Philosophical argument against masturbation

[Chris_LaRock]

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

If a person has very strong urges to engage in “M” and never give into temptation, could that discomfort be offered up as penance?

 

[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.

Hello Pete - I offered a brief explanation that has been ignored or overlooked so far. I meant a serious answer, so I hope to hear your response. I wrote:

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.

Did you not respond because you do not see that masturbation is a deceit, a simulation? Or because you do not agree that a lie is bad? Or why? In our time, fantasy and “virtual reality” and pretend and video games and so on have put simulation into many homes and minds. Do you see something a bit “off” in this cultural trend? Especially in dealing with an act (sexuality) so intimately related to love, a matter at the very core of the human person, yet in an untruthful way?

fide

 

[Pete_1]

Hello Pete - I offered a brief explanation that has been ignored or overlooked so far. I meant a serious answer, so I hope to hear your response. I wrote:

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.

Did you not respond because you do not see that masturbation is a deceit, a simulation? Or because you do not agree that a lie is bad? Or why? In our time, fantasy and “virtual reality” and pretend and video games and so on have put simulation into many homes and minds. Do you see something a bit “off” in this cultural trend? Especially in dealing with an act (sexuality) so intimately related to love, a matter at the very core of the human person, yet in an untruthful way?

fide

In what way is masturbation deceit? One could simply say that one desires the pleasure inherent to the sexual act and one is masturbating in order to achieve this end. Are you saying that one desires something more than pleasure in the act of masturbation?

To say that one desires ‘love’, intimacy or some form of ‘communication’ when one masturbates, which one presumably lies to oneself about will require more evidence than a simple assertion.

 

[cpayne]

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

They are amoral, of course, just as our body is entirely amoral. What we choose to DO with our organs / body is moral.

 

[cpayne]

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.

This caught me off guard a bit. What is that last example supposed to be?

 

[Pete_1]

They are amoral, of course, just as our body is entirely amoral. What we choose to DO with our organs / body is moral.

I think you must accept that the traditional ‘perverted faculty’ is unsound i.e the view that one must not use the sexual organs for something contrary to their purpose. I will phrase my objection once more.

1.) The purpose of the mouth is not for holding pencils.
1a.) Holding pencils in the mouth is contrary to the purpose of the mouth

2.) It is not immoral to hold a pencil in my mouth

Thus it is not intrinsically immoral to use a body parts for an end contrary to the purpose of the part.

Thus we are left with the question what differentiates the use of the sexual organs from other organs such as the mouth or ears.

 

[passus]

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.

So Aristotle, himself, is the source of natural law?

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.

On what grounds?

As would most respectable Catholic moralists.

Name some of them.

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

1. Did I even say that?
2. Because we know that God exists.
3. Because philosophy and theology go hand in hand.
4. Because this is a Catholic board; what do you expect?

This caught me off guard a bit. What is that last example supposed to be?

I believe that’s supposed to say “pencils.”

 

[Pete_1]

This caught me off guard a bit. What is that last example supposed to be?

I am a little confused also. Are you defining procreation as a basic human good or a natural end. If you define it as a natural end please explain how you avoid the naturalistic fallacy. If you define it is a basic human good how do you defend this view?

 

[Pete_1]

So Aristotle, himself, is the source of natural law?

I am not sure, but I do know that natural law is not at all based on Christianity and was formulated by Aristotle long before Aquinas used it as a basis for Catholic morality.

Name some of them.

All of them! That is the premise of natural law a source of morality independent of God. It states that morality can be derived from human nature.

Here:

“Our knowledge of the law: Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the moral law is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[JP2Admirer]

I am not sure, but I do know that natural law is not at all based on Christianity and was formulated by Aristotle long before Aquinas used it as a basis for Catholic morality.

All of them! That is the premise of natural law a source of morality independent of God. It states that morality can be derived from human nature.

Here:

“Our knowledge of the law: Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the moral law is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Aristotle mentions natural justice in the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics as that which holds good always and everywhere.

I actually think that Aquinas, who lays it out best, took a lot of his precepts from Cicero’s On Duty.

 

[apromisemade]

For me personally, all I need to do is listen to all the women whos husbands masturbate and look at pornography who say they feel like it is basically committing adultery. To them, it’s like their husbands are telling them “You’re not good enough for me”

 

[fide]

In what way is masturbation deceit? One could simply say that one desires the pleasure inherent to the sexual act and one is masturbating in order to achieve this end. Are you saying that one desires something more than pleasure in the act of masturbation?

To say that one desires ‘love’, intimacy or some form of ‘communication’ when one masturbates, which one presumably lies to oneself about will require more evidence than a simple assertion.

The only evidence for such a philosophical discussion is interior. Do you claim that commonly people masturbate with no visual images of some desirable person with whom they imagine sexual pleasure? And conversely, do you claim that people seeking sexual pleasure with other persons, do so with no reference to the sexual attractiveness of the other person - rather, they desire nothing at all but the physical pleasure? If so, it seems that ugly and old prostitutes, of whatever gender, and electronic sex toys would be of equal desirability as means of this individualistic pleasure. Do you propose this?

I think the whole pornographic industry disproves your thesis. It is graphic for a reason.

 

[cpayne]

I am a little confused also. Are you defining procreation as a basic human good or a natural end. If you define it as a natural end please explain how you avoid the naturalistic fallacy. If you define it is a basic human good how do you defend this view?

