Does Desire Justify Need?

[tomspug]

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

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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

What is natural as opposed to unnatural?

 

[Storm]

Not in all cases. A pedophile has a natural desire for sex with pre-pubescent children, but the harm done should trump the gratification.

 

[Caladan]

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

So long as we are not talking about psychotic desires, such as a burning need to go on a killing spree, I think that a healthy human being should feel good about themselves enough to know how to enjoy and reward themselves in appropriate context.

 

[Storm]

So long as we are not talking about psychotic desires, such as a burning need to go on a killing spree, I think that a healthy human being should feel good about themselves enough to know how to enjoy and reward themselves in appropriate context.

So, the question becomes, are we omitting pschotic desires from the conversation? I think the op's usage of "necessarily" implies that we're not, but I'll wait for Tom's clarification.

 

[tomspug]

So long as we are not talking about psychotic desires, such as a burning need to go on a killing spree, I think that a healthy human being should feel good about themselves enough to know how to enjoy and reward themselves in appropriate context.

So, if there are certain desires that should not be satisfied, how do we define them? Is it contextual (perhaps the desires are OK, as long as no harm is caused to another person) or do we define them based on the nature itself (the source of the desire)?

 

[tomspug]

So, the question becomes, are we omitting pschotic desires from the conversation? I think the op's usage of "necessarily" implies that we're not, but I'll wait for Tom's clarification.

If psychotic implies that there is something WRONG with the brain, than I would omit it from the conversation. If it implies the grotesque or horrifying, than no.

 

[Storm]

So, if there are certain desires that should not be satisfied, how do we define them? Is it contextual (perhaps the desires are OK, as long as no harm is caused to another person) or do we define them based on the nature itself (the source of the desire)?

I would go with contextual.

I don't see how the latter option would work, though. Could you elaborate?

 

[Storm]

If psychotic implies that there is something WRONG with the brain, than I would omit it from the conversation. If it implies the grotesque or horrifying, than no.

How do we know that something is wrong with the brain, though? (I'm assuming you mean physically.)

 

[tomspug]

I would go with contextual.

I don't see how the latter option would work, though. Could you elaborate?

One might argue that a grown man's desire for engaging sexually with a child would NEVER justify itself. A pacifist might argue that malice is never justified. In these cases, context is irrelevant.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Of course not, why do you ask?

 

[Autodidact]

So, if there are certain desires that should not be satisfied, how do we define them?

Ones that cause suffering.[/quote]

Is it contextual (perhaps the desires are OK, as long as no harm is caused to another person)

I wouldn't use the word "contextual" there.[qutoe] or do we define them based on the nature itself (the source of the desire)?[/quote] No, not the source. Desires that will cause harm should not be gratified. Duh.

 

[tomspug]

How do we know that something is wrong with the brain, though? (I'm assuming you mean physically.)

Well, I guess that's partially a matter of opinion. But I hope you can agree that certain mental syndromes are unhealthy (and yes, I meant physically).

 

[Autodidact]

One might argue that a grown man's desire for engaging sexually with a child would NEVER justify itself.

I don't think the word "context" helps clarify. We assume that all sexual contact with children is harmful to them, so we consider that a desire that should not be gratified.

A pacifist might argue that malice is never justified. In these cases, context is irrelevant.

I think that a pacifist believes that violence is always harmful.

 

[Autodidact]

*has a hunch tomspug is getting ready to make an anti-homosexuality argument*

 

[Caladan]

So, if there are certain desires that should not be satisfied, how do we define them? Is it contextual (perhaps the desires are OK, as long as no harm is caused to another person) or do we define them based on the nature itself (the source of the desire)?

Ah.. what?

I'll simplify.. a burning desire to punch someone who crosses you isnt cool. allowing yourself to indulge yourself with a cold brewsky after a long day at work or in the sun just because *you feel like it* is very normal.

 

[fantome profane]

So, if there are certain desires that should not be satisfied, how do we define them? Is it contextual (perhaps the desires are OK, as long as no harm is caused to another person) or do we define them based on the nature itself (the source of the desire)?

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.

 

[tomspug]

Ah.. what?

I'll simplify.. a burning desire to punch someone who crosses you isnt cool. allowing yourself to indulge yourself with a cold brewsky after a long day at work or in the sun just because *you feel like it* is very normal.

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?

 

[Storm]

One might argue that a grown man's desire for engaging sexually with a child would NEVER justify itself.

How? Without the context of harm, what's wrong with the desire itself?

A pacifist might argue that malice is never justified.

It could also be argued that the desire itself contains no malice.

 

[Storm]

Well, I guess that's partially a matter of opinion. But I hope you can agree that certain mental syndromes are unhealthy (and yes, I meant physically).

Of course. But "unhealthy" isn't limited to organic defects.

*has a hunch tomspug is getting ready to make an anti-homosexuality argument*

If HE does, I'll be sorely disappointed in him. However, there are posters on the board from whom I expect it.

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?

Of course not.