Ok, have had a couple of arguments and discussions regarding morality and consent. So far the general consensus has been that provided two adults consent to a certain action, it is considered morally permissable.
There have been numerous individuals that have stated that pornography is morally permissable provided the participants consent to this. I have on occasions seen video clips of some pretty disgusting things. Things pretty much bordering on obscure fetishes.
Now my question is, at what point do you draw the line and start recognising that consent is not the yardstick for moral behaviour ? A simple example would be prostitution. A woman has 2 children at home, and needs to provide an income for them. She has little other means of providing this income other than selling her body. Another is a 'crack whore' , the type in 'Traffic' or 'Requiem for a Dream' where a woman willingly sells her body for sex to obtain money for her drug addiction. A common example is the high traffic in prostitution in the Far East. For 20$ you could literally buy 4 woman.
I believe pornography (hard core) to be pretty much equivalent to prostitution, hovever I also believe that the majority of soft core pornography also to exploit and degrade woman.
In any case, what I am basically asking is the secular views on exploitation via prostitution/pornography. If you could also comment on how 'degradation' fits into the picture that would be much appreciated. Does secular ethics find pornography / prostitution (or for that matter any other degrading activities) morally permissable ?
Thanks
Originally posted by pcaspianI don't think this is even close to the general consensus that
Ok, have had a couple of arguments and discussions regarding morality and consent. So far the general consensus has been that provided two adults consent to a certain action, it is considered morally permissable.
has arisen here.
If you and I consent to cooperate with each other to kill a
third party, that consensual action between two adults would
not be morally permissible.
So your assessment of the general consensus is inaccurate.
The consensus has found that some such instances are morally
permissible, but you are the one that has generalized to all
such instances, and it is your generalization that is incorrect.
Originally posted by Cribs
I don't think this is even close to the general consensus that
has arisen here.
If you and I consent to cooperate with each other to kill a
third party, that consensual action between two adults would
not be morally permissible.
So your assessment of the general consensus is inaccurate.
The consensus has found that some such instances are morally ...[text shortened]... ne that has generalized to all
such instances, and it is your generalization that is incorrect.
.... and what about the situation wherein the third party has given his or her consent ?
Originally posted by Cribs
I don't think this is even close to the general consensus that
has arisen here.
If you and I consent to cooperate with each other to kill a
third party, that consensual action between two adults would
not be morally permissible.
So your assessment of the general consensus is inaccurate.
The consensus has found that some such instances are morally
permissible, but you are the one that has generalized to all
such instances, and it is your generalization that is incorrect.
I would have preferred Royal or Bennet's input here. It's not a trick question Cribs. I am referring to morality within the scope of consent. As person C clearly does not consent to person A or B killing them, your objection fails.
Either way, I am referring specifically to acts of consent which fall within the realm of degradation of one of the consenting persons.
thanks
Originally posted by pcaspianNo. My objection stands. Your generalization fails, until
I would have preferred Royal or Bennet's input here. It's not a trick question Cribs. I am referring to morality within the scope of consent. As person C clearly does not consent to person A or B killing them, your objection fails.
you are ready to retract your sloppy or misleading statement
of the general consensus.
Originally posted by CribsYou could answer my question, Cribs. Maybe that would shine some light in the darkness of the substance of the "Consenting Adults" Theory.
No. My objection stands. Your generalization fails.
... it really doesn't matter whether there are two or three consenting adults.
I'll open a new thread because this is a different subject.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am scared to, because pcaspian has no qualms about
You could answer my question, Cribs. Maybe that would shine some light in the darkness of the substance of the "Consenting Adults" Theory.
incorrectly generalizng whatever statement I make,
showing that generalization to be absurd, and then claiming that
that makes my statement absurd. And the scary part
is that only a handful of people would see through
that scheme, leaving me looking absurd.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs
I am scared to, because pcaspian has no qualms about
incorrectly generalizng whatever statement I make,
showing that generalization to be absurd, and then claiming that
that makes my statement absurd. And the scary part
is that only a handful of people would see through
that scheme, leaving me looking absurd.
Dr. Cribs
Don't worry too much about how you look, Cribs. Your hair is always OK here on RHP !
Originally posted by Cribs
I am scared to, because pcaspian has no qualms about
incorrectly generalizng whatever statement I make,
showing that generalization to be absurd, and then claiming that
that makes my statement absurd. And the scary part
is that only a handful of people would see through
that scheme, leaving me looking absurd.
Dr. Cribs
Cribs. My question is pretty simple. I am asking for someone well versed in secular ethics to explain to me how that view of morality deals with degradation within the scope of consent. I wasn't particularly expecting a response from you as you already have stated you see nothing wrong with such degrading acts, but I would like to know how secular ethics deal with degradation within the scope of consent. The only response I've received so far regarding consent is one from Rwing ' make love not war' , so I'm probably awaiting a response from Bennet hopefully, but he seems absent lately.
Your 3 person analogy however, clearly falls outside the scope of consent, thus it is invalid. If that seems somehow absurd, please try clarify your objection.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianMy objection is that you equated two-party consent with morality
[
Your 3 person analogy however, clearly falls outside the scope of consent, thus it is invalid. If that seems somehow absurd, please try clarify your objection.
cheers
in your first post. I gave one counterexample to show why that
should not be done. It is arbitrary that you chose 2 people; I would
have the same argument had you said 3 or 8 people.
The generalization you made is bogus, and also inconsistent with
the local consensus. The number of people you specify has nothing
to do with it; the essense of my claim is the same no matter how
many people share a mutual consent.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs
My objection is that you equated two-party consent with morality
in your first post.
No Cribs, I am questioning the use of 'consent' as a secular yardstick for determining morality.
I have come to this conclusion through various discussing with Bennet, who claims to be rather well versed in this field. I assume that most free thinkers adhere to secular morals, instead of religious morals, thus they may be able to help me out too.
I gave one counterexample to show why that
should not be done. It is arbitrary that you chose 2 people; I would
have the same argument had you said 3 or 8 people.
The essential part is that in your analogy , not all parties consent. Person C does not consent to Person A and B killing them. However, in my example, every party involved are consenting.
Let me simplify. If Snoop and 50C pay a 18 year old woman 50 000 $ to lie on the floor whilst they take a dump on her, all 3 parties consent correct ? Now as the act is degrading for the woman on the floor, yet she does indeed consent to them doing this degrading deed, what is the secular stance on morality in this case ?
If the know the answer, please feel free to respond, otherwise perhaps someone else can try answer.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianI see no immorality in that case, just a big stinky mess.
[
Let me simplify. If Snoop and 50C pay a 18 year old woman 50 000 $ to lie on the floor whilst they take a dump on her, all 3 parties consent correct ? Now as the act is degrading for the woman on the floor, yet she does indeed consent to them doing this degrading deed, what is the secular stance on morality in this case ?
Originally posted by pcaspianYou are projecting your own values into the scenario. It is possible that the hypothetical woman has no qualms about the activity in question and does not feel degraded. If she is a free and willing participant, then as Cribs pointed out there is no immorality.
Originally posted by Cribs
[b]I see no immorality in that case, just a big stinky mess.
You do not believe it to be immoral to degrade someone purely for your own benefit ?
[/b]