konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
How are they going to know these things without first putting some thought into to begin with? How are you going to know whether each specific urge to masturbate should be acted on if you don't consider the context of taking that course of action first? Do you expect a person to just "feel" the answers first? The purpose for questioning the morality of masturbation is to determine just that, should one act on a desire to masturbate. It is a far more contextual question than you are giving it credit for. What if the person's urge to masturbate is based on serious psychological issues? What if acting on the urge is going to make them late for work so they lose their job? I can think of contexts ad naseum under which acting on the urge thoughtlessly would have a negative impact on a person's life.
No offense, but this just doesn't make any sense. Any time you are talking about making a choice, you are talking about taking an action (or actions) that are either good for you life (moral), or bad for you life (immoral) in varying degrees and the only way you can legitimately determine whether acting on such desires is moral is to determine as best you can what effects it will have on your life. Your urges or feelings cannot be relied on to make such decisions properly. Man's desires and actions CANNOT take precedence over morality as they are inextricably tied to an impact on his life which is what gives rise to the purpose of making a moral evaluation to begin with.
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)?"
-
So now your assertion is that people must masturbate or they will go insane?
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.
-
There are threads on this forum discussing instincts/urges. You should check them out for further discussion of this point.
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.
-
Yes, I see this quite frequently when the desire to shoot a man for $5 overwhelms a person's ability to use reason and he does not pay attention to the morality of assault.
So what is your point here? That people will do immoral things it they want to? Yea, I guess they will. That doesn't change the moral status of the action in question.
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.
Are you assuming that men act instinctively, in response to innate biological imperatives? I don't understand what you mean by a "biological drive".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.
-
When you say "desire," what precisely do you mean?
The degree to which one is influenced by their biological drive.
-
Do you think one should "decipher" the practicality of masturbation (i.e. whether it is harmful or beneficial)? Or do you think that desire is paramount, even if it were shown to be harmful?
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?
-
Will knowing its morality guide your actions? Do you consider knowing whether something is right or wrong to be irrelevant? If an action is immoral, do you consider choosing immorality to be irrelevant?
If you think morality is irrelevant, and/or that your actions are beyond your control, then you should consider addressing those issues before addressing the topic of masturbation.
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.
-
The point of this thread is to discuss whether masturbation is/can be moral. Answering this question requires no discussion of what some people might or might not do with that information. However, though such discussion is not required, it might be interesting if you were discussing ways people might implement their moral actions. (Though given the explicit nature of the subject at hand, that's probably inappropriate to discuss here.)
Where such discussion is not particularly helpful is where it takes the form you have used. What you are saying in essence is either that people have no free will (e.g., the desire will overmatch the immorality) or that people might make a bad decision (e.g., whether it's moral or immoral, implying that they will choose a certain way). Positing that people might make bad decisions doesn't add much of anything. Of course some people might make bad decisions. Positing that people have no free will (1) doesn't add much of anything here because it runs contrary to Objectivism, and (2) for those who want to inquire about why people have free will, is best discussed elsewhere on the forum.
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.
-
These statement do not reflect solid premises upon which to decide the morality of masturbation (or anything really). First you suggest judging morality by the difficulty of the choice, and second you bring in a "consensus" component.
Perhaps bettter criteria would be to consider what rational value is gained at what cost to your life.
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.
-
Let's say he was good at inventing new forms of destruction.
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.
-
BTW, once you reach your max, what will you do then? Quit? If so, then it shouldn't be your CPL, because a CPL is an abstraction that can span a lifetime.
Baseball is like ballet. You can't participate forever. At some point, you would have to stop playing. But if you love baseball, you could still write about it, be an announcer, be a coach, start a baseball museum in your home state, or be an owner of a team. They would all fit under your statement of purpose, however you worded it. That is why it is so important to make a CPL an abstract statement. Abstractions cover an enormous range of particulars and concretes. Howard Roark was achieving his CPL whether he was working as a draftsman for someone else or designing a gas station or designing and building a skyscraper while managing a group of draftsmen in his own office.
A CPL is an abstract statement of what you love to do, regardless of what particular form is available to you at a particular time in your life.
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.
-
What do you mean by "Objectivists[']"?
What about your central purpose in life, that is, the work (stated abstractly) that you love to do, as the core of your life, whether it pays or not. Howard Roark's CPL was designing and building buildings. Ayn Rand's was portraying the ideal man in fiction. (See The Romantic Manifesto, Ch. 10, and various statements in Jeff Britting's biography, Ayn Rand.)
The word value names a variety of ideas. I think here in your statement a better word would be "respect" or "revere" or "emulate." You aren't acting to gain and keep two deceased persons. Having heroes is very important. They give us fuel during bad times. Mine include Ayn Rand, especially in her later years; Thomas Sowell, especially in his teen years; and others.
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?
-
Do you mean philosophical values or personal values?
My highest philosophical values are reason, purpose, and self-esteem.
My highest personal values are my particular beloved work (my central purpose in life), my particular friends, and my particular favorite leisure activity.
What about you?
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?
-
To reduce the question to a particular concrete: Several years ago I read an article that outlined the cost of government in the creation of a product, in this case, the ford taurus. At the time, it was a sedan that sold for around $20,000. After they went through and subtracted the costs of government...not just sales tax, but compliance with government mandated regulations of all kinds through each involved industy(iron mines, shiping,ect), it ended up costing a little over $7,000. So in other words, in a capitalist country, if you kept this car for 7 years it would cost you about $80/month to drive it as opposed to say $250/month in our current economic system. Now apply that percentage of saving to every other product you ever buy, subtract add 50% on to your wages and imagine financially what things you would have accessto that you don't now.
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?
-
universities would be places where people would go to flourish, children would be taught how to think properly throughout grade school, there would be very low crime.
Can you explain why these things would be so much better?
Is masturbation rational, moral?
in Ethics
Posted
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.