"If it doesn't hurt anyone..."

[Aloysium]

God is love; only love is eternal.
God wills that we join Him in the joy of eternal life with and in Him.
If this is not one’s aim, one can do whatever one wants in this life.
If this is one’s aim, one had better do what is required to reach that end.

As to masturbation, let us review MarcoPolo’s quote of CS Lewis:

*“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

"And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

"For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

"Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

"In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. . . . After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”

• Personal Letter From Lewis to Keith Masson (found in The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3)*

 

[Nate8080]

Ok for example, this freak: (kinda NSFW)
youtube.com/watch?v=jvD1z8uKXCo

I keep getting hit with comments saying…“She’s not hurting anyone and doing nothing wrong…”

Ok…WTF?! She obviously is but I need the concrete proof to back up my claims, what would I say?

 

[vz71]

So no, if it does no harm (physically, emotionally, mentally or any other type of harm you would care to nominate), then there is nothing wrong with it.

Assuming morality is not based upon the laws provided by God.

I do not believe it correct to say that we can have morality apart from God’s law.

 

[vz71]

Going back to the couple having sex outside marriage and then going on to have a blissfully happy and successful umpteen years of marriage together, then…I’m sorry to keep labouring this….no harm has been done. It is therefore not wrong.

If by every criteria you can think of, the couple said that they experienced no harm whatsoever, it is chutzpah of the highest order to say: ‘No – you are wrong. I’ll be the best judge of that!’

It would be ‘chutzpah’ to claim no harm done.

We can look at the marriage many years later, and we may even believe it to be the most wonderful and strongest marriage we have ever seen.
But we do not know if it is what it could have been had sin not been partaken of in the beginning.

Sin always causes harm. We may not be able to perceive the harm, but it is always there.

 

[Bahman]

Another thread about this topic, I need some really good answers here. This particular claim made by moral relativists everywhere always seems to stump me.

Whenever someone is attempting to justify some immoral or deviant sexual act, such as masturbation, zoophilia (jerking off to cartoon animal porn), homosexuality, etc. they will simply refer to the adage, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point? Abstract logic and philosophical answers never seem to satisfy, I need something more concrete…

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

Thanks

Masturbation to the best of my knowledge is very healthy thing, at least for men it always keep the fresh sperm for ejaculation. Please read this for more info.

 

[Bradski]

Sin always causes harm. We may not be able to perceive the harm, but it is always there.

So you say that harm has been done in this case, but you can’t point out what it is, you can’t describe it or quantify it, no-one has experienced it and it has caused no problems. In fact, there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

I would introduce you to my dragon - he lives in my garden. But you can’t see him or perceive him in any way, he has no substance and he leaves no evidence of his existence. But he’s definitely there. I mean, why wouldn’t you believe me…?

 

[StrawberryJam]

So you say that harm has been done in this case, but you can’t point out what it is, you can’t describe it or quantify it, no-one has experienced it and it has caused no problems. In fact, there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

I would introduce you to my dragon - he lives in my garden. But you can’t see him or perceive him in any way, he has no substance and he leaves no evidence of his existence. But he’s definitely there. I mean, why wouldn’t you believe me…?

Because a man named Carl Sagan while he lived on this earth, taught people to think about these very things when I was a child. He encouraged me to seek knowledge.
Therefore, I can not believe you without looking at your evidence.
You have great evidence for the fact that this forum allows us to express that.
And one day, I hope that there will be a time where science will have a place in all this.
Maybe not in our lifetime, but it could happen.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It would be ‘chutzpah’ to claim no harm done.

We can look at the marriage many years later, and we may even believe it to be the most wonderful and strongest marriage we have ever seen.
But we do not know if it is what it could have been had sin not been partaken of in the beginning.

Sin always causes harm. We may not be able to perceive the harm, but it is always there.

Sorry to interrupt here, but what?

 

[vz71]

So you say that harm has been done in this case, but you can’t point out what it is, you can’t describe it or quantify it, no-one has experienced it and it has caused no problems. In fact, there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

I simply have pointed out that you cannot know that no harm was done.

We may not be able to perceive the harm, but sin always causes harm.
The fact that you have to work at it to come up with this theoretical in which ‘no harm was done’ indicates to us that harm accompanies sin.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sin always causes harm. We may not be able to perceive the harm, but it is always there.

I simply have pointed out that you cannot know that no harm was done.

That seems a bit conclusory.

 

[vz71]

That seems a bit conclusory.

We know from Catholic teaching that the act described was a sin.
We also know through Catholic teaching that sin causes harm.

What type of support do you want?

