From Is to Ought?

Sex, Teleology, and the Hidden Premise

Photo by Ivan Nemchinov on Unsplash

In a widely shared Steubenville talk from 2016, Fr. Mike Schmitz teaches teleology with furniture. His basic premise is simple: everything that is, whether natural or human-made, was created for a purpose. The essential nature, or “what-it-is-ness,” of a thing can be discerned by identifying its purpose, or “what-it-is-for-ness.” Thus, a chair is for sitting on, while tables are for setting things upon. Understanding the purpose for which it was made reveals something about its essential nature. And using a chair or a table against its intended purpose, whether by sitting on the table or serving dinner on the chair, “violates” its nature.¹

Fr. Schmitz applies the same premise to human acts like eating (the dual purpose of which, he says, is nourishment and pleasure) and sex (“babies and bonding”). Intentionally thwarting the “what-it-is-for-ness” of a human act—such as by eating only to throw up afterward, or having sex with a condom on—violates the "what-it-is-ness” of the action. This, he argues, “disintegrates” the act and, ultimately, the person.²

The appeal of Schmitz's presentation is obvious (as of this writing, his talk has been viewed over one million times). The argument is intuitive, the images are memorable, and the logic seems straightforward. However, as in many Catholic arguments from teleology, as this philosophical framework is called, Schmitz makes a key move without showing his work. I’m referring to the leap from “is” to “ought,” that is, from description (“this faculty has an identifiable purpose”) to prescription (“therefore, that act is morally excluded”).