konerko14

Yes, if you can choose to make an action, it can be subject to moral evaluation. But something Objectivists quickly argue is that desires have absolutely nothing to do with morals. I am trying to prove that the desire to masturbate should influence a person to act on it- but remember not to a point where it affects them negatively. Because acting on this desire is actually good for them, but to a certain extent.

I didnt say people shouldnt put ANY thought into their masturbation. I said people should judge carefully to see if masturbating is affecting them negatively. If it is, then MORE thought should be applied to the situation. I'm saying it is sometimes good(or moral) to act on the desire to masturbate to keep you level headed which, in turn, will help you from making decisions based on anxiousness,apprehensiveness,etc in the future.

First of all, I dont know of any science backing up most of this. I take it from personal experience, if you know what I mean. I dont think every person needs to figure out the origin of their desire to masturbate. Each individual should judge their own life and see if acting on that urge effects them negatively. If so, then putting more thought into the situation would probably be best. If acting on the desire doesnt effect them negatively, then why be concerned over it? Im tying this back to the original question by asking a prerequisite question: "why does man need a morality of ethics for masturbation in the first place if the desire takes precedent over morality(in this specific case)?"

Not literally insane and I dont mean every human. For the ones who have that extremely strong desire to masturbate should not suppress it because it will probably effect their mental state in a negative way; i.e. very anxious, apprehensive, cant think clearly, etc. So, in that way I would say the desire influences a persons decision to masturbate. The body is telling the mind to either masturbate or accept the negative consequences. Of course you can choose either one but to get positive feedback from your body you would HAVE to masturbate.

I just looked through some threads that discussed this topic but I couldnt find any clear answers to change my mind. There is a strong urge influencing humans to masturbate but I would say humans still choose to masturbate. The reason a person with a powerful desire chooses to do it isnt just because of the desire but also to save him from going insane.

My point is that people will do immoral things even if they dont want to. If the act is immoral and he knows it, a rational man may still choose to make that action because the desire is too strong, but only when the harmful effects are minimal. I wouldnt call it an instinct exactly, but more like an uncontrollable subconcious urge that is trying to force you to act on that desire, and eventually you "have to" do it to function properly once again.

The degree to which one is influenced by their biological drive.

I think deciphering the practicality of masturbation makes sense. That way, one can judge whether it is good or bad based on their personal situation. Some people's desire will outweigh certain negatives, while others dont have as strong of an influence from that desire.

So you guys are saying we should decipher the morality of masturbation for the ones who are willing to exclusively live by principles- the ones who's desire doesnt overpower their morals?

Whether I knew if masturbation was moral or immoral wouldnt change my actions towards it because I could only refrain from doing it for so long anyways. So yeah, that specific action is beyond my control at certain times. Im 20 male, and the urge to do it is stronger than my free will, and I think a lot of people would agree with me. I like the issue of morality, just not for this specific topic.

Whats the difference if its moral or not if that wont change someone's actions? I know humans have free will but I'm making this decision based on personal experience, and the desire to masturbate in certain situations influence your final action more than morality. So, the reason I wanted to point this out is to explain my opinion why figuring out if masturbation is moral or not is irrelavant.

My point was that whether it is immoral or moral to masturbate, most likely will not influence the majority of people enough to effect their actions. The desire to masturbate in certain situations will overmatch the immorality of it because it is such a powerful desire.

I think saying that masturbation is immoral or that humans shouldnt do it is easier said than done. Heres a scenario: Imagine being at your sexual peak, sitting in your home all alone with the lights off and youre watching a movie. Then on comes a very passionate sex scene in the movie where two gorgeous people are naked, sweaty, and having orgasmic sex. This makes you intensely horny uncontrollably. The sex scene ends in the movie but all your attention is still on sex and you cant concentrate on anything else no matter how hard you try. You know it would be an amazing pleasure to masturbate at this time instead of torturing yourself, trying to convince yourself that masturbation is immoral. "Great pleasure or torture?"- the person says to himself. Would the majority of people really be able to not masturbate at this time, even if they established to themselves that masturbation is immoral? I dont think so.

