You're giving a good example of the reason I don't want to use Heister's terminology. Read our conversation again and I think you'll see my point. Or just let me finish my exchange with him before you jump in again.

Drinking water, eating food, having sex - these all entail someone taking from something or someone else that is giving. Raising your arm for pleasure seems amoral to me... — Heister Eggcart

To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that?

Good feeling shouldn't be the foundation of one's actions, otherwise you allow for all sorts of vile behavior. — Heister Eggcart

Unless you're saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then this is a red herring.

And if you are saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then what's vile about it?

Or maybe you're saying that because doing things because they feel good can lead to vile behaviour then anything done because it feels good is wrong? That's a slippery slope fallacy.

And if you are saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then what's vile about it? — Michael

Using another as a means to an end for one :-}

Using another as a means to an end for one :-} — Agustino

In terms of using another as a means to an end, how does having sex differ from, say, playing tennis?

To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that? — Baden

Perhaps. How might this be incorrect?

Unless you're saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then this is a red herring. — Michael

I am, yes. And no, I don't see how anything I've said is a red herring.

And if you are saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then what's vile about it?

As I replied to you just before, if good feeling is the foundation of your having sex, then you're way in the wrong. The pedophile can use the same excuse as you by appealing to his desire to have a good feeling by having sex with a minor as being his first priority. Such is, however, especially wrong. Pretty sure we agreed on that, yet you're still uncertain for some reason I can't divine.

In terms of using another as a means to an end, how does having sex differ from, say, playing tennis? — Michael

How am I using another as a means to an end when I play tennis? What is the end, and what is the means? Is the other person even the means through which I play tennis? :s

How am I using someone as a means to an end when I engage in promiscuous sex? They are the means, my pleasure is the end.

mm - so character is always good? Someone can't have a deficient or evil character? — Agustino

I'd say so. "Evil character" is an oxymoron to me.

Because if love actualises the character, this implies that the character is good, because I suppose you won't tell me that loving someone will actualise their evil character would you? — Agustino

Hmm, love sparks the good in Man, although this is not to say that Man, therefore, is good. If we're still sticking with the poetic language, character is of the ocean, and the fallen nature of us is found in the desert once ashore.

Edit: I suppose that if one were to say that I had "poor character", they'd be referring to my shoddy inability to do the good, not that my character is somehow inherently bad. The struggle that I have found is to remain of good character even when love has been given less in my life, and only I am one who is giving my love to others. Unless I'm receiving as powerful a giving as I myself am giving, then I'm unintentionally draining my ocean of love, which can lead to cracks and fissures where I might lie, hurt someone, do something I didn't mean to. I know of a few people in my life that once had a surplus of character, but which has since eroded because of, well, lots of reasons.

How am I using another as a means to an end when I play tennis? What is the end, and what is the means? Is the other person even the means through which I play tennis? :s

How am I using someone as a means to an end when I engage in promiscuous sex? They are the means, my pleasure is the end. — Agustino

When I play tennis with someone my enjoyment is the end and my opponent is the means. Playing tennis on your own isn't fun.

I am, yes. And no, I don't see how anything I've said is a red herring. — Heister Eggcart

It would have been a red herring if you weren't saying that having sex is vile behaviour.

As I replied to you just before, if good feeling is the foundation of your having sex, then you're way in the wrong. The pedophile can use the same excuse as you by appealing to his desire to have a good feeling by having sex with a minor as being his first priority. Such is, however, especially wrong. Pretty sure we agreed on that, yet you're still uncertain for some reason I can't divine.

The child molester isn't in the wrong because he's doing something because it feels good but because what he's doing is abuse. Whether or not it feels good is irrelevant. So this isn't a reason for consensual, adult sex for pleasure being vile behaviour.

Again, it seems like a slippery slope fallacy. You're saying that because some things done because they feel good can be wrong then anything done because it feels good is wrong. It just doesn't follow.

When I play tennis with someone my enjoyment is the end and my opponent is the means. Playing tennis on your own isn't fun. — Michael

No, not at all. Your opponent is in no way like a tool that you're using to play tennis with... your opponent isn't your racket. Your racket is the means by which you play tennis.

But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself. That's just fucked up, sorry to say.

So this isn't a reason for consensual, adult sex for pleasure being vile behaviour. — Michael

So consensual adult sex can't be abuse? :s

So consensual adult sex can't be abuse? :s — Agustino

It isn't abuse tout court.

