Does Desire Justify Need?

[Caladan]

Couldn't have put it better! I'm often too wordy for my own good.

Cheers

I'll simplify. Can all desires be satisfied in a moral manner?

Psychologically.. I would like to think so. although im thinking of 'normal manner' more than 'moral manner', you'll have to elaborate on what do you mean by 'moral manner' because im fairly sure almost all members of RF have a different idea when they think 'moral manner'.
I think its sane for different people to have a way to channel a variety of desires in different and original ways.. healthy ways. desires that could other wise be considered unhealthy, or at least eccentric, to be managed and expressed in more productive ways, instead of letting them build up and be repressed.

 

[tomspug]

Whether something is natural or not has no impact on whether it is moral or not (either way). Considering the harm that may occur seems a very reasonable way to approach this question.

So, to clarify, you don't think that something being natural in any way implies that it is good or, conversely, that it is bad? I would agree with that.

The problem I see is that there is no direct relationship between desire and harm. If natural desires are neutral (in that they have no bearing on morality) than there is no automatic progression to harm. I think that there is an intellectual process that takes place between desire and action, where you experience a desire and you intellectually justify it.

I would then say that it is the intellect that is either justified or not. Going back to the idea of being sexually attracted to children, it is the brain that decides whether or not that feeling should be acted upon, wherever it came from. It is not the nature itself that would be bad (considering that it is somewhat outside the individual's control) but the mindset of the individual.

 

[averageJOE]

If you have a natural desire for something, does that necessarily justify gratification of that desire?

So long as that "natural desire" does not harm someone or something else then we should be endulging in that desire.

In other words, if one persons "natural desire" is to experience sexual release through masterbation than with another person then they should be allowed to do so.

But if someone's "natural desire" is to beat up random old ladies on the street then I would have to say that not only should that desire be supressed but it sould also be punished.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm a sexually healthy straight man. I have a strong desire to sleep with my secretary and I can arrange it so that my wife will never know about the affair/tryst. On what grounds can we say that I ought not to sleep with my secretary?

Perhaps we might say that doing so will cause harm to my marriage. Let's assume that's so. My marriage will not be as happy as it was before, and perhaps my wife's happiness will not be as great as before. She doesn't know I'm cheating, but she still notices my distance, perhaps my absences. She's a wonderful lady and just assumes I'm always working late. She assumes I'm overworked and stressed (that's what I tell her anyway), and she begins to feel lonely. Let's also add that she's much more committed to the vows than I am and chooses to remain faithful.

So much for the wife's side. Let's also stipulate that the woman and I have blood tests proving that we're clean -- no STDs. I've had a vasectomy and she's had tubal ligation, so there's no chance of pregnancy. So there's no danger of disease (damage to me or the lover). Let's further stipulate that the woman has no other intimate relationships (no danger of jealousy from her end either).

If this is the scenario, why shouldn't I give in to my sexual desire for the other woman? I am harming my wife in a way, but is it really all that bad? So bad I should refrain (the pleasure will be immense, she's a freak between the sheets). If we stipulate that there is minimal or no harm, I assume most of you would say "Hey, go for it!" But that just seems wrong to me. Whether or not there is any harm done by my fling, I should refrain. My desire for the other woman does not, in itself, justify my fulfilling that desire.

This may come down to a battle of intutions, but for the record let me just say that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for morally prohibiting or permitting an action.

 

[fantome profane]

Couldn't have put it better! I'm often too wordy for my own good.

I'll simplify. Can all desires be satisfied in a moral manner?

Depends on what you mean by “satisfied”. I believe that desire can be controlled, and that ultimately we can free ourselves from desire. There are two ways to satisfy yourself when it comes to desire, one is to succumb to it, the other is to overcome it. Sometimes it is morally acceptable to succumb, sometimes the only moral way to satisfy yourself is to rid yourself of the desire.

 

[tomspug]

Cheers

Psychologically.. I would like to think so. although im thinking of 'normal manner' more than 'moral manner', you'll have to elaborate on what do you mean by 'moral manner' because im fairly sure almost all members of RF have a different idea when they think 'moral manner'.
I think its sane for different people to have a way to channel a variety of desires in different and original ways.. healthy ways. desires that could other wise be considered unhealthy, or at least eccentric, to be managed and expressed in more productive ways, instead of letting them build up and be repressed.

Well, we all have different opinions on right and wrong. Once again, I think it is never the desire itself that can be determined to be right or wrong (although one can logically determine that certain desires inevitably lead to actions that are "wrong"). I think you can put "moral manner" two ways: either it is a state of the heart (choosing actions "out of love") or a state of the mind (choosing actions that are within reason).

