Pornography vs. Prostitution

[Angel]

It's hard to see a real difference between pornography and prostitution other than perhaps the latter being more risky (random sex partners) and less accepted than than the other. Other than that, both involve promiscuity, both involve having sex for money, etc. etc.

Debate Questions:
I know there's currently a legal difference between porn and prostitution (one being criminal and the other not) depending on what country you live in, but is there a real moral difference?

[His Name Is John]

No, but we change the laws when we realize that a particular prohibition serves no positive social value. In California there is a law on the books that prohibits cleaning a car with used underwear. We shouldn't remove that law just because some people are going to break it. Right?

I am not suggesting holding onto laws that are pointless.

To me the question should revolve around how much harm would be done to society by removing the prohibition compared to the amount of harm due to the prohibition.

I think we should look at the reasons why the laws were there in the first place. Why did they not originally just allow it to be legal? That should be part of the re-evaluation of all laws. If the reason still stands, then I believe the law probably should as well.

[Angel]

John, you seem to be advocating a theocratic police state, in which the state takes an authoritarian role in regulating personal morality.

Not quite. I just believe that certain things should be illegal. Please say how objections to pornography and prostitution are the same as advocating a theocratic police state.

The point of Haven's post to you may've been point out why you consider pornography and prostitution to be wrong. Is it a coincidence that your personal belief is in Christian Bible and that that Bible just so happens to call pornography and prostitution wrong? Do you have any logical reason behind your disapproval of porn and prostitution, considering that the government already allows for one and other countries allow both, even? Why should your belief matter more than what many people are already doing esp. if it can work out without harm?

[McCulloch]

I am not suggesting holding onto laws that are pointless.

That remains to be seen. What is the point of the prohibition against porn and prostitution?

I think we should look at the reasons why the laws were there in the first place. Why did they not originally just allow it to be legal? That should be part of the re-evaluation of all laws. If the reason still stands, then I believe the law probably should as well.

I suspect that the reason had a lot to do with Christian inspired prudishness and Judeo-Christian morality.
Your turn.

[His Name Is John]

The point of Haven's post to you may've been point out why you consider pornography and prostitution to be wrong. Is it a coincidence that your personal belief is in Christian Bible and that that Bible just so happens to call pornography and prostitution wrong? Do you have any logical reason behind your disapproval of porn and prostitution, considering that the government already allows for one and other countries allow both, even? Why should your belief matter more than what many people are already doing esp. if it can work out without harm?

I don't think that it can work out without harm. That's the whole point. I didn't know the Bible talks about pornography, I would be interested in seeing the text. My reason for believing what I do is a combination: the teaching of Jesus, natural law theory, that they are harmful.

I am not suggesting holding onto laws that are pointless.

That remains to be seen. What is the point of the prohibition against porn and prostitution?

As I explained, the shrinking of the illegal sex trade. If it is made legal, abuses will still happen. There will always be things that are illegal (child prostitutes / porn etc.) and thus there will always be a criminal market. My aim is to stamp out the entire business, blanket ban, and thus all forms will shrink.

I suspect that the reason had a lot to do with Christian inspired prudishness and Judeo-Christian morality.
Your turn.

I suspect similar.

And as the USA is still mostly Christians I think the laws should still stand.

I don't expect an atheist to respect the Bible as a source of authority, but when Christians are in the majority they do not need to justify the source of their beliefs. They can change what ever laws they like (as can anyone).

However I still think on a purely secular level, there should be many more restrictions and maybe even a ban of both porn and prostitution.

[McCulloch]

However I still think on a purely secular level, there should be many more restrictions and maybe even a ban of both porn and prostitution.

What secular reasons are there to ban both porn and prostitution. Also, how far do you go? Pornography literally means writing about sex. Back to the Hay's Code?

[Haven]

I don't expect an atheist to respect the Bible as a source of authority, but when Christians are in the majority they do not need to justify the source of their beliefs. They can change what ever laws they like (as can anyone).

The tyranny of the majority . . . do you really support such a concept? Do you really believe the majority (Christians, as in your example) has the right to restrict the rights of the minority (non-Christians)?

Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the majority supported keeping people with my skin tone in chains. Was that morally right?

America is a secular nation for a reason -- to protect the rights of all, including Christians, to live and believe as they see fit (unless it violates others' rights, of course).

[His Name Is John]

The tyranny of the majority . . . do you really support such a concept? Do you really believe the majority (Christians, as in your example) has the right to restrict the rights of the minority (non-Christians)?

I believe in a democracy, and that is one of the implications of such a system.

Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the majority supported keeping people with my skin tone in chains. Was that morally right?

I don't believe so. But they did nothing democratically wrong. They have just as much of a right as anyone to change the laws according to their views.

America is a secular nation for a reason -- to protect the rights of all, including Christians, to live and believe as they see fit (unless it violates others' rights, of course).

What have I said that goes against the rights of others?

I don't believe that just because the majority believes something, that makes it right. However I do believe that if the majority believe something, they have the right to make it a law. The only alternative is to say that a minority of people can make the choices instead.

[Haven]

I believe in a democracy, and that is one of the implications of such a system.

A true democracy protects the rights of all citizens, otherwise it reduces to a form of mob rule.

I don't believe so. But they did nothing democratically wrong. They have just as much of a right as anyone to change the laws according to their views.

I strongly disagree.

Besides, if the majority support legal porn and prostitution, I'm sure you'd support that as well, right?

What have I said that goes against the rights of others?

Imposing one's own religious beliefs on another is violating another's right to freedom of (from) religion.

The only alternative is to say that a minority of people can make the choices instead.

I see no problem with this, as long as the rights of all are protected.

[His Name Is John]

A true democracy protects the rights of all citizens, otherwise it reduces to a form of mob rule.

Democracy is simply mob rule. Do you think if the majority of people in the USA wanted to change the constitutions, they could? If not, why not? You aren't in a free democracy if the final say doesn't come down to the majority.

I strongly disagree.

Besides, if the majority support legal porn and prostitution, I'm sure you'd support that as well, right?

I would support their right to do so. Who am I to say that all the laws should be changed because of me? If the majority want something, who am I to say my opinion outweights the others?

Now I would work at changing peoples minds, but I wouldn't suggest that some kind of dictatorship arose where they did everything I wanted.

Imposing one's own religious beliefs on another is violating another's right to freedom of (from) religion.

Again, the majority have the final say, to think they don't is wishful thinking.

I see no problem with this, as long as the rights of all are protected.

So you don't support democracy but a form of dictatorship? One which seeks to protect the rights of all?

[McCulloch]

Democracy is simply mob rule.

[...]

So you don't support democracy but a form of dictatorship? One which seeks to protect the rights of all?

No modern democracy is as simple as majority rule. We all have constitutions which guarantee the protection of minority rights. Democracy is not the same thing as a dictatorship of the majority.