I never said that sex is inherently necessarily immoral. — Heister Eggcart

But you did ask why "sex isn't necessarily immoral" which is kind of strange if you think it isn't necessarily immoral. Anyway, what does "inherently" mean to say in the above sentence?

At present, I think that sex is either necessarily or unnecessarily immoral, depending on one's intentions in its doing. I believe we've discussed this similarly in some other thread, I think? And by inherently I mean that sex is always immoral.

And by inherently I mean that sex is always immoral. — Heister Eggcart

Wait, I don't quite understand you. So sex is always immoral but it can be either necessarily or unnecessarily immoral. If it's unnecessarily immoral, then in what condition would it not be immoral? (if you cannot specify a condition, then in what sense are you saying "unnecessarily"?) And if there is some condition under which it wouldn't necessarily be immoral, then in what sense is sex always immoral?

Sex is a desire. If one's sole intention is to alleviate the suffering that comes about from sexual longing, then such would be necessarily immoral. Sex that is unnecessarily immoral would be what is acted upon on the grounds of it merely satisfying the desire for good feeling.

Sex is a desire — Heister Eggcart

I'm sure that the act itself isn't a desire though. You may mean that a desire leads to the act though.

then such would be necessarily immoral — Heister Eggcart

Why would this be necessarily immoral? What does "necessarily" add to the meaning of the sentence?

Sex that is unnecessarily immoral would be what is acted upon on the grounds of it merely satisfying the desire for good feeling. — Heister Eggcart

But shouldn't merely the grounds for good feeling count as sex being necessarily immoral? :s I'm not sure I quite understand what you're trying to convey. If I have sex merely because it feels good, that kinda sounds like immoral to me. Whereas the former case you suggested sounds as unnecessarily immoral if anything.

I'm sure that the act itself isn't a desire though. You may mean that a desire leads to the act though. — Agustino

Sex is a desire acted upon, yes.

Why would this be necessarily immoral? What does "necessarily" add to the meaning of the sentence? — Agustino

To not indulge some desires is to set oneself on the slippery slope of creating future ethical dilemmas than need not be. It's an acknowledgment of the fact that masturbation (if one even needs that) is not enough for some people in sustaining a morally, and physically, healthy life. I may come to think this is false in time, but at the moment I'm attempting to give some leeway to the horny beasts out there.

But shouldn't merely the grounds for good feeling count as sex being necessarily immoral? — Agustino

No? It isn't necessary to eat a steak merely because you might find that it tastes good. That would be unnecessarily immoral. Eating a "steak" if you're starving in the wilderness would be a necessarily immoral decision to make because doing so works against future ethical dilemmas, such as you dying!

To not indulge some desires is to set oneself on the slippery slope of creating future ethical dilemmas than need not be. It's an acknowledgment of the fact that masturbation (if one even needs that) is not enough for some people in sustaining a morally, and physically, healthy life. I may come to think this is false in time, but at the moment I'm attempting to give some leeway to the horny beasts out there. — Heister Eggcart

But certainly what they're looking for isn't masturbation or merely orgasm. The horny beasts out there are looking to dominate the will of their partners - seduction. They're looking to get their partners to love them - to control their will. So the physical pleasure of it is irrelevant to the psychological pleasure they get from domination.

Others - like me - are looking to have life-long intimacy and devotion with another person.

No? It isn't necessary to eat a steak merely because you might find that it tastes good. That would be unnecessarily immoral. Eating a "steak" if you're starving in the wilderness would be a necessarily immoral decision to make because doing so works against future ethical dilemmas, such as you dying! — Heister Eggcart

Okay, I think I understand.

But certainly what they're looking for isn't masturbation or merely orgasm. The horny beasts out there are looking to dominate the will of their partners - seduction. They're looking to get their partners to love them - to control their will. So the physical pleasure of it is irrelevant to the psychological pleasure they get from domination. — Agustino

Others - like me - are looking to have life-long intimacy and devotion with another person. — Agustino

If you're merely having sex because it feels good, then you're doing so purely out of ego.

Okay, I think I understand. — Agustino

My steak example assumes that slaughtering animals and eating them is always wrong, by the by :-*

What's the point of the Nietzsche comic? Seems like nothing to do with what I wrote :P

If you're merely having sex because it feels good, then you're doing so purely out of ego. — Heister Eggcart

But in my view the ego is healthy. It only becomes unhealthy when it subdues and enslaves reason to do its bidding. If the ego merely acts in accordance with reason, then there is no issue.

My steak example assumes that slaughtering animals and eating them is always wrong, by the by :-* — Heister Eggcart

Yeah - I actually thought you may have had some religious reason for not eating steak actually :P - but alas didn't mention it because I understood what you were trying to say by the example.