Re the confusion: it was the spelling of pencils. Your next post made it clear.

Natural law theory avoids the naturalistic fallacy by arguing from what a human* is *in both the human’s theoretical and practical intellect. What a human is also entails some of the basic human goods and natural ends–what humans ought to do. For example, procreation / family are a basic human good because humans are naturally social, and since procreation is the natural end of the sexual act, the sexual act in itself is good. What humans do with the sexual act may itself be wrongful, just as not all human families are good families.

What a car is entails that it ought to carry passengers. If it cannot carry passengers, it is not a good car. What a human sexual act is entails that it ought to correspond to that which could possibly lead to procreation. Because procreation brings about babies, this also entails that sexual acts ought to happen between two humans, of the opposite sex, and (for the sake of the possible procreation) within a marriage.

The naturalistic fallacy really ought to be retired by now. As a noted Aristotelian pointed out a few years back, once we see what* is *good, we also see that we ought to live by it. (This is the function of the practical intellect mentioned above.)

 

[Pete_1]

Re the confusion: it was the spelling of pencils. Your next post made it clear.

Natural law theory avoids the naturalistic fallacy by arguing from what a human* is *in both the human’s theoretical and practical intellect. What a human is also entails some of the basic human goods and natural ends–what humans ought to do. For example, procreation / family are a basic human good because humans are naturally social, and since procreation is the natural end of the sexual act, the sexual act in itself is good. What humans do with the sexual act may itself be wrongful, just as not all human families are good families.

What a car is entails that it ought to carry passengers. If it cannot carry passengers, it is not a good car. What a human sexual act is entails that it ought to correspond to that which could possibly lead to procreation. Because procreation brings about babies, this also entails that sexual acts ought to happen between two humans, of the opposite sex, and (for the sake of the possible procreation) within a marriage.

I could simply deny that a sexual act is not good if it is not ordered towards procreation.

I assert, for the sake of argument that the sexual act potentially produces many goods: pleasure, friendship, unity, procreation and that the sexual act is good if at least one of these ‘goods’ are present in the act.

Thus as pleasure is a potential good produced by the sexual act the sexual act may be pursued for the sake of pleasure alone. You cannot be seriously asserting that procreation is the only good end of the sexual act.

If you assert that there are many good ends that may be pursued via the sexual act, for example unity, pleasure. Why cannot one choose to pursue one good and not the others?

The naturalistic fallacy really ought to be retired by now. As a noted Aristotelian pointed out a few years back, once we see what* is *good, we also see that we ought to live by it. (This is the function of the practical intellect mentioned above.)

Agreed.

 

[rachah]

This caught me off guard a bit. What is that last example supposed to be?

How funny-I was perplexed myself :hey_bud:

 

[Pete_1]

The only evidence for such a philosophical discussion is interior. Do you claim that commonly people masturbate with no visual images of some desirable person with whom they imagine sexual pleasure?

Not commonly but it is possible.

And conversely, do you claim that people seeking sexual pleasure with other persons, do so with no reference to the sexual attractiveness of the other person - rather, they desire nothing at all but the physical pleasure? If so, it seems that ugly and old prostitutes, of whatever gender, and electronic sex toys would be of equal desirability as means of this individualistic pleasure. Do you propose this?

No, but I do assert that it is possible to masturbate without the intention of pursuing any of these ends.

I think the whole pornographic industry disproves your thesis. It is graphic for a reason.

Do you deny then that it is possible to masturbate without a longing for intimacy with another person?

 

[cpayne]

You cannot be seriously asserting that procreation is the only good end of the sexual act.

If you assert that there are many good ends that may be pursued via the sexual act, for example unity, pleasure. Why cannot one choose to pursue one good and not the others?

I agree that procreation is not the only good resulting from the sexual act. However, it is the primary natural end. The other goods which also result are derivative in nature. Once the primary end is denied or frustrated, the other goods begin to lose their goodness as well. As evidence, I would present our sex-obsessed, sex-saturated, yet never satisfied and perpetually unhappy culture.

 

[cpayne]

Do you deny then that it is possible to masturbate without a longing for intimacy with another person?

Who said anything about intimacy? Most of the time we’re dealing with objectification, not actual desire for intimacy.

(IMHO.)

 

[Pete_1]

Who said anything about intimacy? Most of the time we’re dealing with objectification, not actual desire for intimacy.

(IMHO.)

What do you mean when you say objectification? And why is this present in masturbation?

 

[Pete_1]

I agree that procreation is not the only good resulting from the sexual act. However, it is the primary natural end. The other goods which also result are derivative in nature. Once the primary end is denied or frustrated, the other goods begin to lose their goodness as well. As evidence, I would present our sex-obsessed, sex-saturated, yet never satisfied and perpetually unhappy culture.

It seems unlikley that all the goods present in the sexual act derive their ‘goodness’ from the procreative nature of the act. People have sex all the time without the intention of procreation.

It seems most likley that the goods present in the sexual act derive their goodness independently of one another. For example can a sexual act between sterile people ever be ‘good’? If so from where does the act derive its goodness?

I remember reading an argument by Pope John Paul II who contended that the unitive nature of the act was dependent on the procreative, thus pursuing the unitive nature of the act independently of the procreative constitutes ‘objectification’ - whatever that means. But the whole argument seems very farfetched.