So, when experienced in private, are these types of fantasies moral? — T Clark

I bet if you put that question to a poll, nearly everyone aged less than about 50 would say 'no problem'. Crusty conservatives, including myself, would not agree. There was a similar case in the US about a decade ago, concerning simulated child pornography; the case was whether, as the imagery was simulated and no actual children were involved, ought it be banned. I *think* the original judgement was that it ought not to be banned. But then, pornography of all kinds is more or less freely available to anyone nowadays. Libertarians will see this as a blow for freedom, conservatives as part of the dissolution of Western culture.

So, when experienced in private, are these types of fantasies moral? Ethical? — T Clark

Morality involves judgement, who will judge you? You could answer "myself", but do you really control what happens in your imagination?
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas is the saying. I think that as long as your thoughts are 100% private them no one, not even yourself should need to judge them. Being fantasies they have no realistic value.
Imagine day dreaming of solving all of your financial problems by robing a bank. You dream out all of the plans, the execution of it and then an image of someone getting shot jumps into your dream. Did you really intend for that to happen?

I bet if you put that question to a poll, — Wayfarer

I should have. I didn't even think of it.

the case was whether, as the imagery was simulated and no actual children were involved, — Wayfarer

That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, although I think pornography is more complicated. Making that type of thing publically available and acceptable, even if it wouldn't lead to dangerous behavior (which is open to question), would probably set a tone that would make the most vulnerable people feel threatened. That to me is a clear reason to consider it morally wrong. That's why I questioned whether we should include pornography in the discussion. Now that I think of it though, having pornography to compare fantasy with may be helpful.

I think that as long as your thoughts are 100% private them no one, not even yourself should need to judge them. Being fantasies they have no realistic value. — Sir2u

I think that's the heart of the question. I'm in general pretty comfortable with my internal life. Whatever goes on there, I lead what I consider an honorable life. I try to treat people with respect and protect vulnerable people. I've never let my fantasies out of my head except in two situations 1) As part of a sexual relationship and 2) In conversation with one friend with whom I discuss sexual issues in a non-prurient way. That can be very liberating.

What would happen if I did make my fantasies more public. I think a lot of people would not want to be around me. I think I would feel the same way if someone I knew did the same thing. That's why I find this issue interesting.

Making that type of thing publically available and acceptable, even if it wouldn't lead to dangerous behavior (which is questionable), would probably set a tone that would make the most vulnerable people feel threatened. — T Clark

Is watching pornography a stimulant or a learning method?
Lots of people say that watching porn makes the people want to copy what they see, but would they watch something that disgusted them.
I am not a fan of watching porn but I am pretty sure that I would not want to watch something that involved violence. So I could not learn about violent sex from it.
Someone with a slightly different way of looking at sex might like a bit of rough sex, but does he/she need porn to learn from.

Kids are something else, many do use porn as a learning resource. But would they really go out and start slapping their young partners around just because they saw it in a porn film? I seriously doubt they would have many opportunities for sex if they tried it.

Is watching pornography a stimulant or a learning method? — Sir2u

I definitely don't think it is a learning method for the great majority of users. In my personal experience, it is a substitute for or source of fantasy. Again, for me the difference between pornography and fantasy is that pornography is public and has implications for people other than the producer and user, even if no one is specifically exploited during it's production.

What would happen if I did make my fantasies more public. I think a lot of people would not want to be around me. — T Clark

That would depend on what the fantasies were, who knows you might even get offers of participation.
But if you started talking about how you would like to find out what sex with a goat was like, then yes I would be the first one out of the door.

That would depend on what the fantasies were, who knows you might even get offers of participation.
But if you started talking about how you would like to find out what sex with a goat was like, then yes I would be the first one out of the door. — Sir2u

Well, of course. I can say this, the discussion I had about my fantasies with my friend had a very strong impact on me. Talking about sex with her is always enlightening. She is one of the most sexual and unflappable people I've ever met. One of the strongest feelings of validation I've ever had was when she told me my fantasies were "interesting." I can't imagine anyone else responding that way. Certainly anyone I know.

The question he raised was whether there is something morally or ethically wrong with sexual fantasy about acts that would be considered immoral. — T Clark

No there isn't. The standard is consenting adults. If myself and one or more likeminded adults content to get together and engage in mutually agreeable behaviors, that is the definition of an ethically permissible state.