It makes a huge difference now that I have distinguished my CPL. I have a clear and strong grasp of what Im striving after and I know that I have a purpose to my life. Once a CPL is established, it is much easier to stay focused and motivated because one knows that he needs to be productive to improve on his CPL. Thanks for the sound advice, BL.

Did Kant purposely create a philosophy that would ruin mankind or was that not his intention? Because theres a lot of doctrines out there that wouldnt benefit mankind but does that mean they wanted to destroy the human race or they hated men?

While reading Kants, "The Critique of Pure Reason"(yeah right. I actually read a 90 page summary of the book) I noticed some similarities that make up Ellsworth Toohey's character in The Fountainhead. Here they are: - they are both extremely thin and railly. In the back of my copy of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand describes the cause of Tooheys desire to control men: "..a subconscious revenge for his obvious physical inferiority." Im guessing Ayn Rand made that depiction with Kant and his desire to control others. - a main principle in their life's philosophy is the duty to serve. - a comment Kant once made was, "..happiness and morals have nothing in common."(summarized), and to go along with that Kant feels that its not of importance or good at all to be happy. I am almost certain Toohey told Cathryn or Peter Keating this same thing. - they both need their followers to abandon the use of reason in order to understand and accept their ideas/philosophy. Thats how Roark was immune to Tooheys ideas and Ayn Rand was immune to Kants'. - It probably isnt necessary to point this out since its obvious but they were both very evil men and had ultimately destructive philosophies. - they both were tremendous at absorbing knowledge but naturally, didnt have the capabilities to create. As you can tell, I still dont have a full understanding of Kant but I think there are some basic resemblances between him and Toohey. You may or may not have already made these connections, so I thought I would point them out to the ones who havent. I also wouldnt mind feedback correcting me on some mistakes I made in my declaration here, as I only just begun reading Kant.

I have a problem- a big problem. I cant figure out my central purpose in life. However, I did think about it last night for awhile and I know now that my CPL will have something to do with baseball. But the only aspect of baseball I want to be involved with right now is playing the game. You mentioned a CPL should be applicable throughtout an entire lifetime, though, and I cant play the rest of my life. Would it be a good decision if I made my CPL "to play baseball" for the next 20-30 years of my life, then after I cant play any longer I change my CPL to fit my age better? I'm sure that will be an emphatic no on your part and you will realize its a bad choice, but I cant figure out what else I should do. Also, you said a CPL should always be productive, which of course "playing baseball" isnt exactly unless Im getting paid for it. So I dont know where to go from here. To answer a different question of yours, when I do reach my genetic muscular potential, the best thing I could do is maintain that muscle mass, which isnt much of a challenge. Also, it only takes a year or two to get to the end point, so Im almost there already.

I think I meant by "Objectivists", people who do value reason, purpose, and self-esteem, which answers my own question. After reading a couple chapters in the Romantic Manifesto, and "Productiveness" and "Purpose" in the Lexicon, I think I figured out how bodybuilding and baseball could be my central purposes in life. If my ulimate goal in bodybuilding is to reach my genetic muscular potential(max. muscle mass) and I was very much dedicated and used my ability to reason to strive for that goal, couldnt that be considered one of my central purposes? And for baseball, it would be the same thing expect I would be working to achieve my ulimate goal of reaching the major leagues. I know I have two central purposes, and that may defeat the point of having a central purpose, but if I'm dedicated to them equally and want to achieve them both the same, couldnt I have two central purposes?

I would agree with you about the philosophical values. Would you say reason, purpose, and self-esteem are at the top of all Objectivists philosophical hierarchy? My most important personal values are bodybuilding and baseball, my cat and fish, and possibly most significant(if this is a value), I value my heroes, Ayn Rand and Mike Mentzer.

Thanks Eric Clapton and Iluminaughty.

I want to add another question in here. Capitalism is distinctly a society with little government intervention and only acts to protect mans rights. So how much activity would the president see and how busy would he be?

There are obviously plenty of positive consequences that would result in a capitalist society, but what are the negatives?

Is that really true? That much lower of prices?

How likely is laissez-faire capitalism to be Americas(or any countries') social system in the future?

Can you explain why these things would be so much better?