Literally fucking HOW does fapping violate the categorical imperative?

This is the common answer, but I'm not so sure it makes much sense without the full picture. How is masturbation unethical because it treats oneself -- an subject of humanity, the essence of morality according to Kant -- 'merely' as a means and yet acts such as eating dessert or smelling a rose don't violate the same dictum? The key difference, OP, is that in Kant's time masturbation was thought to have negative effects on one's health, mental capacity, and emotional well-being. Therefore to masturbate is to diminish one's own potential and humanity in favor of animal, irrational impulses, or in other words as a means toward 'bad' ends. Compare it to how Kant would view drug use as immoral.

Thinking isn't welcome here. Lit is a muslim board, now fuck off.

But everyone does fap and there is marriage and children.

kant says fapping is worse than suicide

what do you mean how?
>everyone faps
>nobody procreates
>humans go extinct

And how is that bad exactly ?

But if everyone faps how does this mean everyone is fapping at all times and never having sex?

Surely this means we can't do anything according to the categorical imperative. Because if we eat food for instance, it must follow that everyone on Earth should be eating food at all times and never pausing to do anything but eat.

I've done plenty of fapping with intermittent fucking. The bigger problem is birth control.

well the literature shows that fapping is healthy and that married people fap more and that fapping before coitus clears out the old sperm etc

Kant was a Christian, so I'll quote what C.S. Lewis said about masturbation:

I agree that that the stuff about ‘wastage of vital fluids’ is rubbish. For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sending the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifice or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.

Among these shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification is ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.

Do read Charles Williams’ Descent into Hell, and study the character of Mr. Wentworth. And it is not only the faculty of love which is thus sterilized, forced back on itself, but also the faculty of imagination.

The true exercise of imagination, in my view, is (a) To help us to understand other people (b) To respond to, and, some of us, to produce art. But it has also a bad use: to provide for us, in shadowy form, a substitute for virtues, successes, distinctions, et cetera which ought to be sought outside in the real world — e.g., picturing all I’d do if I were rich instead of earning and saving.

Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres.

After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.

Bin the Kant.
Pick up Hegel and Heidegger.

>The bigger problem is birth control.
hedonists have plenty of methods for this

Because Kant is just rationalizing traditional Christian ethics.

>Kant

Just because you constantly fap and can't get laid doesn't mean that's how it works for everyone else, bud.

Isn't it immoral to procreate since you're using your partner as a means to an end?
Was Kant an antinatalist

Unironically yes. Kant was a virgin and was morally opposed to sex because he felt it meant two people using each other as a means to an end.

Christans say it is wrong to spill your seed but how am I spilling my seed if I always cum in my own mouth?

Check mate Christfags

No, because you can use people as a means to an end, you just can't use them merely as a means to an end. Else Kant would think you could never go shopping or obtain any other kind of service.

How would you make this distinction to know you can and can't use people as a means to an end, seeing as how consent doesn't seem to be a factor since he was opposed to masturbation and sex for non procreation

>Onanism . . . is abuse of the sexual faculty. . . . By it man sets aside his person and degrades himself below the level of animals
>For Kant, sexual activity avoids treating a person merely as a means only in marriage, since here both persons have surrendered their bodies and souls to each other and have achieved a subtle metaphysical unity

But releasing sexual tension is a net gain on your mental state unless you're trying to get something from being arouse. What you would find I don't know because I know when I pop a boner it's distracting but after masturbating I can finally think clearly and not be ruled by my dick. It's not like everyone is edging for 3 hours. Like a few minutes, tops.

>If everyone fapped, there wouldn't be marriage or children
You clearly haven't been married or had children, those people still fap.

Do you mean birth control violates thr categorical imperative?

>in marriage, since here both persons have surrendered their bodies and souls to each other
Lol, maybe in 1700s that was so.

Only a complete autist like Kant could actually think something this stupid.

>don't masturbate so you don't turn into a wizard
Revolutionary

Personally I've found that if I'm actually busy with something that I'm interested in, I don't get the urge to masturbate. It happens primarily when I'm being idle. But that can lead to me doing it at other times out of habit. Such a thing tends to waste time more than clear my head.

Your a big guy.

