(September 11, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Ryantology Wrote: By that same reasoning, eating for any reason other than fulfilling minimum nutritional needs is wrong. Drinking more than is necessary for hydration is wrong. Clothing yourself for any reason other than protection from elements is wrong. Living in a house which does anything except provide basic shelter is wrong.
Feser talks about seeing things in the relevant sense. It's not wrong to have bad eyesight and wear glasses, or ride bicycles, etc. It's not wrong for a form or action to be defective, it always will be. You will never drink exactly the amount you need for hydration, and you'll never only clothe yourself for protection, and so on and so forth. Also, one could argue that the clothing, or the house, could have benefits that allow you to further other natural needs. What would be wrong in the natural law sense would be to not drink enough water for hydration, etc. He means it as more of general statement to be thought of and fleshed out.
Honestly, I myself could give two shits for natural law, I don't agree with it either. I'm more interested in Aristotle's modified theory of forms and the implications it has on the existence of God.
"The consolations of philosophy and the beauties of science; these things are infinitely more awe-inspiring and regenerating and majestic than any invocation of the burning bush or doctrine." - Christopher Hitchens
