NationStates Jolt Archive

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?

Maybe not morally wrong but creepy as hell!

Not if no one else is harmed by it.

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?

Maybe if he, erm, "explodes" inside the chicken and doesn't clean it out... Actually, that wouldn't be wrong in my book. It'd be gross as hell, though, and I definately wouldn't wanna eat it!

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?

I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act.

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?I don't see how it'd be morally wrong... I mean, personally, I'd prefer to invite a sexual partner over to eat dinner with me, and NOT screw my food, but screw AFTER we've both eaten, but maybe that's just me.

I'd be curious to know why someone would find that scenario with the frozen chicken to be morally wrong. Unappealling, maybe... but wrong?

I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act.Selfishness? How is it any more selfish than just buying a frozen chicken, cooking it, and eating it alone - without the sex?

Or would you say that's morally wrong too?

I don't see how it'd be morally wrong... I mean, personally, I'd prefer to invite a sexual partner over to eat dinner with me, and NOT screw my food, but screw AFTER we've both eaten, but maybe that's just me.

I'd be curious to know why someone would find that scenario with the frozen chicken to be morally wrong. Unappealling, maybe... but wrong?

Yeah, what the fuck? I wanna know how it's "wrong".

Some might say it's beastialities.

I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act.

please elaborate, i dont see how its selfish.

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?it depends on his moral code. if, to him, his actions are ok. then as long as no one is hurt (phsyically, emotionally, and mentally) it's ok.

please elaborate, i dont see how its selfish.

Wait... Maybe he means it's selfish because you're not "sharing" it with another? Though that would be really gross...

Selfishness? How is it any more selfish than just buying a frozen chicken, cooking it, and eating it alone - without the sex?

It's purely for personal pleasure.

Or would you say that's morally wrong too?

It would depend on the situation. If the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it because they were hungry and required sustenance, then that would not be selfish. Fulfilling one's basic living requirements is not selfish, at least in my moral system.

On the other hand, if the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it despite the fact that they didn't need to eat, solely because they like the taste of chicken, then I would consider it morally wrong (though not a very serious moral wrong).

In the middle-of-the-road case in which the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it partially because they needed to eat and partially because they like chicken, I wouldn't see it as morally wrong because the primary purpose of the act was not personal pleasure.

I hope that answers everyone's questions. :)

Wait... Maybe he means it's selfish because you're not "sharing" it with another? Though that would be really gross...

as branin would say:

"*shudders*"

Some might say it's beastialities.

1.
You can bugger the bear, if you do it with care,
in the winter, when he is asleep in his lair,
Though I would not advise it in spring or in fall--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

2.
If you're feeling quite coarse, you can bugger the horse,
or the palfrey, the jennet, the stallion (with force),
You can bugger the donkey, the mare, or the mule,
Though to bugger the pony is needlessly cruel.

3.
You can bugger the ox (if you stand on a box)
And vulpologists say you can bugger the fox,
You can bugger the shrew, though it's awfully small--
but the hedgehog cvan never be buggered at all.

4.
Herptologists gasp you can bugger the asp,
Entymologists claim you can bugger the wasp.
If an insects your thing, man, then just have a ball--
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

5.
And the elephant too, that you meet in the zoo,
Can be buggered if you are sure just what to do,
You will need a large mattress upon which to fall--
but the hedgehog cvan never be buggered at all.

6.
You can bugger the bees if your down on your knees,
You can bugger the termites with terminal ease
you can bugger the beetle, the ladybug (bird!) too,
there's no end to the buggering that you can do.