Why would people fap when they have a gf or a wife?

>in Kant's time masturbation was thought to have negative effects on one's health, mental capacity, and emotional well-being
This is true though.

It's something virgins would never understand

It's not. It is a symptom, not a cause.

Masturbating once ever 1-2-3 days won't damage you in any way whatsoever, in fact non-chronic masturbation has lots of health and psychological benefits. Doing nofap while having no active sexual life is worse than masturbating every once in a while, both psychologically and phisiologically.

I have a designated time I fap and that's right before I sleep. Only time I ever masturbate multiple times in a day is when I'm on the computer during the weekends and people keep shitposting porn.

Proof?

>psychologically and phisiologically
Not an excuse for treating yourself as an object. Also citiation needed.

It helps preventing prostate cancer, which is the most common form of male cancer in the modern world.
Also many people need to masturbate every once in a while, otherwise they will not be able to stay focused. In that case nofap would harm them psychologically too.

>Also citiation needed.
Citation was needed first on the claim that it was supposed to be bad for your health.

Typical slave morality. Turn what you can't achieve into a sin, the successful person into a sinner, and your inability into a virtue.
>N-no, it's not that I can't for the life of me get women to fuck me, I genuinely think that sex is immoral
Sure thing, Immanuel

That doesn't make the reality of self-abuse any less true.

Nice citations.
>preventing prostate cancer
Completely irrelevant since no one masturbates for this reason.
>otherwise they will not be able to stay focused
Yeah why should the weak-willed better themselves when they can just treat the sympom through homosexual narcissism? Fucking hedonist anglo scum.
>b-but the other kid dit it first!

>x has benefit y
>woah y is completely irrelevant because people don't do x for y, I'll just ignore the fact that benefits are beneficial and hence noteworthy despite people being conscious of them

I wank because sex is illegal

>better themselves
According to who? Why is your proposal better?

>masturbation is homosexual narcissism
This is so far down the rabbit hole of retardation that I get the feeling you don't even know what those words mean. Unless you're staring at your dick as you jerk off and imagining a guy's head bobbing up and down on it, which I sometimes do, it's not homosexual or narcissistic.

>but the other kid did it first
>what is the burden of proof

There's nothing wrong with hedonism or being an anglo

>no one masturbates for this reason
People obviously only masturbate for the sake of it being bad for their psychological wellbeing.

>Yeah why should the weak-willed better themselves when they can just treat the sympom through homosexual narcissism? Fucking hedonist anglo scum.

>unironically speaking about weak will, clamoring against hedonism, and expressing bettering oneself as a virtue on fucking Veeky Forums

I want you to be honest, if not with me, then with yourself. How long do you spend daily browsing the web?

THIS IS FUCKING STUPID, KANT'S UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE ISN'T A CAUSAL ONE, THE ACT IN QUESTION MUST DELETE ITSELF A PRIORI IF ASSUMED UNIVERSALLY

FAPPING IS NOT AGAINST THE CI

MURDER IS BECAUSE MURDER IS INVOLUNTARY KILLING, IT CANT BE INVOLUNTARY IF EVERYONE WANTS IT

RETARD

READ KANT

>why is it better to not be weak-willed
We're reaching anglo levels that shouldn't be possible.

>masturbating someone of the same sex isn't homosexual
>self obsession to the point of PHYSICAL SELF LOVE cannot be called narcissism

>>what is the burden of proof
Something not affected by in what order claims are made.
>inb4 you lie and say I've posted things I haven't

>THE ACT IN QUESTION MUST DELETE ITSELF A PRIORI IF ASSUMED UNIVERSALLY

Nah. You should take your own advice. You use the CI both to derive rules from contradictions in conception (a priori) and contradiction in will (a posteriori).

The fact that the second method is utterly retarded doesn't change the fact that Kant explicitly unfolds it.

Porn is a problem though.

>if you don't do what I want you to do you're weak willed
I laughed

The arousal is not necessarily due to your body, which I made clear by the "staring at your dick", it is with the feelings of pleasure. The body is a means to the end of that pleasure.

Did you post ?

The second method only creates imperfect duties though. So if you don't want humanity ending then you should sometimes have sex and not only fap. Whereas you should never murder.

