomena or conditions. In this sense, if homosexual sex, or an adulterous affair, or snorting Cocaine, are perceived to be "pleasant' experiences, they can then be defined as "good" since the natural sensations or perceptions created by engaging in them are perceived as pleasant.
Secondly, there is the claim that what is natural is right, or if something occurs naturally, it is legitimate on those grounds alone.
Another form of this, loosely speaking, is the "is/ought" augment, which, in a nutshell, is that what we see in nature is directly transferable to the human condition. What "is" in nature is extrapolated to what "ought" to be the case in human affairs.
In no case have I ever made arguments of this kind regarding homosexuality, human sexuality in general, or used them as the grounds upon which gospel doctrines regarding these things are based. My explicative post to Roger, describing and explaining my perceptions of the question rely on a gospel context precisely because it is the gospel that identifies eternal truths or laws to us which otherwise would be imperfectly known or unknown, from a human perspective.
I have never attempted to derive that statement "homosexuality is immoral" from premises that claim it is unnatural, nor have I attempted to claim that what is natural is right, and vice versa, and therefore homosexuality is wrong. This precise argument was used by the Social Darwinists in the early 20th century to support their ideas. It can be used to support eugenics. The immorality of homosexuality is not supported by any claim that what "is" in nature "ought" to be that which obtains in human terms. If this were the case, we would be justified, again, in leaving car accident victims to die on the street since this is precisely what many herd animals do, allowing the weak or crippled to die so as not to slow down the herd and use up precious resources that will otherwise be used to maintain healthy members of the herd.
I use the observation that homosexuality in unnatural not as a premise from which a conclusion about homosexuality, or any other sexual deviation, is derived, and therefore substantiated, but as circumstantial evidence. The gospel identifies truths to human beings, whether they be moral absolutes, ethical prescriptions, or metaphysical truths. One may certainly say that the truths identified by gospel teachings are "natural", in that they are inherent states of affairs in an external universe within which we are embedded. But I have not attempted, in this thread or others, to logically substantiate claims of the immorality of this or that by appeal to its naturalness. The naturalness of a truth, it it is accepted as a truth, is a given. My post here was explicative, intended to define and describe gospel doctrines relative to Roger's opposing viewpoint. It was not an attempt to derive a conclusion "homosexuality is immoral" from other propositions, and hence, no logical fallacies were committed.
The immorality of homosexuality, as with other forms of sexual immorality and many fundamental gospel principles in general, are based in knowledge obtained through revelation to prophets, and confirmed by the same spirit to anyone who cares to seek for such knowledge. This includes the Sprint of Christ that all have when they come into this world and which intimates that which is right and wrong. We call this our "conscience" and it is kind of our own internal moral literacy that all of us (at least those of normal intelligence and mental faculty) possess.
It seems you are backpedaling into a corner wherein you will have no choice but to admit that your views are illogical, or, at the very least, "a-logical."
If Scratch actually wants to refute, or provide a counter argument to the effect that I am indeed guilty of the Naturlaistic Fallacy, then fine. Since he has not done this and has made no attempt at a cogent philosophical rebuttle to my own defence against his original claim of my having made such a fallacy, I have nothing to respond to here.
All the arguments made as to the "natural family" and the perversity of homosexuality re the manner in which such deviant practices depart from normative forms are, while quite persuasive (especially when one looks at the historical social science data and the literature, art, politics, and other cultural artifacts produced by such deviant subcultures) ultimately supportive material to the fundamental insight derived from revealed religion.
So you *do* want to use logical premises to support your argument (or "explanation," as it were). I'm not sure what "literature, art, politics, and other cultural artifacts" you're referring to.... If anything, the participation of homosexuals in culture and the arts has been enormously enriching to humankind. Surely you can't be claiming that gays have been bad for the arts....
I don't believe I said that. To the extent that such arguments are internally consistent logically, then yes. However, most such arguments, to the extent their first principles are said to be extractable by reason through an understanding of "nature", cannot be understood to be derivable from "nature" in the manner the naturalistic fallacy assumes, that is: derivable from an observation of the natural world. What is "natural", as in "natural law" does not mean what we see occuring under wet logs in our back yard.
Quote:
And even these 'natural law" arguments do not claim that what is natural is right in human affairs, nor that what is good can be derived from definitions derived from what is observed in nature. What they do claim is that there are 'natural" sexual and family relationships in the sense of their being an optimum form of such relations that are ordained of God and which are an inherent aspect of the human being understood as both a natural, organic being and a spiritual being created in the "image of God".
Again, this is simply a variation of argumentum ad antiquatatem. Alternative family forms---the research indicates---are different rather than deficient. Unless, of course, you want to rely upon the old saw vis-a-vis "revelation," which, it must be admitted (as you appear to be doing above), is not premised upon logic.
