The ethics of findom

[Anonymous No.21025682]

In principle I despise this sort of threads, but I realised that I have a serious ethical doubt that I can't solve, and /lit/ is the only place that might offer a relatively rigorous answer, with some real philosophical/ethical basis.

Basically I got messaged by a guy who is offering me a findom relationship. So it would go: I ask him for money, he sends it, his dick gets hard. I talked with him about it, how it's supposed to work, how does he make money (he's 19, I'm 24), etc. Apparently he has a job, and seems to have a relatively healthy relationship to the fetish (wouldn't let himself go broke because of it, I think/hope).
I'm a semi-neet and, as bizarre and fucked up the fetish sounds, I've been seriously considering accepting it. I would definitely make sure we don't go beyond a particular sum.
But even under ideal circumstances I still doubt this could be considered ethically fair or acceptable. Pic related, I consider utilitarianism overall useless, but what would be its perspective? Can the sub's pleasure + the dom's monetary gain outweigh the harm to the sub who loses the money?
From what I remember of Kant from high school, his approach is to see whether an act treats the person as a goal in itself, or as a tool (the latter being unacceptable, due to denying the subject's personhood). This is difficult to interpret and apply, since by that logic maybe all sex except procreative acts is merely using a body/person for your own pleasure; on the other hand, we may conceive of the money as being apart of the person, the person is merely giving up an object that isn't relevant enough for them. Or perhaps the sub is the one who denies his own personhood through that act?
The Christian perspective might be of interest too. A curious thing comes to mind: we're both gay (he's bi, from what I've understood), but the relationship would be purely online, verbal and financial. There's a degree of physical attraction, but it wouldn't be essential. This seems to entirely circumvent the classical anti-gay rule from Leviticus. Perhaps there are other relevant principles in Christianity that would apply? The "golden rule" is what I especially try to keep in mind, and - if I had enough money and a findom fetish, I guess I would too want someone to play along with it?
Perhaps there's a way to "act out" the fetish, but without actually exchanging the money, e.g. I could return it immediately afterwards. I should definitely discuss such stuff with the guy the next time we talk. An another thing that came to my mind is that it may even be good for me to get money from him, since I really don't need much, so he wouldn't waste much; otherwise he might find someone else who would milk him harder, causing him more harm.
Of course, maybe all these doubts and considerations are an attempt to conceal the truth that I would certainly enjoy getting some money for free, so maybe I'm an immoral person already?

So, what would be the ethical take on the issue?

[Anonymous No.21025694]

>>21025682
Two consenting adults doing something thy enjoy, I see nothing wrong here

[Anonymous No.21025713]

Wring him out. Take the bastard for all he's worth. Where do you think he got the money? There's blood on all of our hands and you're pussyfooting around a downed gazelle like you have stage fright

[Anonymous No.21025718]

>>21025682
I only bothered skimming but this is weird. Don't think too much about the philosophical implications, just trust my gut feeling (not yours, you're clearly overthinking) that this is gay af

[Anonymous No.21025719]

>>21025682
>So it would go: I ask him for money, he sends it, his dick gets hard.
Holy fucking kek

[Anonymous No.21025734]

You're instrumentalizing another person who can't help having the compulsion they have, which is wrong unless you are completely amoral. Drug dealers also provide a service to a "consenting" customer. Even if this person is in his right mind by the retarded standards of our current culture, if you aren't completely amoral or completely retarded yourself, you probably recognize the culture itself is sick, and the very fact that it is producing people like this or allowing the worst aspects of human nature to come forth like this is proof of that.

The reductio ad absurdum for the insufficiency of consent as grounds for engaging with someone in some act is easy. Suppose someone were raised from birth to eagerly and gratefully accept being a slave. We obviously wouldn't accept this as a valid excuse if given by the slave-master caste in the country that raised him that way. We'd go in and kill them all and liberate him, even as he begged us not to because it's the sacred law of his land or whatever bullshit they taught him.

