Is Porn Immoral?

oh no, actually the double standard came from something different i was not implying that you were saying that at all sorry to make you think that

and yes i agree with you there - as long as the choice is made by the girl herself as to what she does/does not do then that is it folks

;)

Porn is immoral.

I bid Thor to smash thee with his hammer.

But does responsibility not imply the ability to function as a free, independant moral agent? What if this ability is not present?

Minors aside, there are two types of people: People who have been declared unable to make their own decisions due to mental or psychological deficit or defect and people who have not been so adjudged and to whom we owe the honor of respecting their wishes and not treating them as though we know better than they do how to think, feel, and/or act.

Dammit, stop that. That shit hurts like hell.

That's the law, but the law is derived from morality, not the other way around. So when the fundaments of morality are questioned, the law can ofcourse never be considered an authority.

Since I don't have much enthusiasm for the more extreme hard-core end of porn (and wouldn't shed a tear tomorrow morning and all of it was gone), my biggest complaint against the show is that it left the impression to outsiders that what porn is is physically abusive misogynistic hardcore gangbang videos. The pretty-girl-posing-naughty-for-stills end of the spectrum (which is still a large part of the business) seemed to be ignored almost entirely.

The law decides who can't make their own decisions. I have no right to impose my will on the rest. That's what I was saying. Morality applies to what I do. I don't know by what morality I could impose it on someone else.

pornstars/porn models = not my cup of tee...issues of insecurity...childhood...strict growth structures followed by
retaliating and flashing their tits in mommas face on camera... "look at me mom...FUCK YOU, I'm sucking cock now..look at me"

Immoral...nope...makes me hard

all women are evil and deserve to be abused, humiliated, fucked hard and thrown away. They are worthless.. if I could cook, fold my clothes and clean and fuck myself.. I would have no use for such a fowl creature.

Well, in the case that someone is not a free, independant moral agent, most moralities conclude that you (or society) can in fact impose your morality - and thus your will- on that person. After all, that person does not have the capability to make their own moral choices in that case, and can't be considered responsible.
The law only shows what is the most commonly accepted morality at a given time in a given culture, which is not necessarily the best one.

I hate to see the word "exploitation" used because it's an ambiguous word. It means either "to use" or "to use to the detriment of." Of course, we all use other people and are used by them. People use me for my photography and this is exploitation, but it's willing exploitation and I derive a benefit from it as well. Likewise with the model. If she is a free moral agent, she has the right and will to do what she feels is best among the available options. If she needs the money to pay her rent, is it exploitation to help her by giving her work at the going market rate?

Force is a different story and everything depends upon whether one proximate party is exerting force, either through threat of violence or extortion (threatening to make something undesirable occur). I say "proximate party" because someone may get involved in something they don't really want to do because some third party is forcing them (the landlord demanding rent, the abusive boyfriend wanting someone to finance his beer and Oprah habit). This has to be played by ear, because if a model comes to me because she needs to pay the rent, I'm helping her (she's not going to get the money as an outright loan, after all), but if she's only doing it because of her abusive boyfriend, it gets a bit stickier. Even there, though, it's best to honor other people's freedom. She won't get out of her abusive relationship by not getting work from me, and in fact might get beat up if I refuse to give her work. At the same time, I'm under no obligation to give anyone work because their boyfriend might go ballistic if I don't hire her.

I have no right to decide if you are free or not unless I think you are incapable of making your own decisions, which is a very extreme case...and in that case I suppose I'd have an obligation to take steps to get your freedom taken away from you totally.

Well, how would you define "incapable of making your own decisions"? Because that is the whole point I'm talking about... Opinions on what exactly "making your own decisions" holds are diverse, and therefore this point is problematic.


But what if she has no other viable options?
Can you then still speak of "freedom of choice"? Or is it then, in fact, a form of slavery caused by nothing else than the lack of available options?
If she needs the money to pay the rent, because otherwise she and her child will be out on the street, can you still call that freedom?
Or, a more dramatic example: If someone in a third world country is slowly dying from starvation, and a westerner comes along, and offers buying a kidney from that person in exchange for food, is that exploitation? That person may appear to have a choice, but in reality there is only one real option, because the alternative is unthinkable.

I think one can speak of exploitation when the fact that there is no other reasonable alternative is the sole reason someone agrees to cooperate. In such cases, freedom of choice may appear to be present, but in reality it is not.


