Objectivism, Pornography and Masturbation

Ethics
21

But morality is only relevant when there is a choice. If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force). In such a case, prostitution is not even in the realm of morality, and the question is moot. Of course, there is also the person buying the sexual services; since that person is clearly not destitute, by his ability to purchase sex, he is clearly being immoral.

Also I don’t think Castle’s thought applies at all to James and Lillian. Lillian wanted the sex simply to prove her depravity to the world. Presumably, a prostitute is thinking more on the lines of the buyer as a means to values than as a means to expression of an anti-value. Both the buyer and prostitute are depraved, but it is not depravity, as such, that they seek.

22

“If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force).” - The Allotrope

In a situation as you described above - destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance - prostitution may be the only option. I think it also depends on the person’s valuation of his/her life, principles and his/her body.

Theft on the other hand isn’t an option in the first place. One does not have the right to take by force another person’s property. Theft is a moral and legal crime.

23

I think the premise that one’s “only option” can be narrowed down to prostitution is pretty silly. Screwing people is not a human’s basic tool for survival, their mind is. The last option available to any human is to think things through and rearrange their environment to meet their needs. If a person was suddenly stranded on a desert island, he wouldn’t suddenly think “My God, I’ve got to find someone to give me goods for sex!”

Responding to Allo, My point wasn’t that the buyer and seller of sex hold depravity as a mutual value. They do both hold the view that a human being is a means to an end, and have a low and distorted valuation of sex and others. Their copulation is an expression of those values, whether they know it in explicit terms or not.

I’m at work, so I can’t look it up at the moment, but If memory serves James and Jillian’s affair was based on mutual hatred of the good and the specific shared belief that it would insult or hurt others. Sounds like an expression of mutual values to me.

24

But morality is only relevant when there is a choice. If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force). In such a case, prostitution is not even in the realm of morality, and the question is moot.

There is no such thing as the only choice is prostitution. The people paying for sex obtained their values somehow, so you always have at least the one other choice, of doing the same.

If that is through peaceful means, in a free society, then there’s always the choice to work for a living. If the other people obtained their wealth through force, then one has the right to fight back, and that would not be initiation of force at all.

Prostitution, in place of a career, is always the immoral choice.

25

There is no such thing as the only choice is prostitution. The people paying for sex obtained their values somehow, so you always have at least the one other choice, of doing the same.

If that is through peaceful means, in a free society, then there’s always the choice to work for a living. If the other people obtained their wealth through force, then one has the right to fight back, and that would not be initiation of force at all.

Prostitution, in place of a career, is always the immoral choice.

I don’t mean this in an antagonistic way, but that, and the other statements like it, come across as a little naive to me. Perhaps, an upper middle class girl living in the wealthiest nation to ever exist on earth, likely, has no way to justify engaging in prostitution, but you really can’t apply that to all times and places as some sort of moral absolute. If you, personally have never been in a situation where you had no realistic choices available, then count yourself as fortunate and try not to lose track of the fact that you are. Not everyone has the same possibilities in life, and to throw immorality on their shoulders, absolutely, across all contexts is in extremely poor taste. I very often agree with what you write, Jake, and perhaps you don’t mean this in the way it sounds, but to make an absolute judgment about someone else’s circumstances while ignoring context, strikes me as a very rationalistic approach to Objectivism.

26

Castle, I believe I affirmed your thought process in my earlier post. I said the prostitution is *not* because depravity is a mutual value, it is the means to another end. The affair, in contrast, is simply an expression of depravity, and hatred of the good is not a value, it is a dis-value. “Value” implies more than something you pursue, it also has to be something that somehow benefits you. Destruction can never be a legitimate value.

I can imagine cases in which theft or prostitution might be acceptable as a last resort. Clearly, they are not situations that apply in the normal developed world, and so do not apply, so we can judge prostitution and theft as immoral in a developed and civil society. But to say they are always, everywhere wrong, regardless of context, is a bit much for me.

