Philosophical argument against masturbation

[Pete_1]

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

This seems irrelevant, the desire is still the same, sex without procreation. One is still activley trying to prevent reproduction.

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.

The natural end of the genitals are of course reproduction, but the natural ends of the ears are hearing, does this mean it is wrong for me to wear ear plugs?

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.

How?

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

Masturbation temporarily frustrates the natural end of reproduction.

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.

I was trying to establish that acting against a natural end is not intrinsically immoral.

I would also argue that acting against a basic good e.g reproduction or friendship is also not intrinsically immoral.

Is it wrong for a man to cease to be friends with another?

 

[Pete_1]

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.

Thanks. I will get round to reading that at some point. But I don’t think Aristotle’s argument will be a specific enough, if it is as you say just discussing the general virtue of temperence.

One question, if a man masturbates once in his lifetime how can this be any form of excess?

 

[JP2Admirer]

Thanks. I will get round to reading that at some point. But I don’t think Aristotle’s argument will be a specific enough, if it is as you say just discussing the general virtue of temperence.

One question, if a man masturbates once in his lifetime how can this be any form of excess?

That question was why I said that someone could say that masturbation could be okay given virtue theory and its maintaining of the doctrine of the mean. I tend to think that masturbation falls in the category of implicitly wicked acts based on its defintion (i.e. by definition it is contrary to temperance.)

You may also want to reference Aquinas in ST I-II q.94 a,2, where he lays out the precepts of the natural law. One of those precepts is “procreation and education of offspring.” Masturbation is contrary to “procreation” and undermines the telos of human sexual activity, which is communion with a partner and procreation. (This actually violates another of the precepts of the natural law, the rational one, which is that human beings by nature seek to live in society.)

Also, in ST. I-II q. 6 a.8 Aquinas talks about different categories of ignorance and what constitutes involuntariness. I think when you are talking about masturbation, or any sin, voluntariness matters, that is, circumstances make a difference as to the morality of the act.

The problem with modernity is that post-Kant we are looking for a ‘categorical imperative’ or a law that holds in all ethical situations. I think we need to follow Aristotle’s dictum that we ought not seek for the same certitude in all sciences: ethics is one of those sciences that deals with purely contingent matters, and so circumstances always matter. If you are looking for that one “gotcha” argument, you are not going to find it because circumstances always matter. Is a boy masturbating because he is forced to? Is he masturbating with full knowledge that it is wrong? etc.

The Church recognizes this and you will see if you look up masturbation in the CCC, it calls it intrinsically disordered, but also takes into account knowledge and voluntariness.

The beauty, and perhaps the downfall, of virtue ethics is that they are flexible enough for circumstance, but they also suggest that there is a right way to act in all situations, (hence no relativism), but that the right way requires prudence, not some arbitrarily imposed law.

This is why I think the best argument against masturbation is virtue theory, and I think that masturbation would be one of those words that is defined in a vicious way. As such, it cannot be a virtuous act. Hope this helps.

 

[Michael_Prophet]

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 is not necessarily self indulgent since it is necessary.

CORRECT
This is also true of homosexual acts…
Sometimes the Church beats around the bush to much with words about the sacredness of sex and such. ( not that it’s not)
It’s plain and simple IT IS SELFISH.
Mike

 

[cpayne]

I was trying to establish that acting against a natural end is not intrinsically immoral.

I would also argue that acting against a basic good e.g reproduction or friendship is also not intrinsically immoral.

Is it wrong for a man to cease to be friends with another?

Your initial example does not establish what you are trying to establish. Your example involved a TEMPORARY loss of hearing IN ORDER TO SAVE A LIFE.

Let’s remove the capitalized parts to bring it back to the natural end of ears, which is hearing. I would argue that yes, it is immoral for someone to deliberately end the natural end of their ears by destroying their hearing. A temporary loss to preserve life is not at all the same thing.

“Is it wrong for a man to cease to be friends with another?” Again, I would ask the purpose. Let’s say the man ceases to be friends with another deliberately but with no good reason; he simply ceases to desire the good of friendship. I would again say yes, there is a moral problem there which is involved with the natural ends of humanity.

If the example is encompassed with other qualifications (let’s say, “Is it okay to end friendship because the friendship begins to cause spiritual or marital or some other harm?”), then there are other natural ends to consider, and we could come to a different conclusion.

But in general: Yes it is wrong to damage the natural end of hearing for no good reason; yes it is wrong to end the natural good of friendship for no good reason. The reason is that acting against a natural end for no overriding reason is intrinsically immoral.

 

[Et_Cetera]

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.

You view masturbation as the excess of the virtue of temperance. Aristotle did not; I have a copy of Nicomachean Ethics right here near my desk. To some, masturbation could be likened to occasional drinking in that it is a pleasurable act in moderation. Aristotle did not condemn alcohol. Similarly, one can become addicted to alcohol just as one can become addicted to masturbation. However, the possibility of addiction not make the act inherently wrong.

 

[Pete_1]

Your initial example does not establish what you are trying to establish. Your example involved a TEMPORARY loss of hearing IN ORDER TO SAVE A LIFE.