We likewise cannot perceive harm done with a sunburn, but the harm is still there.

 

[madtom]

this argument that if no harm was done and everyone goes on to lead happy lives then there was no sin, is just ridiculous. some things are just inherently wrong and sinful whether they actually cause noticable harm or not. you are simply trying to create a hypothtical to make yourself feel better about thinking there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. so how about we use an example that we can all agree is inherently wrong. I stole a candy bar from a store I worked in 20 years ago. we can all agree that stealing is wrong, correct? but I have gone on to lead a very happy, productive, law-abiding life and the store is still in business and very successful today. no harm was done. at most, the owner of the store lost out on maybe 10 cents of profit, but an argument can also be made that the candy bar would have sat on the shelf past expiration and thrown out anyway. or perhaps eating that candy bar made me a more productive worker that day and the owner actually made a greater profit. so I say no harm was done and you can’t prove otherwise. so stealing that candy bar was ok? no, it was a sin regardless.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We know from Catholic teaching that the act described was a sin.
We also know through Catholic teaching that sin causes harm.

What type of support do you want?

What type of support is available? I think that would be a smaller set from which to pull.

Right now what I see is that you’ve asserted that some unknown harm has occurred for the scenario that has been presented. Even if no harm can be identified there is still harm. If that’s being said to only state your position that’s fine. But if it’s being said to convince some one else then it’s not persuasive and only seems to be the conclusion that it is desired for others to reach without offering any path there. There’s also no way to distinguish between some one making this assertion being correct or incorrect about the thing for which it is being asserted.

We likewise cannot perceive harm done with a sunburn, but the harm is still there.

Let’s work with that. Some one asserts that excessive sunlight causes skin damage. Another person doesn’t believe her and ask for further information. What information can be provided? There can be the display of sun burned skin, giving some one partial sun exposure and see a differences between where there was a lot of sun on their skin and where there was not. We can find some one that has occupationally had uneven amounts of sunlight on their body. One lady comes to mind that sat at the same place for decades where the sun only hit one side of her face ( image). There or other examples where the damage can be correlated to sunlight exposure.

I think a more interesting example may be radiation exposure in general. But even with radiation exposure there’s evidence that can be produced to show it is harmful.

 

[Bradski]

We know from Catholic teaching that the act described was a sin.
We also know through Catholic teaching that sin causes harm.

What type of support do you want?

I dunno…how about some evidence? It seems to work in most aspects of life. If someone says that harm has been done, then one usually asks for some indication of what that harm is.

We likewise cannot perceive harm done with a sunburn, but the harm is still there.

If you get burnt you can’t see it?

I stole a candy bar from a store I worked in 20 years ago. we can all agree that stealing is wrong, correct? but I have gone on to lead a very happy, productive, law-abiding life and the store is still in business and very successful today. no harm was done. at most, the owner of the store lost out on maybe 10 cents of profit…

All you’ve done is give an example of where there was minimal harm done, but harm nevertheless.

 

[vz71]

What type of support is available? I think that would be a smaller set from which to pull.

I have asserted what is based upon church teaching.

If the church teaching is insufficient, what is?

This reminds me of a movie I watched many years ago.
A family ended up in a shelter after a nuclear detonation.
Eventually the daughter went out of the shelter. The family tried to bring her back since they knew the radiation would kill her, but she would not be convinced. It was a beautiful day outside. The grass was still green, the sky was blue, and there was nothing to indicate danger.

The church knows we cannot always see the danger of sin.

 

[madtom]

All you’ve done is give an example of where there was minimal harm done, but harm nevertheless.

“minimal harm” according to whom? to you maybe, but I just stated I believe NO harm was done. do you see how whether harm is done or not cannot be the only criteria since people can view it differently? we have a sense of morality. a sense of right and wrong. harm does not have to be part of the equation. lying is wrong. cheating is wrong. stealing is wrong. all of these things are wrong and will always be wrong, whether someone is harmed or not.

 

[Bradski]

“minimal harm” according to whom? to you maybe, but I just stated I believe NO harm was done. do you see how whether harm is done or not cannot be the only criteria since people can view it differently?

It’s hardly a very good example when we both agree that it was stealing and that it would be morally wrong. And it’s no good saying that you don’t believe no harm was done. We are not looking at what people believe (although I strongly suspect that is the only basis for your argument: ‘the church says it’s wrong therefore it must be wrong’) but rather some concrete evidence that you are right in what you say.

I think that if I had a shop and I saw someone take some candy without paying, however small the loss would be, I’d be collaring the guy and maybe threaten to call the police. Very obviously some harm is being committed here.