It isn't abuse tout court. — Michael

Right, only when it is done without real love for the person in question, I agree :D

No, not at all. Your opponent is in no way like a tool that you're using to play tennis with... your opponent isn't your racket. Your racket is the means by which you play tennis.

But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself. That's just fucked up, sorry to say. — Agustino

I don't understand how you distinguish using someone and not using someone.

But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself.

I don't use them to pleasure myself. I allow them to (of their own choice) pleasure me whilst also choosing to pleasure them (and so they're not using me to pleasure themselves).

Clearly the problem is with how you view sex. You're not me.

Right, only when it is done without real love for the person in question, I agree :D — Agustino

I didn't say that, so the "I agree" here is inappropriate.

To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that? — Baden

Perhaps. How might this be incorrect? — Heister Eggcart

Well, generally moral systems require that for an action to be deemed immoral it must at a minimum result in some kind of harm to another moral agent (or at least another sentient being) either directly or indirectly. There's no more indication that drinking water from a river (whether it feels good or not) does that any more than raising one's arm all other things being equal.

It doesn't mean that either action is necessarily amoral either. There may be a moral element in the wider context. But it's not present in either example given. You just don't have enough information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality.

The child molester isn't in the wrong because he's doing something because it feels good but because what he's doing is abuse. — Michael

The pedophile is in the wrong for many reasons, one of which being my qualm.

Whether or not it feels good is irrelevant. So

>:O How is this an argument?

this isn't a reason for consensual, adult sex for pleasure being vile behaviour.

Sure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them involves consenting adults! :D

Again, it seems like a slippery slope fallacy. You're saying that because some things done because they feel good can be wrong then anything done because it feels good is wrong. It just doesn't follow.

Why? If a principle has exceptions then it's not a principle.

Well, generally moral systems require that for an action to be deemed immoral it must as a minimum result in some kind of harm to another moral agent (or at least another sentient being) either directly or indirectly. There's no more indication that drinking water from a river (whether it feels good or not) does that any more than raising one's arm all other things being equal. — Baden

I wouldn't say that morality depends upon physical harm.

It doesn't mean that either action is necessarily amoral either. There may be a moral element in the wider context. But it's not present in either example given. You just don't have information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. Creating a mental narrative about why you do things doesn't conjure morality into your actions. And the thought that it does is actually quite dangerous. — Baden

I'm not conjuring morality into my actions willy nilly, Baden. If I had doubts about my actions, I would not do them. I've attempted to reason, and thus remove all doubt, from why I do what I do, and subsequently what I do not do. Seems like the person that doesn't consider the morality of their actions is rather the more dangerous individual, no?

I don't use them to pleasure myself. I allow them to pleasure me. — Michael

:-} Right, if you don't want them to pleasure you, why aren't you stopping them? And if you do want them to pleasure you, then how are you not using them to pleasure yourself?

I don't understand how you distinguish using someone and not using someone. — Michael

For the simple reason that I'm not using someone to play tennis. Playing tennis CAN involve another person, but they aren't used because they aren't a tool permitting me to engage in the activity. My racket (and my balls) is the tool which permits me to engage in the activity. Without a racket I can have as many people as I want, and I still won't be able to play tennis. I can, however, play tennis by myself, so long as I have a racket and balls.

Now I cannot engage in sex without another person - that's a similarity with tennis and with all other activities that can be group activities like dancing. BUT there is a difference between what the means used in sex are, compared to the means used in tennis. In tennis, the racket and the balls are the means. In sex, your partner's body is the means. The game of tennis involves hitting a ball with a racket - makes no mention of a partner - the partner is non-essential. I could indeed have a ball-machine feeding me balls on the other side. But sex cannot even be conceived in the absence of a partner. So in sex, the partner is the means, if your aim happens to be your own pleasure. If your aim is different however, then the same logic obviously doesn't follow.

So if you don't have sex with them, you are still using them as a means to the end of being moral?
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't.

All this talk of balls makes me want to fix some spaghetti and veggie meat balls for myself, because I'm a selfish, callous prick, >:)

Sure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them is between consenting adults! :D — Heister Eggcart

>:O

So if you don't have sex with them, you are still using them as a means to the end of being moral?
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't. — m-theory

Is steak a means of abstaining from steak? What kind of nonsense is this? If you don't eat steak, then you're using steak as a means of being moral (ie abstaining from eating steak, cause that's just what being moral fucking means in this context) >:O

Yes steak is a means to and end of abstaining if you don't eat it.

If you are treating people a certain way just to be moral you are using them as a means to the end of being moral.