 

[tomspug]

Depends on what you mean by “satisfied”. I believe that desire can be controlled, and that ultimately we can free ourselves from desire. There are two ways to satisfy yourself when it comes to desire, one is to succumb to it, the other is to overcome it. Sometimes it is morally acceptable to succumb, sometimes the only moral way to satisfy yourself is to rid yourself of the desire.

So you think it is ideal to be freed from desire? I could have a desire to have a better job. Am I succumbing to it if I work for that goal, or am I simply allowing it to motivate me?

 

[Storm]

[snip]If we stipulate that there is minimal or no harm, I assume most of you would say "Hey, go for it!" But that just seems wrong to me. Whether or not there is any harm done by my fling, I should refrain. My desire for the other woman does not, in itself, justify my fulfilling that desire.

Not at all. Harm is the easy part. Not harming people doesn't make you virtuous, though. Cheating on your wife, even if she never gets hurt, which is in itself highly dubious, is dishonorable. It's lying and oathbreaking, at minimum.

This may come down to a battle of intutions, but for the record let me just say that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for morally prohibiting or permitting an action.

It is, though. If your actions harm others, that is "sufficient condition" for prohibiting such action.

 

[fantome profane]

This may come down to a battle of intutions, but for the record let me just say that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for morally prohibiting or permitting an action.

I would agree that consideration of harm may not always be sufficient, but that harm should always be considered.

 

[fantome profane]

So you think it is ideal to be freed from desire? I could have a desire to have a better job. Am I succumbing to it if I work for that goal, or am I simply allowing it to motivate me?

No, I didn’t say that. I said “sometimes the only moral way to satisfy yourself is to rid yourself of the desire.”

 

[Autodidact]

Couldn't have put it better! I'm often too wordy for my own good.

I'll simplify. Can all desires be satisfied in a moral manner?

No, obviously.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm a sexually healthy straight man. I have a strong desire to sleep with my secretary and I can arrange it so that my wife will never know about the affair/tryst. On what grounds can we say that I ought not to sleep with my secretary?

Perhaps we might say that doing so will cause harm to my marriage. Let's assume that's so. My marriage will not be as happy as it was before, and perhaps my wife's happiness will not be as great as before. She doesn't know I'm cheating, but she still notices my distance, perhaps my absences. She's a wonderful lady and just assumes I'm always working late. She assumes I'm overworked and stressed (that's what I tell her anyway), and she begins to feel lonely. Let's also add that she's much more committed to the vows than I am and chooses to remain faithful.

So much for the wife's side. Let's also stipulate that the woman and I have blood tests proving that we're clean -- no STDs. I've had a vasectomy and she's had tubal ligation, so there's no chance of pregnancy. So there's no danger of disease (damage to me or the lover). Let's further stipulate that the woman has no other intimate relationships (no danger of jealousy from her end either).

If this is the scenario, why shouldn't I give in to my sexual desire for the other woman? I am harming my wife in a way, but is it really all that bad? So bad I should refrain (the pleasure will be immense, she's a freak between the sheets). If we stipulate that there is minimal or no harm, I assume most of you would say "Hey, go for it!" But that just seems wrong to me. Whether or not there is any harm done by my fling, I should refrain. My desire for the other woman does not, in itself, justify my fulfilling that desire.

This may come down to a battle of intutions, but for the record let me just say that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for morally prohibiting or permitting an action.

I think there's a basic concept of fairness and honesty as well, that we should treat others as we wish to be treated.

Couple of things. If you and your wife talk about it, and agree to an open relationship, and she knows what's going on, and she also can step outside the relationship if she so desires, then I don't think there's anything immoral about it. But I do see lying, and cheating, because that's what it is, as immoral. And yes, I agree, it's not a direct link between lying and harm, but I think there is a link.

Also, I strongly believe that such actions damage you and your wife, does huge harm to your relationship, because it detracts from your intimacy. Anything that decreases the honesty between you harms the relationship, which is bad for you. You want to be able to share what's in your heart and mind and be heard, understood and accepted. That's a wonderful, valuable thing. When she asks how your day went, and you say you had to work late, when actually you were shtupping your secretary, you just lost that. IMO it's not worth it.

 

[Storm]

I think there's a basic concept of fairness and honesty as well, that we should treat others as we wish to be treated.

Couple of things. If you and your wife talk about it, and agree to an open relationship, and she knows what's going on, and she also can step outside the relationship if she so desires, then I don't think there's anything immoral about it. But I do see lying, and cheating, because that's what it is, as immoral. And yes, I agree, it's not a direct link between lying and harm, but I think there is a link.