7.
You can bugger the cat if it isn't to fat
You can bugger the rabbit you draw from your hat
You can bugger the shark that you've chased in your yawl--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

8.
You can bugger the ermine, and all other vermine,
like rats, mice, and roaches, if your not discernin'.
You can bugger the dog, it will come when you call--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

9.
Although Mr. Tiggy is not very big, he
Avoids with great ease those who fancy his arse.
He just curls in a ball, shows his prickles and all--
And the would-be seducer leaves himin the grass

10.
If you're that kind of fool, and you have a long tool,
Do it with a giraffe, if you stand on a stool,
Catch a yeti, who lives in the snows of Nepal--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

11.
For the hedgehog escapes the posterior rapes
Performed upon others of different shapes
Those who run, swim, or slither, they get it withal--
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

12.
It is said, if you try, you can bugger the fly,
Or the swallow as it skims so skilfully by,
Use a noose or a net, or lime (if you've the gall)--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all

13.
You can bugger the cow (I will not tell you how),
Or the boar, or the piglet, the shoat or the sow,
You can bugger the ass as it stands in the stall--
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

14.
You can order or shoo 'im, or run a knife through 'im
The one thing you cannot do is stick it to 'im.
If you try to seduce 'im, you'll end in a fix,
His prickles defend him against rampant pricks.

15.
You can bugger the ram, you can bugger the lamb,
You can bugger the ewe, though the wether's a sham,
You can bugger the tiger (it may caterwaul)
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

16.
You can bugger the seal, you can bugger the eel,
You can bugger the crab, though they say it can't feel,
You can bugger the bat as the night casts its pall,
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

17.
You can bugger the snake (hold it down with a rake),
Though to bugger the quetzal may be a mistake.
You can bugger the billy, the nanny the kid,
But to bugger the hedeghog just cannot be did.

18.
You can bugger the slug, though it messes the rug,
You can bugger the different species of bug,
Or do it with a snail, if you slow to a crawl,
But the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.

19.
At the end of the day, when you've had your rough way
With all of those creatures, you'll just have to say
"That damned Erinaceous has been my downfall--"
For the hedgehog can never be buggered at all!

icky isn't wrong, but you might have certain valid reservations about the mans character in other contexts due to this rather disturbing behavior.

as branin would say:

"*shudders*"

Yeah, I *shuddered* while I was writing that. Yiiiick.

It's purely for personal pleasure.

It would depend on the situation. If the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it because they were hungry and required sustenance, then that would not be selfish. Fulfilling one's basic living requirements is not selfish, at least in my moral system.

On the other hand, if the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it despite the fact that they didn't need to eat, solely because they like the taste of chicken, then I would consider it morally wrong (though not a very serious moral wrong).

In the middle-of-the-road case in which the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it partially because they needed to eat and partially because they like chicken, I wouldn't see it as morally wrong.Okay, I understand you a bit better... but then, I guess you'd say masturbation is morally wrong too, yeah?

(Damn, I'm clearly going to hell!)

please elaborate, i dont see how its selfish.
I agree. Selfishness is at other people's expense. How is this act at anyone's expense?

It's purely for personal pleasure.

yes it is. is there is nothing wrong with that... i think that personal pleasure is required to live a very productive life. if you dont do anything fun, simply because you dont think its needed, what would be the point of living?

It's purely for personal pleasure.
So... pleasure must be shared?

to me its morally wrong because it doesnt respect the life of the chicken...

to me its morally wrong because it doesnt respect the life of the chicken...
Bingo.

to me its morally wrong because it doesnt respect the life of the chicken...

It's dead Jim.

icky isn't wrong, but you might have certain valid reservations about the mans character in other contexts due to this rather disturbing behavior.
but if it isn't wrong, how can you justify making assumptions about his overall character... its actually rather complex. we do make moral judgements about people who do distasteful things, on the surface that seems wrong if the act itself isn't immoral, but on the other hand it seems foolish to discard such an obvious gut reaction judgement, when of some level you still believe it to be true.

It's dead Jim.
Technically, it is possible to respect its life after it has passed on.

It's dead Jim.It's worse than that!

(in background: therrrre's Klingons on the starboard bow...)

Okay, I understand you a bit better... but then, I guess you'd say masturbation is morally wrong too, yeah?

