Is masturbation immoral?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 01:03 am
@Insty,
Insty;139238 wrote:
It just means that masturbation has a way of hindering an individual's ability to develop into a certain kind of person and to participate in certain kinds of relationships.
Well, that's the thesis, has it been proven by double blind test? What's the amount of people involved in the test?

It sounds extremely unsientific, and riddled with pure spekulation and assumptions, which naive group think people will belive in.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 01:12 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;139241 wrote:
Well, that's the thesis, has it been proven by double blind test? What's the amount of people involved in the test?

It sounds extremely unsientific, and riddled with pure spekulation and assumptions, which naive group think people will belive in.


No, the thesis hasn't been proven by double-blind testing or scientific experimentation of any kind. Nor has the categorical imperative, the principle of utility, or any other moral thesis. I think it's fair to say that the Catholic view is based on assumptions. But again, that's true of any ethical theory.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 01:20 am
@Greg phil,
well lets see.

immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]adj1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading
4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings ect...
immorally adv



i guess number one would depend on whether accepted moral rules means accepted on average by every person on the planet or accepted by certain groups. if planetary id assume that the majority doesnt find it immoral but it would be considered immoral to some groups. circumcision was brought to the mainstream(nonjews) as a cure for masturbation. Two and three seam to be a no but some could make a case for number four. Is it me or does number one basically say immoral is something people accept as immoral?

In my personal opinion id consider there to be no consistent definition of moral or ethical and seeing how it is not possible to communicate a concept or anything for that matter with undefined terms my answer would be no it is not.
 
sammy phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:43 am
@Greg phil,
i would say try to keep a good mental balance on the acts, or atleast keep in mind the body releases chemicals producing the want and it starts dwindling after 30 (in most cases)
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:19 am
@Greg phil,
How could it be immoral? The urge itself is a biological one from it's basis. If you consider it immoral than basically you are making a claim that some human biology is immoral.

There have been studies conducted with men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer which asked the men how often they masturbated. As it turns out the men who developed prostate cancer masturbated very infrequently or not at all. The theory behind it was that in some way the biology behind the urge also has an indirect effect on keeping the system cleaner.

So if it was so immoral why would this study indicate that masturbation actually helps prevent prostate cancer?
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:56 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;139349 wrote:
How could it be immoral? The urge itself is a biological one from it's basis. If you consider it immoral than basically you are making a claim that some human biology is immoral.

There have been studies conducted with men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer which asked the men how often they masturbated. As it turns out the men who developed prostate cancer masturbated very infrequently or not at all. The theory behind it was that in some way the biology behind the urge also has an indirect effect on keeping the system cleaner.

So if it was so immoral why would this study indicate that masturbation actually helps prevent prostate cancer?


I can see how someone may conclude that masturbation can help to prevent prostate cancer but with the same info I could also see how someone may conclude that lying causes prostate cancer. lol or that when someone starts to develop prostate cancer it may effect ther sexual desires.Smile
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:09 pm
@HexHammer,
The act of masturbation is caused by one of the most powerful drives of man, the sexual drive. I see nothing wrong with masturbation as long as it does not become a habit that derails a person's path to their goals. I believe that any drive that conflicts with a person's ultimate goals must be overcome.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:30 pm
@hue-man,
QIs masturbation immoral?
A No as long as you dont use someone else to do it.
If it is making love then it is not masturbation.
Can you make love to yourself?
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:36 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;139456 wrote:
The act of masturbation is caused by one of the most powerful drives of man, the sexual drive. I see nothing wrong with masturbation as long as it does not become a habit that derails a person's path to their goals. I believe that any drive that conflicts with a person's ultimate goals must be overcome.



if the act is performed on the cross town bus, while wearing a raincoat, does the act become immoral or merely disgusting and inappropriate?
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 09:30 am
@Greg phil,
Is masturbtion immoral -- only if you think it is.

I don't think anyone should ever have to justify what they do when alone that has no effect on anyone else.

The immorality comes into play when harm is involved. There are laws that protect underaged and mentally challenged people from others, who only define harm as whatever they get caught at and punished for.

Lost1
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 09:51 am
@wayne,
wayne;139463 wrote:
if the act is performed on the cross town bus, while wearing a raincoat, does the act become immoral or merely disgusting and inappropriate?


