Eros and Bad Faith

Situation:

Teen dies of over masturbation (Published Sept 4, 2011)

A 16-year-old boy in Brazil reportedly died after masturbating too much. He was allegedly to have masturbated more than 40 times throughout the night last month and was found dead by his mother in the morning. The woman said she had planned to bring her son for sexual addiction treatment, but it was too late. According to the teenager’s classmates, the boy was “highly addicted” to sex and was always fascinated about women in all body shapes and ages. He had apparently also asked his friends to watch him masturbate through webcam. The boy had stacks of pornographic magazines in his room. A large amount of erotic pictures and films were also found in his computer.

Definition of Terms:

1) Masturbation refers to the stimulation of one’s own sex organs for pleasure. It is a sexual activity that involves only the self. A universal phenomenon in one form or another, it is one of our earliest expressions of sexual stirrings and an important means of learning about our bodies. The activity has no harmful physical effects on the body. A widely practiced form of sexual release, masturbation is always accompanied by sexual fantasy.

2) Sartrean existentialism is the ethical theory that we ought to recognize that our value is rooted in the projects that we freely pursue and so promote the freedom of all to pursue their projects. This is not, however, simply the liberal view that each person should be allowed to pursue whatever they see as good so long as this does not infringe on the similar freedom of someone else, but rather the more stringent view that the only acceptable goals are those pursued “in the name of freedom.”

3) Freedom is a feature of human consciousness where by people are fundamentally, necessarily and inalienably free regardless of their circumstances. A person’s freedom does not consist in a complete detachment from all obligations; it consists in the constant responsibility of having to choose who he is through the actions he chooses to perform in response to the adversity and resistance of his situation. Even if he chooses to do nothing that is still a choice he is responsible for. There are, however, certain dispositions and responses that require conscious awareness in order to occur but are nevertheless not matters of choice. For example, sexual preference. One does not choose it and cannot choose to change it.

4) Bad Faith is the denial of the reality of freedom and choice, perhaps as a means of avoiding anxiety, as a coping strategy, or with the aim of relinquishing responsibility. Bad faith is not self-deception, rather an ongoing project of self-distraction or self-evasion. It is inauthenticity, wherein one’s outlook and behavior is rooted in a fixed nature determined by one’s inheritance, upbringing, or socialization.

5) Authenticity is the affirmation of the fundamental existential truth that we are free and responsible. Authenticity consists in embracing human reality for what it is and living in accordance with it rather than pretending it is something else. To be authentic is to realize fully one’s being-in-situation, whatever this situation may happen to be: with a profound awareness that, through the authentic realization of the being-in-situation, one brings to full existence the situation on the one hand and human reality on the other. Authenticity involves a person coming to terms with the fact that he will never be at one with himself, that he will never become a kind of thing that no longer has to choose what it is.

Eros and Bad Faith

In Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty endorses the view that bodily existence provides “the possibility of the barest raw material of a genuine presence in the world and establishes our first consonance with the world.” Having a body is significant because it orients us in a world where we are able to individuate subjects and objects. Since sexuality is inseparable from the notion of the body, then sexuality projects a manner of being towards the world. Therefore, the expression of sexuality is an expression of being as an embodied individual in the world. Merleau-Ponty further rejects the dialectic of the mind and body, saying that there is an inter-connection between the two such that they cannot be taken independently from one another. He accepts that desire and love have a metaphysical as well as physical significance. So, the “life of the body and the life of the psyche are involved in a relationship of reciprocal expression.” This is relevant to man as a consciousness and as a freedom.

Masturbation is an expression of sexuality. Since it is one of the ways in which individuals are acquainted with their bodies, it enables one to view and express oneself as a sexual being in the world. Such self-stimulation allows one to explore one’s body and become comfortable with it. This instinct to sex and pleasure is borne out of the reciprocal relationship of the mind and body. In other words, one does not masturbate because he is merely a ‘bundle of instincts’ or a machine governed by natural laws. It involves a psychosomatic subject in the decision to act so. Therefore, masturbation is an exercise of man’s consciousness and freedom.

Sartrean existentialism is founded on the dictum: existence precedes essence. It emphasizes that the value of individuals is rooted on the choices one makes and the actions one chooses to perform (essence), not the circumstances in which he finds himself in (existence). The exercise of one’s freedom must always lead to authenticity, which is embracing the human reality and taking responsibility for one’s actions. These choices must be freely decided; otherwise it is an inauthentic choice. And, inauthenticity or bad faith is unethical.

