Gosh. How is it that "love" is the only word where you're able to pick out the precise intended meaning among all the various possibilities, whereas with any other word, you throw up your hands in despair?

What on earth are you talking about, Obi? I have repeatedly singled out the word "natural" as being a very ill-defined and therefore unhelpful word, and you have somehow chosen to interpret what I said about one single word as applying to all words!

"Any other word" was indeed hyperbole. But you've used this approach before when adequate explanations have been given, as they have been in this case. I (and several others) have given you workable definitions of what "natural" means in this context.

There's nothing wrong with asking someone to define a word they're using in a discussion, such as "deserve", it's helpful, it can stop people talking at cross purposes.

The concept of "perfect happiness" is indeed indefinable. If you disagree, define "perfect happiness".

So the only other word which I have said is too imprecise and ill-defined is the word "fate" (in the context in which it was used). So that's TWO words out of all the words in the dictionary.

And that, at the most, is just one word more than you have said "depends on what you mean by":



You are being very kind to yourself in saying: '"Any other word" was indeed hyperbole'!



Here's another example of how "natural" is often not a useful word:

We are all sinners. So is it "natural" for us to sin"?

If it's NATURAL for us to sin, then how could all sin be unnatural?

But if it's UNNATURAL for us to sin, then how could hell be "the natural fate of man"?

You can't have it both ways!

Jack3, if you want to argue that something is immoral, your argument will not be helped by trying to claim that it's immoral because it's "unnatural".

You're playing word games. We've tried several times to tell you what "natural" means in this context, and you keep dragging in irrelevant examples.

I've got no problem with using the word "natural" in any serious discussion if you make it clear what you mean by the word. I'm pointing out that if you DON'T make it clear what you mean by "natural", it's a useless word to use, it can mean many different things to different people.

The assertion is not credible.

Shortly after Jack3 asked his initial question, which was:
he then asked:

Then after I repeatedly pointed out that “natural” is a very ill-defined word, defined in different ways by different people, Amon gave this definition:

Obi seemed to give the same definition, less succinctly.

So when Jack3 initially asked:it is clear that Jack3’s definition of “natural” was NOT “contrary to right reason”, because if it were, he would not have asked:
because it would have been an entirely irrelevant question if by “natural” he meant “contrary to right reason”.

That there appears to be "homosexuality" among animals has literally no bearing on the ethical question of "ought humans engage in homosexual behavior" or "ought it to be considered natural for human beings to engage in homosexual behavior?"

If for no other reason that its completely inappropriate for human ethical guidelines to be derived from animal behavior. And the only reason why the attempt is made is to rationalize and justify an a-priori ideological opinion.

Animals do not have human level cognition.

The dictionary meaning of unnatural has been rejected. The assertion is then made that the word is not adequately defined.

In other words, what may be natural may not necessarily be natural.

No.

Rather that what may be displayed or exhibited may not necessarily be natural.

You're seemingly just trying to use "natural" in a sophistic and equivocal way to push your point in spite of the fact that it's been addressed numerous times.

Ok, and?

A man with a gun comes to my door demanding to know where he can find his intended victim, a woman who happens to be hiding in my home. He asks me if I know where she is. It is natural to want to protect life.

So it would be natural for me to protect the woman’s life and protect my own life and say “No, I don’t know where she is”, as convincingly as possible, and try to put him off the scent and buy some time for the police to arrive.

But the Catholic Church teaches that lying is a sin, and if all sin is unnatural, then the inescapable conclusion is that as it would be natural for me to protect life by lying, it would be natural for me to do something unnatural”!

Wrong is wrong, unnatural is unnatural, even with good intentions and good consequences.
I think we may misleadingly equivocate or stay silent - anything but sin.

What Jack3 said. There are many more possible responses than “endanger the woman” and “lie.” To present only those two is disingenuous.

Equivocating on "natural," again, despite the presence of the correct definition.

I remembered Newman's quote on speaking a penny farthing without excuse.

Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective moral principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives.

All three must be right for the act to be good or "natural."

This is basic Catholic morality 101.