Disgusting and inapropriate. I'm sure if we still walked around like the cavemen did, people would be jackin' off everywhere they went! :] (And having sex.)
 
mister kitten
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 10:05 am
@wayne,
wayne;139463 wrote:
if the act is performed on the cross town bus, while wearing a raincoat, does the act become immoral or merely disgusting and inappropriate?


Socially unaccepted doesn't not equal immoral. Yes most view public sex acts as disgusting and inapporpirate, but does doing something in public somehow make a thing immoral?
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 10:08 am
@mister kitten,
mister kitten;139592 wrote:
Socially unaccepted doesn't not equal immoral. Yes most view public sex acts as disgusting and inapporpirate, but does doing something in public somehow make a thing immoral?


Do you mean to use a double negative, or is that a typo? Just lookin' out.
 
mister kitten
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 10:10 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;139594 wrote:
Do you mean to use a double negative, or is that a typo? Just lookin' out.

Typo, my silly fingers and brain don't work together sometimes. My apologies
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 10:21 am
@mister kitten,
Illegal is not always wrong,
Immoral always is.
 
Insty
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:21 pm
@wayne,
wayne;139463 wrote:
if the act is performed on the cross town bus, while wearing a raincoat, does the act become immoral or merely disgusting and inappropriate?

It's both immoral and inappropriate, especially if others on the bus are aware of what's going on underneath the raincoat.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:33 pm
@mister kitten,
Krumple;139349 wrote:
How could it be immoral? The urge itself is a biological one from it's basis. If you consider it immoral than basically you are making a claim that some human biology is immoral.


Why would that be an extraordinary claim? If human biology didn't have immoral aspects then we wouldn't need moral rules.

mister kitten;139592 wrote:
Socially unaccepted doesn't not equal immoral. Yes most view public sex acts as disgusting and inapporpirate, but does doing something in public somehow make a thing immoral?


Socially unacceptable doesn't equal immoral. Ok, that's a starting point. But then we ask "Does socially unacceptable equal moral"? Obviously not. So now we have said nothing about whether the socially unacceptable act is immoral.

Disturbing people is a bad thing that would have to be outweighed somehow, or else the act would be immoral. Is the expectation that people shouldn't masturbate on the bus unreasonable? No, the idea that sex should be private is a human universal and thus presumably rooted in our biology. It is not a passing fancy of some culture. You might as well try and claim that objecting to having feces thrown at you is unreasonable.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:41 pm
@Insty,
Insty;139670 wrote:
It's both immoral and inappropriate, especially if others on the bus are aware of what's going on underneath the raincoat.



:bigsmile: If J. would blind-fold the passengers... Blind the windows/
No-b=ody would ruin his Burberry (I THINK)Laughing
 
Minimal
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 02:58 am
@Greg phil,
Greg;64518 wrote:
Having been a practicing Catholic until a couple of months ago I was wondering what other philosopher's think.


Practising Catholic y'say? I sense mens rea (a guilty mind) ;-)

Now, on a serious note:

Morality is subjective and a selective construct. What your conscience allows to be permissible is probably completely different to mine. If you are religious and believe whatever sacred book constitutes your moral or ethical obligations, then by all means follow them as long as they are humane - abstaining from playing with yourself is no problem of mine or anyone else. Perhaps it shows self-control? Depends if you view the act itself as some vice or something abhorrent, or as something natural and permissible. Secular society does not really care what you do to get your jollies as long as it does not infringe on another.

- Minimal.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 08:20 PM ----------

Greg;64788 wrote:
I like existentialism -- but it only goes so 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


The whole world is not shaped by you. Matter, the nature of organisms and other conscious beings exists independently of yourself - unless of course you subscribe to some form of solipsistic voodoo to which I will humbly dismiss you as a friendly madman. I am sorry if you are a believer in Solipsism, but I find the whole notion to have semblance of a three-year-old who has yet to transcend some of their egocentric behaviour. Perhaps I am too cynical. Existential quandary merely argues everything is absurd, a gyre of ineffable depth that ultimately leads to confusion. Egoistic interpretations can emerge out of such a conception of reality, but I do no think existentialism intrinsically dictates a person must believe everything is arbitrary. Existentialism argues that the nature of existence is absurd.

Morality is an arbitrary construct; value is only conceived when a conscious subject holds such a conception. Without a subject to interpret the object, value ceases to exist.

- Minimal.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2021 at 02:14:08