Aristotle on sexual reproduction

Infamously, Aristotle thought that in animal reproduction (including the human case) the male contributed form and the female the matter.

I think it would have made for a neater metaphysics if he thought it was the other way around. For his story involves the complication that there are three ways that a form of an animal exists:

1. as informing a piece of matter and making it an animal of the relevant type

2. as being transmitted by semen, without turning the semen into an animal of the relevant type

3. as being found abstracted in an intellect thinking about the animal.

But if he supposed instead that the form was contributed by the female, he could have said that the semen contributes a small packet of initial matter for the organism and the female’s form works upon that packet in utero. At no point in this process is there a form that is separated out from an organism with that form (such a case will still have to happen when an intellect abstracts that form from matter), and so case (b) disappears, along with all the consequent metaphysical complications to the system.

It’s not clear to me how exactly Aristotle handled this. In Generation of Animals, he talks of the “power of the male residing in the semen”. This sounds like a kind of virtual presence of the form of the animal, a presence of the form as implicit in a causal power. It would be nice to be able to skip this complication. (Granted, Aristotle would still have a similar problem with regard to his view of delayed ensoulment, on which the offspring of a human is first a kind of plant, then gains an animal form, and then gains a rational form, for then the plant has a power to make an animal and the animal a human.)

I guess one might try to find Aristotle a way of reducing (b) to (a) while making the male still be the contributor of form as follows. One might think the semen is a living part of the male’s body, metaphysically like other parts, but separated spatially from the rest of the body (given what we know about how we are made of molecules, it is clear that spatial separation cannot be a bar to bodily unity). Thus, the semen would still be informed by the father’s form, in exactly the same way that the father’s ear or heart is. But this would have a downside. Suppose the father apparently died while the semen continued living, as does happen. Then it seems that the father would not have actually died—instead, his body would be reduced to a packet of semen, and he will have literally gone to seed. This seems absurd.

Why did Aristotle not go for the female as source of form solution, which is so neat metaphysically? Maybe for two reasons. First, the semen obviously could only contribute very little matter. (But then why not suppose that the initial organism is very small?) Second, sexism.

Life and self-representation

Here’s another try at an account of life. Maybe:

1. x is alive if and only if x has a non-derivative self-representation.

Consider: Anything that engages in reproduction must represent itself in order to reproduce (note: the growth of a crystal is not reproduction, however, because it does not make another crystal in the image of its own self-representation). Indeed, (1) covers all the organisms we are confident are organisms. And whether a virus represents itself non-derivatively or only derivatively in relation to the transcription mechanisms of a host is unclear, and (1) rightly thus rules that it is unclear whether a virus is alive.

Moreover, God and angels know themselves, and do so non-derivatively, so they count as alive according to (1).

It could be that (1) is a necessary truth, but nonetheless does not capture the concept of life. For there seems to be something more to life than just non-derivative self-representation, even if it turns out that necessarily all and only the non-derivative self-representers are alive. Aquinas thinks life needs operation or activity.

Here is a suggestion that expands on (1):

2. x is alive if and only if x pursues an end for itself in the light of a non-derivative self-representation.

Thus something that merely thinks of itself, without having any ends, won’t be alive. On the other hand, anything that intentionally pursues ends that it non-derivatively represents itself as having satisfies (2). So, once again, God and angels count as alive. And so does any organism, since pursuit of reproduction always satisfies (2).

Permissibility of the natural

The usual way to argue that an action is permissible is to argue that the arguments against the action’s permissibility fail. But it would be really nice to be able to give a more positive argument for an action’s permissibility. Sometimes one can do so by showing that the action is obligatory, but (a) that doesn’t help with the permissibility of non-obligatory actions, and (b) often an argument for the obligatoriness of a positive action presupposes the action’s permissibility (e.g., the obligation to kill a dog that is attacking one’s child when no other means of defense is available presupposes the general permissibility of killing dogs with good reason).

Here is a place where Natural Law (NL) can provide something quite useful, namely this principle:

1. If A is a natural action, then normally A is permissible.

This principle could, for instance, be used to generate intuitively compelling positive arguments for such controversial theses as:

2. It is normally permissible to eat animals.

3. It is normally permissible for us to reproduce.

4. It is normally permissible for us to prefer those more closely related to us.

In addition to Natural Lawyers, theists in general might have reason to endorse (1), on the grounds that our nature comes from God.

Of course, there is always going to be a difficulty in determining whether the antecedent of (1) is true.

Non-theistic non-NL theories are unlikely to endorse (1) except as a rule of thumb. And it will be an interesting explanatory question on those theories why then (1) is true even as a rule of thumb.

