Philosophy question

[Anonymous No.12583119]

If you look at Classical Philosophers, they tended to consider being promiscuous a pretty bad thing. They believed it led to a worse life, that you would become a worse person.

When did philosophers stop considering promiscuity a bad thing?
Is that due to Bentham?

[Anonymous No.12583126]

They believed promiscuity was bad because sexuality is completely divorced from ethics. Morality never plays a role in deciding who you're gonna bump genitals with.

[Anonymous No.12583136]

>>12583126
Your post doesn't make much sense to me

[Anonymous No.12583160]

>>12583136
the promiscuous advocate for having as much sex as possible because it feels good. This is a common belief among hedonists, who seek pleasure at all costs. When you put your own personal pleasure as the highest moral imperative, you stop caring for the consequences your actions have on other. Consider that by having sex without protection, you are risking becoming infected by your partner, or infecting your partner yourself. You are risking one of you becoming pregnant, and having burdened a new life with living with parents that didn't plan them. If you decide to abort, you are basically relieving yourself of all responsibility that your actions might have. If you are female, you are also responsible for choosing who gets to mate, yet you base your qualifications on who would provide the greatest pleasure to you, not who would be GOOD for you. Also consider that probably at least one other guy wanted to be with you and now they can't because you chose someone else. The biggest flaw of these people is that they think sex is of no consequence to anyone but themselves, despite the fact that who you decide to have sex with does have an impact on more than just you two.

[Anonymous No.12583168]

>>12583119
By the logic of the comment, the guy on the left shouldn't be offering himself to any potential new girlfriend since he, too, is "used goods."

[Anonymous No.12583187]

>>12583168
the logic of this comic**

[Anonymous No.12583189]

>>12583168
Not necessarily, since human impurity laws are pretty arbitrary, in this case the condition is being a receptacle of semen.

[Anonymous No.12583198]

>>12583189
In which case, even a wife in a loving marriage of 20 years is "used goods", assuming her and her husband have had a healthy sex life resulting in arguably thousands of instances of sexual intercourse, despite nevertheless being exalted by society for her "worthiness" as a woman.

It's a stupid sentiment and doesn't belong in a healthy mind.

[Anonymous No.12583204]

>>12583198
You'd only be correct if the wife was being offered to someone else.

[Anonymous No.12583210]

>>12583204
It doesn't matter. Whether she receives the semen of her husband or the semen of someone else, she's still acting as a receptacle of semen, as was your metric.

[Anonymous No.12583221]

>>12583198
>In which case, even a wife in a loving marriage of 20 years is "used goods", assuming her and her husband have had a healthy sex life resulting in arguably thousands of instances of sexual intercourse, despite nevertheless being exalted by society for her "worthiness" as a woman.
The premise of the post is that the impurity of the thing appears when someone else uses it, so there would be no impurity in your example.

Ideas of impurity are inherent in every culture and human, what you call a "healthy mind" is probably a rational mind, something that simply does not exist. Picture this: you buy a used car and then learn that a rape-homicide happened in it, then (and ignore every legal aspect for the sake of the example) it was cleaned to the point that not a single molecule of the event continues there; you'll probably feel weird using it, at least for a while, despite not being an actual material and rational reason for it.

[Anonymous No.12583228]

>>12583119
when virtue lost its philosophical value, i think for Aristotle to be free you not only had to be free from other people but also from your own base desires. but if there are no superior values then there's no reason not to bow to your internal filthy desires if you only care about maximizing freedom

[Anonymous No.12583238]

>>12583228
>when virtue lost its philosophical value, i think for Aristotle to be free you not only had to be free from other people but also from your own base desires. but if there are no superior values then there's no reason not to bow to your internal filthy desires if you only care about maximizing freedom

Why would you consider that virtue lost its value?
Being temperate will make you freer and happier than being ruled by your base desires.

[Anonymous No.12583242]

what the hell kind of word is skeet? is it what happens when some backwater southerner tries to say "squirt" and fails?

[Anonymous No.12583246]

>>12583238
name one temperate person who is valued by society in the current year

[Anonymous No.12583253]

>>12583246
The Dalai Lama?
But how does that answer my post?

[Anonymous No.12583265]

>>12583253
based and redpilled, but how is he valued except as an exotic icon and not as something people should aspire to?

it doesn't answer it but my point is that even by your post temperance is only valued as long as it allows you to squeeze more pleasure on the long term, not as a value in itself, and most people even then seem to think it's too much work and they'd rather go party or pop some pills instead, which may be the right choice if you only care about pleasure

[Anonymous No.12583306]

>>12583265
General Mattis also is an ascetic and he is an admired man, who is not considered an exotic icon.

>it doesn't answer it but my point is that even by your post temperance is only valued as long as it allows you to squeeze more pleasure on the long term, not as a value in itself, and most people even then seem to think it's too much work and they'd rather go party or pop some pills instead, which may be the right choice if you only care about pleasure

You mentioned that being a hedonist would maximize your freedom. I stated the opposite, that being temperate will make you freer than being led by your base desires.
Temperance was always considered valuable because it is beneficial. It leads to you becoming a better person and a happier person and because believing that bodily pleasures is the good is a false knowledge. That virtues are virtues because they are beneficial is not something that *I* have created or something that diminishes virtue. You can find it in Plato.

[Anonymous No.12583352]

>>12583221
People aren't property, my friend.

[Anonymous No.12583396]

>>12583210
But i don't mind sitting on a chair that i came on once.

[Anonymous No.12583397]

Blaming Bentham is a little too simplistic but I think it has a lot to do with both his Millenarian background and the millenarian background of a lot of Utopians and Sociologists in France and some of the more idealist types in Germany too. Most of the protestant sects these millenarian ideas came from were hostile to monogamy as being a form of private property in women essentially.

John Stuart Mill, who was probably in some ways the torch bearer for Bentham, also had an affair with a married woman and this probably informed a lot of his writings where he claimed that the moral judgements of society could be just as bad as the state jailing someone. This obviously bankrupts his liberalism somewhat, but his is the sort that left progeny.

[Anonymous No.12583426]

>>12583352

[Anonymous No.12583465]

>>12583426
Property is a spook

[Anonymous No.12583489]

>>12583119
Philosophy never changed its mind, we just got birth control and it became a moot point. Your existence is proof people like fucking.

[Anonymous No.12583495]

>>12583489
It is not really true that birth control changed something. The philosophical arguments against promiscuity didn't deal with "unwanted pregnancy".

[Anonymous No.12583594]

>>12583119
>incelpanels