Again, it depends on the situation. My moral system is fairly complex, to say the least. :D

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes. There are other reasons for masturbating which would make the act morally correct in my moral system. Sometimes a person masturbates in order to prevent "wet dreams" or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation with regards to other persons by relieving themselves of the sexual desire.

to me its morally wrong because it doesnt respect the life of the chicken...

it doesnt have a life. literally.

it doesnt have a life. literally.
But we can respect the life it did have, as well as the life it gives in death.

Again, it depends on the situation. My moral system is fairly complex, to say the least. :D

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes. There are other reasons for masturbating which would make the act morally correct in my moral system. Sometimes a person masturbates in order to prevent "wet dreams" or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation with regards to other persons by relieving themselves of the sexual desire.Hmmm... looks like I'm still going to hell!

(Do people really masturbate *just* to prevent wet dreams.... or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation? Darn! I just thought it was all in good fun!)

So then, taking a bath purely for personal pleasure is morally wrong too, huh?

Technically, it is possible to respect its life after it has passed on.

Perhaps we should bury it in a tomb?

yes it is. is there is nothing wrong with that... i think that personal pleasure is required to live a very productive life. if you dont do anything fun, simply because you dont think its needed, what would be the point of living?

You can gain a great deal of personal pleasure without doing things solely for the purpose of your own pleasure. I have, and so have many others. A person who eats a chicken, for example, probably had pleasure from eating the chicken, even if they ate the chicken only because they needed to eat.

Again, it depends on the situation. My moral system is fairly complex, to say the least. :D

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes. There are other reasons for masturbating which would make the act morally correct in my moral system. Sometimes a person masturbates in order to prevent "wet dreams" or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation with regards to other persons by relieving themselves of the sexual desire.
Why is it morally wrong to cause muscles to spasm?

So... pleasure must be shared?

Nah.

So then, taking a bath purely for personal pleasure is morally wrong too, huh?

IMO, yes.

Perhaps we should bury it in a tomb?
Well, a tomb is a bit expensive.

Why is it morally wrong to cause muscles to spasm?

Why on earth would you quote the post that answers your question directly and still ask the question?

Again, it depends on the situation. My moral system is fairly complex, to say the least. :D

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes. There are other reasons for masturbating which would make the act morally correct in my moral system. Sometimes a person masturbates in order to prevent "wet dreams" or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation with regards to other persons by relieving themselves of the sexual desire.

ah well, i suppose your moral system makes sense, if i agree or not. i just want to know how you have any fun at all? for instance, what purpose does your being on here serve other then to enjoy yourself?

But we can respect the life it did have, as well as the life it gives in death.

sure, but i dont think it needs its physical body to live after death. and im not just saying that because its a lower animal - after i die, whoever wants my body can have it. i dont care if you skin me and use me as a coat, i simply dont need it anymore, while someone else can get use out of it.

sorry, im trying to make sense, really.

Well, a tomb is a bit expensive.

What? The poor chicken's not good enough for you?

IMO, yes.
Everything we do is to pleasure ourselves in some way. This sort of applies to there are no unselfish good deeds. Everything we do is to make ourselves feel good, to benefit ourselves, in some way. So, by your set of morals, we're all going to hell.

Why on earth would you quote the post that answers your question directly and still ask the question?
Oh, rest assured, it did not answer my question directly.

i just want to know how you have any fun at all? for instance, what purpose does your being on here serve other then to enjoy yourself?

To contribute to the survival of the species.

Why on earth would you quote the post that answers your question directly and still ask the question?

i think what was being said was this: masturbation hurts nobody, in any way shape or form. it doesnt do anything but make muscles spasm. so why is it immoral?

and i am curious as to why pointless pleasure is immoral?

To contribute to the survival of the species.

To what point?

sure, but i dont think it needs its physical body to live after death. and im not just saying that because its a lower animal - after i die, whoever wants my body can have it. i dont care if you skin me and use me as a coat, i simply dont need it anymore, while someone else can get use out of it.

sorry, im trying to make sense, really.
*lol* I wasn't talking about a life-after-death for the poor chicken. :-)

Oh, rest assured, it did not answer my question directly.

