Having been a practicing Catholic until a couple of months ago I was wondering what other philosopher's think.
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.
---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 08:20 PM ----------
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
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.