If you suggest that it wouldn’t be stealing if he didn’t know then ask yourself what he would do if you did tell him. If you (wait for it) presented him with the evidence.

That’s precisely what I am asking you to do in the case of the couple having sex outside marriage. It’s absolutely no good at all to simply say that they wouldn’t or couldn’t know what harm was being done. To stop them doing it, to convince them that they are wrong (and to convince me), you need to provide them with the evidence of what has or is likely to occur that they will accept as being harmful.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I have asserted what is based upon church teaching.

I have no disagreement with the statement that you’ve made an assertion.

If the church teaching is insufficient, what is?

Demonstration of the harm or an explanation of the causal change from the action to the harm would help. How are bill and Mary harmed when they have sex before getting married while john and Britney are not harmed?

This reminds me of a movie I watched many years ago.
A family ended up in a shelter after a nuclear detonation.
Eventually the daughter went out of the shelter. The family tried to bring her back since they knew the radiation would kill her, but she would not be convinced. It was a beautiful day outside. The grass was still green, the sky was blue, and there was nothing to indicate danger.

There’s a movie from before my time called “Logan’s Run” in which something similar had happened; a society lived underground because it wasn’t safe on the surface. At least they thought it wasn’t safe.

 

[ynotzap]

Another thread about this topic, I need some really good answers here. This particular claim made by moral relativists everywhere always seems to stump me.

Whenever someone is attempting to justify some immoral or deviant sexual act, such as masturbation, zoophilia (jerking off to cartoon animal porn), homosexuality, etc. they will simply refer to the adage, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point? Abstract logic and philosophical answers never seem to satisfy, I need something more concrete…

If someone is masturbating to some cartoon porn or **** like it, how does it actively harm anyone, and why is it wrong? Assumming the person doesn’t believe in God.

Thanks

To hurt is defined: to harm or damge in some way, be bad for.

There is evidence on the CAF by posters that masturbation is an immoral addiction and a source of real mental anguish that comes to a person trying to live a wholesome moral life.
We can not separate a choice for indulging in sensual pleasure of a sexual nature from one’s conscience, or intellectual (spiritual ) life. One affects the other. If feelings for sexual pleasure are in control apart from the rational, intellectual nature of man then man’s acts are reduced to that of the animal characteristics of his nature. If this is the case, then man will suffer a spiritual (intellectual ) immaturity that will make him vulnerable to his passions, and his rational control will be weak. A bad ir- rational (Moral) habit repeated is called a vice. A vice counters what is objectively conducive to the well-being of man, his happiness, and it has it’s negative consequences, desease, STD, HIV, Siphlis, etc. These acts will definitely harm man. There are negative psychological consequences of such acts. there are people who practice Hedonism, that actually believe they have a moral obligation to satisfy every sensual pleasure, I imagine to attain happiness. Their lives appear so fruitless, and unfulfilling, Some have referred to them as “The Walking Dead” because they look for happiness in all the wrong places, it doesn’t lie in sensual pleasure which is transient and when disordered is fruitless.

 

[madtom]

It’s hardly a very good example when we both agree that it was stealing and that it would be morally wrong. And it’s no good saying that you don’t believe no harm was done. We are not looking at what people believe (although I strongly suspect that is the only basis for your argument: ‘the church says it’s wrong therefore it must be wrong’) but rather some concrete evidence that you are right in what you say.

I think that if I had a shop and I saw someone take some candy without paying, however small the loss would be, I’d be collaring the guy and maybe threaten to call the police. Very obviously some harm is being committed here.

If you suggest that it wouldn’t be stealing if he didn’t know then ask yourself what he would do if you did tell him. If you (wait for it) presented him with the evidence.

That’s precisely what I am asking you to do in the case of the couple having sex outside marriage. It’s absolutely no good at all to simply say that they wouldn’t or couldn’t know what harm was being done. To stop them doing it, to convince them that they are wrong (and to convince me), you need to provide them with the evidence of what has or is likely to occur that they will accept as being harmful.

so something is only wrong if it’s illegal? come on now. I have to prove to you what is harmful about pre-marital sex, but you don’t have to prove to me what was harmful about stealing the candy bar? and don’t tell me the 10 cent loss in profit. that’s not good enough. I already explained how one could reasonably come to the conclusion that no harm was done. in fact the owner of the store once joked that he knew employees stole candy from him. but as long is was petty stuff and we were happy employees, he felt better about paying us minimum wage. so I can actually factually tell you that no harm was done. If you want to ignore that so you don’t have to address it, then so be it. and how can you say we are not dealing with what people believe? your whole argument is predicated on your belief that pre-marital sex isn’t wrong.