• Benkei
    731
    In my opinion masturbation is immoralAgustino

    What if your wife enjoys watching? And what about a masturbating monkey? Is the monkey sinning as well?
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    What if your wife enjoys watching?Benkei
    Why do you think that would make a difference? She can enjoy watching, but that doesn't mean it's any less harmful for me. (Now it's different when it comes to mutual masturbation if you're asking about that...)

    And what about a masturbating monkey? Is the monkey sinning as well?Benkei
    Are human beings monkeys? You should be aware that morality only applies to other human beings - or rather to beings capable of reason (and hence of ordering their passions). A monkey may not be able to do this unless compelled from the outside.
  • Benkei
    731
    Why do you think that would make a difference? She can enjoy watching, but that doesn't mean it's any less harmful for me. (Now it's different when it comes to mutual masturbation if you're asking about that...)Agustino

    Because it can be part of sex and often is and you've stated that sex as part of a lasting relationship was the way to go. Just wanted to get that straight.

    Are human beings monkeys? You should be aware that morality only applies to other human beings - or rather to beings capable of reason (and hence of ordering their passions). A monkey may not be able to do this unless compelled from the outside.Agustino

    It's an interesting turn of fate that merely because our capacity to reason in a certain way that is different from monkeys that we should therefore obstain from acts that occur naturally within both the monkey and human population. It smells of a capricious distinction to me. Monkeys can reason and do have a set of moral rules. You could look into some of the work done by Frans de Waal to get an idea. Thelatest research in animal intelligence (and morality) suggests a far greater - but specialised - intelligence exists within them than that we've been led to believe. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying that because it naturally occurs it's therefore acceptable, just pointing out that reason and moral rules are concepts other animals have and apply.

    How about teenagers who don't have the capacity to reason sufficiently to make these sort of ethical trade offs? If the capacity to reason is a reason why ethics applies to us then certainly stupid or underdeveloped people are excused and not acting immorally when they masturbate.

    I'm pointing out animal reasoning and morality and human stupidity as reasons why I think "the capacity to reason" is not a very good measure for whether or not to apply ethical standards.
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    Because it can be part of sex and often is and you've stated that sex as part of a lasting relationship was the way to go. Just wanted to get that straight.Benkei
    Mutual masturbation is, not self-masturbation. I haven't claimed mutual masturbation in the context of a committed relationship is wrong.

    It smells of a capricious distinction to me. Monkeys can reason and do have a set of moral rules. You could look into some of the work done by Frans de Waal to get an idea. Thelatest research in animal intelligence (and morality) suggests a far greater - but specialised - intelligence exists within them than that we've been led to believe. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying that because it naturally occurs it's therefore acceptable, just pointing out that reason and moral rules are concepts other animals have and apply.Benkei
    Only via outside pressure. For a monkey it's not good to abstain from beating the other monkey because it is moral, rather it's good to abstain from it because otherwise they'll be kicked out of the monkey community and die. I don't call that morality. Maybe dogs actually show a sense of morality that is closer to humans (some dogs) but even there it is questionable.

    Man is the only being we know of who can engage in actions because they are good - for goodness sake, and for no other reason.

    How about teenagers who don't have the capacity to reason sufficiently to make these sort of ethical trade offs? If the capacity to reason is a reason why ethics applies to us then certainly stupid or underdeveloped people are excused and not acting immorally when they masturbate.Benkei
    No they aren't excused. Their actions are still immoral, their culpability however may be lessened by their ignorance.
  • Benkei
    731
    Only via outside pressure. For a monkey it's not good to abstain from beating the other monkey because it is moral, rather it's good to abstain from it because otherwise they'll be kicked out of the monkey community and die. I don't call that morality. Maybe dogs actually show a sense of morality that is closer to humans (some dogs) but even there it is questionable.Agustino

    This is simply not consistent with recent research. You can watch this as a first impression: Do animals have morals (spoiler: yes)
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    I will watch it but are you sure that it's not a case engaging in actions because they are good for me kind of "morality"? The monkey reconciles with the other monkey because it is advantageous to both of them to reconcile. This is a business deal, not morality :-}
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    Okay I've watched it. Exactly as I've expected - a case of animals being capable of being good businessmen. That's why human beings are also so immoral - because they function like these animals, they think they are just like the animals. For example your wife doesn't cheat on you not because this is good - but because she's afraid you'll leave her. This is nothing but immorality masquerading itself as morality.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

    Now time to focus on work...
  • Benkei
    731
    You dismiss ideas that don't confirm your world view rather quickly. Business is morality when you trust the other will perform their obligation (fairness and reciprocity). Especially absent an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) this is governed by a shared system of morality.
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    You dismiss ideas that don't confirm your world view rather quickly.Benkei
    It's not a matter of confirming or not confirming my worldview. This simply has no bearing on it. I don't dispute that animals have feelings of empathy and fairness. But that's not morality.

    Business is morality when you trust the other will perform their obligation (fairness and reciprocity). Especially absent an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) this is governed by a shared system of morality.Benkei
    I trust that they will perform their obligation only because I know that if they don't they'll suffer for it (so assuming they are rational I have no reason to think they will not follow it) - in addition I know that if they want to earn future favors from me, they better perform it. I don't need an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) to ensure that this is the case. Man ultimately takes justice in his own hands. Who knows, if they spite me, maybe in 10-20 years they'll need a favor or mercy from me - and I will return their spite. If they are going to be irrational, they will pay for it. But this isn't morality. This is business.

    I repeat what I've said. Human beings are the only creature we know of who can engage in an action because it is good, regardless of the effects this has on oneself. Other animals engage in cooperative actions and practices because it's mutually advantageous, even if not at present, but in the long run it certainly is.
  • Benkei
    731
    I'm sorry Agustino but your inability to read anything most people say charitably means I'm going to put you on ignore. Enjoy the forums without interacting with me.
  • Agustino
    8.3k
    I'm sorry Agustino but your inability to read anything most people say charitably means I'm going to put you on ignore. Enjoy the forums without interacting with me.Benkei
    >:O You interacted with me out of your own free will, nobody forced you to, and then you're the one protesting? That is a bit strange. And putting me on ignore will just mean you're too scared of reading my posts - maybe it makes you question your own worldview too much. Anyway, I haven't and I will never put anyone on ignore. I may refuse to engage with some people - that's reasonable. But to avoid seeing what someone says? That's kinda stupid, sorry to say, not to mention that it is an example of intellectual cowardice.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.