Now if two people of legal age pretend to be underage, that's not illegal, immoral, or unethical. Let alone if I have a private fantasy in my brain. Ethics and morals are about what you DO. It's a behavioral standard

Let me give a nonsexual example. Some moron cuts me off on the freeway. For a moment I think, "Man if only I had a machine gun mounted on the roof!" But of course that's just something the mind does, serves up a little irrational revenge fantasy almost as a coping mechanism to defuse some anger. There is never any intent within me to murder someone and of course I take no behavioral actions in furtherance of doing them harm. These days I don't even honk. I drive the California freeways and you don't know who's going to shoot at you for looking crosseyed at them.

But that's an example where my mind, my internal dialog, entertains a fantasy that I have no intention of acting out; and even at the moment I'm having the fantasy it's not real, it's not something I think I' going to do. It's just human nature, a little quirk of the brain. Momentarily imagine violence against someone who annoyed you.

So that's my two cents. Anything at all in your brain, no matter how horrible, is legal, moral, and ethical. That's why by the way I oppose hate crime laws. It's already illegal to hurt people. If you do it while thinking a particular thought, that is nobody's business. You are allowed to think your thoughts. Hate crime laws are literally Orwellian "thought crimes." We're going to punish you for what you think.

No. That's wrong. It's a basic human right to think what you think. It's what you DO that we judge.

No. That's wrong. It's a basic human right to think what you think. It's what you DO that we judge. — fishfry

I don't disagree with anything you said. That's one of the reasons I was annoyed by the guy on the broadcast. He was pretty definitive that fantasies about degrading behavior were immoral or unethical. and to be fair, thinking about shooting the guy who just cut you off, which I do on a regular basis, seems different to me than a fantasy about degrading another person. Obviously, that depends on what your sexual fantasy is.

So, when experienced in private, are these types of fantasies moral? — T Clark

If they are experienced in private then they are neither moral or immoral, the fantasies just "are" and no one is there to judge and even if you did share, I think you would be surprised what others would think you would be surprised to learn about them and their fantasies.

As far as robotic resistance? Or cyber controlled stimulants? I think any of these new tech twists on an old game can really liven things up for the bored married folks, allow intimacy over a long distance without risk to physical being to having a robot resist sexual advances made on it.

I have a feeling that I as a woman, have far less of an issue with the idea of robotic sex since from the age of 21, self pleasure with a battery operated boy friend has always been in and out of the picture.

I am torn. If what counts as a moral action is an action that comes from virtue for example, which is my view, then fantasy immediately seems irrelevant to morality. This is because a virtue is necessarily a character trait. And a fantasy is not a character trait. Having said that, do we really want to say that the person who has rape fantasies is virtuous? Why would a virtuous person have rape fantasies? Going with my gut, I want to say that only a vicious person would have rape fantasies...

For example, perhaps when the "fantasy rapist" is with a partner they are unable to be with the other in authentic solicitude (Heidegger's concept). Their rape fantasy would get in the way of this authentic solicitude, and the other would be reduced to a prop. Their sexual union would be structured around dishonesty. Dishonesty is a vice. Thus rape fantasy is not merely amoral, but indirectly immoral...

What someone thinks about, and feels towards, their actions is 100% ethically relevant!

If indulging in fantasies about immoral sexual acts would make it more likely that one would commit those acts, then I would say that it is immoral to indulge in the fantasies. It would be like an alcoholic buying a bottle of booze and taking it home; he would be more likely to drink booze if there was booze in the house than if there wasn't.

So let's say there are two types of people; people who can indulge in fantasies about immoral sexual acts without this making it more likely that they would commit them, and people who can't. Then the problem is: can you be sure you know which type you are, given that none of us is an unbiased observer of ourselves?

So that's my two cents. Anything at all in your brain, no matter how horrible, is legal, moral, and ethical. That's why by the way I oppose hate crime laws. It's already illegal to hurt people. If you do it while thinking a particular thought, that is nobody's business. You are allowed to think your thoughts. Hate crime laws are literally Orwellian "thought crimes." We're going to punish you for what you think.

No. That's wrong. It's a basic human right to think what you think. It's what you DO that we judge. — fishfry

I share this opinion up to a certain point. But fantasy is also something that one does, and is therefore up to be judged. I can't, for example, not judge someone as sick and immoral who self-pleasures while thinking about raping and murdering a child. Surely you can't either.

If they are experienced in private then they are neither moral or immoral, the fantasies just "are" and no one is there to judge and even if you did share, I think you would be surprised what others would think you would be surprised to learn about them and their fantasies — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I agree, but I'd like to hear what someone with definitive opinions on the other side of the question has ot say.