No?

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes.

The answer doesn't change just because you re-worded the question slightly.

What? The poor chicken's not good enough for you?
Seeing as it's food, I would say... not. ;-)

To contribute to the survival of the species.

but you can do that very well, while still enjoying the things you want. look at how well we are doing so far.

Everything we do is to pleasure ourselves in some way.

Nah. I sure as hell don't mow the grass in my yard because it gives me any pleasure. :D

Nah. I sure as hell don't mow the grass in my yard because it gives me any pleasure. :D
Well, then why do you mow the grass in the first place?

*snip*

Just like the OTHER Morality Thread, it all depends on "Whose" Morals you are talking about...

And hence the Reason I say that Morals should NEVER be Legislated.

So while I may look at something as "Morally wrong" to me, like I do the situation you present, I do not believe I have ANY Right to make such behavior illegal, as long as it infringes on no one else’s Right's.

Regards,
Gaar

No?

The answer doesn't change just because you re-worded the question slightly.
Okay, so let's say I stick a Q-Tip in my ear and it feels good. Oh, man, I mean... it feels *really* good. I could do this all day. Oh, Brad... So, really, it's the height of evil for me to be sticking a Q-Tip in my ear.

but you can do that very well, while still enjoying the things you want.

Of course. Sex is a prime example of that.

look at how well we are doing so far.

I don't really think we are doing all that well, but that may just be my idealism kicking in. :)

Did he thaw the chicken before the act? :eek: :eek:

Anyway ... morally? Hrmmm ... beastial necrophiliac ...

A little crazy, but not immoral.

hmmm chicken.... in it own (well his own) "speical" source.... yuck :p :p :p :p ..... when i wanted a wake up call this is not what i was thinking of....

Anyhoo onto the question.. no personaly i would not find it inmorral as its not hurting anyone...

Okay, so let's say I stick a Q-Tip in my ear and it feels good. Oh, man, I mean... it feels *really* good. I could do this all day. Oh, Brad... So, really, it's the height of evil for me to be sticking a Q-Tip in my ear.

I never said it was the height of evil. Don't put up Straw Men of my arguments and expect me to be amused.

Of course. Sex is a prime example of that.
No! You're not allowed to enjoy it! That's "personal pleasure"!

Seeing as it's food, I would say... not. ;-)

When did we stop respecting it's life?

*lol* I wasn't talking about a life-after-death for the poor chicken. :-)

ha, well then he definetly wont need that old body.

When did we stop respecting it's life?
Eating another life-form is respecting it. Life feeds on life. You are what you eat.

When did we stop respecting it's life?
probably when we raised it in a cage on a factory farm and slaughtered it on an assembly line.

While I do not agree with your morals as stated, I can not find logical incosistencies with them. As long as you don't propose making selfish acts illegal, I have no problem with you, Texan.

Just to get your goat, right now I am eating. Just for the enjoyment of it. I have consumed enough to be sustained for quite a while, but I am slowly consuming more as I enjoy the act. Ohhh, the immorality!!!

Sorry, just had to do that. Cheers.

Eating another life-form is respecting it. Life feeds on life. You are what you eat.

So what's wrong with doing something else completely natural to it before eating it?

Just like the OTHER Morality Thread, it all depends on "Whose" Morals you are talking about...

And hence the Reason I say that Morals should NEVER be Legislated.

So while I may look at something as "Morally wrong" to me, like I do the situation you present, I do not believe I have ANY Right to make such behavior illegal, as long as it infringes on no one else’s Right's.

agreed, and i realise that just because i think that chicken fucking isnt immoral doesnt mean that everyone else should.

probably when we raised it in a cage on a factory farm and slaughtered it on an assembly line.
Booya

Did he thaw the chicken before the act? :eek: :eek:

Anyway ... morally? Hrmmm ... beastial necrophiliac ...