27

I generally agree that prostitution is immoral, but think that it should be noted that circumstances can occur(infrequently) that might change that. A woman with a hungry child in and extremely impoverished area might very well do so morally; Fantine from Les Miserables, for example or even Kira from We the Living sort of engaged in it to help Leo.

Yes, Fantine even sold her two front teeth for little Cosette, what she did for her little girl, was absolutely moral, what the Thenardiers did , on the other hand, wasn’t. Kira was a whore, not a prostitute though, the way I see prostitution it’s sex for hire and way more indescriminate, but I’d rather not get into that in this thread, because that’s already covered in a thread on WTL.

28

How was I judgmental Gert-Jan?

I don’t think I was judgmental when I said prostitution is evil and morally degrading or prostitution is anti-life. I was stating objective moral standards.

If one chooses prostitution as a means of acquiring money or earning a living, no one, not even the government, has the right to intervene.

But the act of prostituting one’s body is a moral crime.

Those who self-immolate certainly have no respect for their body.

And what do you mean by “we all self immolate to a certain extend?” I don’t think I’ve ever self-immolated myself. It would be insanity.

I think you jumped to conclusions.

Look as I read it you stated that it is moral crime. I am not an expert on objectivism and I want to learn about it. I am and therefore I will think and I have chosen that I will not take anything dogmaticly. So I see this website as a chance test my believes and understandings. I’ve read some of Rand’s books and I like them and I like objectivism, at least to the extend that I understood. I think it is also wise to say that I probably have a diffrent cultrural background then you, I am Dutch.

I do agree that sex (especialy with strangers ) has it dangers. As I see it, it is still a value for value transaction. I wouldn’t advise anyone to practice prostitution, but as a matter of fact I read on a blog a woman who is in debt and wanting to try prostitution for extra income. She said it was hard at first but after a couple of times she started to like it. Now I don’t know what conclusions one can draw of that, but it seems to me that it is better than being in debt and not trying to get out.

About self-immolation, I do not mean cutting one-self or any of that obvious kinds. I mean for instance that people smoke, which is generally seen as bad (I don’t know if this is so by objective standards). Rand wrote: “When man thinks there is a fire in his mind, it is proper that he holds fire at his fingertips” (I apologize if I misquoted that. Useing traffic one has a greater chance of getting hurt than if one chooses to stay in bed per unit of time statisticly. Doing hard fisical work can damage one’s body. Sitting at a computer all day can result in repetative stress disorder. One can get hurt if one plays sports, and one damages himself if one does not.

What I want illustrate is that one should make choices by what one understands to be right and if you choose so I think that we should agree to disagree

29

I would think that masturbation is amoral.

Pornography is contextual (people’s definition of porn changes, for some it is simply naked people for some it is grphic sex).

I’m assuming since Ms.Rand did a Playboy interview she did not disapprove of Playboy.

Prostitution leaving out sexual slavery?

That I’m unsure of. while it seems a repulsive act there are other things I deem repulsive that are simply jobs that must be done and I’m glad I’m not the one having to do it… giving enemas, cleaning septic systems, etc. I feel its immoral but feeling isn’t enough. Since one’s body is one’s to use as one chooses I’m starting to believe that maybe to be consistent that is amoral as well.

And what about strippers?

Again, kind of icky.. but I’ve known several young ladies who put themselves through school that way and made a nice living. (yes, the old joke about strippers “putting themsleves trhough college” but actually is often true.) I would think using your..erh..assets… to fund your education is more moral than say.. taking govt funded loans to do so.

What about sex toys?

30

I really don’t see how someone can just say that masturbation is completely immoral. If you look at it as the highlight of your day (American Beauty reference) then that would be immoral. If it gets in the way of your happiness at all then it is immoral. Masturbation allows one to keep his sexual stress low. If you view it in that light then I don’t see how it can be wrong.

31

I would think that masturbation is amoral.

No.

Amorality begins when:

  • life is no longer your standard of value - eg. you decided to end your life

OR

  • you are not able to excercise your volitional capacity freely - your actions are not a matter of choice

OR

  • no moral option is available to you eventhough you are free to choose
32

No.

