@ShieldWife Ah, well I don't use that framing, and here's why:
Let's say we lived in a world where people murdered Jews and ate them, and this was an acceptable position. And then, two people got into an argument about whether this practice of cannibalizing Jews is good for you. The person defending cannibalism then said "what one person may consider harmful, another may not. Maybe eating Jews is making a person feel happy and contented. It's a complicated question." Would you actually accept such an answer as legitimate? Or would you conclude that the person's own subjective preferences are disordered.
Did you honestly just liken watching pornography to eating Jews?
You see, if someone is being murdered and eaten, then you have someone (the victim) who is not consenting and is directly and undeniably harmed.
With porn, you have a girl who willingly makes a naughty movie of herself and a man who willingly watches it. They both choose to do this. If I happened upon someone trying to eat a Jew, assuming it’s not George Soros or Harvey Weinstein or somebody, and I had my CCW with me, I would prevent the murder/cannibalism and 50% of the people involved would be happy that I did so. If I used violence to stop the purchase of porn, both the customer and the creator would be unhappy with me.
Murder is violating someone’s rights In probably the worst way.
It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all
He’s got and all he’s ever gonna have. Making, selling, buying, and viewing porn violates nobody’s rights. I shouldn’t have to explain this.
In my view, your argument assumes a kind of moral subjectivism. Your position implies that, if two people feel differently about the same moral issue, then there's no way to determine whether or not the other is correct. But we know that, regardless of how a person feels, violating another person's human rights is not good for the rights violator because the act in itself is intrinsically immoral.
I’m not saying that morality is subjective. I am saying that harm is subjective. If someone chooses some action or behavior which they feel benefits himself, then why should someone else be able to call it harm and the inflict violence on that person ostensibly to protect him from himself?
Subjective harm as you define it doesn't exist. It's a spook. There is only objective harm. To every question, there is a right answer and wrong answer, even if we cannot tell what the correct answer is.
I don’t think that the is a universal standard of behavior that must apply to all humans. Is there always a right answer to every question, maybe? Sometimes that right answer is “I don’t know.” Sometimes that right answer is “It depends.” Sometimes the right answer is “It’s different for different people.”
What harms some people doesn’t harm others, that is as fact and it might apply to pornography along with countless other things.