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... — Heister Eggcart
Good feeling shouldn't be the foundation of one's actions, otherwise you allow for all sorts of vile behavior. — Heister Eggcart
To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that? — Baden
Unless you're saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then this is a red herring. — Michael
And if you are saying that having sex because it feels good is vile behaviour then what's vile about it?
How am I using another as a means to an end when I play tennis? What is the end, and what is the means? Is the other person even the means through which I play tennis? :sIn terms of using another as a means to an end, how does having sex differ from, say, playing tennis? — Michael
mm - so character is always good? Someone can't have a deficient or evil character? — Agustino
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? — Agustino
How am I using another as a means to an end when I play tennis? What is the end, and what is the means? Is the other person even the means through which I play tennis? :s
How am I using someone as a means to an end when I engage in promiscuous sex? They are the means, my pleasure is the end. — Agustino
I am, yes. And no, I don't see how anything I've said is a red herring. — Heister Eggcart
As I replied to you just before, if good feeling is the foundation of your having sex, then you're way in the wrong. The pedophile can use the same excuse as you by appealing to his desire to have a good feeling by having sex with a minor as being his first priority. Such is, however, especially wrong. Pretty sure we agreed on that, yet you're still uncertain for some reason I can't divine.
No, not at all. Your opponent is in no way like a tool that you're using to play tennis with... your opponent isn't your racket. Your racket is the means by which you play tennis.When I play tennis with someone my enjoyment is the end and my opponent is the means. Playing tennis on your own isn't fun. — Michael
No, not at all. Your opponent is in no way like a tool that you're using to play tennis with... your opponent isn't your racket. Your racket is the means by which you play tennis.
But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself. That's just fucked up, sorry to say. — Agustino
But with regards to sex, it is your partner's body which is the means by which you pleasure yourself.
To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that? — Baden
Perhaps. How might this be incorrect? — Heister Eggcart
The child molester isn't in the wrong because he's doing something because it feels good but because what he's doing is abuse. — Michael
Whether or not it feels good is irrelevant. So
this isn't a reason for consensual, adult sex for pleasure being vile behaviour.
Again, it seems like a slippery slope fallacy. You're saying that because some things done because they feel good can be wrong then anything done because it feels good is wrong. It just doesn't follow.
Well, generally moral systems require that for an action to be deemed immoral it must as a minimum result in some kind of harm to another moral agent (or at least another sentient being) either directly or indirectly. There's no more indication that drinking water from a river (whether it feels good or not) does that any more than raising one's arm all other things being equal. — Baden
It doesn't mean that either action is necessarily amoral either. There may be a moral element in the wider context. But it's not present in either example given. You just don't have information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. Creating a mental narrative about why you do things doesn't conjure morality into your actions. And the thought that it does is actually quite dangerous. — Baden
:-} Right, if you don't want them to pleasure you, why aren't you stopping them? And if you do want them to pleasure you, then how are you not using them to pleasure yourself?I don't use them to pleasure myself. I allow them to pleasure me. — Michael
For the simple reason that I'm not using someone to play tennis. Playing tennis CAN involve another person, but they aren't used because they aren't a tool permitting me to engage in the activity. My racket (and my balls) is the tool which permits me to engage in the activity. Without a racket I can have as many people as I want, and I still won't be able to play tennis. I can, however, play tennis by myself, so long as I have a racket and balls.I don't understand how you distinguish using someone and not using someone. — Michael
>:OSure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them is between consenting adults! :D — Heister Eggcart
Is steak a means of abstaining from steak? What kind of nonsense is this? If you don't eat steak, then you're using steak as a means of being moral (ie abstaining from eating steak, cause that's just what being moral fucking means in this context) >:OSo if you don't have sex with them, you are still using them as a means to the end of being moral?
It is a damned if you do damned if you don't. — m-theory
Sure, so the cannibal who finds someone that has the fetish of wanting to be eaten alive isn't doing any wrong because the relationship between both of them is between consenting adults! — Heister Eggcart
Right, if you don't want them to pleasure you, why aren't you stopping them? And if you do want them to pleasure you, then how are you not using them to pleasure yourself? — Agustino
Without a racket I can have as many people as I want, and I still won't be able to play tennis. I can, however, play tennis by myself, so long as I have a racket and balls.
Seems like the person that doesn't consider the morality of their actions is rather the more dangerous individual, no? — Heister Eggcart
You just don't have enough information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden
If I had doubts about my actions, I would not do them. I've attempted to reason, and thus remove all doubt, from why I do what I do, and subsequently what I do not do. — Heister Eggcart
Not at all. Your proposition is a tautology once it is unpacked, and for this reason tells us nothing.Yes steak is a means to and end of abstaining if you don't eat it.
If you are treating people a certain way just to be moral you are using them as a means to the end of being moral. — m-theory
Again, it isn't wrong simply because it's done for pleasure. It's done because eating someone is wrong. It would be wrong even if it wasn't done for pleasure. — Michael
You just keep repeating the same fallacy. You need to show me that having sex is wrong because it's done for fun. Giving examples of things that are wrong because they involve abuse and killing people doesn't show me this. — Michael
The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden
It certainly doesn't, because again, what you're using to pleasure yourself is a racket and some balls.That I want something done isn't that I'm using something to have it done to me. You've already accepted this with the example of tennis. I want that person to play tennis with me and I allow them to, but according to you this doesn't count as using them to (non-sexually) pleasure myself. — Michael
In judo you're training. Training is different from doing something for pleasure. I don't practice martial arts for pleasure for example. I practice them for virtue. If you are however practicing martial arts for pleasure, I think you're doing something wrong though >:Ojudo as an example. — Michael
To use something means to do something to it. I'm not doing anything to steak when not eating it, and not doing something to it isn't itself doing something to it, that's a contradiction. — Agustino
It certainly doesn't, because again, what you're using to pleasure yourself is a racket and some balls. — Agustino
In judo you're training. Training is different from doing something for pleasure. I don't practice martial arts for pleasure for example. I practice them for virtue.
Why is eating someone wrong? — Heister Eggcart
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.