A little crazy, but not immoral.
ugh could you imagen it setting stuck and frozen to it......

No! You're not allowed to enjoy it! That's "personal pleasure"!

Are you really tired or something?

I don't really think we are doing all that well, but that may just be my idealism kicking in. :)

idealism aside, we sure as hell are surviving just fine. the world population is way up there.

So what's wrong with doing something else completely natural to it before eating it?
Nature is another matter.

ugh could you imagen it setting stuck and frozen to it......

THANK YOU for that mental image!

Are you really tired or something?
No. Just operating within the boundaries you set. Perhaps you'd like to broaden your horizons?

Nature is another matter.

Sure it is.

Sure it is.
Well, let's look at natural non-human life-forms. How many of them do you know of have sex with inanimate objects (doesn't include dogs and legs, because legs are not inanimate!)

idealism aside, we sure as hell are surviving just fine. the world population is way up there.

Survival is not just about population. In order for a species to assure it's survival, it needs to improve itself to the point where it can survive under any circumstances. No easy task, that. :) It requires a lot more than making lots of babies. :D

No. Just operating within the boundaries you set. Perhaps you'd like to broaden your horizons?

You aren't operating within the boundaries I set. I never stated that personal pleasure is wrong in and of itself is wrong or even that causing a muscle spasm in and of itself is wrong. It was you that implied that I had.

Survival is not just about population. In order for a species to assure it's survival, it needs to improve itself to the point where it can survive under any circumstances. No easy task, that. :) It requires a lot more than making lots of babies. :D

heh, again, different opinions between you and i. i think survival is just postponing death as long as possible, and basically living. since we have quite a few people living these days, in my opinion, we are surviving pretty well.

Hotrodders, may I ask you WHY you view personal pleasure to no other end wrong? Why is masturbation for the sole physical pleasure wrong? What about protected sex?

I do not wish to attack you or "broaden your horizons", merely to broaden my own.

oh, and even thought it hasnt yet, things could get ulgy. so i'll just say it now, dont troll, and dont feed the trolls.

heh, again, different opinions between you and i. i think survival is just postponing death as long as possible, and basically living. since we have quite a few people living these days, in my opinion, we are surviving pretty well.

Yeah, it's just a difference of opinion. We all make our basic assumptions, and many times our assumptions are different from the assumptions of others. That's just how it goes. Nice chatting with you, ABB. :)

You aren't operating within the boundaries I set. I never stated that personal pleasure is wrong in and of itself is wrong or even that causing a muscle spasm in and of itself is wrong. It was you that implied that I had.
I'm sorry. I must have mis-read when you said:
"I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act."
Selfishness? How is it any more selfish than just buying a frozen chicken, cooking it, and eating it alone - without the sex?
"It's purely for personal pleasure."

My bad.

Hotrodders, may I ask you WHY you view personal pleasure to no other end wrong? Why is masturbation for the sole physical pleasure wrong? What about protected sex?

Part of my personal philosophy is utilitarianism. So if it doesn't serve a useful purpose, I don't think it should be done.

I do not wish to attack you or "broaden your horizons", merely to broaden my own.

No problem. I'm usually happy to answer good questions. :)

I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act.

Um...I s'pose if he ejactuated into the chicken, but froze portions for his sole consumption later that week, it wouldn't be morally wrong because he wasn't wasting the food...he was _value_adding_ to the chicken...

No-one's getting hurt, because Miss Chicken has passed on...but then under those same conditions, Aunty Beryl isn't getting hurt when some sicko digs up her grave for some intimacy post-mortem. If it was my Aunty Beryl, I'd be a little upset by that.

(I'm sorry that he did that to you, Aunty Beryl)

I'm sorry. I must have mis-read when you said:
"I would personally view it as morally wrong, because of the selfishness of the act."
Selfishness? How is it any more selfish than just buying a frozen chicken, cooking it, and eating it alone - without the sex?
"It's purely for personal pleasure."

My bad.

So you missed this second half of the post?