Sexuality is part of the human reality since man is both mind and body. The sexual-body-in-the-world is a being-in-the-situation where one is subjected to sensations and desires. Though it may not be one’s choice to be female or male, one is always responsible for what he does with the circumstances he is in. So, if he freely chooses to express his sexuality through masturbation, then it is considered ethical. Such an activity permits his essence to become. Otherwise, when he is acting merely out of upbringing or socialization etc., masturbation becomes an act of bad faith. Furthermore, if one rejects the idea of masturbation by appealing to traditional or religious figures etc., then it may also be considered inauthentic. To deny sexuality altogether is a form of self-evasion since man is a body in the world and he would have to deal with the consequences of being embodied.

It should be clear at this point, however, that even though masturbation is a legitimate expression of sexuality, it is not in itself authentic. Authenticity follows from the reasons for our decisions and actions which ultimately form our essence. It involves constant examination of one’s reasons at every masturbatory instance in order to determine whether or not it is at that instance ethical. Such an ethical framework obligates us to cultivate the “single over-arching virtue of authenticity: the disposition to recognize and promote what is most genuinely our own, the fundamental nature of our existence.” #

Sources:

Cox, G. (2009). How to be an Existentialist. London, United Kingdom: Continuum International.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). Phenomenology of Perception. London, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis e-Library.

Webber, J. (2010). Existentialism. In J. Skorupski, The Routledge Companion to Ethics (pp. 230 - 240). Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.

http://www.ladyblitz.com/news/teen-dies-after-masturbating-42-times-in-a-row-3169/

http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/pdfs/masturbation.pdf 

Philosophical Discussion

Yoro, Mendoza, Villanueva, Gonzales

13 December 2011

On Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity, in the traditional sense, is defined as a state of overlapping individual understandings. One significance of this concept is that it serves as a means by which phenomenology becomes sufficient in the process of cognizing. Intersubjectivity accounts for objectivism of cognition, given that “no cognition could with reason be called objective unless it be a cognition effectively the same for all possible objects. A subject can only be a subject in a community of subjects, wherein a subject recognizes a personality of a higher order, its correspondent as Husserl calls it, Kulturwelt. It is in this where intersubjective verification of subjective insights ought to take place. Husserl claims that in this process, the intersubjective a priori ought to expand, and not to contradict, the subjective a priori.

It can be said that intersubjectivity taken in this light places emphasis on finding a common denominator among all subjectivities. There is a tendency to disregard disagreements, viewing them as merely hindrances that need to be resolved in order to arrive at a final agreement. However, it is argued that disagreements constitute intersubjectivity, in such a way that it is in the process that intersubjectivity takes place. Intesubjectivity in the traditional sense is what is found. The proposed notion is that it is the process itself which is intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity is not finding objective cognition. It is creating one. It is in the state of discord that intersubjectivity is achieved. It is the clashing, not the consensus.

This leads one to ask what this would imply about Objective cognition/knowledge. The notion of “objective” as something eternal and unchanging is transformed into something that changes as the experiences of subjectivities progress. Experience is never stagnant. It follows that what is common among all experiences would continually be altered. Intersubjectivity, as seen this way, serves as a criticism of the first notion, yet it also defeats the long-held view about the Objective.
 
The following can be argued, then: that (1) Intersubjectivity does not support Objectivity as it is normally held, and (2) Intersubjectivity supports a kind of Objectivity that is subjective.

By JD Item, Mia Lua and Christopher Porras

Philosophical Discussion

14 November 2011

Occupy Wall Street - Why we can’t get rid of capitalism just yet

Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. It is a leaderless resistance which constituents vow that they are the 99% who will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the remaining 1%. In a nutshell, it is a revolution of sorts, which aims to “build an alternative institution to what [people] see as the exploitative, oppressive capitalistic society that we live in” (Papesch, 2011). From such a definition one would be reminded of Marx’s dialectical materialism and his prediction of the eventual overthrowing of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. However, the question still remains—is such a formulation possible in present society? Can we possibly function with the total absence of the capitalist system? 
 
News Excerpts

NEW YORK, Sep 30, 2011 (IPS) - Since Sep. 17, hundreds of demonstrators in the Occupy Wall Street movement have transformed the quiet Zucotti Park in lower Manhattan from a place where Wall Street traders once relaxed during lunch breaks into a demonstration camp. Participants from all over the United States have joined the movement that criticises the injustices of the capitalist system and calls for greater democracy and individual freedom.

