Funky Derek:
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.
I think it is an assumption to say that most prostitutes and johns have full and informed knowledge of possible consequences of their behaviour, but let's say for the sake of arguement that they all do and that no other innocent 3rd parties are ever affected by prostitution. I think the fundamental difference between our viewpoints is that you believe it is morally acceptable for two consenting people to agree to engage in behaviour towards each other that carries with it a high risk of physical or psychological harm if there is a small benefit to be had such as quick cash or an orgasmic endorphin rush. I do not. I think when we engage in sex with another person, we have a moral obligation to that person to care about their pleasure not just our own, their health and our own health, and any possible children that could result from the union. That's kind of hard to accomplish when you may not bother to even exchange real names and phone numbers. When a customer hands over his/her $20 to a streetwalker or $200 to a high-end hooker (it's all the same to me), they are in effect saying they want all the benefits of sexual pleasure with none of the responsibilities that normally come with it.
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.
Yes, there is risk inherent in living and we cannot forsee or prevent all harms. I do not suggest that we can. We can however, take action to prevent harm that we do know about and is within our sphere of influence and power to prevent. To use your own examples, we do know many of the causes of food-born illnesses and their transmission. I believe it IS the moral obligation of food processors, restaurant owners and personnel to take the necessary precautions to prevent the contamination and dissemination of the food they serve and sell. I believe it is the moral obligation of taxi owners to maintain their vehicles in a manner that is in harmony with current safety regulations and knowledge. It is the moral obligation of taxi drivers to drive in a safe manner.
I don't think it's moral for "society" to force me to pay for the consequences of other people's actions.
We are all interconnected with one another whether we acknowledge it or not. We all pay the consequences for other's people's actions whether society or anyone forces us to or not, whether we pay financially or in other ways. It is a fortunate/unfortunate consequence of being human and sharing our environment with others. We might think it would be great if we could be islands unto ourselves, however that is not reality. The moral principle of acting with intent to benefit, not harm, ourselves or others acknowledges this reality.
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.
Sex is many things. It is an expression of physcial attraction. It is an expression of physical intimacy. It is a giving and receiving of pleasure. It is a means of procreation/reproducing the species. It can be an expression of love and commitment. It can be an expression of submission, domination and even outright violence. To deny the reality of all that sex is and devalue/degrade it to the level of a simple business transaction is delusional, harmful and immoral in my opinion.
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 agree that it is not immoral to buy shoes. I do think rampant, greedy consumerism without regards to environmental impact on the planet, and economic impact on all segments of society (ours and other nations) is immoral because there are potential abuses and harms to the planet and others that need to be considered even when we buy things. The underlying theme in ALL our actions is to consider the harm versus benefit to ourselves and others. That is the foundation of morality. By the way, I do wear my shoes right out before I buy more. (I'm not a real woman!
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.
I agree with you that is the final decision of the parties involved however that does not mean thier decision is automatically moral. They can still consent to make an immoral decision. As I mentioned before, we all live with the consequences whether we acknowledge it or not.
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?
In the end, YOU dictate what you do based on your choice. Even if something is against the law, you choose whether to obey or not. Even if something is mandated by law, such as war, you choose whether you will obey the mandate. You may choose to make your choice based on what is most pleasurable to yourself at the moment, regardless of possible harm to yourself or others (as the prostitute and john do when engaging in their business transaction, or the heroin dealer and junkie do when transacting their business) or, you may choose to decide on the basis of what is in the long term best interest of yourself and others as far as you are able to determine and influence. One choice is moral, one is not.
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.
I agree, and those decisions will be either harmful or beneficial. They may contain elements of both. I believe that is where we get into the realm of ethical debate, when determining what exactly is harmful and what is beneficial. Mistakes based on wrong information, do happen. Intent is also key. If the intention is to be of benefit, then again, I say that is the foundation of morality. If the intent is to gain whatever pleasure we desire at the expense of others or of even our own long-term benefit than we are on shaky moral ground. I actually believe that people who are fully educated and informed and still choose to do what they know is harmful to themselves or others are more immoral than those who are attempting to do the right thing, but are misinformed or mistaken, or acting in desperation. Morality is not a function of the result of an action but more of the intent, I believe.
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.
To go back to the extreme examples of prostitution and drug addiction, I actually do not believe they should be against the law and criminalized. ( I would make an exception for pimps and drug dealers though as they are so obviously exploiting and harming 3rd parties.) One cannot legislate or enforce morality. Society has tried and failed miserably. I think information and education and treatment has a better track record, however, as you said, people will make their own choices, moral or immoral, and we will ALL live with the consequences. The only thing that will dry up those markets is if individuals like you and me choose to act in moral ways and teach our children to do the same.
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.)
I get to decide whether prostitution is acceptable for myself and share my reasons with whomever is within my sphere of influence and wants to listen (granted, it's a very small sphere!) I do take into account the costs of drinking, gambling, smoking, driving, and eating junk food and decide whether the benefits outweight the costs. I choose not to smoke or drink more than the occasional drink or eat a lot of junk food because to do so would be behaving in a harmful way to myself. I have to drive for work ( no bus where I live) but I try to lessen the enviromental impact as much as possible. I do not make those decisions based on what the JW's think, what the Bible says, what is fashionable or trendy, or what the letter of the law allows. If I know what is healthful to do and don't do it, then I am behaving immorally towards my own body, in my opinion.
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.
I agree. That's all I was trying to do in the context of this discussion, including disseminating knowledge on the risks and harms of prostitution. (Did I mention that I was training to be a public health nurse before I became ill and was injured?) This was to be my field of expertise which is mainly one of educating the public, giving them health information so that they can make informed choices to help themselves.
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.
My beliefs are only my beliefs. I shared them in the spirit of the topic of the thread. I make no attempt to make rules for others and enforce others to live by them. I had enough of that with the JW's. I only shared my beliefs on morality, which harm no one or take away anyone else's freedom. To the contrary, they very much focus on taking personal responsibility for ALL our actions, with full available knowledge of the effects they may have on others, regardless of what the JW rules say, regardless of cultural or national traditions and even regardless of what the laws of the land say. If the law of the land allows an action that I know to be harmful, then morality dictates that I do not do it (as in legal prostitution). If the law of the land requires me to do something I know to be harmful (such as turn a Jewish neighbour over to the Nazi's) then my moral code requires of me that I do not do it. Make of it what you will. We all choose our own path for better or worse.
Cog