Sex that is unnecessarily immoral would be what is acted upon on the grounds of it merely satisfying the desire for good feeling. — Heister Eggcart

Why is it wrong to do something because it feels good?

Why is it wrong to do something because it feels good? — Michael

I'd presume he's not generalizing as that would entail the claim "For person A to act upon desire X purely because it feels good" is unnecessarily immoral, which would yield results like "For Joe to act upon his desire to drink water purely because it felt good" was unnecessarily immoral. That doesn't help to explain the necessary moral difference between sex and drinking water, but I imagine he has one in mind.

Why is it wrong to do something because it feels good? — Michael

Good feeling shouldn't be the foundation of one's actions, otherwise you allow for all sorts of vile behavior.

I'd presume he's not generalizing as that would entail the claim "For person A to act upon desire X purely because it feels good" is unnecessarily immoral, which would yield results like "For Joe to act upon his desire to drink water purely because it felt good" was unnecessarily immoral. That doesn't help to explain the necessary moral difference between sex and drinking water, but I imagine he has one in mind. — Baden

I'd probably argue that Joe's desire to drink water purely for its good feeling is in fact unnecessarily immoral. Considering myself for a moment, I don't drink water because it tastes good, or feels good, but because it satisfies a problem, the dilemma of thirst. Similarly, I don't eat meat merely because it tastes good, nor do I eat meat because I need to, because I don't, and thus I don't eat meat. If I didn't need to drink water, I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't eat any other sort of food were I not in need of worrying about the problem of hunger. It's just a poor excuse when someone does something merely because it stimulates them physically, and for no other reason than said stimulation. As I mentioned briefly to Agustino, most people are more concerned with how something, or someone, feels to them, what they can get out of it - if a steak tastes good, eat it, if sex feels good, fuck. Who cares about the animal one needn't have been slaughtered, or the person you needn't have been taken advantage of? I'd say that most people only think about those things until after they've done it, and only then, perhaps, find error in their ways. Although, probably not, for few are particularly willing in entertaining the thought of being wrong.

As I mentioned briefly to Agustino, most people are more concerned with how something, or someone, feels to them, what they can get out of it - if a steak tastes good, eat it, if sex feels good, fuck. Who cares about the animal one needn't have slaughtered, or the person you needn't have taken advantage of? I'd say that most people only think about those things until after they've done it, and only then, perhaps, find error in their ways. Although, probably not, for few are particularly willing in entertaining the thought of being wrong. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, this is treating others as means to an end, instead of end-in-themselves as Kant wrote.

Also it's not the same I believe with regards to food. Food isn't a person. I can choose to eat food X instead of food Y because X tastes better than Y. The fact it tastes better than Y though isn't sufficient to qualify my decision as immoral - other matters need to be attended to, such as if procuring X involves killing animals, etc. Suffice to say that you are correct and "because it feels good (to me)" can certainly not be moral (but it can be immoral).

I'd say that most people only think about those things until after they've done it, and only then, perhaps, find error in their ways. Although, probably not, for few are particularly willing in entertaining the thought of being wrong. — Heister Eggcart

There's also another thing, that some people know that it is wrong and still do it. That's what Kierkegaard is digging into in the second part of Sickness unto Death - whether ignorance of the good is sin, or whether sin is more than just ignorance.

There's also another thing, that some people know that it is wrong and still do it. — Agustino

'tis what separates one who possesses character, and one who does not.

'tis what separates one who possesses character, and one who does not. — Heister Eggcart

What is character? Is character something one comes with at birth and stays unchanged through life, or is character grown and developed? I've been asking Thorongil something with regards to this in another thread where he quoted from Schopenhauer.

Do you want the poet's answer? :D

I'd probably argue that Joe's desire to drink water purely for its good feeling is in fact unnecessarily immoral. Considering myself for a moment, I don't drink water because it tastes good, or feels good, but because it satisfies a problem, the dilemma of thirst — Heister Eggcart

We can take the "unnecessarily" out because it adds nothing to the argument here. What you seem to be arguing is "Drinking water is immoral unless one is aware of a reason one does it". This is very problematic in itself. But I wonder how far you would take it anyway? What about raising my arm, for example? Is it immoral to raise my arm purely because it feels good? Does one have to have a conscious reason for every action to escape doing wrong?

Do you want the poet's answer? :D — Heister Eggcart

Yes :P

What you seem to be arguing is "Drinking water is immoral unless one is aware of a reason one does it". This is very problematic in itself. But I wonder how far you would take it anyway? What about raising my arm, for example. Is it immoral to raise my arm purely because it feels good? Does one have to have a conscious reason for every action to escape doing wrong? — Baden

I think you misunderstand. He's using "unnecessarily" in a non-logical sense, which is why I didn't get it at first either. If I'm starving, and I kill an animal to eat, then it is necessarily immoral because I NEED to do that action to survive. So necessary has to do with your own needs, not with a logical connection.