Life

Accounts of biological life characterize it by lists of features such as “reproduction, metabolism, functional organization, growth, responsiveness to the environment, movement, and short- and long-term adaptations” (SEP s.v. life). But Jewish, Christian and Muslim theists have reason to worry about such accounts of life in the light of the fact that our scriptures present God as the paradigm of a living being.

Here are some options:

Option 1: Modify one’s theology to make God fit with something pretty close to one of the biological accounts of life. Mormonism is a fairly radical example of this. A more moderate version might be some version of process theology, though one may need to jettison some features, like metabolism and growth.

Option 2: Trinitarians have this option available: The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and/through the Son and these processions could count as reproduction. Moreover, because Trinitarian processions multiply persons but the resulting persons are one God, Trinitarian reproduction has an internality that might count as a kind of growth—not that the divine essence grows, but that the number of persons of the one God grows. This solution would have the important consequence that the Old Testament texts that present God as living are proto-Trinitarian. Obviously, this solution is unlikely to be attractive to Jews and Muslims, though there may be some Kabbalistic analogue that might appeal to some Jews. Moreover, unless one adopts some version of process theology, this solution still requires one to drop a number of the features in traditional accounts of biological life, such as metabolism, movement and adaptation.

Option 3: Replace the biological accounts of life with something radically different which makes God a paradigm instance of life. Here are three such possibilities for characterizing life:

A. Living things are ones that have some mental property like consciousness or purposefulness.

B. Living things have teleology.

C. Living things are ones that have a well-being, that are capable of being well.

Suboption A is pretty radical: it requires either saying that plants have a mental life or that plants aren’t alive. I think it’s not that crazy to say that plants have something like mental life. Maybe they are aware of their environment in a way that goes robustly beyond the mere data processing of a digital thermometer. And it seems plausible that one can ascribe a certain kind of purposefulness to plant processes.

Suboption B is pretty close to the purposefulness variant of suboption A, but teleology is a more general concept than mental purposefulness. For me, the main difficulty with suboption B is that I think all substances have teleology. And I don’t want to extend life to elementary particles. But those who do not think that teleology extends to all substances might like Suboption B.

Suboption C is, of course, related to Suboption B. I have the same worry about C as about B: I think all substances that have teleology have a well-being. Elementary particles have well-being—the only difference between them and organic substances is that as far as we can tell, elementary particles are always well. This is of course very controversial, and those who do not accept it may like C.

There are, no doubt, other options and suboptions. I am attracted to Options 2 and 3A.

Reproductive ethics and divine intellectual property

God made everything. He did so timelessly eternally, and is fully responsible for everything that exists. He is not just a first cause, but an artist, author, designer and architect. It seems not unreasonable to suppose that during his eternal lifetime God has intellectual property rights to what he has made, including all biological forms of life. If so, then something like a license from God is needed to copy significant parts of creation.

A reasonable reading of Genesis tells us that God made us stewards of the non-human world around us, and in particular he has given us license to engage in agriculture, including the duplication of animals and plants. But we have not been given similarly far-reaching license with regard to humanity. We are told to be fruitful and multiply, but to be fruitful and multiply is not the same as to duplicate ourselves by any means possible. We have very good reason to think that we have license to use our reproductive organs to reproduce within a relationship designed for this purpose, namely marriage. But we have little reason to think that we have any license to reproduce outside of such a relation or that we have license to do so outside of the natural use of these reproductive organs. And the default assumption is that we have no permission to reproduce the intellectual property of another.

This line of thought generates something that is pretty much the Catholic picture of reproductive ethics. There is no permission for human reproduction outside of marriage. And reproduction needs to occur by means of human mating. Reproductive technologies, then, need to be limited to improving or repairing the reproductive potential of human mating, rather than replacing human mating by something else.

One can enhance the above story by noting that creatures have a two-fold connection with the divine artist. First, they are designed and created by him. Second, they are images of him. Some creatures are much more significantly divine self-portraits: these are persons, capable of interpersonal relationships of love. It is reasonable to think that there would be more significant restrictions on the copying of those works of art which are the divine self-portraits.

Objection 1: We shouldn't need to have Scripture to know that we may engage in agriculture and marital mating.

Response: Indeed. I think the relevant permissions are naturally "written in the heart". We intuitively grasp the difference between genetically enhancing wheat and genetically enhancing humans, and the difference between sperm banks for cattle and for humans. But the license to use new reproductive technologies is not so written in the heart.

Objection 2: Intellectual property rights are limited by society, which gets to define how long they last and to what degree they apply, and these rights are never endless.

Response: It is reasonable to think that there are such limitations for the property rights of human beings who themselves draw on centuries of culture for their creation. But God is a case apart.

