1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Is pornography immoral?

Discussion in 'Porn Addiction' started by Paperweight, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. Yep well said agree porn is not immoral
     
  2. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    Hi there. Glad to see there's a civil discussion about this important matter. I'll start by giving some of my opinions on the questions asked in the OP by @Paperweight

    My intuition says 'no', but I guess it depends on what you consider pornography to be. If pornography is just the filming of people engaged in a sex act, then I don't think it's immoral. If pornography is both the filming of a sex act and the people who consume it, then I think it becomes more of a gray area. If pornography is the filming of a sex act, the people who consume it, and the effects that will have on their lives and the lives of others close to them, then I think it starts to become more clear. I think this is a really broad question, so I'm glad the others are more specific. However, I think my intuition leans towards the 'no' answer simply because I think of pornography as the filming of people engaged in a sex act. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I think that's fine.

    As long as the people involved are consenting adults, no.

    In some cases, yes. If it is knowingly distributed to someone who is known to be struggling with an addiction or who is not in good mental health otherwise, or if it is marketed towards children, I think it's wrong, and I think there are advertising campaigns on the internet that attempt to push the material on that demographic of people.

    No. I'd like to use an analogy to alcohol consumption: there is a generally accepted concept of 'drinking responsibly', and I think that concept exists to illustrate the point that alcohol consumption is morally permissible, so long as it is not done in such a way that risks causing harm to oneself or others. Similarly, I believe that there is a responsible amount of pornography consumption. I do not believe that all pornography consumption is necessarily damaging to oneself or to other people in the viewer's life. Obviously, I believe that there are possible negative side effects of watching porn (I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that), but I don't think that all people will experience those side effects from watching porn, or that people who experience those side effects will experience them every time they consume porn. I understand that in making this claim, I am placing the burden of proof on myself to provide an example of a case where someone consumes porn without harming themselves or others. I can provide such an example from my own experiences. The first time I ever saw any sort of pornography was at a sleepover at a friend's house in middle school. He showed me a few pictures from the internet of women with their clothes off and pictures of people having sex. Neither of us masturbated. We mostly just giggled about it. I don't think this experience harmed me or anyone in my life. Overall, it satisfied a sexual curiosity that I had as a pubescent boy about what women looked like with their clothes off and what sex looked like, and I don't think that it damaged me to satisfy that curiosity by looking at pictures instead of waiting until I had a real sexual experience of my own. I don't consider it to be a major factor in the eventual development of my addiction to pornography. The ability for me to watch porn would have still been a possibility whether I had viewed it that night or not.

    I think that lots of pornography is made without the consent of the actors, which is obviously immoral. I think pornography is aggressively marketed towards people who are struggling with porn addiction and also marketed towards children who don't yet know about the problems that porn addiction can cause in one's life, which I also believe is wrong. I also believe that if someone is addicted to porn (or suffering from any other addiction) and aware of the negative consequences of this in their life, that they are morally obligated to do something about it. Addiction doesn't only affect the addict. It affects the lives of the people involved with the addict, too, so they are morally obligated to do something about their addiction both for their own sake and for the sake of others in their lives.
    Having said all of that, I think that pornography is something which has the potential to be consumed compulsively, and that it is very easy for people to develop pornography addictions. Therefore, I think we have an obligation as a society to educate ourselves about pornography addiction and the possible consequences of such an addiction, so that people can decide for themselves what sort of a role pornography should play in their lives.

    I think this sort of pornography doesn't face the same ethical questions about consent that standard pornography does, but I think that it faces the same issues when it comes to addiction and marketing.
     
  3. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    Thanks for answering my questions.

    I agree with that.

    My disagreement with you remains the same as before: you seem to judge the morality of an action as if it takes place in a vacuum. "If the people involved are consenting adults, it's not immoral."