For example, perhaps when the "fantasy rapist" is with a partner they are unable to be with the other in authentic solicitude (Heidegger's concept). Their rape fantasy would get in the way of this authentic solicitude, and the other would be reduced to a prop. Their sexual union would be structured around dishonesty. Dishonesty is a vice. Thus rape fantasy is not merely amoral, but indirectly immoral... — bloodninja

I think maybe you are getting at what the guy on The Philosopher's Zone was talking about. More broadly, as a person who has lived a deeply internal life, I know it can be a very self-destructive way of living and can cut you off from honest, loving relationships and a satisfying life. Again, I'm not just talking about sexual fantasy. I guess I still don't think that makes it immoral.

Another possible interpretation - If your internal life lays the foundation for your character, which I'm not sure about, it may have a deep impact on your ability to act morally.

If indulging in fantasies about immoral sexual acts would make it more likely that one would commit those acts, then I would say that it is immoral to indulge in the fantasies. It would be like an alcoholic buying a bottle of booze and taking it home; he would be more likely to drink booze if there was booze in the house than if there wasn't.

So let's say there are two types of people; people who can indulge in fantasies about immoral sexual acts without this making it more likely that they would commit them, and people who can't. Then the problem is: can you be sure you know which type you are, given that none of us is an unbiased observer of ourselves? — Herg

Good points. The radio program talked about the likelihood of fantasy leading to action only fleetingly. The speaker wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter, the fantasy is potentially immoral either way.

As for the two types of people argument, I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'd say that being able to judge our intentions, strengths, and weaknesses is at the heart of being a moral person. If we are not qualified to judge the effects of our fantasies, who is. Not sure about that. You've made a good point.

I share this opinion up to a certain point. But fantasy is also something that one does, and is therefore up to be judged. I can't, for example, judge someone as sick and immoral who self-pleasures while thinking about raping and murdering a child. Surely you can't either. — antinatalautist

I think that's the type of example that tests the principle. If others knew about that fantasy, they would not let their children within a mile of the person. And they'd be right.

I think there is something to say about a person feeling weird about some fantasies afterwards, so to make it something to avoid, but one has to wonder if some fantasies are not just an expression of something that is prior to morality. One can be turned on, for example, by many things in a rape fantasy; to hurt, dominate, control, be feared, and whatever. I don't think these are not inhumane things to want to let out in fantasies, even should it involve something quite horrible, as long as one is strong enough to completely lock their expression in this way out of the everyday life (minus the fantasies) and indeed more strongly push them away the stronger the urges are. This fantasy then, as I see it, is just an expression of who-knows-what, with no connection to reality.

Also, as has been mentioned, there might be some people that can't lock them out and fantasies just strengthen the urges, but this doesn't bring them to the moral realm without an actual action. If one actually carries out a disturbing fantasy, then we can say that she shouldn't have fantasied about it, but chances are, she was already on the way to the action due to her weakness before the urge. If one however, say a paedophile, never carries out an action, then she has not done anything wrong, and should maybe even be commended for it. Since the fantasy has not been acted out however, the reality of the urge is, I think, to be questioned. It never found its steps into reality, so maybe what the urge was about was not what is thought to be its end.

And indeed, is any willing of something completely known? We don't know their causes, as is shown by the constant belief in "free will". So any actual decision is based on something irrational, and this irrational I think finds expression in fantasies. There's a lot of taking away in them; they don't necessarily consider people as people with a past, the actual thinker can appear as someone completely different, the imagined visual image is unclear and emphasises again and again that which captures the thinkers attention right now, depending on what his drive right now is. You can, for example, be quite certain that the very unrealistic, idealised portrayal of children in Japanese hentai has quite a few fans that would never actually like to see such things in photos, and so on. Would imagining the drawings be that different from imagining an actual child? I don't think the visible difference would be enormous, nor the difference between other content.

I feel like I'm all over the place, but the point is this: Societal life can be incredibly restrictive, and many aspects of the human nature can't be expressed in it, but are pushed down by force as something bad. To find ways to let these urges out without harm is maybe even a necessity for the society. Moreover, even bypassing into the "wrong" might work as an encouragement for disturbing fantasies, so the real end of the urge from which the fantasy is born is even more unclear. The thing to be judged are the actions and the quality of the person (unfortunately also shown through actions).

I think there is something to say about a person feeling weird about some fantasies afterwards, so to make it something to avoid, but one has to wonder if some fantasies are not just an expression of something that is prior to morality. One can be turned on, for example, by many things in a rape fantasy; to hurt, dominate, control, be feared, and whatever. I don't think these are not inhumane things to want to let out in fantasies, even should it involve something quite horrible, as long as one is strong enough to completely lock their expression in this way out of the everyday life (minus the fantasies) and indeed more strongly push them away the stronger the urges are. This fantasy then, as I see it, is just an expression of who-knows-what, with no connection to reality. — SomXtatis

I think you are being presumptuous here. Many people, men included, have rape fantasies where they are the victims. I will not go into anything more personal here. In a way, that seems more natural to me. It allows someone to avoid the responsibility for their urges.