Let’s remove the capitalized parts to bring it back to the natural end of ears, which is hearing. I would argue that yes, it is immoral for someone to deliberately end the natural end of their ears by destroying their hearing. A temporary loss to preserve life is not at all the same thing.

Not so, I was trying to establish that acting against a natural end is not *intrinsically evil. The Church teaches that acting against the natural end of reproduction is intrinsically *evil. Thus, one could not masturbate in order to save a life.

“Is it wrong for a man to cease to be friends with another?” Again, I would ask the purpose. Let’s say the man ceases to be friends with another deliberately but with no good reason; he simply ceases to desire the good of friendship. I would again say yes, there is a moral problem there which is involved with the natural ends of humanity.

If the example is encompassed with other qualifications (let’s say, “Is it okay to end friendship because the friendship begins to cause spiritual or marital or some other harm?”), then there are other natural ends to consider, and we could come to a different conclusion.

But in general: Yes it is wrong to damage the natural end of hearing for no good reason; yes it is wrong to end the natural good of friendship for no good reason. The reason is that acting against a natural end for no overriding reason is intrinsically immoral.

So would it be legitimate to masturbate in order to save a life? One is after all (and according to your logic) acting against a natural end for an overiding good reason. The Church teaches that one may not.

 

[cpayne]

So would it be legitimate to masturbate in order to save a life? One is after all (and according to your logic) acting against a natural end for an overiding good reason. The Church teaches that one may not.

You have to admit these are mighty strange examples. However, I will go along. In what way does the saving of the life follow directly from the action? In what way are they connected? Is someone holding a gun on me and saying, “Do this or I will kill this guy over here?”

When I wrote of “acting against a natural end for an overriding good reason,” here’s an example: To remove a brain tumor ending my life, the doctors have to destroy the hearing in my ears. The operation itself is indifferent in nature, but the end is good; although it damages a natural end, it is not intended to damage the natural end.

 

[Dameedna]

Sigh…

I really need to chat to my friend about this and get some catholic literature on it.

He is a catholic educator, and he is a stickler for the rules, and tends to hob-nob with the big-wigs if you get my meaning.

I once told him, how ridiculous this rule on masturbation as a sin was, and he told me in no uncertain terms, that it wasn’t a sin. It has never been a sin, and that is not official catholic doctrine.

The problem is in how the doctrine has been taught and interpreted.

I really will have to track this down because I see it so often on this forums. I don’t “believe” my friends faith, but he is so high up the charts of your system, that he is known to your Pope and has had his “literature” studied by the Pope. I really doubt, he is mistaken in his understanding of the doctrine. I’ll have to get more information.

All I will say now though, is find out for yourself. Go all the way to the top. Get to the truth of the matter, and before you discuss the “philosophy” , find out…wether it is actually the doctrine.

It seems to a bit of a falsehood. From what I remember, it wasn’t the “act” that was the problem. It was wether or not it stopped you from following through on the act of making love to your partner. IE, if you prefered to masturbate rather than give yourself to your hunny, then you need to rethink the masturbation.

He’s been offline for a month, hopefully I can track him down before this thread dies.

 

[cpayne]

He’s been offline for a month, hopefully I can track him down before this thread dies.

Thank you. In the meantime, I believe I will :coffeeread: for a day or two. God bless, everyone!

 

[Dameedna]

Thank you. In the meantime, I believe I will :coffeeread: for a day or two. God bless, everyone!

hehe. cheers to you to. I really will try and track him down, just give me some time. He was so adamant about this(and very angry about what people were being taught incorrectly). He really surprised me.

He and I have had some wonderfully firey debates He’s still my bud though, the big old believer goof ball that he is We are slowly learning how not to totally ostracize those we vehnemantly disagree with

 

[JP2Admirer]

You view masturbation as the excess of the virtue of temperance. Aristotle did not; I have a copy of Nicomachean Ethics right here near my desk. To some, masturbation could be likened to occasional drinking in that it is a pleasurable act in moderation. Aristotle did not condemn alcohol. Similarly, one can become addicted to alcohol just as one can become addicted to masturbation. However, the possibility of addiction not make the act inherently wrong.

Etc…

Read the last line of the 1st paragraph that you quoted me on. What you are getting at is exactly what I was saying, or what I meant to say. Someone could say that occasional masturbation was okay because it was not over-indulgent.

Personally, I don’t think that is the case. By bringing in alcohol, you are changing the essence of the argument. Masturbation and alcohol are two totally different things. While Aristotle may have felt that the occasional drinking of alcohol was okay because it exercised the mean and wasn’t a bad habit (a permanent disposition), it still doesn’t change my argument. I know in Aristotle’s day, symposiums were the norm for the elite, so he probably wouldn’t have viewed occasional drunkeness as a bad thing. That, however, may have colored his reasoning. I would tend to think that getting drunk is an act of over-indulgence, and as such, contrary to virtue. (As a non-drinking alcoholic I think I can speak pretty authoritatively on drunkeness, even for a single time, is an act of over indulgence.) Now the occasional glass of wine, even if it be daily, I would argue, is maintaining the mean. How Aristotle felt about this, I think, is a little presumptuous for any of us to say.