    But I say that is never the case, because actions have long lasting consequences that involve people far away in space and time. It is simply not possible in practice to get everyone's consent in society, but it is not even theoretically possible to get the consent of the unborn, and yet the society they live in is shaped by our behaviour that we engage in so casually.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  4. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    I agree with you, but I don't know how accurately we are able to predict those distant consequences. I also think that even if we were able to accurately compute the relevant consequences of a given action, the morality of the action would still be somewhat of a gray area. However, I don't think this excuses us from taking those consequences into consideration. I just think that every single action we do has many, many consequences (both immediate and distant), and that in most cases, those consequences are going to be a mixture of good and bad. We may try to act in such a way as to tip that scale in the 'good' direction, but ultimately I'm not going to hold anyone responsible for making an error in this respect. I think you and I are on the same page with all that, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    Having said all of that and stepping back into the realm of the example at hand, I don't think the distant consequences of people creating pornography are at all obvious to us. I'm not sure we can even reasonably determine who will be affected in the long-term by the creation of a porn video. The only guaranteed consequences are the ones on the actors and producers of the video themselves. As I've stated before, all parties involved there are basically just doing a job (unless it's amateur or home-made porn), which could actually benefit them financially in the short term. It's not even necessary that anyone see the porn after it's been created, and even if they did I don't think it's clear that it will have a negative impact on the viewer's life.

    My intuition still tells me that creating pornography is not immoral. To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's something people ought to do, or even that it's always okay to do it. I'm just claiming that in some cases, it's mostly morally neutral and that creating it won't necessarily harm anyone.
     
  5. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    You don't think that pornography is more damaging to people than not? You think that pornography brings such significant benefits to society that the overall balance of benefit-to-harm is too close to call in your opinion? Then we simply disagree.

    I don't consider the personal incomes of pornographers; a child's premature insight into sexual matters; or the ability to quickly arouse men in a sperm bank to have significant value whatsoever.

    Whereas I regard the corruption of the countless men and boys who consume it to be incredibly dangerous and harmful, often to themselves, but moreover, to society at large.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  6. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    No, I definitely think it is more damaging than not. In most cases, I think it's either morally wrong or bears no moral consequence. I'm not meaning to suggest that the overall benefit-to-harm balance is too close to call.

    Perhaps this will clear things up: when I hear that something is immoral, I'm thinking of that as a universally quantified statement, which means I translate "x is immoral" to mean that x is immoral for every instance of x. Under that interpretation, in order for "pornography is immoral" to be true, that would mean every instance of pornography would have to have negative moral consequence, and I simply don't think that's the case. Forgive me for interpreting things this way.

    I now understand you are giving "x is immoral" a different interpretation: one about considering possible consequences of x and weighing the positive and negative outcomes against one another. If the scales decisively tip in one direction or the other, the truth of the statement "x is immoral" becomes clear. I don't think either of our interpretations are more or less accurate, just two different ways of examining the question at hand.

    Indeed, I agree that most of the possible consequences of creating pornography are negative ones. I wish that we lived in a world with less porn so that we could minimize the risk of these consequences. If that means that I really think pornography is immoral, then I think we do agree after all.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  7. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    Yes, I think that is the most useful definition of morality, and also the de-facto definition of Christian morality.

    I think that morality exists to control trends at the community level. It therefore stands to reason that if the net effects of a behavioural trend are beneficial/harmful, then that behaviour should be considered moral/immoral for that community. Otherwise, what is the purpose of morality? Its ultimate end is not to make us feel proud or guilty for our actions, that is only its mechanism, but to serve the higher being we belong to.
     
  8. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    You agree with me if you consider it morally wrong to produce pornography for distribution or to consume such pornography because of your contribution to a broader societal trend which is harmful.
     
  9. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    I'm not seeing the relevance of Christianity in this discussion, but alright.

    You think that morality only has applications at the community level? I think morality has applications extending far beyond human societies, and also has lesser scope at the level of the individual.

    Sure, morality exists to control communities and societies of people, but I think it also exists to control individuals. Individuals will often use their own set of morals when making decisions, and those might not necessarily coincide with the morals of the society they participate in.

    I definitely think part of the purpose of morality is to maintain and preserve a community or society. I guess you could say that the morals of a given society exist partially to maintain that society as it is. However, there's a problem here: some societies accept morals which guide them to act against the interests of their own citizens, or the interests of other societies, or to damage the environment in which all societies exist. In cases like these, we appeal to a higher order morality to criticize their actions. I think that when it comes to criticizing the morals of a society, morality takes on a different purpose: maybe a morality in the interest of preserving humanity, or of preserving life itself. I think the scope of morality can continue to extend outward in this way, until you find yourself pondering very abstract principles.

