More porn=less sex crimes, should porn be a human right like food?

[SevenStars]

There is no 'fundamental' purpose to sex, in a normative sense. Even if there were, would you be comfortable imposing this view of sex upon all adults through the law?

So there is no fundamental purpose to eating or defecating or speaking either?

Im not a liberal, I am a communist and therefore I believe that an individual's actions should be judged by the effect that they have on the wider whole.

[Mercurial]

I hope you are campaigning for the repeal of our gun control laws.

I have not suggested that the production and availability of pornography should not be controlled to the extent necessary to prevent harm to others.

I do not usually see arguments for gun control laws as resting upon the harmful and corrosive attitudes owning a gun will generate for those who choose to purchase them.

[Mercurial]

So there is no fundamental purpose to eating or defecating or speaking either?

Im not a liberal, I am a communist and therefore I believe that an individual's actions should be judged by the effect that they have on the wider whole.

It depends upon what you mean by ‘purpose’.

I would suggest that ‘purpose’ implies intention, in which case, the purpose of an action would be whatever is intended by the agent who performs it. This would preclude the idea of an external purpose to our actions.
So, for example: In Scenario A, a tree is struck by lightning and falls into a river, creating a bridge across the river. In Scenario B, a man chops down the tree in order to create a bridge across the river. In the first case, it seems implausible to me to suggest that the purpose of the tree is to be a bridge, whereas in the second case I think it makes sense to speak of the tree’s having a purpose as a bridge - the difference being that we have an intentional agent embedded in the causal narrative of the second scenario.

In the context of sex, this would mean that the purpose of sex is relative to the people having sex.

(You could also mean 'purpose' to simply be a description of some function or causal sequence, in which case you cannot make the leap from the descriptive to the normative)

As for your concern for the ‘wider whole’, I would point out that this wider whole consists of a collection of individuals. If one subsection of the whole have their freedoms infringed upon in the manner which is being suggested, then the door is thrust open for a wider and increasingly pervasive paternalism which seeks access to the innermost thoughts and attitudes of consenting adults throughout society as a whole. The impact of criminalisation of this sort of behaviour carries far graver long-term consequences for society as a whole than it does for the particular individuals who happen to be its first victims.

[Still Sceptical]

Perhaps it doesn't, but isn't it important that there is at least a token, or official, disapproval, rather than a 'whatever wets your whistle' neutrality? Even if the impact of that prohibition is massively undermined (though I don't agree that it would necessarily be ineffective), shouldn't government, at least, take a stand?...

Simply, NO. Why make token gestures to appease you, if they will not improve a situation, and possibly make it worse? Prohibition is highly costly in a multitude of ways, in addition to being ineffective (which you may contest.)

You have a moral objection to pornography, and also drug dealing. Perhaps you are also putting forward a the harm principle as an approach to state intervention. However, if you are advancing an argument for prohibition, then I think you undervalue the cost of this intervention. Porn will be widely available, regardless of the states attempts to restrict it.

Perhaps you would agree that what we really need is education and more open discussion. We don't want to make this a taboo issue once again; that raises many problems, some of which may underlie many of the current problems we face. We don't talk about sex in a mature fashion in Ireland, i think thats a pretty fair generalisation. What do we then expect when young people come in contact with porn? Its bloody confusing for them!! How are they meant to put what they see in social context, and act in some appropriate manner, when society genarally shys away from this issue. Banning porn may seem like a strong and swift ereaction, but it is knee-jerk and inappropriate - as it fails to tackle the cause of the problem. Porn itself is not necessarily a problem, but it can be for a confused and morally suppressed population that doesn't know what to do with it (in a social sense that is.)