Objection 3: Intellectual property rights are a matter of positive rather than natural law; they are created and modified by society.

Response: I share this intuition, and that makes me not want to full endorse the line of thought in this post. But perhaps we can say that intellectual property rights of humans are a very faint reflection of divine intellectual property rights, faint because all we have and create ultimately belongs to God, and also because of the dependence of our own creative work on that of others. So in us, it's a matter of social decision whether there be rights coming from our poor ways of creating. But God is fully and truly a creator.

Objection 4: This is too cold! God is the God of love, not an IP lawyer.

Response: The story is incomplete. But art isn't something cold, nor are the "moral rights" of artists something cold and for lawyers only.

Conceiving people who will be mistreated

Alice and Bob are Elbonians, a despised genetic minority. It seems that unless the level of mistreatment that members of this minority suffer is extreme, it is permissible for Alice and Bob to have a child.

But now suppose that Carol and Dan are not Elbonian, but have a child through a procedure that ensures that the child is Elbonian. It seems that Alice and Bob's procreation is permissible, but Carol and Dan are doing something wrong. Yet in both cases they are producing a child that will be, we may suppose, the subject of the same mistreatment.

We understand, of course, Alice and Bob's intentions: they want to have a child, and as it happens their child will be Elbonian. But we have a harder time understanding what Carol and Dan are doing. Are they trying to make their child be the subject of discrimination? If so, then it's clear why they are acting wrongly. But we can suppose that both couples are motivated in the same way. Perhaps both couples really like the way that Elbonian eyes look, and that is why Alice and Bob do not seek out genetic treatment to root out the Elbonian genes while Carol and Dan seek treatment to impose these genes.

Thinking about this case makes me think that there is a significant difference between just letting nature take its course reproductively and deliberately modifying the course of reproduction. But there are a lot of hard questions here.

Procreation and love

Start with this consequence of the essentiality of origins:

1. The identity of an individual depends on the exact time of her coming-into-existence.

(It's very plausible that it depends on coarse-grained time of coming-into-existence: I couldn't have come into existence a hundred years earlier. But there is also a well-known argument from that for the claim that it depends on the exact time.) Now, it seems that no action people can take prior to the origination of an individual determines the exact time of her coming-into-existence. There isn't any true counterfactual of the form of the form: "If we were to do A, then an individual would come into existence exactly at t." In fact, for any action we can take, quantum indeterminism will ensure a cluster of infinitely (if time is continuous) many or at least very many close-together possible resulting conception times. Moreover, each exact time will have a very tiny, perhaps infinitesimal or zero, probability of being the actual time of origination. Hence it seems:

2. There is no true probabilistic counterfactual of the form: "If we were to do A, then an individual would be not unlikely to come into existence exactly at t."

(Molinists will, of course, disagree. But Molinism is false, I take it.) Thus:

3. People cannot procreate out of love for the particular individual who would likely come into existence from the procreation.

For there is no particular individual such that she would likely come into existence from the procreation.

Now, notice that God in creating an individual--either ex nihilo or in cooperating with the joining of an egg and sperm--is under no such constraints. Thus it is possible for God to act in such a way that were he to act so, an individual would come into existence at a precise time. And the same is true for other features of the origination of the individual besides the time of its occurrence. So God could create out of love for the particular individual who would come into existence from the creation.

This fact suggests a weakness in premise (2) of my above argument. It could be that God has already decided what individual would result if a couple chose to procreate, and has resolved in particular that sperm and egg would meet at a particular time, as long as the couple chooses the procreate. God, thus, is resolved to control all the quantum phenomena to ensure a particular circumstance of origination. Thus it's up to the couple whether someone comes into existence, but there is a particular someone who would exist if the couple procreated. It would not be surprising if this were to happen in special cases, and it would be possible for it to happen in all cases. I don't know if it does, though.

The upshot of the above argument, thus, is that unless special theological assumptions hold, it is not possible for a couple to decide whether to procreate out of love for the particular child that would result.

Reproductions and forgeries

You can appreciate Monet's Woman with a Parasol in person through your own unaided vision. But perhaps you need eyeglasses. If you use eyeglasses while looking at the painting in the National Gallery, you're still appreciating Monet's painting. The same would be true if there were a window opposite the painting, and you were sitting in a tree and observing the painting through binoculars. Further, surely it makes no difference how the binoculars work. Ordinary binoculars work by rearranging light through lenses as it streams from the object to the eye. Digital binoculars, on the other hand, work by having sensors transform the light from the object and then creating images on tiny screens inside. When you look at Woman with a Parasol through digital binoculars, what you're appreciating is the painting through the binoculars, not the two tiny images on screens inside the binoculars.

