The Political Problem of Pornography

[Edgeplay_cgo]

And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.


Is there an actual definition of "authoritarian police state" or is it just a magical word used to describe government policies you don't like.

And yes, I would consider certain erotic literature to be in the pornography ban.

Like The Song of Solomon.

 

[The Name of Love]

Well, anything that a government does is at the point of a gun. Including providing services which it gains through taxation. That doesn’t mean that there should be no government at all, but that we should be a bit reluctant to use government power to achieve our ends. When I think of a law and whether or not it should be passed, I consider whether or not a need justifies the use of violence.

Well, I agree with that. I just think problem of pornography needs government coercion to solve because of how many people are addicted to it against their will. I'd like to know a better alternative if you have one.

So this what happens when one wants to legislate morality.

Going to stop you there. Here's the problem: for me, every law, down to laws concerning parking tickets, are examples of "legislating morality." All of them. What you actually have a problem with is with me advocating for the law to legislate my morality. You have no problem with the law legislating your morality. This is an article that deals with this fallacious line of reasoning.

Well, I’m sure that we could look up what authoritarian means and what police state means and see if they apply. I’m inclined to say that if a typical person going about their everyday activities is in danger of being arrested, then it’s probably a police state. Heavy involvement of the government in people’s private lives seems to be that as well. It’s all a matter of degrees though, with each encroachments on rights another mark in the authoritarian police state column.

I asked this before and you may have missed it, but should blasphemy also be outlawed?

Well, the average American citizen commits three felonies per day according to our current legal system, whose laws are mostly written by unaccountable bureaucrats, what's constitutional is decided by an oligarchy called "the Supreme Court," and the government spies on us through our consumer technology.

Do you think the guy who wants to get rid of all of that and just have local governments prohibit the distribution of illicit material if the majority of the people vote on it is advocating for a police state?

I don't have an opinion on blasphemy laws. They aren't really my priority anyways. Blasphemy is a symptom, not the disease. That said, something like the Hays Code wouldn't bother me.

Not necessarily. It presumes that good intentions or even usages by an authority in the present do not save a policy from being put into practice in the future by flawed and imperfect men--or actively exploited by bad actors to serve their own desires and ends. One need not be a Gadsden flag waving libertarian to recognize the power and capacity government--and specifically nefarious or simply sinful actors within that government--has to harm the people underneath it because it possesses the bureaucratic strictures and license to do so.

Frankly, no government can be trusted on this topic because no man has yet to be shown who can be trusted on it. No man is without sin--and to perpetually enforce such a law would require an everlasting resistance to the temptation of using the law against personal enemies, or against something less obscene but that is still seen as 'pornography' by a yet-unknown subjective definition of whoever is enforcing it at the time and that proscription creeping into more and more plebian forms of art or expression (as in some hardline Christian denominations bars on dance or decoration). From my perspective it's fundamentally unsound to seek to correct a moral failing across a wide number of people by entrusting a small group of people with an authority and power which depends upon them not suffering moral failings of their own for its successful and righteous enforcement.

I will have to disagree. That men are sinful does not mean the state needs to be limited to an absurd degree. If the people in power are governed by a strong sense of responsibility, noblesse oblige, then they will, within reason, act to the benefit of the common good.

Your reasoning would have us abolish government because the entire purpose of government is to act for the common good. If there is a widespread moral failing, then unless you can demonstrate that correcting such a failing with coercion would lead to worst results than not doing anything about said failing, you cannot justify permissiveness. These laws against vice cannot be swept away with such sweeping statements like "don't legislate morality!" They must be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Got into it a bit above I suppose, but while I can grant your ends as virtuous or, at least, motivated by such--I'd personally see what can be labeled 'pornography' as something expressive in humanity and its creation an artistic act that can merely be (and may commonly be, because the 'industry' of it is a sewer) subverted for base money-making and exploitation to serve that end. The means you're looking for to reach those ends present some of the same problems as the end-state where it's around--even absent argument over what qualifies as porn and will be gone after and what doesn't.