Amorality begins when:

  • life is no longer your standard of value - eg. you decided to end your life

OR

  • you are not able to excercise your volitional capacity freely - your actions are not a matter of choice

OR

  • no moral option is available to you eventhough you are free to choose

er.. the definition of “amoral” is something in which morality is not a factor.. when something is neither immoral or moral.. it is neutral.

Now you can of course disagree with my statement that the act is morally neutral but I find your response to be fully inaccurate.

33

er.. the definition of “amoral” is something in which morality is not a factor.. when something is neither immoral or moral.. it is neutral.

And what Sophia provided was the general context of when an action falls into the realm of that definition according to Objectivist ethics. Her response is wholly consistent with Objectivism.

34

I think you jumped to conclusions.

Look as I read it you stated that it is moral crime. I am not an expert on Objectivism and I want to learn about it. I am and therefore I will think and I have chosen that I will not take anything dogmatically. So I see this website as a chance test my believes and understandings. I’ve read some of Rand’s books and I like them and I like Objectivism, at least to the extend that I understood. I think it is also wise to say that I probably have a different cultural background then you, I am Dutch.

I do agree that sex (especially with strangers ) has it dangers. As I see it, it is still a value for value transaction. I wouldn’t advise anyone to practice prostitution, but as a matter of fact I read on a blog a woman who is in debt and wanting to try prostitution for extra income. She said it was hard at first but after a couple of times she started to like it. Now I don’t know what conclusions one can draw of that, but it seems to me that it is better than being in debt and not trying to get out.

About self-immolation, I do not mean cutting one-self or any of that obvious kinds. I mean for instance that people smoke, which is generally seen as bad (I don’t know if this is so by objective standards). Rand wrote: “When man thinks there is a fire in his mind, it is proper that he holds fire at his fingertips” (I apologize if I misquoted that. Using traffic one has a greater chance of getting hurt than if one chooses to stay in bed per unit of time statistically. Doing hard physical work can damage one’s body. Sitting at a computer all day can result in repetitive stress disorder. One can get hurt if one plays sports, and one damages himself if one does not.

What I want illustrate is that one should make choices by what one understands to be right and if you choose so I think that we should agree to disagree

When Rand wrote “When man thinks there is a fire in his mind, it is proper that he holds fire at his fingertips” it is not meant as a positive comment for smoking. It is symbolism.

Self-immolation is the deliberate attempt to harm or sacrifice oneself. Doing hard physical labor or intensive sports isn’t a deliberate harm to one’s body. Furthermore a sportsman can prevent such injuries to his body by playing responsibly and maintaining his body well.

35

And what Sophia provided was the general context of when an action falls into the realm of that definition according to Objectivist ethics. Her response is wholly consistent with Objectivism.

Is mine not?

I don’t believe that Objectivism declares that nothing is morally neutral..?

We’re talking about a bodily function here. So my understanding would be it is inherently amoral (neutral) until a context is added to it that makes it otherwise.

Like eating.

Morally neutral until I find out you’re eating dead babies.

36

I am and therefore I will think and I have chosen that I will not take anything dogmaticly. So I see this website as a chance test my believes and understandings.

This website is not as you see it, it is as its owner made it to be. The only way to see what this website is would be to read the rules.

The rules say that you may test your believes in the debate forum, if anyone wants to debate you, and you may use the rest of the forum to learn about Objectivism, not to test beliefs that are in no way related to Objectivism.

Understanding Objectivism does not mean that you have to accept it first. You can read about Objectivism, and understand it, without taking it at all, let alone dogmatically. What you cannot do is refuse to acknowledge Objectivism, and continue posting your unrelated opinions on various issues. That would ruin the website for everyone else who is posting here because they wish to discuss Objectivism.

I wouldn’t advise anyone to practice prostitution, but as a matter of fact I read on a blog a woman who is in debt and wanting to try prostitution for extra income. She said it was hard at first but after a couple of times she started to like it. Now I don’t know what conclusions one can draw of that, but it seems to me that it is better than being in debt and not trying to get out.

