Is masturbation rational, moral?

[softwareNerd]

Konerko,

Since masturbation -- as such -- is not immoral, it is a difficult example to use. However, in the general sense, what you're asking is this: why think about (and discuss) a particular action if one is not going to change one's actions?

Now, as stated, the futility of such a discussion is obvious. However, your assumption of unchangined action is faulty. Take a bizzare example: the fable that masturbation makes one blind. Suppose this were true. Would that change anything? Would you want to explore the details more: is it true for all? is it a tiny risk? is there some way to avoid blindness and still masturbate? how many times before one goes just slightly astigmatic? and so on...

Wouldn't you agree that it is practical to consider the short and long term consequences and weigh the entirety of effects before making a decision? If so, even if one is tempted to do something in the short term -- say, eat something that will harm you long-term -- it's worth thinking about the long-term too.

Once one understands -- really grasps -- the long-term effects, one might find one's emotional response is tempered. It is not easy to keep the more distant, less concrete, long term effects in one's awareness. However, one must learn to do so as best one can.

Now, if you say that I've addressed this from a perspective of practicality rather than morality, you'd be right. Perhaps you'd agree that one must consider all the practical consequences, but what you're asking about is the morality. If so, it's a false dichotomy. If some action has only positive short and long term consequences then it cannot be immoral. This is the key difference between the Objectivist approach to morality and the religious approach where things are allowed or banned without the need to make any argument about the reasons for allowing or banning them.

[DavidOdden]

Whats the difference if its moral or not if that wont change someone's actions?

Because that is the entire purpose of morality. Since man is volitional and does not automatically know what action to take at every step, man needs principles to guide him in choosing A over B -- morality. The alternative to being guided by principles is acting without reason. So the question you should ask is not whether morality matters, but whether you should act according to reason. If you do, it follows that you need a moral code, and that you should chose to use morality to decide on a course of action.

[Dismuke]

This is the key difference between the Objectivist approach to morality and the religious approach where things are allowed or banned without the need to make any argument about the reasons for allowing or banning them.

softwareNerd - that is one of the best "in a nutshell" descriptions of the religious approach to morality that I have come across. And that approach, of course, is very much evident even in completely secular everyday business settings. One always seems to find a preponderance of people who either have a "rules are rules" "that's what the policy is" mentality and suspiciously regard an Objectivist/contextual approach to a given situation as a prelude to "anything goes" type anarchy or those on the flip side of the same coin who hold an unstated suspicion and sometimes even resentment of the very need for certain things to be specifically allowed or banned in the first place. Both groups ultimately regard rules and morality as an end in itself. The first group is perfectly comfortable with situations where the rules fly in the face of reality. The second group rebels against the first and, in the process, ends up damning all rules and morality as arbitrary and dogmatic.

[Bold Standard]

One always seems to find a preponderance of people who either have a "rules are rules" "that's what the policy is" mentality and suspiciously regard an Objectivist/contextual approach to a given situation as a prelude to "anything goes" type anarchy or those on the flip side of the same coin who hold an unstated suspicion and sometimes even resentment of the very need for certain things to be specifically allowed or banned in the first place. Both groups ultimately regard rules and morality as an end in itself. The first group is perfectly comfortable with situations where the rules fly in the face of reality. The second group rebels against the first and, in the process, ends up damning all rules and morality as arbitrary and dogmatic.

Lol, then there's the pragmatists who try to keep to the "middle of the road" between the behavior of the status-quo dogmatists and the nihilist/anarchists. That way they don't "limit" themselves to one side of the fence-- they get the benefits and hazards of both. : P

[konerko14]

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?

[softwareNerd]

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 doesn't overpower their morals?

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?

[konerko14]

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.

[Groovenstein]

When you say "desire," what precisely do you mean?

[konerko14]

When you say "desire," what precisely do you mean?

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

[RationalBiker]

The desire to masturbate in certain situations will overmatch the immorality of it because it is such a powerful desire.

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.

[DavidOdden]

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

Are you assuming that men act instinctively, in response to innate biological imperatives? I don't understand what you mean by a "biological drive".

[konerko14]

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.

[Groovenstein]

My point is that people will do immoral things even if they dont want to.

This boils down to saying that people have no free will. Objectivism rejects this wholeheartedly for reasons discussed in other threads. You should check them out.