I've never masturbated and have no trouble focusing. I just have wet dreams sometimes.

Browsing Veeky Forums.org in between lectures is the definitely on the same level as "not be[ing] able to stay focused" with regular self-molestation. I'm totally btfo.
>I imagine that people make stupid claims they didn't make and then laugh at them
What a perfect example of the mentality described in ().
>you're using yourself as a means to an end
That's exactly why it's unethical.
>Did you post #?
No.

No, because a rose and a dessert are not human beings, therefore you're not abusing a conscious being but only an object. When masturbating, you are abusing a conscious being (yourself), by hijacking that consciousness (your own) for a carnal need. By this, the higher is being dominated by the lower, whereas chastity would be a suppression of the lower for the sake of the higher, meaning the carnal is not abusing the intellectual.

>But that's not what I mean. By eating dessert you are also subjugating the consciousness to the appreciation of carnal pleasures.

Yes, this is why overeating, obsessing over sweets are also immoral. However, there is a difference between indulging in something, or giving oneself up to it, (the key being giving one's *self* up for the sake of something else) and integrating one's experiences into a unified whole (the goal of philosophy). Hence why Kant says that all knowledge starts from experience but does not necessarily remain with it.

>Does this mean I can still masturbate, then?

Insofar as you are denying the self for the sake of carnal pleasure, probably not. But I see it more in terms of balance, ie, the more you engage in carnal, the less you engage in intellectual. One bout of lust will probably not put out the light of a bright mind (though it may cause it to dim), and he will continue his ascending path, as his identity resides more and more in the transcendental sphere (where he is more "man" than animal). However, there is a danger here, in thinking that we are so powerful a mind that we can commit sins without incurring the "wrath of God", (take Raskolnikov for instance).

It is not so important to worry about committing sin, but of loving the good. The purer mind will be less drawn to the carnal, finding less and less satisfaction in Woman or masturbation or pornography as he matures, seeing as how he is more drawn to the metaphysical. The vulgar mind, however, will not be so profoundly affected by mere words or ideas, and worldly pleasures are more common to him. He shall remain in darkness, a soul divided, while the intellectual has a chance at unification.

Technically he said it depends on the ratio of strokes per fap. He said if you're over 400, then yes, it is indeed worse than suicide

That is the claim you made, if people don't think what you think is the right thing to do, they're weak willed. It is a stupid claim, but it is the one you made.

>the body is the self
No
And why is using it merely as a means to an end unethical?

Yo what do I need to read before reading Kant's Groundwork?

>Browsing Veeky Forums.org in between lectures is the definitely on the same level as "not be[ing] able to stay focused" with regular self-molestation. I'm totally btfo.

No, I think you can reasonably argue that browsing Veeky Forums is infinitely worse.

>If there wasn't civilization, no one could read Kant.
Thank fucking God.

Browsing Veeky Forums hurts your chances for procreating much more than touching yourself does.

I think it depends on your attitude while fapping. If you do it in some kind of ecstacy, maybe because you didn't cum in to much time, then it's ok. If you calculate it, like doing it every night before sleeping or while watching porn, than it's bad.
It's like the interpretation of christianity of Paulus when he says that something becomes a sin when you're experiencing it as a sin. So, if something does not violate the love comandment, than it's only a sin if your conscience tells you so. If noone gets offended by you drinking a beer every evening, then it's ok as long as you don't see it as a sin.

>it is the one you made
No.
>what's wrong with reducing a human to an object of use
Are anglos born without souls or is there performed some form of mental circumcision?

Because a gf/wife isn't an object that you can use anytime you want to ejaculate, sometimes they're not around or just don't want.

>sometimes

but it is the "good will" that counts while masturbating ;-)

I think the Good Will is the weak point in this whole theory. He should just have said God

yeah, literally anything can be justified with a "good will", also with the categorial imperative to say or do what is referred to as truthful, everybody could claim he does what he thinks is true, when there are no objective facts that prove otherwise

so, how's yr sex life lately n-dog?

Porn is a much bigger issue than chronic masturbation.

Shit, quite frankly. I'm a loser, but at least I admit it and don't try to turn myself into a saint.

Good post.

>he fell for the sublimation meme

Also this is the answer OP