The consumption of alcohol is different from masturbation, in my opinion. As I stated before, masturbation for me, because of its definition (self-pleasure) is an act, even if it be only one time, of over-indulgence. If we want to keep up the alcohol analogy, we’ll have to say that masturbation is like drunkeness, not like drinking.

I believe it’s at the end of either book 1 or book 2 where he talks about acts that cannot have a mean because they are vicious in themselves, and this is where I would put masturbation. I am not claiming any authority for my opinion, or that this was Aristotle’s opinion. However, I think there is genuinely rational criteria that place masturbation in a category as intrinsically contrary to virtue. Aristotle mentions adultery and murder as types of acts that have no mean, I think masturbation could also be put in that class and I think there are good reasons for doing so. That’s all I am saying.

 

[Pete_1]

You have to admit these are mighty strange examples. However, I will go along. In what way does the saving of the life follow directly from the action? In what way are they connected? Is someone holding a gun on me and saying, “Do this or I will kill this guy over here?”

When I wrote of “acting against a natural end for an overriding good reason,” here’s an example: To remove a brain tumor ending my life, the doctors have to destroy the hearing in my ears. The operation itself is indifferent in nature, but the end is good; although it damages a natural end, it is not intended to damage the natural end.

I don’t want to get into the whole double effect debate as I will lose. My argument is simply this, it is blatently obvious that it is not always wrong ot act against a natural end or use the body for something contrary to its purpose: We do it all the time for example we wear ear plugs and cut our hair and nails, balance glasses on our ears and hold penics in our mouths.

Furthermore it seems it is impossible to provide justification for the principle ‘one should never act against the body’s natural ends’. Even Finnis and George agree that the so called ‘perverted faculty’ argument is unsound. Their argument is based on reproduction as a human good, not a natural end. Yet in my opinion their argument still seems deeply flawed, George and Finnis define procreation as a basic human good (this seems plausible) which must never be directly acted against (this seems deeply unreasonable).

Arguments based on human dignity are more plausible, but I fail to see the force of George’s argument.

George argues that masturbation is contrary to human dignity by making the choosing self the quasi-slave of the experiencing self - thus the body is treat as a means for the satisfaction of the experiencing self. I am not sure what George is getting at here and it seems unreasonable to suggest ‘using’ the body for the sake of pleasure is wrong, so long as the one treats oneself as an end at the same time - which seems possible in masturbation.

 

[passus]

Furthermore it seems it is impossible to provide justification for the principle ‘one should never act against the body’s natural ends’.

Even when the means and end are bound up in morals?

The function of the ears is amoral. There is no natural law of ethics or morality which dictates the function of the ears and so if one wants to impede that function, there is no moral violation in doing so.

The same doesn’t go for the body’s sexual organs or the natural human means to procreation.

It would seem this particular argument (the one I quoted) applies in some cases–but not all.

 

[Pete_1]

Even when the means and end are bound up in morals?

The function of the ears is amoral. There is no natural law of ethics or morality which dictates the function of the ears and so if one wants to impede that function, there is no moral violation in doing so.

The same doesn’t go for the body’s sexual organs or the natural human means to procreation.

Why not? What if I assert, for the sake of argument that the sexual organs are in-fact amoral.

 

[passus]

Why not?

Because unlike the function of the ears or hearing, there is a definite morality associated with these sexual means and ends–a God-ordained morality.

 

[Pete_1]

Because unlike the function of the ears or hearing, there is a definite morality associated with these sexual means and ends–a God-ordained morality.

If you bring God into the debate you are left only with a theological argument, not a philosophical one. Even Catholic natural lawyers asset that morality is not dependent on God.

 

[passus]

If you bring God into the debate you are left only with a theological argument, not a philosophical one. Even Catholic natural lawyers asset that morality is not dependent on God.

Uh, who are these lawyers? *

All* morality is central to God because He is the ultimate source of the governance from which anyone could possibly even begin to try to develop some kind of understanding of natural law without Him. No matter how you look at it, the ethicist will always be led back to God.

Also, theology and philosophy are by no means opposed to each other. It has been said that philosophy is the “handmaiden” of theology by which theology sees its exploration and application.

 

[Pete_1]

Uh, who are these lawyers? *

All* morality is central to God because He is the ultimate source of the governance from which anyone could possibly even begin to try to develop some kind of understanding of natural law without Him. No matter how you look at it, the ethicist will always be led back to God.

Also, theology and philosophy are by no means opposed to each other. It has been said that philosophy is the “handmaiden” of theology by which theology sees its exploration and application.

Natural lawyers are philosophers who specialise in natural law; the ‘official’ Catholic moral theory. Natural law is not based upon God, but a theory of basic human goods developed by Aristotle. I deny that morality is based upon God and if your argument against masturbation is merely theological i.e it requires faith in any way, I reject it. As would most respectable Catholic moralists.

You cannot simply say that masturbation is wrong because ‘God says so’ why should I believe you?

 

[Eucharisted]

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.

Masturbation is wrong because sex is suppose to be procreative and unitive, neither of which masturbation is. This is in light of reason.