tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post5443977292645975833..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: The Ethics of Pornography (Part 2)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-8666408328838898312018-11-08T21:46:23.142+00:002018-11-08T21:46:23.142+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673048049924580842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-9324433534868900122011-07-21T13:57:28.212+01:002011-07-21T13:57:28.212+01:00AFAIK, about 20% of people are desperate and poor/...AFAIK, about 20% of people are desperate and poor/dumb enough to hurt others.<br /><br />So are you putting images of naked kids (like daresay most parents own) on par with actual rape by explosively powered shrapnel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-79425973190808559002011-07-17T20:24:35.409+01:002011-07-17T20:24:35.409+01:00He focused on private viewing and the implications...He focused on private viewing and the implications of that for culture as a whole, but not on what was appropriate for public presentation.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-5375110377704475902011-07-16T18:26:04.860+01:002011-07-16T18:26:04.860+01:00Did Altman discuss the broader "pornographica...Did Altman discuss the broader "pornographication of culture" (i.e. public expressions of sexuality, both in personal behavior and in commercial media)?<br /><br />It seems that his discussion was limited to the sort of pornography that is viewed in private by adults, rather than considering what sorts of images are appropriate for public presentation.Ricketsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579799843541826447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-19005848195280071052011-07-14T03:03:46.638+01:002011-07-14T03:03:46.638+01:00Re: pornography and women's rights...
There a...Re: pornography and women's rights...<br /><br />There are so many parameters that affect the degree of sexual oppression, that one parameter (such as access to pornography) could have a demonstrable effect once other parameters are controlled for, even if the raw correlation is the opposite of what theory predicts.<br /><br />If interested, here's a description:<br />http://lesswrong.com/lw/3q3/simpsons_paradox/<br /><br />I think that the Saudi Arabia example shows that relative to other factors, pornography is not a big contributor to society-wide sexual oppression, which at least suggests that we shouldn't let the argument distract us from more pressing issues.<br /><br />Re: Social science...<br /><br />I spoke too broadly... I should have said that some fields of social sciences will never have sufficient explanatory power to justify a restriction on rights.<br /><br />I agree that the "second-hand smoke" theory could have sufficiently strong support to allow us to treat it as a harmful act. However, the science is only "social" in the slightest sense -- it is largely physiology (not social) with a complement of epidemiology (borderline social).<br /><br />But anyway, I should have been more clear. It is specifically the social theories that try to explain the development of culture that I distrust. A major problem with these theories was actually hinted at in the original post:<br /><br />"I wonder if we are yet to see the full social impact of the widespread availability of pornography in modern liberal societies."<br /><br />These cultural theories often appeal to mechanisms that take place over the course of decades... such a the development of a person's attitudes and a culture's norms. As a result, it will take decades for us to see any effects. However, many diverse aspects of society will change over those decades, so the observations of the past 50 years may not be applicable today. Many factors are likely to influence how pornography influences attitudes towards the opposite sex, including family structure, courtship practices, ideologies of domination/liberation, political/economic/educational equality among sexes, the prominence of homosexual expressions in society, xenophobia/nationalism, and the hierarchical structure of society in general.<br /><br />Of course I'm speculating, but my point is that they have no way to control for these variables (and no, fancy statistical test do not do it, especially since many social science researchers use the statistical tests incorrectly). If they claim to understand these things, they are speculating just as much as I am.Ricketsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579799843541826447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-87364787433971089792011-07-13T09:23:00.679+01:002011-07-13T09:23:00.679+01:00Neil,
On reflection, I think (7) is pretty poorly...Neil,<br /><br />On reflection, I think (7) is pretty poorly formulated. It was my gloss on the argument, not part of what Altman said. I think his point was that if (5.2) is to support (5) then there must be some kind of evidence for it. And since (5.2) is a causal claim, it must be the case that there is some correlation between access to pornography and the oppression and subordination of women. (Presumably this is because although not every correlation is evidence of a causal link, every causal link must involve a correlation - at least, that's what I take the underlying principle to be).<br /><br />This suggests that (7) should be reformulated as:<br /><br />(7) There is no evidence of link between the oppression of women and open access to pornography.<br /><br />Now, that's still problematic for the reasons you stated, but I think it's a better reflection of Altman's original argument.<br /><br />arickteson,<br /><br />While I agree that social scientific evidence is weak, I'm not sure that that supports the claim you make that such evidence could never justify the restriction of a recognised right due to some indirect infliction of harm.<br /><br />My natural inclination is to search for a counterexample to that claim, i.e. a situation in which relatively weak social scientific evidence is used to support such a restriction, in a way that seems justified to us. One possible example is that epidemiological studies often produce evidence of weak causal links between certain exposures and certain diseases and yet still this evidence is used in crafting public health measures (e.g. banning of indoor smoking) that restrict people's rights. Now, such restrictions are rarely absolute, but they definitely make it more difficult for people to exercise their rights. Maybe that's all that's being demanded in the case of pornography too.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-47105941598958975762011-07-12T15:12:44.818+01:002011-07-12T15:12:44.818+01:00I would like to tackle premise 7 briefly, because ...I would like to tackle premise 7 briefly, because the evidence for that is extremely spotty. It is not that I'm against access to pornography, but rather that I'd prefer to use the right arguments.<br /><br />For example, when one says that Saudi Arabia is an exemplar of the fact that "societies with open access to pornography are better places for women to live", I think the causal arrow might be going in the wrong direction. Remember: we are asking if pornography itself, given all other things roughly constant, is harmful in some way.<br /><br />To cite Saudi Arabia is to completely miss the point. Saudi Arabia is not a bad society for women because it does not have open access to pornography.<br /><br />Similarly, the fact that, say, Canada is a more tolerant society in general does not demonstrate that pornography is relatively harmless. It could be the case that a more liberal society, absent pornography, would be an even greater society for women to thrive in.<br /><br />If there is any argument to be made on that front, it is a much weaker argument: societies with open access to pornography are not so corrupted that there is a collapse of sexual identity and morality. It is a great argument against the prohibition of pornography, though it doesn't make much of a positive case for it.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08901579386302095193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-45196302341076412122011-07-12T13:20:08.545+01:002011-07-12T13:20:08.545+01:00Interesting posts. I have a few thoughts on it:
1...Interesting posts. I have a few thoughts on it:<br /><br />1) It seems that the arguments against pornography could largely apply to "sexual autonomy" as a whole. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've seen such arguments at conservative sites such as Public Discourse....even if the author wasn't explicitly calling for legal prohibition of any sexual acts. <br /><br />I think that the vague cultural arguments are especially applicable.<br /><br />2)"At this point, some empirical evidence is required. ... Does anyone reading this know of any?"<br /><br />I think that the collection of evidence is beside the point here; this problem can be handled largely as philosophy.<br /><br />Basically, the conclusions of social sciences are always very weak (due to the lack of proper controls, complexity of the system, etc). I think we can say that no social science evidence will ever be strong enough to restrict any rights on the basis that a person's actions cause harm in some round-about manner.<br /><br />3) Finally, you touch on an interesting point when you mention the un-enforceability of any prohibition of porn. If we are going to use consequentialist arguments to justify the prohibition of porn, then we need to apply those same criteria to prohibition itself. Where the rubber hits the road, the question is not about "rights", it's about what to do in a given situation. Is it good for me to snitch on my neighbor's porn collection (or underground studio)? Is it good for a cop to drag the guy away in handcuffs? Is there really any hope that such actions will have the desired outcomes described above? I doubt it. The catch is that we won't have any good data on the effectiveness of prohibition until someone attempts it...which cannot be justified until we have data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com