Does This Make Prostitution Moral?

[Comprehend]

I'm no mindreader either. ;-)

I just think that his premise begs a question that depends upon a presumptive acceptance as being "true" (in assuming the antecedent).

Agreed, but I think as the assumed premise is not his conclusion (he has none) it is acceptable for the sake of argument.

If a broader question of subjective ethics/morality were posed instead (as you suggest), ie. "Does the end justify the means?", there is no introduced, pre-conditioned assumption to accept as a "given".

I do not see that one is necessary if he is asking a generic moral question. He simply could have asked, "do ends justify means" and left it at that. Instead he gave a specific example but in my opinion it had the same effect.

Of course, the posed question of "Does the end justify the means?" necessarily invites impositional qualifications, and subjective foundations/benchmarks that might also prejudice prospectively objective evaluations.

If you choose to look at it that way but I subscribe to Kierkegaard's view of objectivity in Radical Subjectivity, the very short version being that there is ultimately no real objectivity so I believe all prospectively objective evaluations are prejudiced. Ultimately, as he asked for our own opinions, rather than a consensus, the subjectivity would not bother me.

"Does the end justify the means?"

"I had an abortion to prevent the birth of a severely malformed fetus, in order to spare it any excrutiating pain and suffering it was bound to experience in it's few shortened hours of predicted life expectancy."

"Does the end justify the means?"

"Abortions are immoral"...is hardly an accepted "given" in any broad-based ethical deliberations, much less in more qualified rationales as provided above. I would answer that in the example above, that the well-intentioned "end (avoidance of suffering)" most certainly justified the "means (medical abortion)" by which to acheive the intended result...

...but then, I don't consider abortion to be immoral.

This is where we are really not seeing eye to eye. I think it is ok for him to use an assumed premise and you do not. I take it as a hypothetical, IF this, THEN this? We must assume the morality for the question to have any worth. If the morality of the act is in question, as you have already shown, the question cannot begin to be examined. It is my opinion that he was looking for a broader answer on morality rather than a specific one on prostitution.

If I don't think prostitution is immoral, then how can I render an objective opinion regarding posited ancillary outcomes predicated upon an antecedent assumption, that I don't accept (by inference) as being "immoral", or "wrong"?

That's all I'm trying to convey here...;-)

Understood, you and a lot of other people in the thread have made the point that they do not think prostitution is immoral or that it is up for debate so I am definitely in the minority. Personally I think that our opinion on prostitution was meant to be bypassed entirely by the OP but I see no reason why the way I saw the question is any more likely to be correct than yours. I will have to admit, it is an assumption on my part that he was really going for the larger philosophical question . (I guess Kierkegaard would say I couldn't help my bias).

Sunstone could save us further speculation with a clarification...

 

[eudaimonia]

Suppose the prostitute herself suffers because of her work, but she makes all her customers happier than they would otherwise be: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

Since I reject altruism in favor of a type of ethical egoism, I'd say the answer is no.

If her suffering is not merely discomfort or inconvenience, but a profound sense that she is on a self-destructive path and is wasting her life, she is doing herself a great disservice. She shouldn't choose this way of life in the presence of better alternatives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But if only one person suffers and hundreds are made happier.... Would you deny the happiness of hundreds in order to alleviate the suffering of one person? Just curious.

morality and happiness are not inter-dependant.
There is no direct correlation.

In the scenario you give you are not talking about morality but perhaps self sacrifice.
Or from the 100's point of view the willingness to sacrifice one for their mass happiness.
Sure, moral issues are involved, but they are not part of a valid equation.

 

[darkpenguin]

IMO prostitution isn't immoral in any way. It's the worlds oldest proffesion so why is it frowned upon?
If a person is willing to sell sex then why shouldn't they? It's their life to do what they want with!
I think it should be legalised and taxed! At least then it would be more proffesional and safer for everyone involved!

 

[michel]

I think that what would be the qualifier of either "Moral" or "Immoral" is whether anyone suffers from the consequences of Prostitution.

I guess, to me, that means that Prostitution is immoral since there is always bound to be a victim (usually the prostitutes, being "used" by their pimps).

 

[eudaimonia]

I guess, to me, that means that Prostitution is immoral since there is always bound to be a victim (usually the prostitutes, being "used" by their pimps).

It is the illegality of prostitution that creates the "pimp" phenomenon.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[michel]

It is the illegality of prostitution that creates the "pimp" phenomenon.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can understand that; would you then propose to legalise Prostitution?

 

[Hema]

Deriving happiness out of another person's suffering is immoral.

 

[Fluffy]

Neither would make her act moral or immoral.

Morality is one's ability to track virtue. No action, therefore, is moral or immoral regardless of its consequences. So the first scenario might represent a moral situation for all involved if the prostitute were following the virtue of selflessness whilst her customers were simply abstaining from any virtuous or non-virtuous motive. If the prostitute is supporting a drug habit and hates what she does but feels forced into it then we might say she has sinned since she has failed to respect herself.