It would depend on the situation. If the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it because they were hungry and required sustenance, then that would not be selfish. Fulfilling one's basic living requirements is not selfish, at least in my moral system.

On the other hand, if the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it despite the fact that they didn't need to eat, solely because they like the taste of chicken, then I would consider it morally wrong (though not a very serious moral wrong).

In the middle-of-the-road case in which the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it partially because they needed to eat and partially because they like chicken, I wouldn't see it as morally wrong because the primary purpose of the act was not personal pleasure.

Hotrodders, may I ask you WHY you view personal pleasure to no other end wrong? Why is masturbation for the sole physical pleasure wrong? What about protected sex?Part of my personal philosophy is utilitarianism. So if it doesn't serve a useful purpose, I don't think it should be done.
um... How is personal pleasure not useful?

I'm just glad I am not bound by any desire to be productive. I don't feel I need to utilize every resource and skill I have availabl to me. But whatever makes you happy and fulfills you is OK with me. In the end, it doesn't really matter. One day, the Universe will die, just like the rest of us.

Yeah, it's just a difference of opinion. We all make our basic assumptions, and many times our assumptions are different from the assumptions of others. That's just how it goes. Nice chatting with you, ABB. :)

yes, as they say "it takes different strokes" (watchu talkin bout willis?) it was nice talking to you as well. i usually stay clear of debates cause someone always gets offended you dont agree with them. glad to be proven wrong here.

heh, also glad i didnt get to caught up in this... i need to get to bed soon. damn you nationstates.

So, Texan Hotrodders, what if someone wished to add protein to future portions of chicken as a way to build up their muscles, or say, the muscles of their offspring?:P

Um...I s'pose if he ejactuated into the chicken, but froze portions for his sole consumption later that week, it wouldn't be morally wrong because he wasn't wasting the food...he was _value_adding_ to the chicken...

The morality of the act would still depend on his intentions, at least for me.

No-one's getting hurt, because Miss Chicken has passed on...but then under those same conditions, Aunty Beryl isn't getting hurt when some sicko digs up her grave for some intimacy post-mortem. If it was my Aunty Beryl, I'd be a little upset by that.

As would I, though I would probably use different reasoning. The sicko would still be doing something immoral according to my moral system because he would have been boffing her body solely for personal pleasure.

Again, it depends on the situation. My moral system is fairly complex, to say the least. :D

If a person masturbates purely for the personal pleasure, then I would consider it morally wrong, yes. There are other reasons for masturbating which would make the act morally correct in my moral system. Sometimes a person masturbates in order to prevent "wet dreams" or to keep themselves from succumbing to sexual temptation with regards to other persons by relieving themselves of the sexual desire.

I'm not certain that "complex" is the right word for a moral system that prohibits pleasure. If people are supposed to be allowed pleasure, then you yourself are no exception, and an act of pleasure that hurts no one is not wrong.

If people are not supposed to be allowed pleasure then sharing is just as wrong as selfish pleasure. Worse in fact because you are compounding your own guilt with that of others.

Anhedonia is not a moral system, it's a mental disorder.

So you missed this second half of the post?
It would depend on the situation. If the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it because they were hungry and required sustenance, then that would not be selfish. Fulfilling one's basic living requirements is not selfish, at least in my moral system.

On the other hand, if the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it despite the fact that they didn't need to eat, solely because they like the taste of chicken, then I would consider it morally wrong (though not a very serious moral wrong).

In the middle-of-the-road case in which the person bought the frozen chicken, cooked it, and ate it partially because they needed to eat and partially because they like chicken, I wouldn't see it as morally wrong because the primary purpose of the act was not personal pleasure.

Okay, then, let's address these issues in particular.

1. Eating sustenance is not pleasurable? You need to try Alfredo, dude. This has been addressed in a previous post.

2. Eating too much is not pleasurable for anyone. Eating too much is eating even when one is not hungry.

3. This is just a stupid distinction. After all, it's not like they would enjoy eating something because they like the taste of chicken.