No, it's either moral or immoral. If you need to kill the animal to survive and that's a morally justifiable reason to kill it then it's moral. If the fact that you need it to survive is not a morally justifiable reason to kill it, it's immoral.

No, it's either moral or immoral. If you need to kill the animal to survive and that's a morally justifiable reason to kill it then it's moral. If the fact that you need it to survive is not a morally justifiable reason to kill it, it's immoral. — Baden

Well he is saying that it is immoral in all cases. However in some cases it is necessarily immoral - when I need to kill it to survive. In other cases, it's unnecessarily immoral, when I kill it just for fun for example, as in hunting.

In any case, I'm interested in his answer. X raises his arm purely because it feels good. How does Heister describe X's action in moral terms.

In any case, I'm interested in his answer. X raises his arm purely because it feels good. How does Heister describe X's action in moral terms. — Baden

Amoral probably. He didn't disagree with me when I replied to him:

Also it's not the same I believe with regards to food. Food isn't a person. I can choose to eat food X instead of food Y because X tastes better than Y. The fact it tastes better than Y though isn't sufficient to qualify my decision as immoral - other matters need to be attended to, such as if procuring X involves killing animals, etc. Suffice to say that you are correct and "because it feels good (to me)" can certainly not be moral (but it can be immoral). — Agustino

The question of immorality and of necessity are logically independent in the way he uses them.

Well he is saying that it is immoral in all cases. However in some cases it is necessarily immoral - when I need to kill it to survive. In other cases, it's unnecessarily immoral, when I kill it just for fun for example, as in hunting. — Agustino

Read what I just wrote. If it's necessary to kill the animal to survive and that reason is a sufficient moral justification for doing so then the action is moral. All you are saying is that Heister is confused, which hardly helps.

Amoral probably. He didn't disagree with me when I replied to him: — Agustino

I'll take that as your answer and wait on his.

I think you misunderstand. He's using unnecessarily in a non-logical sense, which is why I didn't get it at first either. If I'm starving, and I kill an animal to eat, then it is necessarily immoral because I NEED to do that action to survive. So necessary has to do with your own needs, not with a logical connection. — Agustino

Yes.

But I wonder how far you would take this. What about raising my arm, for example. Is it immoral to raise my arm purely because it feels good? Does one have to have a conscious reason for every action to escape doing wrong? — Baden

Drinking water, eating food, having sex - these all entail someone taking from something or someone else that is giving. Raising your arm for pleasure seems amoral to me...up until raising said arm punches someone in the face. I'd be on board with stretching my argument all the way, though. I just wouldn't put as much value in the immorality of raising one's arm for pleasure compared to the immorality of someone shanking you with the same arm.

Read what I just wrote. If it's necessary to kill the animal to survive and that reason is a sufficient moral justification for doing so then the action is moral. All you are saying is that Heister is confused, which hardly helps. — Baden

*facepalm* - no he's not confused at all. If it's necessary to kill the animal, that still doesn't make it moral - that's what he's saying. The question of morality (whether action X is moral or not) is logically independent of the question whether action X is necessary or not.

If it's necessary to kill the animal to survive and that reason is a sufficient moral justification for doing so then the action is moral. — Baden

No, the reason for the action is moral, not the action itself. Slaughtering the animal is still immoral, but it is necessarily immoral, in this example, because it brings about the good (one's moral reason for performing the action.)

Edit: This can be evidenced, say, in self-defense. If someone breaks into my home and attempts to choke me to death, but I choke him to death first - so as to prevent him from killing me, of course - then I've committed a necessary evil, to put it another way. I still killed someone, which is immoral, but I needed to in order to preserve the good. On the flipside, the person that breaks into my home and tries to kill me is attempting to do that which is unnecessarily immoral, because one need not choke someone to death unless, as I've said, you're acting out of self-defense, just as I would be acting in self-defense by trapping an animal out in the wild so that I might survive.

I forgot to give you my answer about character.

I'd say that at birth character is like an empty ocean basin that only love may fill toward having a more full actualization of itself.

I'm not currently down on the whole, "character comes out of no where, and some people are awesomely moral studs, while others are not. Why? lul, who knows, unlucky."

I'd say that at birth character is like an empty ocean basin that only love may fill toward having a more full actualization of itself. — Heister Eggcart

Hmm - so character is always good? Someone can't have a deficient or evil character?

Because if love actualises the character, this implies that the character is good, because I suppose you won't tell me that loving someone will actualise their evil character would you?