Philosophical argument against masturbation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a person has very strong urges to engage in “M” and never give into temptation, could that discomfort be offered up as penance?
 
Maranatha said:
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.
Click to expand...
When maried men & woman lay down together, they aren`t always thinking about making a baby , thats for sure
 
Eucharisted said:
Masturbation is wrong because sex is suppose to be procreative and unitive, neither of which masturbation is. This is in light of reason.
Click to expand...
You have made 2 assumptions here.
  1. sex is supposed to be unitive.
  2. Sex is supposed to be procreative.
We can “reason” through any argument we want. The assumptions made at the start of the argument are the issue.

If we look toward the animal kingdom, namely our closest relatives, we see unity with sex.

IE, sex with males on males, females on females, males and females of all ages having sex to create a social bond between different groups of primates.

If this is what nature show’s us, then who are we…do deny the sexual orgy? Read up on Bonobos, for sexual behaviour amongst primates(which we are one of, and exhibit this exact same behaviour socially, when given the choice)

The other issue, is that sex is “supposed” to be pro-creative. Nature has already shown us that sex is used to control others, that it is used to abuse others and show dominance over others, such as a male dog, attempting to show dominance by humping other male dog.

It seems that people see the end result of sex as being children. That is not alway’s the case, and nature being the extremely efficent machine that it is, alway’s uses powerful concepts, for multiple purposes. A result of sex is children. The purpose of sex, is multi-faceted. That is what nature shows us.

The natural Law supported by the church, seems to be fairly ignorant of these new understandings. One must forgive them though, for they did not know what they were doing )
 
fide said:
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.
Click to expand...
Masturbation is masturbation & Intercourse is intercourse
 
I think masturbation is normal & sometimes necessary, I think there are very few people who dont indulge . I am catholic, so If i do It i will confess it cause the church says its a sin, But I personally dont think it is, I also kind of believe that unmarried adults, not teens etc , need sex in their lives too as long as its responsible sex.A woman I know belonged to the singles group at my church, she was the head of it, she & another member of the singles group became an item, & she was braging to my sister , what great sex he was, I think its very hard for sexual beings to have perfect control over the sex libido
 
Pete said:
Not commonly but it is possible.

No, but I do assert that it is possible to masturbate without the intention of pursuing any of these ends.
Do you deny then that it is possible to masturbate without a longing for intimacy with another person?
Click to expand...
Many things are possible, but contrary to sound philosophical reasoning. It is possible to eat pencils, but this proves nothing. The fact that so few (if any) rational human beings eat pencils does not prove that it is legitimate to use the mouth for purposes other than eating or talking. Legitimate use (according to natural law) is demonstrated by the common behavior of rational, mature persons - is it not?

Or, what is your criteria for normalcy? Is it whatever is possible? If so you can rationalize almost any behavior. You may, however, only be demonstrating aberrations and perversions - which certainly are “possible,” and provide no justification. Is this your aim?

Masturbation is “possible”. This proves nothing. If immorality were impossible, it would not be discussed at all.
 
Dameedna said:
If we look toward the animal kingdom, namely our closest relatives, we see unity with sex.

IE, sex with males on males, females on females, males and females of all ages having sex to create a social bond between different groups of primates.

If this is what nature show’s us, then who are we…do deny the sexual orgy?
Click to expand...
This presents a sort of naturalistic ethics, I admit. However, natural law theory traditionally does not derive its principles from the world of “nature,” as such, but specifically from human nature. Just because other animals do one thing or another does not make it a part of human nature, nor ethical for humans, nor “natural” for humans.

As an aside: I am pretty sure this is the longest I’ve ever been involved in a discussion on the thread topic. 🤓
 
cpayne said:
This presents a sort of naturalistic ethics, I admit. However, natural law theory traditionally does not derive its principles from the world of “nature,” as such, but specifically from human nature. Just because other animals do one thing or another does not make it a part of human nature, nor ethical for humans, nor “natural” for humans.
Click to expand...
The problem then comes down to, what is human nature and what is best for it.

Sex, is a primary bonding mechanism for a male. This can be shown to a degree with current understanding of our biology.

To a human couple, if they are not able to have sex DUE to certain reason(such as miscarriage will cause death), then they are actually denying one of the primary bonding mechanisms for the male toward the female.

IE, to not allow sterilization of the male or female so they can continue to have sex, negates the natural meaning of sex for the male. To negate sterilization as being un-natural, is to negate the tool-making and problem solving capacity of the human nature.

Now I’m not male. I’m actually female, but I’ve had very lengthy discussions about this(and subsequently read what I could).

I think, it is actually very harmful to human relationships to deny them sexual endeavours. If we can solve this, with our supposedly “god given talents” via problem solving sterlilization, then how do you make a choice, between right and wrong?

You are saying God, does not want you to solve the issue, even though you can. God wants you to lose the primary bonding mechanism he gave you through your biology by choosing abstinance. You are to attempt to remain as close as a sexually active couples without a primary bonding mechanism, and if you don’t you sin. This is your particular trial. You must just accept this, and not an alternative.

Is this God?
As an aside: I am pretty sure this is the longest I’ve ever been involved in a discussion on the thread topic. 🤓
Click to expand...
hehe…perhaps it holds some …ahem…particular interest to you? 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top