Is masturbation immoral?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:25 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
ok i've heard enough on this topic thanks.

- though I haven't actually decided myself how what i think

Well, do you have any reasons to think there is a moral aspect to masturbation?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:37 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;64766 wrote:
ok i've heard enough on this topic thanks.

- though I haven't actually decided myself how what i think


Good, and you should ponder longer, instead of immediately following what anyone else says.

Follow your own common sense, as Buddha humbly said.

Be well, my friend,

Zeth
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:41 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Well, do you have any reasons to think there is a moral aspect to masturbation?

only if you can explain what is morality, if there exists any 'moral law' and how we can know of it.

At the moment I am completely lost because I simply don't know what is moral and I don't claim to have any real 'conscience'
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:45 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;64777 wrote:
only if you can explain what is morality, if there exists any 'moral law' and how we can know of it.

At the moment I am completely lost because I simply don't know what is moral and I don't claim to have any real 'conscience'


That's the beauty of it - it's for you to decide.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:48 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
That's the beauty of it - it's for you to decide.

O wow; I've been promoted to God!
Sorry, that won't do for me - I can CHOOSE a lot of things... that does not make it right.
If indeed there is no 'right' then I've got a meaningless life indeed
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:58 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;64783 wrote:
O wow; I've been promoted to God!
Sorry, that won't do for me - I can CHOOSE a lot of things... that does not make it right.
If indeed there is no 'right' then I've got a meaningless life indeed


On the contrary, you create your own meaning, my friend. In a way, yes, you are a "God".

In the end, and you know this to be true, it will be your choice. When you sit home at night and contemplate your actions, thoughts, feelings, it's all on you for affirmation. There's not always going to be someone guiding you, telling you what's "wrong", what's "right". You will have to construct your own morality, and you will have to be the one to live with it. You can *feel* what you believe to be "right", "wrong", and throughout your life these notions will mature. Cling to whatever doctrine provides you guidance, consult with others, but make choices abiding by your own sense, not as one dictates you to do.

Your life isn't meaningless unless you choose for it to be so. You decide the "law", you decide what's "right", you decide your path.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 03:04 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
On the contrary, you create your own meaning, my friend. In a way, yes, you are a "God".

In the end, and you know this to be true, it will be your choice. When you sit home at night and contemplate your actions, thoughts, feelings, it's all on you for affirmation. There's not always going to be someone guiding you, telling you what's "wrong", what's "right". You will have to construct your own morality, and you will have to be the one to live with it. You can *feel* what you believe to be "right", "wrong", and throughout your life these notions will mature. Cling to whatever doctrine provides you guidance, consult with others, but make choices abiding by your own sense, not as one dictates you to do.

Your life isn't meaningless unless you choose for it to be so. You decide the "law", you decide what's "right", you decide your path.

I like existentialism -- but it only goes soo far.
I think that if my world is shaped by me (including moral law) then it is arbitrary and lost of content -- I can't accept that
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 03:09 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
only if you can explain what is morality, if there exists any 'moral law' and how we can know of it.

Well, you posed the question, right? What do you mean by morality?
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 03:11 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Well, you posed the question, right? What do you mean by morality?

right behaviour

what that involves I don't know
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 03:37 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
right behaviour

what that involves I don't know

What examples of right behaviour strike you as certainly true?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 04:00 pm
@Greg phil,
Quote:
If indeed there is no 'right' then I've got a meaningless life indeed


You can not be serious...

So the only way your life has meaning is if there is rightness?

What the hell does rightness have to do with living?

So you mean to tell me that a purpose is only a meaningful one if it's rightness?

I think holding that thought would make your life meaningless.

Your life is what ever you want or not want to make it. No one can take that away from you, even if they are pounding on your door with pitch forks and torches. Be yourself, do what you enjoy in life, even if its absolute evil... seriously. I have far more respect for someone who lives their life by their own brevity than because they are afraid of some invisible being. However; if you absolutely feel it's necessary to mold your life to suit the invisible being, that's fine too, but please don't insist everyone needs to follow the invisible being, that's nothing other than wrongness.
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 11:55 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
O wow; I've been promoted to God!
Sorry, that won't do for me - I can CHOOSE a lot of things... that does not make it right.
If indeed there is no 'right' then I've got a meaningless life indeed


you are the only one who can decide what is right for you. once you do that, you have to actually DO what you think is right, which is hard enough in itself. there is no universal right for everyone.

there will be a 'right' when you define it for yourself. in that case, if you decide masturbation is wrong for you or anything else for that matter, dont do it. believe something...and do what you believe.
 
Sympathypains
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 12:08 am
@Greg phil,
I'm not one for organized religion, but if you want to ask if it is more within the Catholic church or according to scripture teachings, I'd say the church frowns on it.

The Bible states, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." So the laws were there to make life better for us, not some blind list to follow. In this case, if it is not hurting you, then it is harmless. If one is doing it 4 -5 times a day, and they are left with little urge to do anything else, or little urge to have real relationships with other people then it might be hurting you.