    Most useful for what end? When we start discussing which is the most useful definition of morality, we cross the line from ethics into meta-ethics, which is where we analyze morality as a concept using its own terminology (I'm taking 'useful' to be an ethically charged term). I think this discussion alone is evidence that the purpose of morality extends far beyond the preservation of human communities. We see here that morality can also be used as a tool to analyze morality as a concept.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  10. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    @Ridley I wrote quite a lot in reply to you, but I cut it down as best I could, forgive me if I sound overly terse. I've enjoyed talking with you. :)

    This is a discussion of morality, Christianity is a core component of our culture's traditional moral framework. It's not necessary to discuss but it has clear relevance.

    I'm claiming that community interests determine morality through natural selection.

    Most useful for understanding its true nature and reason for being. The fundamental reason for the state of anything in this universe is natural selection. We have a moral conscience because it gives our species a survival advantage.

    Wherever we errantly find application for human morality does not change the fact of its natural purpose, just as there are many applications for one's genitals.

    There is no other purpose for us having morality, merely other applications for it. On closer inspection, many apparently separate applications reveal themselves to be serving the community indirectly, such as environmental conservation. Other applications are practically inconsequential to community well-being, others are harmful to it. Nature will be the judge. "The wages of sin is death", understand?
     
  11. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    Me too :) Never thought I'd take a dive into the philosophical on a forum like this, but here we are.

    I guess I didn't think we were talking about the morality of a particular culture, but about morality as an abstract concept. That's why it confused me. Do you think ethical debate needs to be contextualized to a particular culture?

    I'm a bit skeptical here. I believe natural selection is one very useful mechanism for explaining why things are the way they are, but I think it's far from giving us the full picture. For one matter, we can only go so far back under that lens. Unless you believe that our universe has always existed, there was some initial state of everything in it, and I believe that initial state is one of the fundamental reasons for the current state of the universe. Does natural selection explain the initial state of our universe somehow, or am I misunderstanding the concept of natural selection? The way I see it, the initial configuration of all matter and space-time in our universe is what set the playing field in which natural selection takes place.

    For another matter (no pun intended), we often appeal the physical laws of our universe to explain states of matter and space-time. To take it a step further, we appeal to mathematical or logical laws to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the physical laws. These laws are not the way they are because of natural selection. They enforce natural selection. Yet, they are very much a part of our universe. In a way, these laws seem even more fundamental than natural selection. This is not to say that they could give us the full picture either, but I think they are other reasons we could appeal to when explaining the state of the universe.

    I'm not sure you're tapping into the purpose of morality here, and I also think this is a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. The way I see it, we have a moral conscience by dumb luck, and that happens to give us a survival advantage. It didn't happen the other way around: we didn't somehow know that having a moral conscience would give our species a survival advantage, and therefore decided we ought to develop a moral conscience in order to survive.

    Try applying that same sort of understanding of natural selection to a more primal property of an organism. For example, you wouldn't say that giraffes have long necks because it lets them reach high-hanging fruit in trees, increasing their survival advantage. Giraffes have long necks because of their genes, and they were lucky to have those genes because long necks allowed them to reach high-hanging fruit, increasing their survival advantage.

    Back to my comment about tapping into the purpose of morality: I realized the giraffe example is also good for this. The long necks of giraffes allow them to reach high-hanging fruit, increasing their survival advantage. However, that doesn't mean that the purpose of having a long neck (or, to put it more abstractly, the purpose of 'lengthiness') is to reach high-hanging fruit, or even to increase survivability. Similarly, the moral conscience of humans allow them to cooperate as a society, increasing the survival chances of the species. That does not imply that the purpose of morality is to increase the cooperation of a society, or even to guarantee the survival of a species.

    I'm skeptical of the premise that there's an improper way to use one's genitals. There are ways to use genitals for reproduction, and there are ways to use your genitals for pleasure with no prospects of reproduction. Are either of those usages improper? If so, why?

    Sure, there might not be any other reason for human beings to have a moral conscience, but I believe there's a difference between the reason humans make use of morality and the reason morality exists. It sounds like we might disagree about that, no?
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  12. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    Correct, I just chose to reference our traditional system of morality which is one manifestation of this abstract concept for interest's sake, I don't see why that's contentious or irrelevant. Like I said, it's not necessary to discuss, no need to fixate on it.