But notice that with digital binoculars, you can do two things. You can look at the little screens inside or you can, as it were, look through them. The intentional objects are different: if you look at the screens, you see the screens; if you look through the screens, you see the world (including Woman with a Parasol, if that's where you're pointing the binoculars). When you look at the screens, your attention is at least in part on the pixels, the quality of the color rendition, the glare, and so on. When you look through the screens, your attention is on something out there in the world. The two experiences have distinctly different phenomenal feels, and you can go back and forth between them as in the case of the two duck-rabbit.

One more step. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, instead of cameras they have iconographs, which is a box with an imp that paints quickly with a little paintbrush. We can imagine binoculars made on that principle. A pair of eagle-eyed imps very quickly paint two little pictures in the box, constantly updating them. You could look through imp-binoculars at Woman with a Parasol, but we could also look at the pictures in the box, admiring the imps' workmanship. You could switch back and forth just by redirecting your attention. Note, however, that both ways of using the imp-binoculars could involve skill and knowledge. It might be that when you first look into the imp-binoculars, it's obvious to you that there are paintings inside (maybe you can see the brush strokes and the texture of the canvas) and only with experience do you learn to correlate the images in the imp-binoculars with the external world. On the other hand, if your visual acuity is not as good or if the imps are really good, you might not realize that there are paintings inside--it might feel like just looking through a pair of holes in a wall, and only with experience do you learn to see the images as little paintings.

At this point, it should be clear that one can look at a painting through its reproduction. It's just a matter of directing your attention and intentionality appropriately. It does, however, take knowledge. You need to know that the painting is a reproduction, just as you need to know that the imp-binoculars track the world to see the world through them.

This gives us an account of the properly aesthetic harm done by the forger of a particular painting (the forger of a particular painter's style is a more complicated case, but perhaps can be handled similarly). By blocking the viewer from knowing that the reproduction is a reproduction, the forger prevents the viewer from seeing the original through the forgery. It is the forgery rather than the original that is seen, but it is misconstrued. On the other hand, if the forger honestly informed us that this was a reproduction, she would be doing us a service--she would be providing us with a telescope pointed at the original.

What is interesting about this account of the properly aesthetic harms done by a forger is that it does not require us to value the viewing of an original over the viewing of a perfect reproduction. In fact, this account of what is bad about forgery depends precisely on the value of reproductions. One could--though one need not--hold that viewing Woman With a Parasol naked-eye, through eyeglasses, through optical binoculars, through digital binoculars, through imp-binoculars and through a reproduction are all equally valuable when the image quality is equal. In fact, viewing through a reproduction could be even more valuable, for instance if one's eyesight is poor and the reproduction is larger in size than the original. But it is important that we see the original through the reproduction, that the reproduction be a window on the artist's production, and indirectly on the artist's soul.

Likewise, we should see God through the world and especially through our neighbor.

The needs of the human community

Andrea Dworkin argued that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is always wrong because it involves a violation of the woman's bodily integrity. She concluded that until recent advances in medical technology, it was impossible for humans to permissibly reproduce. The antinatalists, on the other hand, continue to hold that it is impossible for humans to permissible reproduce. Such views lead to an incredulous stare. It is very tempting to levy against them an argument like this:

1. Coital reproduction is necessary for the minimal flourishing of the human community under normal conditions.
2. Whatever is necessary for the minimal flourishing of the human community under normal conditions is sometimes permissible.
3. Coital reproduction is sometimes permissible.

The condition "under normal conditions" is needed for (2) to be plausible. We can, after all, easily imagine science-fictional scenarios where something immoral would need to be done to ensure the minimal flourishing of the human community.

Reproduction is not the only case where issues like this come up. For instance, the destruction of non-human organisms, say plants, seems necessary for our flourishing. And I suspect that under normal conditions the killing of non-human animals is necessary, too (if only as a side-effect of plowing fields, say). Taxation may be another interesting example.

I have heard it argued that (2) is in itself a basic moral principle, so that killing non-human animals as a side-effect of vegan farming is permissible because it is permissible to ensure minimal human flourishing. But that seems mistaken. Rather, while (2) is true, it is not a moral principle, but a consequence of a correlation between (a) fundamental facts about what moral duties there are actually are and (b) facts about what is actually needed for minimal human flourishing under normal conditions.

This leads to an interesting and I think somewhat underexplored question: Why are the moral facts and the facts about actual human needs so correlated as to make (2) true?