As I believe I alluded to, I think some of your points highlight some legitimate problems consumption of pornography can lead to or inspire in people (though I might quibble with how rhetorically far you go in presenting them as I would with others' tendency towards downplaying them a bit too much as I see it). That said...I'm also a hippy-dippy flower-child liberal that is totally on-board with egalitarianism, the idea of divorce, and a number of the things you've set yourself up in opposition to because of its conflict with your traditional values (I'd argue traditional values that aren't all that traditional for someone in the US--but that might be another conversation entirely ).

The better way of solving these issues is the encouragement of moral virtue in individuals or social circles--something mandates create a veneer of at best (presuming no corruption of the enforcers or an underground market of the very things banned which just creates gilding over this). If people don't desire a solution, instituting it won't do anything but inflame the problem as everyone and their brother violates it on a daily basis because doing so is 'normal'. Libertines 'won' this social conversation via nigh-on a century or more of pushing against it by appeals to how much happier and better-off they were in their personal lives until/unless thrown in prison by a government unfriendly to them (and the gay rights push as a modern iteration of the same phenomenon), being happy with 'living well' according to this particular moral framework instead of 'in sin' would be the most convincing thing to the la-la land liberals like myself that religious morality had something to be said for it. Mormons, for their issues, tend to stereotypically present a positive 'face' for their religion and its values--ditto even for Jehovah's Witnesses as annoying as their missionaries can be...Hardline Christians who want governmental bars on [x], [y], and [z], in contrast, do not present that kind of positive face and there is, to put it softly, a history of them being hypocritical or nefarious (Jim Bakker as an easy example).

All that said...Porn like other drugs (to run with your presentation in that respect fully) is something that has to be overcome personally. Support from a social network can help (or hinder) one's search for moderation/virtue, but only an individual can positively overcome their own demons and desires. Shuffling not just that responsibility but that immense personal power and insight into one's own nature off onto another group leaves one fundamentally incomplete in my reckoning--personal demons that aren't confronted because someone else protected you from them haven't been overcome, they've merely been delayed--and such inability to put into practice a virtue leaves one much more vulnerable to other demons which might be more nefarious or subtle in their approach.

I don't really buy into the argument "virtue must be freely chosen." That was made by Frank Meyer, the father of fusionism. I used to be a fusionist until I realized several problems with his philosophy.

First, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between requiring good actions and forbidding evil ones. I agree with Meyer that forcing adults to do what is good in the hope that genuinely virtuous character will result from this is usually counterproductive, though children who cannot fully use their reason can be coerced in such a way by their parents. But restricting someone to a single option is different from taking an option off the table. Suppose you were a drug addict and I hid your crack cocaine so that it was harder for you to find it. Would I be making it easier or harder for you to be virtuous? So the mantra "virtue must be freely chosen" cannot by itself be used to justify eliminating laws against vice.

Second, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between virtues which are best acquired through a struggle against the temptation to act viciously, and those which are not. To obtain the virtue of courage, it may be a good idea to put yourself into situations where you are tempted to act cowardly. But to obtain the virtue of chastity, it's obviously not a good idea put yourself into situations where you are constantly sexually tempted. Hence it would be silly to pretend that a society in which drugs and pornography are easily available is more likely to be a society in which sobriety and chastity are freely chosen. It is quite obvious that such virtues will be less common in such a society. Now, you might not have a problem with such a consequence, but a social conservative (whether they be a traditionalist Catholic like myself or a fusionist) would have a problem with such n outcome. So the mantra "virtue must be freely chosen" cannot by itself be used to shame people who want to promote a more virtuous society through political means.

