Part One This post is the second in my brief series on the ethics of pornography. The series works off the pair of essays on this topic in the book Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. As we saw the last day, Altman argues that the more general right to sexual autonomy entails perhaps only weakly the right to produce and access pornography.
Spring Pornography is another one of those issues that borderline between free speech and sensibility. It has been defended by free speech activist as a mater of free speech. However, where does one draw the line between free speech and bad taste? What do we mean by free speech, bad taste, sensibility, decency, and degrading?
The Supreme Court ruled that the communications decency act as unconstitutional for regulating and providing criminal penalties for the transmission of obscene or indecent information on the internet. The Court decided that the act abridged the freedom of the speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
She states that pornography constructs what a women is in terms of its view of what men want She maintains that pornography is harmful to women. That harm might not be noticeable because "pornography succeeds in constructing social reality it becomes invisible as harm.
She argues that obscenity is a moral idea whereas pornography is a political practice of power and powerlessness. Whereas obscenity is abstract, pornography is concrete and substantive. Pornography, she contends, defines the treatment and status of half the population.
Here the commission examines the issue of harm. They argue for the governmental control of pornography that involves violence. The commission found "that the available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials bears a causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and, for some groups possibly unlawful acts of sexual violence.
They are harmful not only to the viewer but also to those that they come into contact with. The commission did find other forms of pornography less harmful and therefore warrants no governmental control. Feminist defense of Pornography. Wendy McElroy takes a firm position against the opinions of fellow feminist MacKinnon.
She believes that women who produce and consume pornography are exercising their freedom. She chastises MacKinnon and other "gender" feminist who work with the conservatives to enact legislation to censor pornography.
Her reading of the law reduces women to children "who can not be legally held responsible for their actions because they are psychologically impaired by cultural influence".
She maintains that "[t]o deprive women of the right to make their own contracts is to place them, once again outside the constitution " She argues that censorship of pornography means effective censorship of women.
Whereas Nadine Strossen finds that pornography does not harm women, on the contrary it helps them. She contends that according to censorship we would have to censor many pieces of literature including the Bible. She argues that pornography has no effect on the viewer, her response to those who claim otherwise by listing numerous examples of classical literature and film that were used as a reason to why some criminals committed their ghastly crimes.
Conclusion Those who fear censorship of pornography conjure up the slippery slope argument that if we give in to this we will have to lose our other freedoms. They also argue that if you drive this underground by making pornography illegal you will get a scenario similar to that of the prohibition period in American history.
Some of the feminist mentioned above admitted that they have no moral issue with porn. To them they did not mind seeing women abused some seemed to enjoy it. However, the issue here is what to do with such a creature as the porn industry.
Now porn is available on the Internet and on every conceivable type of media that humans can conjure up. Is our cultural so entangled with the sex- and its various of forms of permutation- that we can never be free of its web? Should our society to save itself from itself outlaw the hardcore porn and stay with the soft?
Should we leave the issue as is? Should we turn our society into a puritan society and be rid of all reference to sex? The liberals from a hedonistic utilitarian point view that censorship harms our way of life.
Further to them, the harm is not really that clear and well defined based on scientific research. Some even see a benefit and cite that some couples have revitalized their marriage by using porn videotapes as learning material.
The conservatives contend from a deontological point of view that we have a duty to protect our women from this evil. Further degrading the women and using them only as sexual objects to be controlled is a violation of the civil rights of women.
This can not bode well for our society to be so obsessed with sex. It hurts our humanity and we sink deeper into baser values and forget about the important things in life that really count. To say that pornography has no effect on the viewers and on society at large is a blatant ignorance of the facts on the ground.PORNOGRAPHY AND ETHICS.
Free speech or Civil rights. A Position Paper. BY. Muhammad Hozien. for. Ethics. Prof. Michael Haliprin. William Paterson University. Spring Pornography is another one of those issues that borderline between free speech and sensibility. It has been defended by free speech activist as a mater of free speech.
The problem of ethics in pornography. Posted on Mar 11, | 0 comments · Millions of people view pornographic magazines, DVDs, and Web the problem of ethics in pornography sites each month. · 1. INTRODUCTION. Jul 12, · The Ethics of Pornography (Part 2) Tweet This post is the second in my brief series on the ethics of pornography.
The series works off the pair of essays on this topic in the book Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. We are currently going through Andrew Altman’s “pro”-pornography essay.
A major problem with these. I would think the question is backward, it is the social and ethical problems that make internet pornography popular.
I also agree we should connect with ourselves and others in a meaningful way and have real relationships instead of virtual fantasies. Ethics: Resources email page print page. The Philosophy of Pornography: The problem here is that I do not find the dialogue productive, it does not offer arguments that I can engage with.
Here pornography is partly understood as negative in many ways but the dialogue, in my opinion, simply states that: "yes it is negative and harmful.
The Ethics of Pornography and its Impact on the Individual In regards to pornography " [ ] ’One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.’ " Nicole Alicia – Marie Hult, Jonathan Rosenørn Schmedes, Gitte ethical issues that are used as opposing warrants.
There will be a discussion of both.