From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:17:31 EST
Distribution: rec,talk
Organization: Cornell University

mikhail zeleny writes:

GWS:
>$We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
>$is reproductive.  This means that the *moral* essence of sex is
>$reproductive that is, it is necessarily the case that all morally
>$praiseworthy sex is reproductive, i.e. sex is reproductive in all
>$deontically desirable possible worlds.  The only morally good sex is
                                                           ^^^^
                                                     [MZ:  praiseworthy]

you wish to revise the terms of the debate, then.  which sort of
cheap thrill is this?  would you now care to assert that 'praiseworthy'
was what you intended all along?

MZ:
>It is permissible to have sex when reproduction is not possible in
>virtue of some circumstance unrelated to the essential nature of the
>partners.  The salient notion of possibility, on which see Forbes,
                ^^^^^^^
                arbitrary

>regards man as necessarily correlated with his originating zygote, and
>so necessarily of a given gender.  Consequently, if reproduction is
>excluded in virtue of contraception, menopause, or non-genetic
>infertility, it is excluded contingently; whereas if reproduction is
>excluded in virtue of *genetic* infertility, such as is caused by
>selecting a partner with an incompatible genotype, then for that union,
>it is excluded necessarily.

GWS:
>>It looks like this is one of those cases where we need to distinguish
>>what is possible from what is possibly possible, and so say that in
>>some possible world the sex possibly is reproductive.

MZ:
>There is no need to iterate modal operators, provided that an
>appropriate notion of modality is selected.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
 arbitrary

MZ:
>Mr Smith, the notion of modality with which we are operating, is not the
>realist one of David Lewis (for its assumption is simply unnecessary),
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                          uncomfortable

>but the stipulative one of Kripke and Co.; I advise you to consult the
>texts I cited, before you embark on further irrelevant speculations
>regarding what may be stipulated as possible.

GWS:
>>This now connects with your standard Catholic argument.  The idea here
>>is that God made sex, and that its necessary possible sometimes
>>possible reproductiveness is the point of sex.  Therefore, sex should
>>always be done such a way that it is possibly possibly reproductive,
>>or He will be upset.

MZ:
>My argument is made independently of any theistic premisses.

'made independently', granted; 'exists independently', not so.  kindly
admit to apprehending the distinction.  i do hate to repeat myself.

MZ:
>Nota bene: having failed to convict me of inconsistency, you
>might want to challenge my assumptions.  Feel free to inquire.

oy.  tried that briefly, received perfunctory citation and complaint of
boredom.

-dave