Third, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between actions that are inherently evil and actions that only become evil in specific circumstances. Suppose it is always wrong deliberately to get high to the point where reason is seriously impaired. If so, then it follows that it is wrong to drink to excess, and also wrong to use crack cocaine. But it is very easy for most people to drink without drinking to excess – that is, to the point where reason is seriously impaired – and without becoming addicted, while it is hardly easy to use crack cocaine in a way that doesn’t involve a serious impairment of reason or risk of addiction. Hence the act of using alcohol cannot plausibly be said to be always or inherently wrong, while the act of using crack cocaine plausibly could be. In that case, though, while Meyer’s “virtue must be freely chosen” mantra would give us a good reason to oppose alcohol prohibition, it would not give us a good reason to oppose prohibiting crack cocaine.

 

[GoldRanger]

This is a direct quote:

He had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, and I pressured him to do so, but he didn't; this is his final word on the morality of seeking medical treatment.

The man is an authoritarian nutjob who considers his interpretation of religious doctrine as being of paramount importance, far above the rights of any individual. This sort of thinking must be denounced, if we are to maintain any legitimacy or unity in the stand against the regressive leftists.

Frankly, it's much worse than the regressive left. The choice between living in a communist or a theocratic shithole is not appealing in the slightest, but I guess if I have no choice but to have my rights taken away then at least I can still choose to live in a secular state.

 

[The Name of Love]

Frankly, it's much worse than the regressive left. The choice between living in a communist or a theocratic shithole is not appealing in the slightest, but I guess if I have no choice but to have my rights taken away then at least I can still choose to live in a secular state.

How am I a theocrat? I don’t want priests to rule over you.

 

[Captain X]

Because you want the country to follow your religious mores, and the only way to do that would be with a theocratic government.

 

[Fleiur]

The Name of Love said:
given how it's like a drug



Or religion.

How is religion like a drug?

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

up until twenty minutes ago is authoritarian

...most of them yes. There's a REASON all the big "human nature and government" philosophy happened in ATHENS during the short period where it was a direct democracy. Like, seriously, this isn't a counter argument.

 

[The Name of Love]

...most of them yes. There's a REASON all the big "human nature and government" philosophy happened in ATHENS during the short period where it was a direct democracy. Like, seriously, this isn't a counter argument.

Okay, well I think that, if you do think all regimes were authoritarian up until twenty minutes ago, including the Founding Fathers' America, then how are you not basically defining authoritarian as "everything that doesn't conform to modern liberal standards of freedom?"

 

[GoldRanger]

How am I a theocrat? I don’t want priests to rule over you.

You want at least one religious law though, probably lots more. What's the difference? In practice it's the same thing.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, I agree with that. I just think problem of pornography needs government coercion to solve because of how many people are addicted to it against their will. I'd like to know a better alternative if you have one.



Going to stop you there. Here's the problem: for me, every law, down to laws concerning parking tickets, are examples of "legislating morality." All of them. What you actually have a problem with is with me advocating for the law to legislate my morality. You have no problem with the law legislating your morality. This is an article that deals with this fallacious line of reasoning.



Well, the average American citizen commits three felonies per day according to our current legal system, whose laws are mostly written by unaccountable bureaucrats, what's constitutional is decided by an oligarchy called "the Supreme Court," and the government spies on us through our consumer technology.

Do you think the guy who wants to get rid of all of that and just have local governments prohibit the distribution of illicit material if the majority of the people vote on it is advocating for a police state?

I don't have an opinion on blasphemy laws. They aren't really my priority anyways. Blasphemy is a symptom, not the disease. That said, something like the Hays Code wouldn't bother me.



I will have to disagree. That men are sinful does not mean the state needs to be limited to an absurd degree. If the people in power are governed by a strong sense of responsibility, noblesse oblige, then they will, within reason, act to the benefit of the common good.

Your reasoning would have us abolish government because the entire purpose of government is to act for the common good. If there is a widespread moral failing, then unless you can demonstrate that correcting such a failing with coercion would lead to worst results than not doing anything about said failing, you cannot justify permissiveness. These laws against vice cannot be swept away with such sweeping statements like "don't legislate morality!" They must be taken on a case-by-case basis.