Theists have an elegant answer to this question: God had very strong moral reason to make humans in such a way that, at least normally, minimal flourishing of the community doesn't require wrong action. Non-theists have other stories to tell. These stories, however, are likely to be piecemeal. For instance, one will give one evolutionary story about why we and our ecosystem evolved in such a way that eating persons wasn't needed for our species' survival, and another about why we evolved in such a way that morally non-degrading sex sufficed for reproduction. But a unified answer is to be preferred over piecemeal answers, especially when the unified answer is compatible with the piecemeal ones and capable of integrating them into a single story. We do, thus, get some evidence for theism here.

Reproducing for the child's sake?

Suppose that you are hooked up to a button which, if pressed, will induce in you a desire for a flash of green light followed by a flash of green light. Plausibly, if you will have a desire for something neutral or good, that gives me a reason to fulfill that desire. Assume that you consent to my pressing the button as well as to my not pressing it, but you have no desire either way. I now press the button, on the grounds that:

1. you will have a desire to see a green flash, and by pressing the button I will have fulfilled that desire of yours.

But this is fallacious practical arguing. Granted, given that I will press the button, you will have a desire for a green flash, and so I have reason to press the button to give you that green flash. But whether I am to press the button is precisely what the practical question is about. And if I don't press the button, there will be no desire. I cannot use a desire of yours that is conditional on my decision to provide myself with a reason to press the button. That would be like lifting myself by my bootstraps.

Another case. Normally, if I know that I will make you a promise, that gives me a reason to do something that makes me able to fulfill of that promise. Suppose now that I am deliberating whether to promise you to draw a pig. Standing by is Jim, who I know will hand me a piece of paper and a pink crayon if and only if he hears me promise to you that I will draw a pig. So I promise you to draw a pig on the grounds that:

2. I will shortly be subject to a promise to draw a pig, and by making the promise I make myself able to fulfill the promise, as Jim will supply me with the wherewithal.

But that is just plain silly. Given a decision to promise to draw a pig, it makes perfect sense for me to attempt to get the wherewithal. But whether to promise to draw a pig or not is precisely what is at issue. It would be rationally circular to reason from the promise in deciding to make the promise.

Now a third case. A couple has a child on the basis of the thought that if someone exists or will exist, then one has reason to provide them with a good, and

3. The child will exist, and by procreating we will be providing the child with various goods, including especially life.

But it seems that this reasoning is as practically fallacious as (1) and (2). Of course, given that the child will exist, the provision of life to the child is a good thing. But whether the child is to exist is precisely what is at issue in the deliberation.

If this is right, then one cannot procreate for the child's sake.

One may be able to procreate in order that the world contain the good of the child's life, but that is an impartial good, not a good to the child. (And there are some Kantian worries about this—it seems to make of the child a means.)

A difference between coital and non-coital reproduction

Non-coital reproduction (at least if it is to satisfy standard medical ethics rules) such as in-vitro fertilization requires the couple's consent, but does not require any specifically reproductive activity by the couple other than the giving of consent. Coital reproduction, on the other hand, requires the couple's consent, and more: it requires that the couple engage in coitus.

This may seem mistaken: After all, doesn't non-coital reproduction require the couple to provide gametes? Indeed, non-coital reproduction requires the couple's gametes. But the provision of the gametes does not require any reproductive action on the part of the couple besides the provision of consent. First, the gametes might be surgically extracted and that requires no activity on the part of the couple beside consent. Second, the gametes might be available to medical professionals due to earlier non-reproductive interventons, say because a cancerous ovary was removed.

And what about pregnancy? Isn't that an activity, even if not per se voluntary? Yes, it is an activity, but it is one that occurs after reproduction has already occurred. Once the gametes have fused into a new organism, reproduction has taken place.

Thus in non-coital reproduction, any reproductive activity by the couple besides the mere provision of consent is inessential. Thus, non-coital reproduction can be entirely outsourced: the couple need only be the source of gametes (some will say even this is not necessary, but I deny that the couple would be reproducing if their gametes are not used), but do not need to do anything to provide them.

This is a difference. Is it a morally significant difference? I think so, but I can't quite put my finger on it right now. A permissible form of reproduction just doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that could be outsourced without changing its essential nature.

A (paradoxical?) argument that intentional reproduction is wrong

Consider:

1. We cannot permissibly intend to produce a person for reasons that do not include the specific person's own good.
2. We cannot intend to produce a person for reasons that include the specific person's own good.
3. We cannot permissibly intend to produce a person without reasons.
4. Necessarily, if we intend to produce a person, we do so for no reason, or for reasons that include the person's own good, or for reasons that do not include the person's own good.
5. We cannot permissibly intend to produce a person. (1-4)

Premise (1) is due to Kantian considerations: persons are ends not means. I will argue for premise (2) shortly. Perhaps the easiest way to argue for premise (3) is that we simply cannot intend—permissibly or not—without reasons. We intend things because they are good, either as means or as ends, and in either case we have reasons. But one might also argue that if it is wrong to produce persons for reasons that do not include the person's own good, it is a fortiori wrong to produce them wantonly, for no reason at all, as it were on a whim. Or one might think that being rational animals, it is wrong for us to intentionally act in a non-reasnable way, and to act intentionally but without reasons is to do that.

