See where I'm going with this?
That body parts may have more than one use? Because that's not really the problem — Aquinas thought that the only proper use of sexuality
was reproduction, not that the only proper use of genitalia
is reproduction. He had no moral objection to peeing that I know of, after all
On the other hand, perhaps he might have objected to diet food. After all, if the proper use of eating is feeding oneself, trying to eat food that contains as little nutrition as possible in order to enjoy the experience of eating without getting fat is not really acceptable.
As far as we can tell, organisms are cobbled together from any useful structures random mutation threw up, with a few billion years of refinement streamlining those into an efficient whole.
True but irrelevant. How something came to be does not tell me what purposes it can serve now
, nor how they can best contribute to the human experience.
As I said, I do not agree with Aquinas in that all proper uses of sexuality have to involve reproduction: but the question of which are the proper uses of something is not one that you can make vanish away simply by mentioning evolution.
edited 29th Nov '12 10:32:22 AM by Carciofus