By the way, nice way to avoid the question.

Part of my personal philosophy is utilitarianism. So if it doesn't serve a useful purpose, I don't think it should be done.

So then why do you post on this forum?

I'm not trying to be snippy, but this is about the least productive use for anyone's time I can imagine. Posting messages for a bunch of semi-anonymous strangers to read and not have their opinions shifted by in the slightest? Totally useless.

Plus, you can never really tell what useful purpose any activity may or may not serve in the future, so really, anything could be useful, so unless it's harmful you may as well do it. Very many successful careers began as someone's "useless" hobby.

um... How is personal pleasure not useful?

Personal pleasure can be useful. Doing things solely for personal pleasure is not particularly useful, IMO. In my experience, there are usually ways to gain the pleasure you might require to stay sane while still being utilitarian in focus.

Personal pleasure can be useful. Doing things solely for personal pleasure is not particularly useful, IMO. In my experience, there are usually ways to gain the pleasure you might require to stay sane while still being utilitarian in focus.
Okay... how is personal pleasure not sole?

So then why do you post on this forum?

Why do you?

I'm not trying to be snippy, but this is about the least productive use for anyone's time I can imagine. Posting messages for a bunch of semi-anonymous strangers to read and not have their opinions shifted by in the slightest? Totally useless.

Heh. Personally, I generally like to post here because it serves multiple purposes.

1. Posting on this forum, particularly in threads like these, is an exercise in critical thinking.
2. It also provides me with some interesting examples of social dynamics to study.
3. The debate practice improves my ability to clearly articulate complex concepts. (I'm not perfect at it yet, but I'm working on it. :) )
4. It helps me improve my writing by giving me the opportunity to consistently practice the proscribed forms of English.

That's not to say that I always have a utilitarian purpose in mind when I post. I occasionally do wrong (according to my moral system) and get on solely for my pleasure. I do make mistakes, which is not surprising given the difficulty of achieving the standard I set for myself. :D

Plus, you can never really tell what useful purpose any activity may or may not serve in the future, so really, anything could be useful,

Anything could potentially be useful, but it's not useful for us to operate under that assumption. ;) It's more effective for us to successfully acquire the more obviously useful skills using what time we have than wasting our time trying to acquire every single skill that could possibly be useful at some point.

so unless it's harmful you may as well do it. Very many successful careers began as someone's "useless" hobby.

Having a successful career does not automatically make one "useful" at least in my belief system. *shrug*

Okay... how is personal pleasure not sole?

Is this clearer?

Performing an act solely for the purpose of personal pleasure is wrong.

What did you think I meant by combining "solely" and "for"? Did you read "solely" as "alone" or "by one's self"? That would make sense if you come from a language tradition different from my own. Generally in American English the "for the purpose of" is implied by the "for" when used in the way I used it.

THANK YOU for that mental image!
they say it is better to give then to recieve....... bit like this bloke.... :D

Is this clearer?

What did you think I meant by combining "solely" and "for"? Did you read "solely" as "alone" or "by one's self"? That would make sense if you come from a language tradition different from my own. Generally in American English the "for the purpose of" is implied by the "for" when used in the way I used it.
Solely means one.

Personally means for one.

"For the purpose of" means something else. It means there is a purpose to being either soley or for multiply.

Solely means one.

Personally means for one.

What does "solely for personal pleasure" translate to? :)

"For the purpose of" means something else. It means there is a purpose to being either soley or for multiply.

So it was a semantic problem. That's good to know. I'll try to keep this in mind in any future discussions we might have. I'll have to be extra careful with my wording.

he would get a strange salmonella related std

he would get a strange salmonella related std
Mmmm... Sam 'n' Ella.

Texan Hotrodders, I apologize for my silliness last night. I'm sorry.

It's not immoral. But it sure is creepy and gross.

It's not immoral. But it sure is creepy and gross.

Agreed.

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?
ROFLMAO!!! Not morally wrong ... just pretty damned stupid, if you ask me! ROFL!