I don't really buy into the argument "virtue must be freely chosen." That was made by Frank Meyer, the father of fusionism. I used to be a fusionist until I realized several problems with his philosophy.

First, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between requiring good actions and forbidding evil ones. I agree with Meyer that forcing adults to do what is good in the hope that genuinely virtuous character will result from this is usually counterproductive, though children who cannot fully use their reason can be coerced in such a way by their parents. But restricting someone to a single option is different from taking an option off the table. Suppose you were a drug addict and I hid your crack cocaine so that it was harder for you to find it. Would I be making it easier or harder for you to be virtuous? So the mantra "virtue must be freely chosen" cannot by itself be used to justify eliminating laws against vice.

Second, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between virtues which are best acquired through a struggle against the temptation to act viciously, and those which are not. To obtain the virtue of courage, it may be a good idea to put yourself into situations where you are tempted to act cowardly. But to obtain the virtue of chastity, it's obviously not a good idea put yourself into situations where you are constantly sexually tempted. Hence it would be silly to pretend that a society in which drugs and pornography are easily available is more likely to be a society in which sobriety and chastity are freely chosen. It is quite obvious that such virtues will be less common in such a society. Now, you might not have a problem with such a consequence, but a social conservative (whether they be a traditionalist Catholic like myself or a fusionist) would have a problem with such n outcome. So the mantra "virtue must be freely chosen" cannot by itself be used to shame people who want to promote a more virtuous society through political means.

Third, the fusionist argument fails to make the distinction between actions that are inherently evil and actions that only become evil in specific circumstances. Suppose it is always wrong deliberately to get high to the point where reason is seriously impaired. If so, then it follows that it is wrong to drink to excess, and also wrong to use crack cocaine. But it is very easy for most people to drink without drinking to excess – that is, to the point where reason is seriously impaired – and without becoming addicted, while it is hardly easy to use crack cocaine in a way that doesn’t involve a serious impairment of reason or risk of addiction. Hence the act of using alcohol cannot plausibly be said to be always or inherently wrong, while the act of using crack cocaine plausibly could be. In that case, though, while Meyer’s “virtue must be freely chosen” mantra would give us a good reason to oppose alcohol prohibition, it would not give us a good reason to oppose prohibiting crack cocaine.

I could point out however that because homosexuals and transsexuals can behave and comport themselves in a way that upholds traditional social mores outside of their own homes that Meyer’s mantra could apply to both as well. What would be outlawed is behaviour prejudicial to social good order. However, titillating erotica has no such defence: Thus, your proposed second standard of erotic imagery intended to titillate being outlawed seems prima facie defensible under the principle Meyer espouses.

 

[The Name of Love]

You want at least one religious law though, probably lots more. What's the difference? In practice it's the same thing.

What is a "religious law"? Are laws against murder and theft "religious laws" because commands against those acts are found in the Bible? Is a law religious because religious people support it? Is it religious because the lawmakers themselves are motivated by their Christian beliefs?

I could point out however that because homosexuals and transsexuals can behave and comport themselves in a way that upholds traditional social mores outside of their own homes that Meyer’s mantra could apply to both as well. What would be outlawed is behaviour prejudicial to social good order. However, titillating erotica has no such defence: Thus, your proposed second standard of erotic imagery intended to titillate being outlawed seems prima facie defensible under the principle Meyer espouses.

I do believe they can comport themselves in such a way, but they often choose not to for various reasons. I do think a traditionalist Christian society would have these people go and seek help from a therapist to cure them of their disorder. If there's one thing that's more harmful to a homosexual or transsexual, it's the "LGBT identity" foisted upon them by a destructive political movement looking to use them as proxy warriors. And ultimately, that's the choice all sexual deviants face: either give up their ways and embrace a life of virtue, or become proxy warriors for the Left, either unwittingly or otherwise.

As for my earlier point, I do think the anti-porn law you're referring to that is modeled based on libel laws is probably the most amenable to the fusionist ideal of "virtue must be freely chosen."