Now on its face, premise (2) is false. Surely people do procreate for the child's own good. But I don't think so. They may be acting for the good of whatever child results from the reproduction, but there is no specific child for whose good they are acting. And when they act for the good of whatever child results, the specific child's good ends up being a constitutive means to the good they are seeking, so they do not escape from the Kantian criticism. The good of a person is an incommunicable good: it is that specific person's good. But the existence and identity of the child depends on the couple's decision in a way that the couple is unable to figure out beforehand. Thus the couple cannot be deciding in light of the identity of the child, and hence cannot be acting for the good of that specific person.

Note that God does not suffer from the cognitive limitations that give rise to (2): he can know our identity before he decides to create us, and can decide to create us for our own good.

Now, when a couple engages in the marital act, they have a reason to engage in that act apart from reproduction: the act is good in itself, being an embodiment of marital union. Thus they can act so as to unite, and accept the child as a gift from God that goes beyond their intention. Note that even given my argument they can permissibly rationally consider the reproduction in their decision whether to make love, for instance as a defeater to various defeaters (being tired, etc.) to the marital reasons for lovemaking. On the other hand, in non-coital methods of reproduction like IVF the couple is specifically intending reproduction, and that is wrong if the argument succeeds.

I am not myself entirely convinced of (1), because I am not entirely convinced of the Kantian autonomy framework. We aren't ends in ourselves: we exist as constitutive glorifications of God. Thus it does not seem contrary to the dignity of a person to be produced for the greater glory of God. Kantianism is what you get when you remove God from the story. If that's right, then we get the surprising result that only theists can permissibly intend to produce a child. Atheists, to be consistent, will need to have the Kantian attitude, and while they can permissibly reproduce, they cannot do so with the intention of reproducing, if everything else in the argument works.

Natural teleology

Breathing is intrinsically directed at oxygenation even if we're breathing helium. But if one knows it's helium, it may not be possible to voluntarily intend it for oxygenation. Imagine I'm in a room filled with helium. I'll pass out and die soon. I first hold my breath. But then I realize there is no point to that. So I let myself go and breathe. After I let myself, go my breathing isn't intentionally directed. But the breathing still has oxygenation as a telos.

So the breathing both is and is not directed at oxygenation? Perhaps what we need to do is to distinguish between action and activity. Breathing is always an activity, but it only becomes an action when it is willed. The activity of breathing always has oxygenation as a telos (maybe not the only one). The action of breathing may have oxygenation as a telos, but need not--breathing can have all sorts of voluntary purposes, such as signalling to a confederate, etc. But such a case, one is signalling to a confederate with breathing, an activity that has oxygenation as a purpose, whether or not it achieves that purpose.

What I said about breathing and oxygenation also applies to intercourse and reproduction to a significant degree.

Parenthood, adoption and sperm banks

Al, a single father of young Beth, found himself destitute. To give Beth hope for a future life, he agreed to have Charlie adopt Beth. Charlie was much better off than Al, and as far as Al could tell, was an excellent prospect for fatherhood. Unfortunately, soon after the adoption, Al and Charlie's fortunes reversed. Now Charlie was destitute while Al was well off. Charlie approached Al, suggesting that perhaps Al could re-adopt Beth. But Al said: "She is your daughter and no longer mine, and hence the responsibility is yours." Charlie further asked for financial help for Beth, indicating that he and Beth's health was poor and he (Charlie) could not afford the treatment she needed. Al responded: "Beth is not my daughter. Thus, while her misery has a call on me, it no more has a call on me than the misery of my other people I come in contact with. And I am already sufficiently contributing to the alleviation of the misery of other people, by giving most of my income and available time to various organizations that work with the needy in the city. Moreover, my doing so is financially more efficient. Beth's medical needs are particularly expensive. For the cost of alleviating her misery, I can alleviate the misery of two other poor children. Of course, if Beth were my daughter, her needs would take priority. But she isn't—she's your daughter."

Unless you're a utilitarian, and perhaps even if you are, I think you will share my strong moral intuition that Al is doing something seriously wrong. There are two aspects of this wrong. First, we assume that Charlie has done something good to Al when Al was in need—he took on Beth—and Al is being ungrateful. But we can tweak the story to make Al owe no gratitude to Charlie. Perhaps Al had already done as great a good to Charlie, or perhaps Charlie took on Beth solely for the sake of a tax break and Al was initially mistaken about Charlie's motives.

