Who Are You,
Yes, excellent information, thank you.
This essay is also useful for distinguishing the differences between ethics and morals.
http://rvcc2.raritanval.edu/~scieng/eandm.html
Best regards - HS
Are Your Morals The Same As When You Were A Witness?
by minimus 84 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
minimus
Excellent helpful comments here! I certainly am not ignoring your comments!
Funky Derek, regarding the cannibal lovers, if the individuals were of "sound mind", you can see nothing "immoral" about it? So as long as they were both consenting, what they did wasn't immoral, "depraved" according to Webster??
-
funkyderek
cognizant dissident:
What benefits are brought to the prostitue, the john, or society by prostitution?
The benefit to the prostitute is monetary payment in exchange for a service.
The benefit to the "john" is a service provided in exchange for money.
The benefit to society is the freedom for individuals to provide or avail of a particular service if they so wish.
The majority of prostitutes were introduced to prostitution as teenagers, not consenting adults.
If any of the participants are not consenting adults, then the endeavour is immoral.
Do not rely on the hollywood, glamourized version of the intelligent, beautiful, high priced call girl using prostitution as a way to pay her way through doctorate school. I'm not saying such a prostitute has never existed but it is certainly not the norm and to suggest that it is, is to deliberately choose to ignore the abundant evidence to the contrary.
I'm not at all ignoring the evidence. I'm merely affirming that if all the participants are informed, freely consenting adults there is nothing immoral about prostitution. I completely agree that in reality many - perhaps most - prostitutes do not meet this description.
I also disagree with your statement that it is not immoral to harm someone else just because they wish to be harmed or accept the risk of potential harm. If someone asks me to kill them, because they want to die, for whatever reason or logic they have used to convince themselves of the reasonability of their stance, does that make it moral for me to oblige them?
I don't see why not. Given the gravity and finality of such a decision though, I certainly think measures should be in place to ensure that those incapable of making a rational decision are not exploited.
If a grown, adult woman wants to be beaten up by her partner and even tries to provoke him, perhaps because she grew up in an abusive home and this is the only way she knows how to relate to men, is it moral for her partner to beat her? After all she is consenting!
The most moral thing for the partner in that situation would be to get the woman the help she obviously needed. But if someone demonstrated that they were rational and normal in every respect except that they would genuinely be happier if they were beaten up, then I don't see why it would be considered immoral.
-
minimus
FD, so prostitues and johns are pursuing good morals, then. As long as they don't hurt anybody else and are consenting adults.
Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson are poster girls for morality. I love it! I realize I'm a very moral john/porn lover.
-
nvrgnbk
The source of value: Because naturalism doubts the existence of ultimate purposes either inherent in nature or imposed by a creator, values derive from human needs and desires, not supernatural absolutes. Basic human values are widely shared by virtue of being rooted in our common evolved nature.We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways we’d rather not be treated.Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others an d our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community. Naturalism may show the ultimate contingency of some values, in that human nature might have evolved differently and human societies and political arrangements might have turned out otherwise. But, given who and what we are as natural creatures, we necessarily find ourselves with shared basic values which serve as the criteria for assessing moral dilemmas, even if these assessments are sometimes fiercely contested and in some cases never quite resolved.
-
cognizant dissident
Well, funky derek, the problem I have with your "benefits of prostitution" list is precisely that it relegates sex to a "service" one can pay for. It totally ignores the physical health and pshychological welfare of the two parties involved. Sex is fun, I agree, but it is not a recreational service IMO. It carries serious responsibilities and consequences. For instance, what if the condom accidentally breaks (assuming one is even used) and the prostitute gets pregnant? Is her john going to be there to support her physically and emotionally through an abortion, an adoption, or raising her/his child? What if one or both of them get an STD such as HIV or Hepatitis C through the "transaction"? Society will often be picking up the tab for free treatment at the clinic. By the way, the cost for treatment of these two diseases is astronomical. It has also been proven in empirical medical studies that women who have multiple sexual partners have a higher risk of cervical cancer.
What is the emotional/psychological impact on prostitutes after years of selling themselves? Does the john care? Two people using each other, without caring at all about the other persons health or welfare, is not moral IMO. You said in your post that you would hope the partner of an abused woman would get her the help she so desperately needs. Why doesn't the john use his money to help prostitutes get an education, get counseling, become productive members of society, in short, get the help they so desperately need instead of exploiting their vulnerabilities further. I bet you would have a hard time finding one social worker, doctor, nurse, psychologist, etc. who could see any benefit to prostitutes or society in their "services". The benefit of instant sexual gratification to the john and instant cash for the prostitute is so outweighed by the harms of prostitution as to be negligible in comparison.