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?

It's like rape I guess, it's not like the chicken is consenting to the act and thus it is immoral. The guy probably was raised by really creepy people to do something like that and if thats not the case then in the back of his mind he has to know it is not moral, just because of the every day, normal, way people act.

having sex with a frozen chicken is wrong because he is taking away the chickens right to choose.

It wouldn't be "wrong," just really really wierd.

If he fed it to someone, that's another story.

having sex with a frozen chicken is wrong because he is taking away the chickens right to choose.
:confused:
It's sort of...dead...
How could it choose if it's dead?

Ummm....

By my morals, it's wrong because he's buying a dead chicken and therefore supporting the organized killing of animals. But if we take the societal assumption that it's okay to kill a chicken, then it's gross but morally neutral.

It's an interesting question, though, for its combination of necrophilia and bestiality. The whole issue with necrophilia is respect for the dead and/or dead's living relatives. In society's eyes, chickenkind does not merit respect so it's a moot point. By my morals, you've already killed or supported killing the chicken and so having sex with it doesn't add to the insult. The issue with bestiality is that "animals can't give consent" but heck, that chicken didn't give consent to be killed and frozen and packaged up to eat either, so again - no added insult. Plus, if it's already dead, it's not suffering from being screwed by a human. So, in a way, the two issues negate each other.

So: wrong by vegetarian standards. Gross but fine otherwise.

dp

Add a little A1 to the mix and you got yourself a fine meal.
BTW I loved the poem.

(taken from the "morality test" thread)

first off, do not mistake this as spam, cause im really curious...

suppose someone, every friday, bought a frozen chicken. he took it home, and had sex with it every time. then he cooked it, and ate it, all by himself, and nobody gets harmed. nobody even knows he does it. my question is simple - is this morally wrong? why?

Whoever would do that is mentally ill! Don't eat it! Throw it away!

I agree... that is kinda... disturbing.

Why do you?

I have nothing against entertainment for its own sake.

Heh. Personally, I generally like to post here because it serves multiple purposes.

1. Posting on this forum, particularly in threads like these, is an exercise in critical thinking.
2. It also provides me with some interesting examples of social dynamics to study.
3. The debate practice improves my ability to clearly articulate complex concepts. (I'm not perfect at it yet, but I'm working on it. :) )
4. It helps me improve my writing by giving me the opportunity to consistently practice the proscribed forms of English.

So what? Presumably the guy having sex with the frozen chicken has gotten pretty good at it. Probably developed a penis that's pretty resistant to pain because frozen meat is pretty rough. And if he's going to make a chicken taste good after that treatment then he must have become a pretty good cook. Getting good at something that doesn't serve a function does not serve a function any more than the act itself.

That's not to say that I always have a utilitarian purpose in mind when I post. I occasionally do wrong (according to my moral system) and get on solely for my pleasure. I do make mistakes, which is not surprising given the difficulty of achieving the standard I set for myself. :D



[QUOTE] Anything could potentially be useful, but it's not useful for us to operate under that assumption. ;) It's more effective for us to successfully acquire the more obviously useful skills using what time we have than wasting our time trying to acquire every single skill that could possibly be useful at some point.

So if there is no immediatly useful function to perform then what is one to do? Sit and wait for such an demand to arise? Sounds pretty useless to me. Is the usefulness of an act to be judged by the drudgery of performing it?

Your thesis falls a bit flat. Time is a resource. Spending it foolishly is no more immoral than failing to haggle for the best price on goods and services.

Having a successful career does not automatically make one "useful" at least in my belief system. *shrug*

Well it must be useful to someone, because someone's paying for it.

It's like rape I guess, it's not like the chicken is consenting to the act and thus it is immoral.
:confused:
How can the chicken consent?
It's dead.

Did you all hear about the 63 yr old guy in Wisconsin who got caught trying to screw a cow???

:confused:
How can the chicken consent?
It's dead.

that's just another case of the chicken ot consenting!