Sure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them is between consenting adults! — Heister Eggcart

Again, it isn't wrong simply because it's done for pleasure. It's wrong because eating someone is wrong. It would be wrong even if it wasn't done for pleasure.

You just keep repeating the same fallacy. You need to show me that having sex is wrong because it's done for fun. Giving examples of things that are wrong because they involve abuse and killing people doesn't show me this.

Right, if you don't want them to pleasure you, why aren't you stopping them? And if you do want them to pleasure you, then how are you not using them to pleasure yourself? — Agustino

That I want something done isn't that I'm using something to have it done to me. You've already accepted this with the example of tennis. I want that person to play tennis with me and I allow them to, but according to you this doesn't count as using them to (non-sexually) pleasure myself.

Without a racket I can have as many people as I want, and I still won't be able to play tennis. I can, however, play tennis by myself, so long as I have a racket and balls.

I wouldn't count hitting a ball against a wall as playing tennis. But if you're going to be pedantic like this, then let's use arm wrestling or a thumb war or judo as an example.

Seems like the person that doesn't consider the morality of their actions is rather the more dangerous individual, no? — Heister Eggcart

That all depends on where their moral considerations lead them. Some will end up saving whales and others flying into tall buildings. However, I don't want to get sidetracked on this. I've edited the post to make my main point clearer, which is this:

You just don't have enough information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden

If I had doubts about my actions, I would not do them. I've attempted to reason, and thus remove all doubt, from why I do what I do, and subsequently what I do not do. — Heister Eggcart

I accept that you've attempted to reason and I'm not accusing you of anything except overestimating your moral reach in the context of the examples given.

Yes steak is a means to and end of abstaining if you don't eat it.

If you are treating people a certain way just to be moral you are using them as a means to the end of being moral. — m-theory

Not at all. Your proposition is a tautology once it is unpacked, and for this reason tells us nothing.

If not eating steak is being moral, then one doesn't use (eat) steak, when one is moral.

If A is identical to B, then ~A is identical to ~B.

To use something means to do something to it. I'm not doing anything to steak when not eating it, and not doing something to it isn't itself doing something to it, that's a contradiction.

Again, it isn't wrong simply because it's done for pleasure. It's done because eating someone is wrong. It would be wrong even if it wasn't done for pleasure. — Michael

Why is eating someone wrong?

You just keep repeating the same fallacy. You need to show me that having sex is wrong because it's done for fun. Giving examples of things that are wrong because they involve abuse and killing people doesn't show me this. — Michael

Answer the above question and maybe I'll start to make more sense.

The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden

How else might one come to moral judgement if not through reasoning with the mind the validity of a statement or action through the means of removing all doubt? Can something be moral, however you think of it, if there is doubt surrounding it?

That I want something done isn't that I'm using something to have it done to me. You've already accepted this with the example of tennis. I want that person to play tennis with me and I allow them to, but according to you this doesn't count as using them to (non-sexually) pleasure myself. — Michael

It certainly doesn't, because again, what you're using to pleasure yourself is a racket and some balls.

judo as an example. — Michael

In judo you're training. Training is different from doing something for pleasure. I don't practice martial arts for pleasure for example. I practice them for virtue. If you are however practicing martial arts for pleasure, I think you're doing something wrong though >:O

If you don't eat steak just because you believe it is moral to abstain from eating steak then you are using steak as a means to an end of being moral.

The same applies with a person, treating them a certain way because you believe it is moral means you are using that person as a means to an end of being moral.

To use something means to do something to it. I'm not doing anything to steak when not eating it, and not doing something to it isn't itself doing something to it, that's a contradiction. — Agustino

Sure, unless you claim not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something, you are being moral by not eating steak.
So if not eating steak is the equivalent of doing something moral, then you are using that steak as a means to the end of being moral.

This is really simple I don't understand why you are having trouble following along here?

It certainly doesn't, because again, what you're using to pleasure yourself is a racket and some balls. — Agustino

Racket, balls, and the other person (and a net). It's a two- (or four-) player sport.

In judo you're training. Training is different from doing something for pleasure. I don't practice martial arts for pleasure for example. I practice them for virtue.

Plenty of people do it for the pleasure.

Seems like you're resorting to special pleading here.

Why is eating someone wrong? — Heister Eggcart

Physical mutilation and potential manslaughter and whatnot. It's certainly not wrong because it's done for pleasure. Whether or not it's pleasurable is irrelevant. And so, again, saying that this is wrong and is done for pleasure doesn't show that sex is wrong if it's done for pleasure.

the other person — Michael

The other person isn't essential. Have you never played with a feeding machine?