Furthermore, if actions are not chosen, then morality does not apply. Something can only be called "moral" or "immoral"--i.e. "right" or "wrong"-- if it is chosen. Actions taken without choice are outside the realm of moral evaluation. Example: the earth rotates on its axis. The earth has no volition, and therefore the earth rotating on its axis can not be said to be moral or immoral.

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.

Check your terms. A rational man, by definition, does not choose to act immorally.

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.

There are threads on this forum discussing instincts/urges. You should check them out for further discussion of this point.

[konerko14]

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.

Edited June 3, 2006 by konerko14

[RationalBiker]

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.

So now your assertion is that people must masturbate or they will go insane?

[konerko14]

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.

Edited June 3, 2006 by konerko14

[RationalBiker]

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.

So, are you sure that this strong desire to masturbate comes from biological sources or could it come from some mental source / or both? Do you think it might be important to understand as best one can as to where this "desire" originates before just giving in to whatever "urge" a person might be experiencing? Is it really in their rational self-interest to masturbate ever time they get this strong urge? What if a person gets a strong urge to do this say, 10 times a day or otherwise they can't focus, think clearly, etc.?

I ask you genuinely, do you know any of the science behind this, or are you guessing based on some idea of what you feel it could be?

Lastly, how are you tying this back to the original topic, that being determining the rationality/morality of masturbation?

[konerko14]

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)?"

[Dismuke]

Is it really in their rational self-interest to masturbate ever time they get this strong urge? What if a person gets a strong urge to do this say, 10 times a day or otherwise they can't focus, think clearly, etc.?

He should stare at a photograph of either Janet Reno or Cindy Sheehan! That should fix it.

<duck>

[RationalBiker]

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?

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.

"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)?"

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.

He should stare at a photograph of either Janet Reno or Cindy Sheehan! That should fix it.

<duck>

I could have gone all day without those images in my head. <insert hurl emoticon here>

[~Sophia~]

Some facts from Wikipedia:

Masturbation has been observed in many mammalian species, both in the wild and in captivity. Being the main outlet of child sexuality, masturbation has been observed in very young children.

Frequency of masturbation is determined by many factors, for example one's ability to resist transient sexual tension, hormone levels influencing sexual arousal, and one's attitude to masturbation formed by culture.

Masturbation allows a healthy way to express & explore one's sexuality and to release sexual tension without all the associated risks of sexual intercourse. Health professionals agree that this private touching is a natural, normal mode of self-exploration and sexual expression.

Masturbation can also be particularly useful in relationships where one partner wants more sex than the other — in which case masturbation provides a balancing effect and thus a more harmonious relationship.

Compulsive masturbation can be part of sexual addiction and should be treated as any other compulsive behavior. Same as: Eating is good; compulsive, uncontrollable eating is bad.

[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.

[RationalBiker]

Since sexual desire is part of man's nature, how can a philosophy which attempts to build its moral foundations upon that nature ever deem the manifestation of that sexual desire immoral?

Thus so long as it doesn't significantly impact one's other values in a negative way, what could possibly be the immorality or irrationality in masturbation?

Can you see any contradiction in these two statements?

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.

So are you saying that masturbation IS subject to moral evaluation?

[konerko14]

So are you saying that masturbation IS subject to moral evaluation?

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.

[RationalBiker]

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.

No, they don't say they have nothing to do with morals, they say "desires" are not tools of cognition to be used as sole determinants in rational decision-making. Acting on desires absent rational thought is a train wreck waiting to happen.

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.

I would say you have missed the mark. First, I don't think anyone is arguing that desire doesn't influence the decision to masturbate. I think relatively few people just go masturbate even when they really don't want to (and if they do then that may be another whole issue).

Your qualification to your own point above negates what you are trying to prove. It states that one should engage in rational thought to make the decision and not simply act solely on the desire; that one should consider the consequences and impact on their life BEFORE they start masturbating regardless of what their momentary desire may be.

Because acting on this desire is actually good for them, but to a certain extent.

Again, subject to the rational decision-making process, not simply acting on the desire without thought of context or consequences. i.e. A person sitting in the middle of a Syphony Hall listening to a performance along with 5,000 other people. He suddenly has a strong urge to masturbate. Should he just whip it out and go to town right there in the crowd acting solely on the influence of his desire? I think you would generally agree that "no" is the correct answer.

Edited June 3, 2006 by RationalCop