    Natural selection
    I agree that some starting configuration and the laws of physics determine the state of the universe. I chose to use the term natural selection to also include the development of the inorganic facets of the universe in a somewhat poetic sense, it's not worth focusing on, it's pure semantics. If you think this usage is inappropriate or confusing, that's understandable, it's not important. Let's just restrict the use of the term to conventional Darwinism.

    Again, this is just semantics. I understand the principles of random mutation and selection pressures, we both understand this.

    Both of those explanations are correct. The first is an abstraction that assumes basic knowledge of the mechanism of natural selection that we all learn in school, the second insists on explaining that mechanism in unnecessary detail. :)

    I understand the point, but I think it's unhelpfully de-constructive. The selection pressure driving the trend towards longer necks is the ability to reach high-up food. Therefore, it is a useful and meaningful abstraction to say that this ability is the purpose of giraffes having long necks. Any child can tell you that this is the purpose of a giraffe's long neck, when you can't even admit that basic fact, I think it's a sign that you're de-constructing too much.

    What are you going to say next, that the purpose of our eyes is not to see? That's simply going to pains to make yourself more ignorant. You can describe the whole world as electrons if you desire, it just won't tell you very much about larger abstractions.

    Proper by what standard? My moral standard simply asks what consequences such an action would likely have on one's community, masturbating to pornography is improper by this standard, due to the overall harm (that you and I have agreed) that it causes. Both reproductive and non-reproductive sex may be either beneficial or harmful to the community in different contexts.

    I'll just say this: Nature does not care for our reasons, only her own. We increase our chances of survival by understanding and acting in harmony with her. When we act in discord with her, we invite destruction:

    "The wages of sin is death."
     
  13. MLMVSS

    MLMVSS Fapstronaut

    611
    7,572
    123
    My view on morality comes from God, from the commandments to the beatitudes. As Jesus said, even staring in lust is a sin, as you have committed adultery in your heart. This happens when you watch pornography; you lust not only in your heart, but you’re acting out on that lust.

    God’s Law is also rigid, and doesn’t change simply because society does.
     
  14. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    No, I'm not trying to deconstruct the purpose of a giraffe's long neck to the point where we can't say that it's purpose is to reach high-up food. I agree that the purpose of a giraffe's long neck is to reach high-up food, but once the conversation reaches that point we're no longer talking about the abstract concept of lengthiness. We're talking about the purpose of lengthiness in the neck of a giraffe. Similarly, once we say that the purpose of morality for humans is to survive as a community, we're not talking about the concept of morality anymore, but rather the purpose of morality in the life of a human being. The point I'm trying to make with this example is similar to the point I'm making here:
    So, just to be clear on this point:
    No, I'm not going to say that. I think that describing the eye as an organ that can see is a perfectly decent abstraction. I think describing the eye as a particular arrangement of fundamental particles is another perfectly decent abstraction. Both ways of understanding the eye have different advantages and disadvantages. I'm not trying to forbid myself or anyone else from using particular abstractions. I'm just saying that abstractions don't give us the full picture of what something really is or what the purpose of it is.

    I wasn't using a moral standard here. I was using a logical one. The original comment I was responding to was this:
    I didn't take your usage of the word "errantly" to be a moral usage. I took it to be a logical one. I was thinking that if you're going to say that a particular application of human morality is incorrect, that you're not saying it's incorrect because it's morally wrong, but because it's logically wrong.
    Similarly, I think your usage of the words "harmony" and "discord" are logical comparisons rather than ethical ones.

    Finally, for a side note about semantics: I know that much of what I've been debating with you has been semantic, and I understand that sometimes debating semantics can seem pointless or tedious. However, I think it's important to discuss matters of semantics. It's difficult to make your own understanding of words clear without clearly stating your definitions ahead of time. Since we're obviously not going to take the time to do that on an internet forum, we're going to come across semantic disagreements from time to time. Though they might be abundant in conversations like these, semantic disagreements are, fortunately, easy to resolve, and once we do resolve them we come that much closer to really understanding one another. I've found, thus far, that most of our disagreements have been semantic rather than a disagreement about how reality actually is, which means that, when it comes down to it, we probably agree on the really important things in life. I tend to have an abstract understanding of many philosophical terms like reason, knowledge, morality, reality, and consciousness that many people find annoying. I've spent a lot of time studying information theory, logic, and the foundation of mathematics, so please forgive me if I come off as nit-picky when it comes to semantics.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  15. lmao yes its immoral on the most basic level and I argue that you would have to be pretty mucked up to argue that it is moral in any way.
     
