(October 29, 2014 at 11:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: The argument that masturbation is good (or acceptable) because it does no harm to anyone or because it has potential health benefits are a different argument to me than simply saying that it's good (or acceptable) because it's a natural human act.

Lol, you're but one step away from inventing Euthyphro's Wanking dilemma.

I actually think that masturbation makes young males like myself less likely to tape and murder. Lack of sexual outlet can make men very anxious and sometimes aggressive, especially in men with high drives and a lower abilities of self control.

Masturbation is good for lots of reasons, but being natural isn't what makes it good.

1. You don't have to talk afterwards.

2. You don't have to walk home in the dark.

3. You're always 'a sure thing'.

4. You don't have to wait til her husband's out of town.

Lots of things are 'natural' - head lice, shitting out of doors, being eaten by wolves, etc. - but being natural makes something neither good nor desirable.

Boru

(October 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I was just making dinner and thinking about masturbation (because, you know, why not?)

I get that a lot...

(October 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: and got to thinking about the standard defense rolled out of "it's perfectly natural to masturbate, it's a normal human act of exploring your own sexuality and yadda yadda yadda..." and got to wondering whether this falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

"The naturalistic fallacy"... I wonder what that is... google, help!

wiki Wrote:In philosophical ethics, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable".

I guess you're right... I've seen a lot of people around here saying just that.
It's pleasant, it's right!

But, wait, there's more:

wiki Wrote:Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise. However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural).

Ah, perhaps you were actually going for this "appeal to nature"?
The same appeal we hear when people are against homosexuals... it's unnatural, hence wrong, hence should be banned, outlawed, criminalized.
Masturbation is natural, hence it's good.

(October 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: It's okay to masturbate because it's natural.

Thoughts? Does this qualify as a fallacious argument or not?

It seems you were practically right.
As always... as should be expected of a smart person.

(October 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: (full disclosure, I haven't given this a huge deal of thought. In fact, I'm still making dinner.)

your place, tonight, I see!

Mastication should be illegal

(October 29, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: It's okay to masturbate because it's natural.

Thoughts? Does this qualify as a fallacious argument or not?

Not if you permit, or would permit, masterbation because it's natural. :-) I presume that's what you mean by okay?

(October 29, 2014 at 11:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: The argument that masturbation is good (or acceptable) because it does no harm to anyone or because it has potential health benefits are a different argument to me than simply saying that it's good (or acceptable) because it's a natural human act. I don't disagree with the statements that it's good (or acceptable) because it doesn't cause harm or it has health befits, my question is specifically about people who defend masturbation "because it's natural."

Based on my understanding the health and harm arguments are satisfactory in the sense that they aren't fallacious, but I think the "because it's natural" argument is.

Ever meet 18 year old that hasn't jerked in a few weeks. With a steady supply of sex? They are so fucking horny that they can barely control themselves. That state leads to bad sexual decisions, and misery.

(October 30, 2014 at 8:26 am)DramaQueen Wrote: Mastication should be illegal

I figured it already was in Libya

(October 30, 2014 at 2:35 am)whateverist Wrote: Does masturbation require a rationalization? If you wanna, go ahead. If not, lets eat.

I'm thinking of responses to largely theistic statements that masturbation is bad or wrong because it's a sin or whatever other justifications they use.

It very well could be an appeal to nature rather than a naturalistic fallacy, I guess I'm not that knowledgeable about the difference. Is the appeal to nature not fallacious?

And, yes, Beccs beat you to it. :p

(October 30, 2014 at 6:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: It seems you were practically right.
As always... as should be expected of a smart person.

Thanks, but the bolded part is a little inflated, methinks; sometime I'll have to tell you about the incredibly stupid argument I had with my best friend about Indiana Jones. I was not a smart person during that argument.

Quote:your place, tonight, I see!

Ironically, I just finished making dinner again. Maybe I won't be eating alone...

(October 30, 2014 at 4:23 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Masturbation is good for lots of reasons, but being natural isn't what makes it good.

1. You don't have to talk afterwards.

2. You don't have to walk home in the dark.

3. You're always 'a sure thing'.

4. You don't have to wait til her husband's out of town.

Lots of things are 'natural' - head lice, shitting out of doors, being eaten by wolves, etc. - but being natural makes something neither good nor desirable.

Boru

But if your hand falls asleep, is that the ultimate rejection?