Thank you for your writing. I have written a response to your essay and I hope you don’t mind that I post this publicly, since I have avoided any personal detail. I confess I don’t have much understanding of Buddhist belief or practice so I have tried to identify the general issues of which I do understand. I apologise in advance for any misinterpretation of your writing. Your essay was very long and I am rather hungover so I haven't had time to go back on it since writing my response!
From my understanding, you claim to reject feederism in moral terms due to its dependence on desire. You stress that only for you is this an issue, since you personally value logic and reason above emotion and desire. Thus, feederism is considered immoral for you to act upon. In my response I will discuss the concept of a personal morality and the application of desire and belief which you addressed in your essay. I have chosen to ignore your description of sex as an addiction, as natural ‘addictions’ such as the need for sex and food can be differentiated from pathological addictions (including sex and food addiction), where they are disruptive rather than beneficial and enjoyable to life.
To talk of morality in a general sense demonstrates a universal understanding of the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. It is also common for people to agree on examples of right and wrong. For example, a variety of religious ethical teaching tends to follow general patterns regarding which acts are immoral. However, it is still evident that moral understanding and application does vary amongst individuals. I doubt that many people follow any particular moral system strictly, rather decide upon moral matters through a natural and often unconscious evaluation. In this sense, everybody has a personal morality. How and why we reach our decisions usually remains discrete, unless we explicitly decide to question so through the application of philosophy and cognitive psychology. It is clear in your essay that you have engaged in such disciplines to appreciate your own personal morality, or understanding of morality. Nevertheless, I would argue that for morality, even a personal morality, to differentiate between people goes against its very nature. Is it possible for an act to be immoral only for one person, or even a specified group of people, for no apparent reason? To render something immoral is a very bold statement. I would perhaps understand the claim that ‘feederism is wrong for me’ (due to practical or emotional reasons), but to claim that ‘feederism is immoral for me’ appears to hold much heavier connotations (abstract and transcendent reasons, which are universal by nature). Furthermore, you identify the reasoning to your exclusion to be due to your personal beliefs. I would question whether a person’s belief is able to influence the morality of an issue. For example, if a person believed that murder was right, would this person be excused from the generally agreed notion that to murder is morally wrong? You believe that to act on desire is wrong, but not for everybody. Rather, to act on desire is wrong if you believe that acting on desire is wrong. The circular reasoning here appears evident, thus such conditions appear insufficient. If one does believe in morality as a realist phenomena; either to act on desire (+ situational conditions) is immoral for everybody, or it is not. Unless of course, what you really mean by your statement is ‘to act on desire is immoral yet excusable for everybody except for me as I am superior to my 'weak' counterparts thus have a higher sense of morality’.
You talk of feederism being immoral due to it being based on desire. You comment that it is not the object of desire that is considered immoral for you, rather the expression of desire in and of itself. One can only assume, from such reasoning, that you consider all expressions which derive from desire to also be immoral as they provide distractions from the rational nature of reality. This is a radical claim, as most decisions in life hold an element of desire, as you mentioned. It is very difficult to identify and separate rational and emotive influences, as they are often complexly interlinked. To use sex as an example, one can rationally decide when is appropriate to have sex, or what sexual practises they would like to engage in, yet ultimately these decisions are influenced by desire (not necessarily sexual desire). Indeed, the choice to not engage in sex at all often also comes from desire, perhaps the desire to be moral. As I type this, I am aware that I am using a rational format yet most of my opinions come from an unconscious emotive state. When applied to morality, this is even more apparent. The concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ naturally produce emotional responses. It often draws on experience, personal relationships and one’s understanding of the self. To talk of morality in a purely objective manner is very difficult, if possible at all. Not only is a solely rational account of morality not practical, I would claim that neither is it ideal. Life is experienced from within, and there are both internal and external realities. Whilst you claim to want rid of any internal reality, so to provide a clear basis of ‘the world in actuality’, I would argue that to do this would be at the loss of individual difference and ultimately the essence of humanity. Total objectivity is important in certain aspects of science; though I would question whether such an approach is suitable for prescriptive morality. Emotion and desire are of value to a fulfilling human life.
To conclude; whilst moralities may vary amongst individual understanding, I do not believe that a double standard can apply. Thus, ignoring situational factors, for feederism to be immoral it must be immoral for everybody. To claim that it is immoral due to deriving from desire is to claim that desire is immoral. I’ve demonstrated the issues with such a claim, and propose that, instead, the objects of desire and actions which arise from such desires ought to be the main focus and determine the morality of feederism. I view desire in and of itself to be merely instrumental, as is reason, and thus an amoral concept. To question the morality of feederism would be to question the consequences that come from such desires. I believe that feederism, like most sexual practises, does not hold immoral consequences so long as it is theorised and practised in a consensual and well-informed way.
11 years