 
Their base is right in front of the aptly named Liberty Plaza, former headquarters of NASDAQand current office of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The protest was first called up in July 2011 by Adbusters and Anonymous, two groups of social activists, artists and hackers.

 
“We are trying to build the community and the culture we would like to see in the world,” explained Isham Christie, film theory and philosophy student at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Centre and an organiser of the protest, calling it a “fight for a (fairer) world”.  In comparison to the elitist structure of the banks and companies it opposes, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement does not have a hierarchy. Everyone can speak up or participate in discussions, and so everyone can take responsibility – or refuse it. The young nucleus of the protest say they remain “in charge.” But older activists want more organization and purpose from the denizens of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan.  However, others worry that unions might want to co-opt the event. “It really depends on the cohesion of this group, not having people come in from the outside and taking it over,” said Rev. Brian Merritt, a spokesman for the Occupy DC movement camped out in McPherson Square, just off K Street, Washington’s power row for corporate lobbyists.

 
As the protests enter their fourth week, the size of the crowd has begun to grow. As many as 5,000 marched on Wednesday. Such numbers pale besides the 50,000 or 60,000 protesters who would gather at International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings a decade ago or the more than 250,000 people who marched against the Iraq war in New York City in 2003.

 
Georgetown’s Kazin said while protesters have not articulated their goals, “If this movement continues to grow and continues to be popular, which is just as important, then the pressure will mount on politicians to do something.”

Philosophical Introduction
 
Marxism sees that the communist and the capitalist as directly waging an ongoing class struggle, in the sense that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own must seek employment in order to make a living. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods and services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers’ wages, another part is used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the capitalist in the form of profit. Thus the capitalist can earn money by selling the surplus from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work.

Communism has no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. Practically, the communists is the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country; that section which pushes forward all others. Theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of man’s own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. They would want to do away with the miserable character of appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it. In a communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer. The first step, in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

To be a capitalist on the other hand is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is, therefore, not a personal, but a social power. For a capitalist society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. Capital is seen as being independent and having individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. To the capitalists, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

The Socialist Ideal by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

 
 ———————————————-
 
Philosophical Discussion
 
Why we can’t get rid of capitalism just yet

A spectre is haunting America—the spectre of what we may call something close to what Marx proposed as communism. There are many things in the protests at Wall Street that are reminiscent of his material dialectic; from the accumulation of wealth by the capitalists to the alienation of the working class or of what he called the proletariat, to the realization and revolt of this class against the tyranny of the capitalists. In this paper, we shall attempt to argue that despite the disadvantages of capitalism, society as a system cannot function without retaining some aspects of it—society cannot move into communism.

There is a steady call for distributive justice in all working societies. Distributive justice, according to Aristotle, is concerned with the distribution of money or honour or other resources that are divided among all who have a share in some public organization (publish.uwo.ca). The distribution of resources and burdens must be done equally, and the contention of communism is that in the capitalist society, there is the absence of distributive justice because of the existence private property which in turn causes the alienation of workers from their labor. In this light they propose therefore that private property be abolished, and that the distribution of wealth should be made according to each person’s needs.

However, while the proposition of communism is well-meaning, its plausibility is questionable. Firstly, Locke (and the libertarians) claims that property is an inalienable right, together with life and liberty. The government cannot simply just interfere let alone remove one’s property. To abolish private property would be to trample on an inalienable right. Second, communism argues that capitalism alienates workers from their labor. Workers are unable to work under their own direction; work is set for them by planners and managers who seemingly reduce them to mere robots assigned to do a single job at all times. However, labor is necessarily alienated. It is necessarily something that should be sold, lest our having a less efficient economic system. Third is the question of motivation. With the abolishing of private property the distribution according to needs, one is not motivated to work and be productive. People will become lazy and rely on their share of the pie. Pay without work positively reinforces non-work. Pay with work reinforces work, hence, society becomes more productive. Fourth, even in the socialist setting, unjust distribution cannot be helped.  Robert Nozick makes this assertion when he talks about the Chamberlain effect. The government cannot rid its constituents of the right to spend their resources on whatever they wish (on items of leisure, for example). Such an activity is incompatible with liberty. Finally, it is only in the existence of wealth that people can exercise certain virtues, such as helpfulness and generosity. Without private property, we are hampered in our efforts towards becoming true excellent, virtuous people.