    Paperweight likes this.
  16. IronDog

    IronDog Fapstronaut

    I have to really think this one through I guess. I'm not so sure its immoral in and of itself. If everyone is consenting, including the viewer.... if no one cares about the implications of being involved, then who am I to say if its immoral for them. I know it can do damage.... but so can alcohol or drugs. I've never really heard the argument for alcohol being immoral.

    Now obviously this depends on your beliefs... god, etc...

    Immortality can come from it for sure. But people having sex on camera for money or for public consumption isn't necessarily wrong. Ultimately we have a choice to indulge or not and you would have to decide if viewing this is immoral to you.
     
    boborosso and Paperweight like this.
  17. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    Ah, my apologies then, I did not understand the point. Well, there is not much to say about something as vague as "lengthiness" divorced from context. If we can at least narrow down the context to "lengthiness in organisms", then I disagree with you and say that the only fundamental purpose of any organic trait (including morality) is indeed "to increase survivability".

    But "improper" is a moral term, 2+2=5 is illogical, but it is only improper if your standard for propriety is logical consistency, in your study of logic and mathematics I dare say this is the case. I use "errantly" in the sense of wandering from the application that nature is selecting for. We needn't call this "illogical" or "incorrect" to acknowledge the implications of doing so.

    :) Let's do a test then, let's bring it all back to real-life application:

    I say that socially acceptable standards of behaviour should exclude behaviour that is harmful to society. I say that pornography consumption fits that description. I say that even if a person is capable of consuming pornography without causing any harm, his consumption should still be considered socially unacceptable for the sake of maintaining healthy standards of behaviour in society.

    Do you agree with that?
     
  18. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    91
    143
    33
    It is never the case that everyone involved is consenting because the people who are indirectly involved are so many, including the unborn who inherit the society we leave behind.
     
    IronDog likes this.
  19. SaltedPeter

    SaltedPeter Fapstronaut

    It is Immoral :

    Quite simply the fact regardless of any religious background or not porn is destructive.
    Its just as harmful to Atheist as it is the Religious. It changes the way we think, how we treat each right down to
    the core cells in our brain.
    Porn 100% is immoral based solely on how our body alone is made sick and our mind and its chemicals
    are put in an imbalance. This is not done by moral pressures, something inside of us does not like how it makes us feel
    and how it makes us sick by im-balancing chemicals that alone shows its not normal, even for our bodies.
    Religiously there may be more moral grounds but absent of religion it is still immoral based on unconscious
    harm it does .
     
    IronDog and Paperweight like this.
  20. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    783
    1,442
    123
    Of course, but in a contrasting case, I think there are lots of interesting things to say about morality even when the concept is divorced from context.

    I think I agree with you, but I just need to make sure I understanding how you're interpreting the fundamental purpose of a thing. The way I would put it is this: The function of any organic trait is to increase the odds of survival. So, for a more philosophical question: do you think that the way something functions is the same as that thing's purpose?

    Sure, I'll grant that 'improper' is a moral term. Returning to the example at hand, when you said that humans might errantly apply morality, I took 'errantly' to mean improper under the lens of logical consistency. If you weren't using the standard of logical consistency there, which standard were you using?

    Sure, once we bring the discussion of morality under the context of human societies, I agree with you. Whether or not pornography is immoral when talking about morality divorced from that context is a different question (though it's probably not as useful to human beings), which may have been what made me feel apprehensive about saying pornography is immoral in the beginning of our discussion.

    I also think that, once we've agreed that pornography is immoral in this way, we open the doors for other interesting questions, such as:
    • Where does consuming porn fall relative to other acts on the moral landscape?
    • How do we protect ourselves from pornography?
    • Is the state responsible for protecting us from pornography? If so, to what degree?
     
    Paperweight likes this.

Share This Page