To the poster who suggested I should do some research into cities with legalized prostitution, I would ask him what makes him think I have not? Where I live prostitution is not illegal. The streets are full of sex trade workers, many whom are HIV and hepatitis infected drug addicts. I see them every day. When I was in nursing, we did study the affects of harm reduction in the sex and drug trades and street nurses set up programs such as needle exchange clinics and safe injection sites for heroin addicts. I fully support these programs and do not think prostitutes and drug addicts need to be locked up. I also am a supporting member of a local organization that gets young women off the streets, provides them long term shelter, education, employment opportunities, addiction and abuse counseling. This is a process that can take years of commitment. The people involved actually CARE about these young women and want to support them in leading the best, most healthy lives they are able to. Perhaps the John's might care enough about the women whose "services" they use to donate their "prostitute" money to such an organization and thus become part of the solution instead of adding to the problem. Now that would be morality! Somehow, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Just as I earlier said that consent does not equal morality, I will also strongly suggest that harm reduction does not equal morality either. It is the lesser of two evils. Legality also does not equal morality. Does something become moral just because it is not against the law currently? There needs to be a guideline that is not dependent on prevailing religious attitudes, media influences, or prevailing popular opinions. In this age of medical and other human sciences, we know enough about the human organism to know quite well what is helpful, healthful and harmful to men and women, physically, sexually, emotionally and spiritually. To deny this knowledge and remain deliberately ignorant so they we can continue to indulge ourselves in instant gratification at the expense of our long term welfare as individuals and as a society is highly immoral, in my opinion.
Cog
ps: Great article nvrgnbck! I agree with it wholeheartedly. We do naturally and intuitively know what is best for our own survival and welfare and that of our fellow humans. The problem is that the natural knowledge and instincts have been circumvented by thousands of years of conditioning with religious and other cultural bullshit. We need to strip a lot of that away and get back to basics which is what the foundational principle of "do no harm" attempts to do.
-
cognizant dissident
Thanks for the explanation and the essay, Who are you? and Hillary.
After reading them, I don't believe I was confusing ethics and morality at all. I agree that there is an underlying moral principle that transcends religious customs, local traditons, laws, etc and crosses all cultural boundaries. I believe that that guiding moral principle is that we do not harm ourselves or others but work to benefit ourselves and others. Granted, that is a very broad statement and may give rise to much debate about what exactly is harmful and what is beneficial. I do not think it is so difficult a question though as to be insurmountable.
If we strip away all cultural and religious stories about morals that have been conditioned into us since childhood, we are left with the human organism. We have enough empirical evidence and enough human intuition and survival instinct to know what is good for humans and our environment. We know what makes for long life and happiness for ourselves and others. It is not necessary to debate endlessly. Indeed when we are not acting in accord with that wisdom and knowledge but are being influenced against it by religous and cultural traditions that is when we are most likely to get into heated and fruitless debates. It's because we are going against experiential evidence and reality to try and argue for the status quo of our traditional viewpoints regardless of all evidence to the contrary that our old beliefs are harmful. It is only necessary, when contemplating any action, to ask ourselves, does this action further what I "know" (not believe) to be in the best interests of humans or does it detract from it. If we are truly not sure what the end of the road looks like then before taking our next step we can stand still, and dig a little deeper.
Cog
-
funkyderek
cognizant dissident:
Well, funky derek, the problem I have with your "benefits of prostitution" list is precisely that it relegates sex to a "service" one can pay for. It totally ignores the physical health and pshychological welfare of the two parties involved.
No it doesn't. It allows the parties involved to make a free decision in full knowledge of the possible consequences, but without the freedom to harm others.
Sex is fun, I agree, but it is not a recreational service IMO.
Then you are free not to use it as such. You can choose only to have sex in whatever circumstances most please you - as long as (you know what's coming!) all parites involved are informed consenting adults.
It carries serious responsibilities and consequences. For instance, what if the condom accidentally breaks (assuming one is even used) and the prostitute gets pregnant? Is her john going to be there to support her physically and emotionally through an abortion, an adoption, or raising her/his child? What if one or both of them get an STD such as HIV or Hepatitis C through the "transaction"?
What if I buy a burger and get food-poisoning? What if I get a taxi and it crashes? There is risk inherent in everything we do. Those who knowingly and willingly accept all the risks involved should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether the benefits outweigh the costs - as long as the costs don't extend to third parties.