I have no doubt in my mind that you think prostitution is OK. I believe you, there’s no need to keep repeating it, and I don’t see how doing so would test your beliefs. If you would’ve instead asked why Objectivism disagrees with you, and then questioned specific points others raise, then at least the conversation would’ve moved forward on a note that’s related to Objectivism, and I would’ve actually answered you, instead of posting a speech about site rules.

But I doubt anyone’s going to start discussing and questioning your points, even if the mods decide to allow it for a while, because they don’t seem all that interesting, and have no connection to the theme of the website.

As I see it, it is still a value for value transaction.

I have no argument against that, that’s exactly how you see it. But you don’t mention what your definition of value is. According to the Objectivist definition of value, you’re wrong.

Is mine not?

I don’t believe that Objectivism declares that nothing is morally neutral..?

We’re talking about a bodily function here. So my understanding would be it is inherently amoral (neutral) until a context is added to it that makes it otherwise.

Like eating.

Morally neutral until I find out you’re eating dead babies.

Eating is never morally neutral. It’s either a moral or immoral choice, depending on context. Just because someone doesn’t know which, it doesn;t mean it’s morally neutral. Same with sex.

A-moral means outside the realm of morality: issues like 2+2=4, or being tall, are a-moral matters, because they aren’t subject to an individual’s choice.

37

Is mine not?

You said,

Now you can of course disagree with my statement that the act is morally neutral but I find your response to be fully inaccurate.

Her response was not inaccurate, it is consistent with Objectivism.

You said;

I would think that masturbation is amoral.

So you are saying that by default it is amoral (even though the determination of the amorality of masturbation would also require a context).

And then you said;

I don’t believe that Objectivism declares that nothing is morally neutral.?

Which is correct, except in the situations which Sophia notes, so masturbation is not by default amoral absent a context. The fact that the morality is not determinable without a context does not make it amoral by default. That is because masturbation CANNOT occur without a context. The correct answer is not “Masturbation is amoral absent context”, it is "The morality (moral, immoral or amoral) of masturbation cannot be determined without a context.

That is why your statement “I would think that masturbation is amoral.” is incorrect.

38

Ok.. I get what you’re saying but I still have to say that since the immorality or morality of the act is based entirely in the context that the act in theory is morally neutral. It doesn’t become anything else until context is applied.

Since the OP didn’t say “is masturbating to child porn moral”

or “is masturbating to phone sex with your spouse when apart for a long period of time moral”

the question as asked leaves it neutral.

edited for typo

39

I don’t believe that Objectivism declares that nothing is morally neutral..?

We’re talking about a bodily function here. So my understanding would be it is inherently amoral (neutral) until a context is added to it that makes it otherwise.

The problem is that you’re misunderstanding what “amorality” refers to. Morality refers to a set of principles which guide your choices so that they lead to your ultimate goal of life. If those presuppositions are false – if you do not have choice or if you do not choose to live – then the concept of morality is inapplicable. Otherwise, the concept of morality applies: either a choice does sustain your life, in which case it is moral, or it does not, in which case it is immoral.

“Amoral” means that there cannot be a moral principle, meaning that the question is entirely outside the realm of morality. If a terrorist holds a gun to your head and demands they you murder your wife lest be blow your head off, you cannot apply moral principles to determine what is the proper action (assuming that you can’t kill the terrorist). You can always invoke the “context” card and say that a certain choice is amoral until you add enough context to make a moral evaluation – this does not mean that all choices are inherently amoral. Moral evaluation cannot be performed in an epistemological vacuum, you always require some knowledge context to evaluate an action. That does not mean that morality is an empty concept and that all actions are “inherently amoral”.

When a man repeatedly fails to make love to his wife who desires him, because he has chosen to relieve himself in the alley, despite professing to love his wife, then it is clear that his choice is immoral. There may be some context where masturbation is the moral choice.

40

There may be some context where masturbation is the moral choice.

Perhaps the context I mentioned above?

(ahh..not the child porn one)

I think we’re having a semantic quibble here regarding the issue of my statement that it is amoral until the the context is added. I have trouble accepting that any biological function is anything other than neutral until specific context is added.

Like sexual tofu..it has no flavour but what you add to it.