 

[GoldRanger]

What is a "religious law"? Are laws against murder and theft "religious laws" because commands against those acts are found in the Bible? Is a law religious because religious people support it? Is it religious because the lawmakers themselves are motivated by their Christian beliefs?


I do believe they can comport themselves in such a way, but they often choose not to for various reasons. I do think a traditionalist Christian society would have these people go and seek help from a therapist to cure them of their disorder. If there's one thing that's more harmful to a homosexual or transsexual, it's the "LGBT identity" foisted upon them by a destructive political movement looking to use them as proxy warriors. And ultimately, that's the choice all sexual deviants face: either give up their ways and embrace a life of virtue, or become proxy warriors for the Left, either unwittingly or otherwise.

As for my earlier point, I do think the anti-porn law you're referring to that is modeled based on libel laws is probably the most amenable to the fusionist ideal of "virtue must be freely chosen."

They are religious laws because the sole justification for their existence is religious. I'm not counting your extremely unconvincing "evidence" for the harm of pornography, of course.

 

[Captain X]

What is a "religious law"? Are laws against murder and theft "religious laws" because commands against those acts are found in the Bible? Is a law religious because religious people support it? Is it religious because the lawmakers themselves are motivated by their Christian beliefs?

No, because society as a whole views those things as wrong. The golden rule isn't a Christian-specific value. And given that we don't stone thieves, and that they tend to get pretty light sentences depending on what they stole, it should be pretty obvious that our judicial system isn't based on Christian values.

I do believe they can comport themselves in such a way, but they often choose not to for various reasons. I do think a traditionalist Christian society would have these people go and seek help from a therapist to cure them of their disorder.

And the really cool thing is that since your traditionalist Christian society has stigmatized it, less people would be less likely to seek "help" for it, lest they potentially get outed. Social stigma is a big part of why it's so difficult to get people who are suffering from actual mental problems to seek help.

 

[The Name of Love]

They are religious laws because the sole justification for their existence is religious. I'm not counting your extremely unconvincing "evidence" for the harm of pornography, of course.

Can you give an example of what you'd consider to be a religious law? Your definitions seem to be unhelpful.

And how is my evidence "unconvincing"?

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Can you give an example of what you'd consider to be a religious law?

requiring a woman to wear a burqa.

 

[Cherico]

Um not all religious laws are bad things some times they offer very good advice.

For example the Torah the bible and most religious texts advise men not to date and go after married women.

That remains very good advice in the modern day.

 

[The Name of Love]

requiring a woman to wear a burqa.

If a country made such a law to help promote peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it be religious? I mean, it's done for the sake of promoting peace. And Muslims themselves would give reasons for supporting the ban that aren't necessarily religious, such as preventing sexual assault on women. So is it not a "religious law" anymore?

See, this is what I have a problem with. This entire concept of "religious laws" is kind of vague. Instead of speaking in terms of "secular" or "religious" as if we can actually separate the two, let us instead talk about the common good - that is, what is good for everyone.

 

[GoldRanger]

If a country made such a law to help promote peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, would it be religious? I mean, it's done for the sake of promoting peace. And Muslims themselves would give reasons for supporting the ban that aren't necessarily religious, such as preventing sexual assault on women. So is it not a "religious law" anymore?

See, this is what I have a problem with. This entire concept of "religious laws" is kind of vague. Instead of speaking in terms of "secular" or "religious" as if we can actually separate the two, let us instead talk about the common good - that is, what is good for everyone.

Alright. The common good will be served best by allowing individuals to make an informed decision on porn consumption (or participation) by themselves.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

How is religion like a drug?

It is mind altering, behavior modifying, and can be addictive. Marx called it the opiate of the masses. I am not holding that those are bad things, although I've met people who have carried to to a level I consider a vice.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

How am I a theocrat? I don’t want priests to rule over you.

You want to impose your puritanical religious and/or moral beliefs on me.