Second, Al owes more to Beth than he owes to other needy children. Adoption does not, then, completely negate parental duties. In fact, many onerous duties remain with Al, conditionally on Charlie being unable to fulfill them. Beth is not a stranger to Al. I do not know whether we should say that Beth is Al's daughter, but even if she not Al's daughter, the relationship that Al has to her is sufficient to ensure that he is morally responsible for her needs in a way in which he is not morally responsible for a stranger's needs.

But now Al's relationship to Beth is that of merely biological father. This means that the relationship of merely biological father is sufficient to trigger serious duties.

And this, in turn, makes giving sperm to a sperm bank seriously morally problematic. For by so doing, the man is consenting to being the biological father to many children. Given the numbers, it is not unlikely that some of these children will not have their basic needs—whether emotional, intellectual, spiritual or physical—met. In those cases, the donor would have a serious responsibility for meeting these needs. But this is a responsibility he cannot fulfill since he does not even know who these biological children of his are. Therefore, by donating sperm, the donor has consented to a situation where it is likely that he would be failing to meet his serious responsibilities, and where he cannot even seriously try to meet his responsibilities due to confidentiality rules. And that is, surely, morally problematic, even if we bracket all the other problematic aspects of sperm donation.

Notice that any statistics to the effect that adopted children have their needs as well met as biological children will not help here. For what generates the problem I am now discussing are two things. The first is the man is apt to gain many biological children whom he does not know about, adopted into many families, and it is quite probable that at least one of these families is not going to meet the childrens' basic emotional, intellectual, spiritual and/or physical needs. Thus it is rather more probable that he will have responsibilities he is not fulfilling than if he just conceived several children with a woman he was married to, since in the latter case there would only be one family to worry about. Second, in the sperm donation case, the man has responsibilities he cannot even seriously try to fulfill, and that seems a very unfortunate situation.

This improves on an argument I posted a couple of years ago.

Leviathan

I was once rather amused by an undergraduate in my Philosophy of Love and Sex class who complained that the sexual ethics material we were reading only applied to humans. On that topic, I rather enjoyed this story.

An argument against contraception

Suppose a couple uses contraception but conception nonetheless occurs. Then it is true that the couple have put obstacles in the way of their own child's life, indeed that they have engaged in activity directly opposed to their child's life. To stand to one's child in the relation of having directly opposed Johnny's life fits poorly with having an unconditional love for Johnny, unless one has repented of having opposed Johnny's life. But if the act of contraception was morally unproblematic and rational, then one cannot repent of it, since a part of repenting of an act is recognizing that the act was not to be done.

Therefore, contracepting couples take the risk (for surely there is always a chance of pregnancy) of standing in an inappropriate relation to their child—in the relation of having striven against that child's life.

I don't know how much this argument establishes. In the case of 100% effective contraception (e.g., complete removal of the ovaries, fallopian tubes and uterus), the argument is silent. In the case of typical contraception, whose effectiveness is less than 100%, the argument either establishes that the contraception is wrong, or that at least there is a very strong moral presumption against it.

Does the argument say anything about the couple who uses natural family planning (NFP)? Well, there are two ways conception can occur despite NFP. One way is because the couple engage in marital union despite the fact that the NFP method tells them that there is a significant chance of conception. If Johnny is conceived in this way, then the couple has not done anything that hindered or opposed Johnny's conception. (One might think that by abstaining on other days they hindered Johnny's conception. But Johnny could not have been conceived on those other days—they abstained from conceiving other children then.) In fact, in this case, it is right to say that the couple wasn't using NFP on the relevant day.

The other, and apparently rarer, case is where the couple mistakenly believe that they are infertile on a given day, but in fact they are fertile (either because they incorrectly used the NFP method or because the NFP method made a mis-prediction). In this case, I do not think we can say that the couple hindered Johnny's coming into existence. But we can say that they hoped Johnny would not come into existence, and that they would have refrained from bringing Johnny into existence if they knew there was a significant risk. The relation of having hoped one's child would not come into existence, and of its being the case that one would have refrained from bringing the child into existence, is not an ideal one. Thus there is a presumption against risking being in such a position, and hence there is a presumption against using NFP (which is closely related, I suppose, to the Catholic claim that a couple needs to have serious reasons to use NFP). But this is not a relation that is as morally problematic as the relation of having actively tried to hinder one's child's coming into existence. It is one thing not to have striven to further a child's life and another to have striven to hinder it.

