Philosophical argument against masturbation

[Pete_1]

Can anyone provide me with or recommend reading materials that provide a sound philosophical argument against masturbation, one that is not based on naturalistic fallacies?

I have read arguments by Catholic philosophers such as Robert George and John Finnis, they seems very bad at first glance.

Does anyone have any views on this?

Thanks.

 

[cpayne]

Can anyone provide me with or recommend reading materials that provide a sound philosophical argument against masturbation, one that is not based on naturalistic fallacies?

I have read arguments by Catholic philosophers such as Robert George and John Finnis, they seems very bad at first glance.

Does anyone have any views on this?

Thanks.

Not speaking as an expert on the subject but:

The first problem here, I think, is dealing with what you mean by “naturalistic fallacies.” In most Catholic natural law teaching (George and Finnis, for examples), what something IS definitely has implications for what it OUGHT to do and not do. This is not a naturalistic fallacy if one accurately understands what the IS is. For example, it is not wrong to say, “This car, in its essence as a car, OUGHT to run well and not burn oil.” Because of what the car is, we know what it ought to do.

In the case of humans, one goes with the natural constitution of humans. Not to get too specific, but marital relations lead to certain ordered ends via a pleasurable experience. Masturbation tries to duplicate the pleasurable experience while bypassing the ordered end toward which the pleasurable experience is directed. Because what it IS bypasses its natural end, it OUGHT not be done.

Reading materials on this: I do not know of any specifically.

 

[CSK001]

Hi,

I would suggest you to search about this on internet.

CSK

 

[cpayne]

Hi,

I would suggest you to search about this on internet.

CSK

Well, be careful what you Google, though. :bigyikes:

 

[Pete_1]

Not speaking as an expert on the subject but:

The first problem here, I think, is dealing with what you mean by “naturalistic fallacies.” In most Catholic natural law teaching (George and Finnis, for examples), what something IS definitely has implications for what it OUGHT to do and not do. This is not a naturalistic fallacy if one accurately understands what the IS is. For example, it is not wrong to say, “This car, in its essence as a car, OUGHT to run well and not burn oil.” Because of what the car is, we know what it ought to do.

I can see that the argument works in certain cases e.g that man is a social animal so he ought not to steal as this destroys the ‘good’ of social relations, thus stealing causes harm to man because it prevents him from actualising a certain good.

I cant see how this works for reproduction as masturbation does not prevent one from actualising the good of reproduction. And even if it is granted that one ought always respect the ‘good’ of reproduction it seems strange to advocate NFP when the intent is exactly the same.

It just seems to be the old ‘dont spill your seed argument’ which seems so absurd.

 

[cpayne]

I can see that the argument works in certain cases e.g that man is a social animal so he ought not to steal as this destroys the ‘good’ of social relations, thus stealing causes harm to man because it prevents him from actualising a certain good.

I cant see how this works for reproduction as masturbation does not prevent one from actualising the good of reproduction. And even if it is granted that one ought always respect the ‘good’ of reproduction it seems strange to advocate NFP when the intent is exactly the same.

It just seems to be the old ‘dont spill your seed argument’ which seems so absurd.

I can see your point–I have thought similarly before. However, what I’ve come to see in the CC’s position is that NFP does not actually avoid the “end” of sexual relations, in the sense that it is still open to the possibility or at least is involved in the specific activity which is open to the possibility. (The same would be true in the case of, for example, infertile couples.) Masturbation, however, is not open to that possibility in the same way; it is a very deliberate frustrating of the natural end of sexual activity.

Having said all this, I personally am not overly concerned about the topic. However, the OP asked for a philosophical discussion, so this is it, I guess.

 

[Pete_1]

I can see your point–I have thought similarly before. However, what I’ve come to see in the CC’s position is that NFP does not actually avoid the “end” of sexual relations, in the sense that it is still open to the possibility or at least is involved in the specific activity which is open to the possibility.(The same would be true in the case of, for example, infertile couples.) Masturbation, however, is not open to that possibility in the same way; it is a very deliberate frustrating of the natural end of sexual activity.

Hi, thanks for your reply.

My point is that even if heterosexual intercourse is the natural end of the sexual faculty it does not follow that one ought never to act against this end.

The natural end of the the mouth supposedly is nutrition but it does not follow that one never ought to use the mouth for anything but nutrition.

One must show that masturbation acts against a human good (such as dignity) to show it immoral.

NFP is not open to the possibility of procreation, if it is the chance of procreation is probably as low as using a less effective means of artificial contraception.

I see your point about infertile couples as they cannot deliberately act against the ‘good’ of procreation but it seems that NFP is a question of intent the couple **deliberately **restrict sex to infertile periods which render the procreative act unbecoming. Thus contraception and NFP have exactly the same intent - namely to act against the basic human good of procreation.

 

[passus]

Well, of course one reason that masturbation is gravely sinful is that it frustrates the end of sexual intercourse–which seeks procreation. However, in the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, there is more importance than simply the preservation of the end (procreation) because in some cases, procreation is subjectively impossible. And then what comes of relations?

Marital relations are the most perfect expression of *eros *we know, by which Christ allows us to come to know and share His divine love, agape. In the cleaving of a husband to his wife and a wife to her husband and the freely giving of oneself understood by that, the two become one flesh and share in a level of unity unattained by any other human expression.

Masturbation, being selfish and solitary as it is, frustrates not only the end but the means, which are vastly significant unto themselves.

As for reading material, I would suggest that you read, above all, Pope John Paul the Great’s teachings as they are presented in Theology of the Body. Get a copy of Christopher West’s Introduction to the Theology of the Body to read alongside it. Until that arrives, you should read Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical *Deus Caritas Est *which contains, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful explanations on God’s love as expressed through marital relatons I have ever read.