Also, I strongly believe that such actions damage you and your wife, does huge harm to your relationship, because it detracts from your intimacy. Anything that decreases the honesty between you harms the relationship, which is bad for you. You want to be able to share what's in your heart and mind and be heard, understood and accepted. That's a wonderful, valuable thing. When she asks how your day went, and you say you had to work late, when actually you were shtupping your secretary, you just lost that. IMO it's not worth it.

QFT. Frubals!

 

[UnTheist]

If you have a natural desire for something, does that necessarily justify gratification of that desire?

Of course not

 

[Dunemeister]

I think there's a basic concept of fairness and honesty as well, that we should treat others as we wish to be treated.

Why, if there's no harm done (or there's harm done that you can live with).

Couple of things. If you and your wife talk about it, and agree to an open relationship, and she knows what's going on, and she also can step outside the relationship if she so desires, then I don't think there's anything immoral about it. But I do see lying, and cheating, because that's what it is, as immoral. And yes, I agree, it's not a direct link between lying and harm, but I think there is a link.

In my story, there is no such agreement about an "open" relationship. And if I can lie and cheat without getting caught, why shouldn't I just do it? Perhaps there's nothing "immoral" about it unless I get caught.

Also, I strongly believe that such actions damage you and your wife, does huge harm to your relationship, because it detracts from your intimacy. Anything that decreases the honesty between you harms the relationship, which is bad for you. You want to be able to share what's in your heart and mind and be heard, understood and accepted. That's a wonderful, valuable thing. When she asks how your day went, and you say you had to work late, when actually you were shtupping your secretary, you just lost that. IMO it's not worth it.

Okay, what if I agree with you that it does the harm you suggest, reducing intimacy. What if I think that's a fair tradeoff for the pleasure of the illicit sex? After all, what's supposed to matter are (a) my desire, and (b) harm as the reason why I shouldn't succumb to it. My desire is quite strong and the damage (as I see it) minimal. I can manage the duplicity because I'm a good liar and besides, the girl I'm having the affair with is HOT! Pretty darned worth it to me. So again, why shouldn't I?

 

[Dunemeister]

QFT. Frubals!

Not so fast, Storm!

 

[Storm]

Not so fast, Storm!

1) Too late.
2) Why not?

 

[fantome profane]

Okay, what if I agree with you that it does the harm you suggest, reducing intimacy. What if I think that's a fair tradeoff for the pleasure of the illicit sex? After all, what's supposed to matter are (a) my desire, and (b) harm as the reason why I shouldn't succumb to it. My desire is quite strong and the damage (as I see it) minimal. I can manage the duplicity because I'm a good liar and besides, the girl I'm having the affair with is HOT! Pretty darned worth it to me. So again, why shouldn't I?

Here we could look to Kant’s ethical system.
(wiki)

1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfil some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim.
3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

If absolutely everyone cheated on his or her marriages, marriage itself would cease to exist. This is a contradiction, everyone cannot cheat on his or her marriages if marriage does not exist, and therefore it is not morally allowable.

 

[Dunemeister]

Here we could look to Kant’s ethical system.
(wiki)If absolutely everyone cheated on his or her marriages, marriage itself would cease to exist. This is a contradiction, everyone cannot cheat on his or her marriages if marriage does not exist, and therefore it is not morally allowable.

Perhaps, but this is beside the point. The OP asks whether mere desire justifies acting on the desire. In my story, I am doing what most people consider wrong but there's no harm done. I'm unclear how punting to Kant solves anything.

 

[fantome profane]

Perhaps, but this is beside the point. The OP asks whether mere desire justifies acting on the desire.

It is not besides the point, it is exactly on point. I am suggesting an ethical system that answers the question asked in the OP. Kant answers no. Desire is not a moral justification.

In my story, I am doing what most people consider wrong but there's no harm done. I'm unclear how punting to Kant solves anything.

You crafted your story in response to those (including myself) who argued that the harm of an action is a major factor in considering the morality of that action. But in Kant’s system harm (or the lack of harm) is irrelevant.

I think most people follow some form of consequential ethics, but also include some aspects of deontological ethics. Strangely I find that many people think they are strictly consequentialists when they are not, or they think they are strictly deontologicalists when they are not. Most people follow as mix of both. When you raise an issue like cheating on a spouse most people will say it is wrong due to the harm it causes (consequentialism). But even if it does not cause harm they still think it is wrong due to some deontological aspects of their personal ethical system. Kant offers just such a deontological system of ethics, which would explain why people still feel it is wrong even if it does no harm.