And so, despite the disadvantages that the capitalist system poses, despite the poverty and the obvious inequality of distribution (in the communist sense) there are still aspects of it which we cannot totally rid society of. It is an imperfect economic system, for sure, and the only way to remedy it is to make modifications of it, or to somehow marry it with the ideals of communism. It could, or course, be done, but that is another story.

by Geca Atanacio, Shayne Baltazar and Erin Gonzales

Philosophical Discussion

14 November 2011

Utilitarianism for Animals

Animals in captivity. Manila Zoo.

(from PETA Investigative Report on Mali: The Manila Zoo’s Aging and Ailing Elephant)

The Manila Zoological and Botanical Garden features an Asian Elephant named Mali. She was born in Sri Lanka in 1974 and was only 3 y/o when shipped in the Philippines. She is the only captive elephant in the country. In the wild, elephants like Mali travel in close-knit matriarchal groups. Female elephants spend their time in socialization. They have homes ranging from 25000 to 60000 hectares while roaming up to 80 kilometers a day – a necessary activity for their well-being. Manila zoo has only 5.5 hectares. Mali has no opportunity to engage in any activities that a normal elephant needs for their physical, mental and emotional health such as grazing, plucking fruits and leaves from trees, taking mud baths and playing in the water.

Leading zoo organizations – including Association of Zoos and Aquariums in U.S. – require accredited facilities to provide minimum enrichment, including rocks, tree stumps, or large and sturdy objects for rubbing against and scratching. Mali has none of these, and the only form of enrichment is a small pool at the back of her enclosure. These organizations also recommend that elephants must be kept on natural substrates as much as possible to keep their feet healthy and infection-free. Mali’s enclosure is only of concrete. These elephants also eat up to 80 types of plants whereas Mali is only fed with pechay, bananas, carrots, cornstalk and pineapple.

The physical and mental frustrations that captive elephants endure often lead to abnormal, neurotic and even self-destructive behaviours called “zoochosis” or “stereotypy”. Zoo visitors see Mali pacing incessantly or standing in one spot with her trunk to the ground. She’s been seen walking to the edge of her enclosure and reaching out her foot in the hope of getting farther. According to people who witnessed one such incident, when Mali felt empty space, she stepped back and repeated the same behaviour. Finally realizing that there was nowhere to go, a dejected Mali walked aimlessly around her enclosure, picking debris off the ground. Clearly, Mali is profoundly depressed.

Animals raised and improved for consumption. KFC.

(from KFC is cruel to chickens, says animal rights group By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor)

…The world’s biggest chicken restaurant chain, is being pressured to make life better for the birds it uses with a campaign from the world’s biggest animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).

In Britain there is wide acceptance, from the Government down, that conditions for broiler chickens – birds intensively bred for meat – are now the most serious remaining farm animal welfare problem, with millions of the 820 million birds bred every year dying before slaughter from illnesses or cramped conditions.

Peta says it wants KFC to end what it claims are “crude and ineffective” electric stunning and throat-slitting to kill birds and replace the process with gas. It also wants the forced rapid growth of chickens to be phased out, more space for each bird, and “minimal enhancements” to the birds’ living conditions, such as sheltered areas and perches to provide them with some semblance of their natural environment.

It also calls for automated chicken-catching to reduce the high incidence of bruising, broken bones and stress associated with catching the chickens by hand.

Dawn Carr, director of Peta Europe, said: “KFC is the world’s largest killer of chickens, and as such has a responsibility to treat these birds humanely. Nearly 800 million chickens are killed every year in the cruellest ways imaginable. Although our ultimate aim is for people to go vegetarian, we are calling on KFC to implement some welfare standards and make life a little bit better for these birds.”….