Instrumentalizing other human beings is always wrong. That's why Kant's ethics are so good. They cut through all vicissitudes and sloppy utilitarian calculus. The only solid basis of morality is the recognition not just that other humans have a right to be "happy," but that they have a right to be free and to their essential dignity. The moral thing to do is not just to give them what they "want," but to give them what maximizes their freedom to make informed decisions, even if it seems to conflict with their momentary happiness. This formulation leads to other ethical dilemmas, but it's at least a reasonable starting point for morality in general.

All of this is moot if you're an amoral piece of shit of course. But no, not only should you not enable his behavior, you should view yourself and your actions as parts of a greater moral whole, the totality of society. Even if someone else comes along and takes advantage of him tomorrow, that's no excuse for engaging in depravity and selfishness. There are only two paths you can take in any given action: basically being an amoral individualist, and basically being a moral agent whose regulative ideal is living in a moral totality (society, from Latin socius). The logical consequence of the first is barbarism and chaos, the logical consequence of the second is civilization.

If you want to live in a civilization rather than a barbaric mass of mutual back-stabbing cynics exploiting each other's weaknesses, you should always do your best to do the basically moral thing, even if it has no immediate "payoff." It always has a payoff in terms of the whole: you are demonstrating and committing to moral behavior, ensuring that the system as a whole maintains a higher level of morality than if you had contributed to its net moral entropy.

[Anonymous No.21025744]

Books...?

[Anonymous No.21025802]

>>21025694
Incest can be consensual too, though, yet as forbid it and you'd probably be against it.

>>21025718
Obviously, I do point that out.

>>21025744
It's a philosophical/ethical issue, I stated that clearly. But you can imagine a "books for this feel?" at the end of the post and proceed as usual.

>>21025734
Thank you. Disregarding a bit of stylistic pomposity this is an excellent answer. I'll definitely have consider it, it makes Kant's ideas clear and convincing.

[Anonymous No.21025807]

>>21025802
>yet as forbid
yet we forbid

[Anonymous No.21025815]

>>21025802
> Incest can be consensual too, though, yet as forbid it and you'd probably be against it.
I’m not, as long as they use protection as to not harm a third, I.e. a possible child with increased risk of disability

[Anonymous No.21025826]

>>21025815
Ok, that's fair. (Though the condom can break, the woman can forget her pill, etc., so it's still a risk.)

[Anonymous No.21025837]

>>21025826
There’s always a risk in life. We allow people to travel in two ton iron boxes going 80mph even though brakes can fail. Ethics is, despite what Kant says, not black and white

[Anonymous No.21025842]

>>21025815
Condoms aren’t fool proof though

[Anonymous No.21025847]

>>21025837
The risk is much higher with condoms

[Anonymous No.21025855]

>>21025682
>The Christian perspective might be of interest too
I guarantee the Christian perspective looks negatively upon this.
>This seems to entirely circumvent the classical anti-gay rule from Leviticus
That's the one rule people seem to have a problem with but there are a large set of restrictions on sexual behavior in Christianity. I guarantee this is wrong somehow. Probably something along the lines of prostitution on your end and masturbation to porn on his end.
>The "golden rule" is what I especially try to keep in mind, and - if I had enough money and a findom fetish, I guess I would too want someone to play along with it?
A findom fetish (and I suspect pretty much every fetish) is a sign of a disordered will. Treat others how you wish to be treated. Imagine you were exactly as you are right now but you discovered that you were aroused by paying money to strangers online. As you are now so you know this behavior is bizarre and makes you a little uncomfortable. Would you really want someone to play along or would you want someone to help get rid of this alien desire?

[Anonymous No.21025862]

>>21025713
Good nut

[Anonymous No.21025881]

>>21025682
>findom
The fuck is that?

[Anonymous No.21025891]

>>21025881
>Person A pays Person B money
>Person B either does nothing or mocks Person A for being so pathetic
>This gives Person A a boner

[Anonymous No.21025929]

>>21025682
Are you a woman?

[Anonymous No.21026781]

>>21025842
A condom breaking doesn't mean you have to deliver a child

[Anonymous No.21026801]

Damn, it feels good being a ryonachad and having a whole philosopher (de Sade) to aestheticize and intellectualize your fetish.