Pure nonesense. If Scratch has research making such claims, then lets have it. There is a mountain of social science data indicating otherwise. Its also interesting to note here how Scratch--once again-- reveals that he is a 'Mormon" in a technical sense only, all indignant protestations to the contrary.
Quote:
When one deviates from this optimum (in sexual matters as in all things that really count within the context of the human condition), one moves from the realm of "natural" defined as that which is naturally optimum in human affairs (the ultimate source of which is the Gospel, which is ultimately known by revelation, not through a process of logical deduction from logically necessary initial propositions or axioms) to the realm of 'unnatural" defined as what is less than optimum, or grossly out of harmony with what is optimum. This has no relation to what is natural in the sense of "the natural world understood as the natural organic world around us, the relation upon which most of the various forms of the naturalistic fallacy rest (except one, in which subjective perceptions of the "good" are used, in an organismic sense, to define what is moral or right. "Natural" here seems to be connected to subjective organismic perceptions of pleasure or or other psychosomatic phenomena, but not as directly as with the other forms, in which things in human affairs are derived more directly from the natural organic world).
You are waffling, my friend. You want logical and material consequences to be applied to this subject, but continue to insist that your epistemological frame somehow "transcends" logic, and its exempt from the things that ratiocination can tell us.
The very existence in human history of cultures such as, for example, Sparta, make corned beef hash out of Scratch's attempt to make a vulgar, simplistic positivism the coin of the realm in matters of the human condition. With its eugenics, militarism, and the utter deracination of human sexuality (that Scratch would no doubt enjoy immensly) Sparta should speak to us clearly that what is "natural" can be tempestuously subjective and quite immune to logical analysis. If my epistemological frame transcends logic, (which is somewhat of a misunderstanding of what revelation is and how it interpenetrates the other human attributes such as rational thought), then much of what has transpired as to human culture and its artifacts (including Scratch's much vaunted homosexuality) also transcends logic and rationality, and is and has been highly resistent to both when called upon to support themselves on their merits.
Scratch seems to assume that logical analysis can somehow be called upon to support culture or various cultural practices as if culture was itseft derivable from self evident first principles. We can use logic to interpret that which we find within culture through experience, the study of history, and what we observe in culture after we gather data. Only revelation from God, however, can cut through the many subjective biases that corrupt and distort our interpretation of such observations and evidence and actually give us some real first principles. These truths then become our frame of reference for our interpretations that, even when the evidence (as it always is in the social sciences) is vague, fragmented, and incomplete, provides us a template that functions as a compass or bearing instrument (much like the Spirit of Christ) that if followed, will at least keep us from falling head first into an empty pool as we try to make heads or tails of our data.
It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatible with natural human physiology and anatomy.
Quote:
Again, the Naturalistic Fallacy. By your logic, none of us should be wearing clothes, since clothes are "not even compatible with natural human physiology."
Here Scratch again shows his inabilty to think clearly through his dogmatic ideological template. Again, the Naturalistic Fallacy has nothing to do with it. The general rule of which I speak is a spiritual and moral one, not one found in the natural world. If this was the case, I would expect Killer Whales to stop knocking baby seals off ice bergs and eating them alive post haste. I'm not claiming that the moral and spiritual principles of which I speak can be found in the natural world, even though they are natural principles in the sense of being a part of the universe in which we are embedded and to which we must conform (obeying Gospel law) if we wish to progress. Experience teaches, however, that once Scratch begins belaboring a point--no matter how irrelevant or superfluous--nothing will disuade him from beating that drum until the post is effectvely derailed.
No such fallacy is committed here, as no logical argument as been attempted, and no claim, even if I had made one, would have been based on the idea that what we observe in the natural, organic world (such as naked animals, or parasitism, or cannibalism) is a ground for extrapolation of such phenomena into human affairs, not the least of which are moral human affairs).
You made an axiomatic claim! Did you not?
Please make some attempt to focus on the actual details of the argument at hand.
And again, Loran, I find you falling back on this weird, feather bed of an argument. It really does seem to be a conflation of the Naturalistic Fallacy and argumentum ad antiquatatem. No matter what your opposition says, you will just fall back to saying, in effect, "You don't get it because it comes from God." "This isn't logical, it's based on revelation." These seem awfully shaky premises upon which to craft an argument. Ah, but then, as you've said, you are not crafting an "argument" at all!
I believe this is known as "sophistry."
Correct. I was not crafting an argument in that previous post, I was explaining my position. If you want a detailed, extended argument, in the philosophical sense, you may have it, but not from me, because I'm not going to waste my time with that on somebody who neither understands nor respects that kind of thought and that kind of debate.
Loran