Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that All uses of one's capacity for intentional sexual satisfaction must be reserved to marriage, and within marriage to truly marital intercourse.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian flourishing (eudaimonia) is indexed to the capacities and circumstances of individual persons, not a single normative life-pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Celibate, widowed, or non-married persons can actualize the virtues of fidelity, temperance, and community contribution through non-marital forms of loving commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, reserving sexual satisfaction to marriage conflates one historically contingent instantiation of flourishing with the universal conditions for it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Stuart Mill and later Martha Nussbaum argue that harm-based constraints on conduct require demonstrable injury to others, not merely symbolic dissonance with an institution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's premise P2 establishes incoherence only relative to the internal logic of Thomistic natural law, which is itself a contested metaethical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A normative claim that is valid only within a particular theological metaphysics cannot serve as a binding rational constraint in pluralist moral philosophy without independent secular justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Unless such reservation is regarded as required, one's stance toward human sex acts is contra bonum matrimonii.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A stance that is contra bonum matrimonii is unreasonable because it cannot coherently maintain that marital intercourse enables spouses to actualize and experience their fides and their marriage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The actualization of fides through marital intercourse is essential to the flourishing of marriage, children, and the wider community.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.