I feel like I'm all over the place, but the point is this: Societal life can be incredibly restrictive, and many aspects of the human nature can't be expressed in it, but are pushed down by force as something bad. To find ways to let these urges out without harm is maybe even a necessity for the society. Moreover, even bypassing into the "wrong" might work as an encouragement for disturbing fantasies, so the real end of the urge from which the fantasy is born is even more unclear. The thing to be judged are the actions and the quality of the person (unfortunately also shown through actions). — SomXtatis

Good point. You were talking about Japan - from my limited experience, Japanese culture seems much more restrictive than ours and they seem to be comfortable with kinkiness and violence.

True. I considered the fantasy one-sidedly, just listing the aspects that came to mind.

And yeah, Japan is pretty restrictive as far as I can tell, but I think similar effects could happen in a less restrictive environment with a person with stronger drive to that direction. Probably this would involve earlier exposure to this kinkiness in some way, so culture definitely helps in other ways too.

I think that's the type of example that tests the principle. If others knew about that fantasy, they would not let their children within a mile of the person. And they'd be right. — T Clark

Does the fact that a person fantasizes about doing something mean that they would actually do it?
Many have thought about killing themselves, but they don't all do it.
I have fantasized about becoming a super hero, not got around to it yet though.

I agree that someone is probably more disposed toward certain types of behavior if one gets pleasure from them, but between thinking about hurting someone and actually doing it there is a big gap.

I agree that someone is probably more disposed toward certain types of behavior if one gets pleasure from them, but between thinking about hurting someone and actually doing it there is a big gap. — Sir2u

You don't take chances with your children. Also, whether or not they would participate in a particular behavior, the fantasy says something about how that person thinks and sees other people. Actually, maybe it's more that making your fantasies public shows that you are the kind of person who does not understand appropriate human boundaries. I hadn't thought about that. I think it makes a lot of sense. That may be the heart of the matter - no moral judgment for fantasies you keep secret. Moral judgment for those you expose without considering their impact on other people.

Speaking of which - two of my favorite... artists I guess, are Robert Crumb and Louis C.K. Both fill their work with blatantly and intentionally objectionable sexual content that could reasonably be considered misogynistic, although I don't think they are. They bare men's violent and degrading fantasies as an act of art. I find their work funny, moving, humane, and courageous. I think Crumb might agree with that characterization, but I'm pretty sure C.K. would ridicule me.

By the way, one of my favorite movies is "Crumb," a documentary about his life and art. To me, it is a moving demonstration of how a person's life can be saved by their art.

You don't take chances with your children. Also, whether or not they would participate in a particular behavior, the fantasy says something about how that person thinks and sees other people. Actually, maybe it's more that making your fantasies public shows that you are the kind of person who does not understand appropriate human boundaries. I hadn't thought about that. I think it makes a lot of sense. — T Clark

I worry about the ones that say what they think, but how can you worry about the ones that don't?
As I said the ones that do have fantasizes would be more likely to do something than others, but no one knows what goes on in other peoples' heads. Just look at the number of honorable members of the churches get into things that are not very nice.

I don’t plan to go into my fantasies in any detail in this discussion — T Clark

Oh. Rats.

If one believes in an omniscient God from whom nothing can be hidden, the content of one's mind is as open for inspection as ones public acts. Talk about Big Brother!

Isn't there a difference between fantasy and mental planning and rehearsal with the intent of execution? I like to fantasize about winning $100,000,000 in a lottery, but this fantasy isn't organized around buying a lottery ticket. I like to fantasize about designing a city, but I have zero interest in actual urban planning. Sexual fantasies are the same kind of fantasy as winning a lottery: They are not organized around actual performance.

On the other hand, I have thought about, imagined, and rehearsed a long bicycle ride which I intended to do. Mentally rehearsing a particular performance (like pitching a curve ball) seems to improve performance. Rehearsing a flight made by flapping one's arms won't get one off the ground, no matter what. One can still imagine doing it.

Sexual, masturbatory fantasies may be all sorts of things, but they do not lead to enactment. Actual masturbation is on one track, the fantasy is on an altogether different track -- different gauge, different engine, different in all respects.

Fantasies are not acts, and can not be judged as acts. There is no analogy between fantasy and act.

If one believes in an omniscient God from whom nothing can be hidden, the content of one's mind is as open for inspection as ones public acts. Talk about Big Brother! — Bitter Crank

You are old enough to remember what Jimmy Carter said. I think it was before he got elected. He said that he had sinned by "lusting in his heart."