But could one perhaps say that the NFP-using couple in the second case was trying to abstain from the act that would have produced Johnny, and trying to abstain from conceiving is an active opposition to life? But it seems to me that if it is an opposition to life at all, it is a much lesser one than active hindrance—just as it is one thing to try to abstain from giving an extraordinarily burdensome medical treatment (this may be hard—it may require a struggle for a conscientious health professional to refrain from offering the treatment) and another to kill. And perhaps the intention in abstaining is not to prevent Johnny from existing, but to prevent oneself from acting against the virtue of prudence (by having potentially fertile marital relations when one has grave reasons to the contrary).

Sexual ethics talk

Today I am giving this talk on sexual ethics at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.

Sex and reproduction

In my previous post I suggested, using amateur astronomy as an example, that an engagement in an activity can have a value over and beyond the value of the activity's goal, even though the value of the activity derives from the value of that goal.

An interesting instance of this is the following view of sex. Sex gets its value from being an activity naturally directed at offspring, offspring having great value. But the activity naturally directed at offspring has a value over and beyond that of offspring. Thus, even sex that does not result in reproduction, say because the couple is infertile (temporarily or permanently) has value. This value does not derive from the value of offspring in the particular case—there are none in the particular case—but from the fact that it is an instance of a type of activity that is directed at a good.

We can also see that there is something at least problematic in contraception. Contracepted sex is an engagement in a sexual activity while one is trying to ensure that that goal from which the activity derives its value is not attained. Imagine an amateur astronomer who, while engaging in the skilled activity of amateur astronomy (collimating telescope, choosing eyepieces, pointing telescope, etc.), just before looking in the eyepiece at the chosen object puts the lens cap back on. There, one's deliberate choices are contradicting that from which the activity derives its meaning.

Reproduction and in vitro fertilization

I've discussed this kind of argument before. But I kind of like the following formulation. I am not endorsing the argument.

1. In causing x to come into existence solely for the sake of the good of something or someone other than x, we are treating x as our instrument for that good. (Premise)
2. It is always wrong for us to treat a person as our instrument for a goal. (Premise)
3. Every action is done for the sake of the good of something or someone. (Premise)
4. In intentionally bringing it about that a child exists as such, we act for the sake of the good of the child or of some other entity (or both). (By (3))
5. To act for the sake of A, one must choose to act for the sake of A. (Premise)
6. To choose to act for the sake of the good of x requires that one presuppose the existence of x. (Premise)
7. One choose cannot to accomplish something that one already presupposes. (Premise)
8. Therefore, one cannot choose to act in order that x should exist for the sake of the good of x. (By (6) and (7))
9. Therefore, in intentionally bringing it about that a child exists as such, we act for the sake of the good of some entity other than the child. (By (4) and (8))
10. Therefore, in intentionally bringing it about that a child exists as such, we are treating the child is our instrument for that good. (By (1) and (9))
11. Therefore, it is wrong to intentionally bring it about that a child exists as such. (By (2) and (10))
12. In engaging in in vitro fertilization (IVF), the couple and the doctor are intentionally bringing it about that a child exists as such.
13. The couple and the doctor act wrongly in engaging in in vitro fertilization.

The most serious problem with this argument is that it also implies that it is wrong for a married couple to have intercourse simply in order to produce a child. I think this implication can be tolerated. The couple can permissibly intend not the existence of the child as such (now we see the point of the "as such" qualifications in a lot of the claims), but they can intend fecund marital union as such. Marital union is good, and when it is fecund it is even better.

Can the couple making use of IVF say the same thing? "We do not intend the existence, of a child, but we intend a fecund round of IVF?" No. For fecund IVF has mainly instrumental value. One engages in fecund IVF in order to have a child, and so one intends the existence of the child as such. But marital union, fecund or not, has a value in itself.

Objection 1: It is not wrong for God to use us as an instrument.

Response: I agree, which is why (2) uses the word "we", i.e., we human beings. But note that even if our purpose in reproduction is to provide God with an instrument, it is still our intention to provide God with an instrument, so it is still we who are using the child as an instrument for God's purposes.

Objection 2: God can command a couple to reproduce, and then the couple is not reproducing in order that a child might come into existence, but because the reproduction itself is commanded by God.

Response: While it is reasonable to claim that God commands married couple to engage in intercourse, and when it is not unreasonable to try to make the intercourse fecund, we have no evidence that God commands married couples to engage in IVF. It is surely false that God commands all married couples to do everything they can in order to reproduce.

A remark on in vitro fertilization

In procreating, we are about as God-like as we can be. But, as C. S. Lewis has forcefully argued based on a number of cases in The Four Loves, it is when we are most God-like that we run the greatest danger of idolatry. It is then that we need humility most. A plausible way to inculcate this humility in oneself is to procreate only by a method designed not by ourselves but by our Creator (or by nature).