You say "it's best to honor other people's freedom". But, is it freedom when force is a factor?
When a man holds a knife to the throat of a woman, and tells her he will kill her if she doesn't have sex with him, one most certainly wouldn't call that freedom. The very concept of freedom implies alternate possibilities, but are those present when force is at play?

You seem in conflict with yourself here - first you say you should honor someone's "freedom" even if they are forced, because the consequences of not honoring their "freedom" might be worse, then you say those consequences don't oblige you to do anything.
However, either those consequences influence your actions or they don't. Right now you make it seem like they influence your actions when it's in your best interest - in other words, they justify pursuing your best interest - but they don't influence your actions when it's not in your best interest. At best, this is inconsequent. At worst, it shows a complete lack of consideration for other factors than your own profit.

punkworld:

Well, how would you define "incapable of making your own decisions"? Because that is the whole point I'm talking about... Opinions on what exactly "making your own decisions" holds are diverse, and therefore this point is problematic.


UnseenWorld:

Totally out of touch with reality. Or so out of touch that decisions are not rational and are invariably not in the person's self-interest (within the range, however limited, of options available to the person).

punkworld:

But what if she has no other viable options?

UnseenWorld:

One always has other choices, no matter how unpleasant. When an existentialist therapist confronts a patient with problems, frequently his first question is, "Why haven't you committed suicide"? The answer to that question is the first step of the therapy. For most people, no matter how bad things get, living and continuing to live are the most important thing.

punkworld:

Can you then still speak of "freedom of choice"? Or is it then, in fact, a form of slavery caused by nothing else than the lack of available options? If she needs the money to pay the rent, because otherwise she and her child will be out on the street, can you still call that freedom? Or, a more dramatic example: If someone in a third world country is slowly dying from starvation, and a westerner comes along, and offers buying a kidney from that person in exchange for food, is that exploitation? That person may appear to have a choice, but in reality there is only one real option, because the alternative is unthinkable.

UnseenWorld:

As Sartre would say, one is always free because one can always commit suicide. Denying our freedom is an act of bad faith. Am I unfree when I don't have the options I want (whether that be to pay rent without involving myself in the sex industry or go through life without owning a yacht)? No. Slavery is where one person possesses another person so totally that they really can't make a choice other than to die. But even that is a freedom and a choice.

punkworld:

I think one can speak of exploitation when the fact that there is no other reasonable alternative is the sole reason someone agrees to cooperate. In such cases, freedom of choice may appear to be present, but in reality it is not.

UnseenWorld:

If someone is willing to offer their kidney in exchange for something, they have defined that as an acceptable exchange. Whether they buy a shitload of hamburgers with it or a ticket out of the ravaged area is their choice. In other words, it may be an opportunity for them. But, perhaps you should decide that they shouldn't sell their kidney. It sounds like you might if you could intervene. But if you did, YOU would be taking their freedom away.

Having unpleasant options is not the same as having none.

UnseenWorld: I unfortunately have no time to write a full reply right now (it's 6 am and in 6 hours I am giving a rather large lecture), but I will reply to this later tonight.

I think there are many other fucked things in this wolrd we gotta worry about, than makin money off porn eh?

Some of us dont know that an 18 yr (or less) old girl in poor countries "entertains" 3 Americans for 10 bux!

So let's now shed any tears here for the porn stars who make more than the average and all they do is show their asses (thing which i personally think they enjoy the most)!

SO .... what do u think?

Just had to see what would make so many ppl actually read this post. I checked the header and laughed quietly to myself but it musta struck a chord with a lot of you, I don't see why. Pffft

I think that if all someone does is show her ass, she's not a porn star, she's a model.

You can go back to Jerry Springer now that you've said your piece.

Read the sig rules again.

The true God doesnt fit into any religion,
my God enjoys porn, especially anal.

porn is as immoral as wacking off. it's bad but everyone does it.

i beat it. goodnight

I'm not religious, so I make a distinction between "morality" and "ethics." Moral behavior conforms to a prescriptive code ("Don't steal," "don't fuck someone else's wife," "don't cheat in your dealings," etc.) Ethical behavior isn't based on a "whenever confronted with this sort of situation, here's what you should do," but instead forces one to think a bit more.

For example, there is Kant's Categorical Imperative, which might be summarized as "Don't do anything unless you could wish anyone else in a sufficiently similar circumstance to do the same." Strangely (for a religion), Christianity has The Golden Rule, which has been described as The Categorical Imperative inverted.

So, I don't even know how to answer "Is porn immoral?" What is porn? What kind of porn? Immoral according to whom?