Isn't there is a difference between fantasy and mental planning and rehearsal with the intent of execution?.....Fantasies are not acts, and can not be judged as acts. There is no analogy between fantasy and act. — Bitter Crank

The question I was thinking about when I opened this discussion is whether some fantasy is immoral even if we can be sure it will not lead to immoral action. You say no and I pretty much agree, but I wanted to bash the idea around.

I've enjoyed the discussion.

The question I was thinking about when I opened this discussion is whether some fantasy is immoral even if we can be sure it will not lead to immoral action. — T Clark

Another angle on whether a fantasy can be moral or immoral is whether we choose what we find arousing, or whether it is below the level of choice. I'm not sure how much we choose to fantasize, and how much of what we fantasize about seems to arrive unbidden, rather than be ordered up How much of our minds are we in positive control of? Some, certainly, but not all of it.

The kind of objects we find sexually arousing aren't picked from a menu; it's more that we discover what we find arousing. Some people find sexual satisfaction in being bound, gagged, and whipped (literally). I don't know what accounts for such polymorphous perversity, but if it's not altogether uncommon in behavior, it seems to be de regueur in fantasy.

We fantasize about many things other than sex. A good deal of our fantasy wouldn't bear public examination, either, even if these fantasies are not in the least obscene, immoral, illegal, or contrary to the national interest -- it's just that they are our own, structured for our own amusement or interest, and not intended for anyone else.

You are old enough to remember what Jimmy Carter said. I think it was before he got elected. He said that he had sinned by "lusting in his heart." — T Clark

I find this piece of Christian teaching very troublesome. Equating lustful thoughts with adultery, hateful thoughts with murder, is just too literalist an approach. Intentions matter, certainly, but I prefer a morality that applies to acts, rather than wishful thinking. One might donate a million dollars to an excellent Christian charity solely for the purpose of getting public recognition, glory, admiration, etc. Christians (who would certainly accept the money) would also say that one should give for selfless reasons if one wishes to be good.

But the fact is, the charity got the million dollars, whatever the intention, and that is a good thing.

If there is an all-knowing God, then he will have to sort out our good, bad, ambiguous, conflicted, muddled, indecipherable intentions. Here on earth, we will be doing well if we are merely above average at telling good acts from bad acts.

I'm not sure how much we choose to fantasize, and how much of what we fantasize about seems to arrive unbidden, rather than be ordered up How much of our minds are we in positive control of? Some, certainly, but not all of it. — Bitter Crank

As I wrote back at the beginning of this discussion, when I was young I lived my life internally. That meant that much of my life experience was fantasy. It is a self-destructive way to live. These were not primarily sexual fantasies, especially before I reached puberty. I'm trying to think back and see whether or not I chose what I fantasized about.

I remember some with very detailed, convoluted story lines. I was the protagonist and the story lines were of me being effective, competent, brave, and well-liked - things I was deeply ashamed of not being. The details came from my imagination. It was storytelling. But the motivation was under my control. It was intentional. I was a smart kid. I used my brain to figure out a way to get what I wanted.

It surprises me how well I remember what it felt like more than 50 years ago.

I'll cite Plato here (surprise, surprise)
He's obsessed with censoring the poets in order to remove false notions and acceptance of vice from effecting the young (which I think less than 50 in his definition).
He proposes a interesting idea. If in all media and stories told to children and adults, the characters only use kindness and cooperation and even villains never practice violence would people be violent? Of course we still get angry and do things we regret, but I wonder if violence was never portrayed it might not be emulated except by mistake.
I've always found it odd how openly morally and conservative people can listen to music about violence and promiscuity.
Here's a quick thought experiment. Let's say your are listening to the radio or your iTunes playlist (where you have no control over the songs other than the station) in your car and got into a wreck where you pinned and cannot change the station or turn it off. When the police get to you are they correct in judging your moral character by the song currently playing? If not, then why were you listening to it?

Of course we still get angry and do things we regret, but I wonder if violence was never portrayed it might not be emulated except by mistake. — MysticMonist

People with no access to media of any kind can be violent and immoral. I would guess just as much as people who have books, TV, computers, and cell phones. Not sure about that. People have been talking about the evil effects of TV, radio, comic books, computers, video games, science fiction, pulp novels, theater, movies, .... forever.

Bringing it back to fantasy and your thought experiment. I've been talking about the difference between fantasy that's kept inside vs. that which is exposed to others. Is your thought experiment the same question? Does the fact that someone knows about what goes on inside you matter in terms of it's morality?

I think and hope that the police officers will not care what is playing on my radio.