It depends on your definition of immoral. If it is blind obedience to some set of standards, then anything can be immoral. If it is something that causes another harm to others, then pretty much no amount of such a deed could be immoral. If it is something that may harm yourself, or have a negative effect on society, then there is a potential for a negative element.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 12:35 am
@Greg phil,
Well I think a few of you seem to consider morality in terms of not-harming people, or persuing personal happiness. But I'm not entirely sure why that is right/good-in-act at all. e.g. happiness in just an invented subjective feeling caused by hormones, there is no intrinsic 'good' in it beyond animalism.
Now humans ARE animals I know; but our power of reason and imagination (imagination is a skill totally unique to homo-sapiens) make us more the JUST animals.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 04:21 am
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
Well I think a few of you seem to consider morality in terms of not-harming people...

Right, that's one.

Greg wrote:
... or persuing personal happiness. But I'm not entirely sure why that is right/good-in-act at all. e.g. happiness in just an invented subjective feeling caused by hormones, there is no intrinsic 'good' in it beyond animalism.

This is the opposite of what most of us have said: persuing personal pleasure is not a moral issue. Persuing personal pleasure at the expense of another would be a moral issue, but considered on its own raises no moral questions.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:36 am
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:
Well I think a few of you seem to consider morality in terms of not-harming people, or persuing personal happiness. But I'm not entirely sure why that is right/good-in-act at all. e.g. happiness in just an invented subjective feeling caused by hormones, there is no intrinsic 'good' in it beyond animalism.
Now humans ARE animals I know; but our power of reason and imagination (imagination is a skill totally unique to homo-sapiens) make us more the JUST animals.
Greg do you think it is more than a personal choice? do you think we should have guidance on its use or abuse by religious teachings?
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 05:44 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Greg do you think it is more than a personal choice? do you think we should have guidance on its use or abuse by religious teachings?

Well I don't know whether morality is objective or subjective but I don't like the idea of a subjective morality.
As for religion, I don't see why morality should be religious - it COULD be - but I see no necessary reason for it. E.g. Kantian ethics was non-religious.


Bones-O!, you didn't actually argue why harming people is wrong. Ok most of us belief it is wrong, but is it really wrong? What is the measure of wrongness for it?
And I would also argue that all behaviour, including personal pleasure not harming others, needs to be evaluated morally. If I can do A or B, then either A or B will be the better choice. If neither are especially bad, but one produces more happiness then do that. If both produce equal happiness but one uses more costly means then do that. I believe that either A or B will be the more moral.
- though how to evaluate that morality I don't know.
I do tend to integrate the three big theories (Natural law, Kant and Utilitarianism) but only because they SEEM reasonable, whether that is actually correct morality i don't know.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 06:46 am
@Greg phil,
Greg wrote:

Bones-O!, you didn't actually argue why harming people is wrong. Ok most of us belief it is wrong, but is it really wrong? What is the measure of wrongness for it?

You cannot deduce from harming people that harming people is wrong outside of acknowledging that one a) would not want to be harmed, and b) ascribes 'wrongness' to our harmers. There is a benefit in all of us avoiding particular actions that have immediate benefits to us, or simply produce pleasure in us. That benefit lies in an implicit contract between social animals. If I don't harm you, you won't harm me. This is all 'wrong' is - a breach of this contract.

But you did miss the point of my question. You want to know if masturbation is wrong. Look to other things you know to be wrong, even if you don't know why they are wrong, and make an assessment of whether masturbation has in common with these other wrong acts that which makes them wrong.

For instance, harming others is deemed wrong (whether we know why or not). Does masturbation harm others? No. So at least with respect to the morality of harming others, masturbation is not immoral. But are there are things that don't harm others that are wrong?

Greg wrote:
And I would also argue that all behaviour, including personal pleasure not harming others, needs to be evaluated morally. If I can do A or B, then either A or B will be the better choice. If neither are especially bad, but one produces more happiness then do that. If both produce equal happiness but one uses more costly means then do that. I believe that either A or B will be the more moral.

I wouldn't necessarly argue this is wrong. It is an extension of the moral obligation to others to ourselves. The idea of having a moral obligation to ourselves is rather counter-intuitive, though. The necessity of moral obligation is that we will not, for instance, harm someone to increase our happiness.

Greg wrote:

I do tend to integrate the three big theories (Natural law, Kant and Utilitarianism) but only because they SEEM reasonable, whether that is actually correct morality i don't know.

Well how about chucking existentialism in there? The 'correct' morality is the one you arrived at in good faith, with authenticity.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 06:59 am
@Bones-O,
Greg,do you think this subject is a religious moral question? not, it could be please, your opinion.Thanks xris..
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 07:18 am
@Greg phil,
YouTube - Sharpton / Hitchens Debate - Can Morality Exist Without God?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 06:46:21