Society will often be picking up the tab for free treatment at the clinic. By the way, the cost for treatment of these two diseases is astronomical. It has also been proven in empirical medical studies that women who have multiple sexual partners have a higher risk of cervical cancer.
I don't think it's moral for "society" to force me to pay for the consequences of other people's actions.
What is the emotional/psychological impact on prostitutes after years of selling themselves? Does the john care? Two people using each other, without caring at all about the other persons health or welfare, is not moral IMO.
It's a business transaction. I don't particularly care about the long-term welfare of anybody I happen to do business with. Generally I hope only good things happen to them, but I don't give it much thought, and I suspect you don't either.
You said in your post that you would hope the partner of an abused woman would get her the help she so desperately needs. Why doesn't the john use his money to help prostitutes get an education, get counseling, become productive members of society, in short, get the help they so desperately need instead of exploiting their vulnerabilities further.
Perhaps instead of buying new shoes made by people in the third world, you should keep wearing your old shoes and donate the money to a third world charity. Or you could seek out a seller of shoes that uses only first world unionised labour. Or you could reason that your money is going to the people who need it most - the poorest people in the world. There are complex issues involved in practice (depending on your views, others include the use of animal products, petroleum products or toxic chemicals) but that does not make it inherently immoral to buy shoes.
I bet you would have a hard time finding one social worker, doctor, nurse, psychologist, etc. who could see any benefit to prostitutes or society in their "services".
And yet there is a perceived benefit to the prostitute and the client or they wouldn't do it.
The benefit of instant sexual gratification to the john and instant cash for the prostitute is so outweighed by the harms of prostitution as to be negligible in comparison.
That is a decision to be made by those who will have to live with the consequences.
Perhaps the John's might care enough about the women whose "services" they use to donate their "prostitute" money to such an organization and thus become part of the solution instead of adding to the problem. Now that would be morality!
That would be charity. But I agree it's certainly not immoral for someone to use their money in such a way if they so wish.
Just as I earlier said that consent does not equal morality,
Then what does exactly? Who dictates what I should be allowed to do, and on what basis?
I will also strongly suggest that harm reduction does not equal morality either. It is the lesser of two evils.
It is moral to attemt to minimise the potential risks of any activity. It is still up to the parties involved to weigh the risks and make their own decisions.
Legality also does not equal morality. Does something become moral just because it is not against the law currently?
No, but I think morality should equal legality (more or less at least). Actions should only be against the law if they impose an unwanted undeserved cost on nonconsenting parties. I'm wondering if that's what you mean by morality. If we're working on different definitions, this discussion could spiral around indefinitely.
There needs to be a guideline that is not dependent on prevailing religious attitudes, media influences, or prevailing popular opinions.
Agreed, but what should it be? Why do you get to decide that prostitution is unacceptable? You could take into account the costs of drinking, gambling, smoking, driving, eating fatty foods etc. and decide that the costs in any or all of these cases do not justify the benefits. Should all such activities then be banned? (The only item in the above list that I think should be considered for this is driving, as it imposes a real cost (in the form of greater risk of accidental death) on parties who do not consent.)
In this age of medical and other human sciences, we know enough about the human organism to know quite well what is helpful, healthful and harmful to men and women, physically, sexually, emotionally and spiritually.
Absolutely, and it's a good thing to disseminate this knowledge as widely as possible and allow everyone to do with that knowledge as they will - with the usual proviso.
To deny this knowledge and remain deliberately ignorant so they we can continue to indulge ourselves in instant gratification at the expense of our long term welfare as individuals and as a society is highly immoral , in my opinion.
A free society is the only one worth living in. I cannot see how your beliefs on morality would allow that.
-
under_believer
Cog, you are apparently aware of exactly one form of prostitution. You are mentally extending this one set of practices out to cover every form of offering sexual gratification for monetary gain.
The form of prostitution you are talking about is a very, very bad scene. I can't speak for anyone else but I am not promoting sexual slavery, drug addiction, or the kind of abuse pimps dish out to underage girls and women every day.
But what about the 32 year old freelancer that works out of craigslist? What about the massage therapist that offers "happy endings?" What about the women working with some of Vancouver, BC's high-end escort agencies? There are forms of prostitution that are fully consensual, do not involve slavery or drug abuse, and are practiced by mature humans who know exactly what they are doing and why. I propose that when the prostitute obviously demonstrates soundness of mind, is drug- and disease-free, and is in full control of her own destiny as to whether she continues that form of employment or not, there is absolutely no abuse or immorality taking place. -
TopHat
I follow the SAME morals as I did BEFORE I became a JW.