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.
It’s not semantic. The morality of something, even a bodily function, cannot be determined until a context has been added. The determination of such morality includes determining whether or not the action is amoral. Therefore an action cannot be determined to be amoral without a context. Thus, the morality of any action must have a context before it can be determined. This fits nicely within reality because ALL actions exist within a context, known or otherwise. There is no such thing as contextless masturbation (or any other action for that matter).
In order for you to claim masturbation is amoral, you must know the context. Simply not knowing the context of the action of masturbation does not therefore make that act amoral; it makes the morality of that action indeterminable. It’s not a semantic issue, it is an issue of making a proper judgement of the act based on what you know of the act.
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.
If you think this is a “semantic quibble”, that means that you are defining the word “amoral” different from how I do. If so, I’d like to see how you define “moral”, “immoral” and “amoral”. Otherwise this is a logical quibble – I hold that it is a logical quibble. And it’s not a quibble. But maybe you really are operating in terms of completely different concepts under the label of “moral”, “immoral” and “amoral”. I know that many people do consider “rejection of morality” to be what “amoral” means – of course, as we know, such “amorality” is in fact immorality. It’s not a totally lunatic position to equate “rejection of morality” with the concept “amoral”, in fact it’s entirely analogous to the relationship between “theist” and “atheist” as contrasted to “agnostic”. But clearly, you didn’t mean that “amoral” refers to the rejection of morality. And so what we’re left with is that which has no moral value (positive or negative). The only such things are those that are outside the realm “chosen to advance life as your ultimate goal”, i.e. things with no choice, or the situation where you do not hold life as your ultimate goal.
I have trouble accepting that any biological function is anything other than neutral until specific context is added.
The metaphysically given cannot be morally evaluated; but masturbation is not metaphysically given. No matter what those wankers tell you.
“Amoral” means that there cannot be a moral principle, meaning that the question is entirely outside the realm of morality.
Deosn’t amoral just mean no moral principles apply? For example, all living beings except for man are amoral creatures, morality doens’t apply to them. Or what is the morality of the color blue or the taste of strawberries? None.
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).
In this example the terrorist is acting immorally, we can agree on that much. Morality cannot guide your actions here because such emergency situations are outside the norm. Still, I’d say the propper action, if fighting back is not possible, would be to allow the terrorist to kill me, because I do not buy my life from a terrorist at the price of someone whose life I value.
There may be some context where masturbation is the moral choice.
A single man who can’t find a date. A married man or woman whose spouse is absent for the time being. I can think of many others.
Deosn’t amoral just mean no moral principles apply?
I think that is pretty much what I said: no principle is possible, no principle applies.
Still, I’d say the propper action, if fighting back is not possible, would be to allow the terrorist to kill me, because I do not buy my life from a terrorist at the price of someone whose life I value.
In other words, your own life is subordinate to that of other things or people that you value. I don’t see how you can conclude that is the proper action. How about this: you are not buying your life, you are acting to preserve your life.
Yes. I can stand the idea of my own death. I cannot stand the idea of killing someone I love. Of what value would my continued life be then?
You get to find someone else you love, later on? Or get to continue with your work or hobby (whichever is your central purpose in life, presumably work). Someone you love is not more valuable than your life. You love them because they make your life better. But they do not (or at least, should not) give your life its meaning or value to you. If that is the case I find it hard to understand why they would love you, as you would at that point be something of an empty shell.
On the topic of amorality, I think that an amoral action is one in which you cannot talk about morality, like actions under the influence of force, or inanimate objects, or the actions of other people (in so far as you are considering only their impact on you, as opposed to whether their actions fits in their standard of values). I think you might call QuoVadis is talking about should have some sort of word attached to it. I mean, we have concepts for actions, and we then label them morally based on context. But they have to be in some state, which should have some sort of word to denote it, prior to the introduction of context. Perhaps pre-moral would do? That is, it is before questions of morality can even arise (since morality lies in context, not actions themselves).
Yes. I can stand the idea of my own death. I cannot stand the idea of killing someone I love. Of what value would my continued life be then?
If someone you loved passed away, it doesn’t mean your life would no longer have any value.
Surely there are still things you treasure just as much as your loved one.
Ayn Rand lost her husband which she said was her greatest value but she didn’t lose the will to live. She was crushed by her husband’s demise no doubt and she learned to cope with it. There are things which still mattered a lot to her - her philosophy, her love for life, etc.
If I kill her, that’s something completely different.
Yes, and in the situation under discussion, you don’t kill her – the terrorist does. FYI, failing to prevent an action is not the same as performing the action.
Someone you love is not more valuable than your life.
For you and perhaps for a lot of people. It is however not something that you can decide for everyone - it is a personal value judgment. Giving your life for someone you value greatly can be a moral choice. A person may not want to continue living without them.
Yes, and in the situation under discussion, you don’t kill her – the terrorist does. FYI, failing to prevent an action is not the same as performing the action.
Ok. Just imagine yourself in that situation. The moment before you kill your wife, would you tell her “Sorry, honey. It’s either you or me”?
Giving your life for someone you value greatly can be a moral choice.
The standard of morality is your life. A moral choice is one in which you gain a value, by that standard. When you give your life away, you do not gain any values, you, and your values, both end.
You may choose to end your life, for some goal such as the survival of someone you love, but that doesn’t make it moral. Ethics is a specific thing, and it has nothing to do with the conditions under which, and the reasons why, people decide to die.
Objectivist Ethics prescribes the principles one requires to live, when one chooses to do so. When one’s life is not the goal, Ethics is not useful.
And, it is not an immoral choice either. I think one has to explicitly point that out, and then the rest of your post is clear.
If that person is essential to your life, then it is not immoral, absolutely. Life is not possible, so there are no moral choices. If there aren’t any moral choices, then there are no immoral ones either. I meant to say that, but looks like it got cut in the editing process:)
And, it is not an immoral choice either. I think one has to explicitly point that out, and then the rest of your post is clear.
I think it’s fair to say that once a person has given his/her life for someone else, he/she doesn’t really care what moral pronouncement others make of his/her decision. He’s/She’s dead.
The standard of morality is your life. A moral choice is one in which you gain a value, by that standard. When you give your life away, you do not gain any values, you, and your values, both end.
Not that this is a very important issue for me but I am not convinced that the decision itself lies outside of the sphere of morality. One is still holding life as the standard when evaluating one’s life, in this case, without this person (other cases could be: one’s life when very ill, or in great physical pain, or life without intact mental faculties). The “reward” is not to have to go through it. My point was that there are situations in which such decision can be rationally defended within the Objectivist ethics of self-interest. Perhaps I should have said instead: It could be rational to value another’s life more than your own.
He’s/She’s dead.