***

The animals’ capacity for conscious and social life gives animals full moral status. Peter Singer argued that utilitarianism should be extended to all conscious creatures, thus including the welfare of animals in the maximization of good consequences. Animals are conscious and are capable of feeling pain and pleasure, having preferences and interests just as humans do. In this respect, according to Singer, their interests should be considered equally with those of humans.1

Mali, the Manila Zoo elephant is a perfect example of ignoring animal welfare. For 30 years, Mali was held captive in an internationally-condemned cage with no other elephant to keep her company. In this very miserable condition, Mali developed depression and had to undergo therapy. The act of caging animals is against animal interests. In effect, the act of caging animals in worst conditions does harm to them. To keep animals in cages ignores the animals’ needs, which are a natural habitat and the opportunity to grow and develop in their most natural condition. Animal cages in zoos simulate animals’ natural habitat but only to an extent. Zoos can never completely copy the natural seas and terrains that house animals in the wild. Furthermore, growing in captivity deprives animals of a chance to maximize and realize their full potentials. Caging Mali in miserable facilities evoke a much stronger against animal welfare and happiness. Mali was not only deprived of her needs, but she was also subjected to a multitude of discomfort such as an inhospitable home and the sorrow of being alone. Such discomforts would not be forced on Mali if she were in the wild.

The KFC issue is another instance where animal welfare was ignored. Peter Singer also argued that the consumption of animals is wrong when there is any alternative, such as vegetables. It is immoral to eat animals, thus it is especially immoral to raise animals and improve their physical attributes to make better food for human beings. KFC’s questionable methods of raising chickens and “enhancing” them so that they could be ready for human consumption in a short span of time are definitely immoral.

Both of these cases are situations where humans disregard animals only for their own welfare and happiness. These humans are guilty of speciesism which is the bias of one species towards the members of the same species. The concept of utilitarianism deals with the maximizing happiness and minimizing harm. Both happiness and harm are applicable also to conscious beings such as animals. We therefore say that what people did to Mali and to the thousands of chickens produced for KFC is immoral because their actions disregard the happiness of these animals.

References:

http://www.virtualphilippines.net/Panoramas/Manila_Zoo/MaliReport.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/kfc-is-cruel-to-chickens-says-animal-rights-group-612710.html

Life and Death, Part Three, Chapter 10-Animals, p135

by Timothy Carido and Carlo Sevilla

Philosophical Discussion

On Friendship and Politics

Last June 2011, President Noynoy Aquino stood firm on his position that the Spratlys is part of the Philippine Territory, thus alarming the Defense Minister of the People’s Republic of China about the possible conflict between the countries regarding territorial rights. United States of America later announced its support to the Philippines in case of an engagement between the two countries.

Not long ago, before Tomas Cloma ‘discovered’ the Freedom Islands (Kalayaan Islands, part of Spratlys) in 1947, the United States gave the Philippines a Commonwealth Constitution thus allowing the country to have the chance to actually take control after the Spanish colonization. However, aside from the help the Americans gave to the country in order to lead our own government, they also made laws that will benefit the American people (an example was the law that gave equal rights to Filipinos and Americans to all natural resources in the Philippines). From the time they first went in our country until this very day, the bond between the Philippines and the US grew stronger thus dubbing them as a “friend.”

According to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, there are three kinds of friendship: friends of utility, friends of pleasure, and genuine friendship. The friends-of-utility is a kind of friendship that usually ends just as fast as how it all began. People are not connected in a deep level thus it will be easy for them to let go when they cease to be useful to one another. An example of this friendship is that of a hospitable person to a foreigner. The next kind of friendship is that of friends-of-pleasure which is often related to young people experiencing fleeting emotions to one another. An example of this friendship is that of teammates, wherein the emotional bond or connection ends if they no longer play together. Finally, the last kind of friendship is that of genuine friends. According to Aristotle, only virtuous people are capable of having genuine friendships. One must wish all the best for the other, as he wishes the best for himself. He shall treat the other like how he treats himself, wanting only the good. By “good”, Aristotle meant that during an examination, a genuine friend will help you review before the exam, not just give you the right answers. A genuine friend will help you to reach eudaimonia, or growth.

Applying Nicomachean Ethics into context, it is clear that the friendship that lies in politics is the advantageous kind since in State affairs; there would always be an underlying interest involved.  Person A may have something to get from person B and it is only through bargain and consensus that such need can be attained. Such relation seemed to be “utility-friendship”, for A engages with B only because A needs something from B. Nonetheless, political friendship for Aristotle would only not only involve interests, but more importantly, the virtue of justice. However, this only applies to an ideal state where every citizen would possess that aim to bring good to the “other”.

The discussants would argue that there is no genuine friendship in politics as it is applied practically. The friendship referred to in those events (i.e. Filipino-American Friendship Day) is not genuine friendship. As to the manner it was used must be delved into another discussion.

July 2011

by Paula Valencia & John Arcenas

Philosophical Discussion