Those materials primarily address human sexuality and sexual relations. Understanding the sinfulness of masturbation and other offenses to chastity all rely on a primary understanding of the meaning of human sexuality as God created it, coming back to the marriage bed and the fundamentals of the unity between a husband and wife. From there, we can proceed to understand why masturbation, homosexuality, and fornication, to name a few, are so offensive.

God bless!

 

[cpayne]

Dear Passus: Good points. Also, it seems it would be impossible to masturbate without entertaining some sort of mental images which would probably be sinful in themselves.

However, I’m not sure that this is a *philosophical *argument, which was what was specifically requested. It seems my point here would be rather a spiritual or theological point.

 

[Pete_1]

It seems it would be impossible to masturbate without entertaining some sort of mental images which would probably be sinful in themselves.

I am certain that if this is investigated empiricaly the idea will be shown false. But this is irrelevant, I am sure that you would contend that an act of masturbation without lustfull thoughts would still be sinfull.

However, I’m not sure that this is a *philosophical *argument, which was what was specifically requested. It seems my point here would be rather a spiritual or theological point.

I’m sure I will get round to reading those articles at some point, thanks Passus.

Can anyone help me?

 

[cpayne]

Can anyone help me?

I’m sticking with the original answer.

Re objections: Nutrition is not the only natural end of the mouth. However, the natural ends of sex are rather more limited. You said that even if something has a natural end, to act against that end is not always wrong. My question would be, Why is it not always wrong?

 

[Maranatha]

There are two paths in life and each moral choice will take you further down one road or the other. One road is selfish self centered and the other is selfless loving. The first road is the called the way of death. The second is called the way of life.

Masturbation falls in to the selfish category since it is inherently closed. Heterosexual sex that is open to life is inherently selfless since the participants are willing to give up their own lives to support potential offspring.

 

[JP2Admirer]

How about asking good ol’ Aristotle?

Masturbation is an excess and therefore is self-indulgence, which is contrary to the mean of temperance and virtue.

Therefore, it is a vice and as a vice it will never make you happy.

Moral: if you want to be happy, don’t masturbate.

 

[Pete_1]

I’m sticking with the original answer.

How do you answer the NFP objection?

Re objections: Nutrition is not the only natural end of the mouth. However, the natural ends of sex are rather more limited.

The natural ends of the ears are hearing, does this mean it is intrinsically wrong to take a drug that would temporarily deafen me? Even in order to save my life? It seems not.

You said that even if something has a natural end, to act against that end is not always wrong. My question would be, Why is it not always wrong?

Why should it be wrong? It seems ridiculous to suggest that one may never act contrary to the bodies natural ends.

 

[Pete_1]

How about asking good ol’ Aristotle?

Masturbation is an excess and therefore is self-indulgence, which is contrary to the mean of temperance and virtue.

Therefore, it is a vice and as a vice it will never make you happy.

Moral: if you want to be happy, don’t masturbate.

I like virtue ethics but I have not read Aristotle’s argument could you point me to it?

 

[Pete_1]

Masturbation falls in to the selfish category since it is inherently closed.

What do you mean?

Heterosexual sex that is open to life is inherently selfless since the participants are willing to give up their own lives to support potential offspring.

Eating for pleasure is self indulgent, is that wrong?

 

[cpayne]

How do you answer the NFP objection?

Because NFP works with the natural cycle of the body, not contrary to it.

However, part of the philosophical reply deals specifically with the total human nature, not merely the natural physical ends of the body. On the human nature score, I think we’d have to go back to the idea that sexual expression is meant to complement the sexual expression of someone of the opposite sex. To reduce the act to solitary pleasure not only frustrates the physical end of the act, but also its other ends related to the total flourishing of the human person.

The other example (deafening yourself temporarily to save your life) doesn’t seem to relate to the topic under discussion, except insofar as it temporarily frustrates the natural end of hearing, in order to preserve the greater natural end of life itself. I don’t think the topic under discussion aims at some greater natural end beyond itself. No one ever died, as far as I know, from lack of it.

 

[Maranatha]

What do you mean?

By saying that masturbation is closed i meant that the act is inherently directed within toward selfish ends. An open act, in contrast, would entail ends directed toward bringing about joys for others.

Eating for pleasure is self indulgent, is that wrong?

Eating is not necessarily self indulgent since it is necessary.

 

[fide]

Can anyone provide me with or recommend reading materials that provide a sound philosophical argument against masturbation, one that is not based on naturalistic fallacies?

I have read arguments by Catholic philosophers such as Robert George and John Finnis, they seems very bad at first glance.

Does anyone have any views on this?

Thanks.

It seems to me that the key is, this is simulation - it is inherently a counterfeit of something other - and it is the other that is actually desired. The act in isolation is recognized as simulation, as counterfeit, and as inherently a lie. To lie is not good.

 

[JP2Admirer]

I like virtue ethics but I have not read Aristotle’s argument could you point me to it?

Read the third and fourth books of the Nicomachean Ethics (actually, this is one of the most valuable books ever written concerning ethics, so I’d recommend reading the whole thing), as this touches on the specific virtues. Aristotle doesn’t specifically mention masturbation, although he does mention things like murder and adultery, which logically speaking, cannot be virtuous. I think masturbation could be put in that category, although some could use virtue theory to state that occasional masturbation would be okay, if it recognized the mean.

I however, tend to think differently. I think masturbation is the excess of the virtue of temperence (self-indulgence) and actually leads to an excess of this vice. Aristotle, at one point, (I think the end of the second book, perhaps middle of the third) says that actions can become involuntary after a habit has been formed. He likens it to a stone, once it’s been dropped, it cannot be caught again. I think masturbation does just this. It’s the forming of a habit contrary to temperance, and as such, will in the long hall make you intemperate and unhappy.