 

[eudaimonia]

I can understand that; would you then propose to legalise Prostitution?

Yes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MaddLlama]

Deriving happiness out of another person's suffering is immoral.

All prostitues are suffering?

 

[michel]

All prostitues are suffering?

If one prostitute suffers, then that is enough.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya michel,
Do you mean that if one prostitute suffers, that is sufficient to make all prostitution wrong and, if so, would you accept, through analogy, that if one driver suffers then that is sufficent to make the all driving wrong?

 

[michel]

Heya michel,
Do you mean that if one prostitute suffers, that is sufficient to make all prostitution wrong and, if so, would you accept, through analogy, that if one driver suffers then that is sufficent to make the all driving wrong?

I think you are trying to use one rule as a "general rule" for everything (in your example). Prostitution is not necessary (or is it ?). If one person dies in a car crash because a driver was going too fast, normally, the question of reducing the speed limit is looked into.

I'll give you another example - Drugs (medication). We all know that it only takes one person to react badly to medication for the company that produces that drug to list "side effects" as a disclaimer.

 

[MaddLlama]

If one prostitute suffers, then that is enough.

Well, to jump on the same train as Eu, the only reason why some prostitutes suffer is because it is illegal, which makes it unsafe. Take away that, and you have no danger, no suffering, and no exploitation. If no prostitutes are "suffering", does that mean that there is no moral objection left?

 

[Fluffy]

Michel,
I agree that I am certainly using one rule as a general rule. The thing is, it is very difficult to attack the factual basis of another's morality since it is more than likely that they will hold a completely different worldview to you and so the conversation derails into increasingly abstract tangents. Therefore, I prefer to focus on whether a set of morals is internally consist since that can make derailing unneccessary and it is to that end that I put forward my generalisation.

So essentially, I generalised your statement to "If one person who commits X suffers, then all X is immoral" in order to draw out the particulars of why it was incorrect to form such a generalisation.

You then countered my generalisation by pointing out that, in the case of driving which I provided, there were particular circumstances which could result in a driver suffering that would not warrant generalising morality. So I will now retort: "If that is the case with driving, why do you feel that it is not the case with prostitution?"

You also mentioned whether prostitution was necessary. Unfortunately I can see this getting very abstract very quickly but I shall persist nevertheless. I would have to question what you view as necessary and so how you split items into the categories of "necessary" and "unnecessary". For example, is breathing really necessary? I assume you are not talking about objective necessity but necessity as relative to a particular goal. In the case of breathing, breathing is necessary if one wishes to avoid death. Driving might be necessary if one wishes to conduct a normal, modern life. Now I could simply say that prostitution is necessary for those who desire to have sex with prostitutes or perhaps necessary for those who desire to be prostitutes.

However, now we have dissolved the term necessary to the point where anything could be said to be necessary. So now we need some sort of measure to decide which goals are acceptable or justifiable and which are not. Unfortunately, I think that such a measure will be representative of a difference in worldviews as I mentioned earlier and so potentially unresolvable.

So for the sake of argument, I will go the other way and suggest that prostitution is not necessary but neither is anything else in existence (at least we have no evidence to point to objective necessity or help us create a meaningful subjective necessity). Therefore, we cannot use necessity as a way of alleviating moral responsibility. In other words, the apparent necessity of an act does not go towards undermining the immoral consequences of that act and therefore prostitutions apparent lack of necessity does not hurt its case.

You also make a point by using the analogy of drugs. I agree with you that with every drug there is the potential for harm, just as with every driver and every prostitute there is the potential for harm. I also agree that the drug companies response to this of making people aware of this potential is the correct way to go about limiting it. They also limit the harm in other ways. What they do not do is ban drugs altogether. So I would argue that your analogy actually gives support that we should control and legalise prostitution rather than get rid of it entirely. In other words, limit the potential of the activity to create harm rather than limit the activity itself.

 

[michel]

Good points, all of them.

 

[Hema]

All prostitues are suffering?

I was referring to Uncle Sunstone's initial statement.

 

[Fluffy]

Thank you, Michel! That is very gracious of you . And thank you for giving me the opportunity to offload my brain .

 

[Sunstone]

Agreed, but I think as the assumed premise is not his conclusion (he has none) it is acceptable for the sake of argument.


I do not see that one is necessary if he is asking a generic moral question. He simply could have asked, "do ends justify means" and left it at that. Instead he gave a specific example but in my opinion it had the same effect.


If you choose to look at it that way but I subscribe to Kierkegaard's view of objectivity in Radical Subjectivity, the very short version being that there is ultimately no real objectivity so I believe all prospectively objective evaluations are prejudiced. Ultimately, as he asked for our own opinions, rather than a consensus, the subjectivity would not bother me.



This is where we are really not seeing eye to eye. I think it is ok for him to use an assumed premise and you do not. I take it as a hypothetical, IF this, THEN this? We must assume the morality for the question to have any worth. If the morality of the act is in question, as you have already shown, the question cannot begin to be examined. It is my opinion that he was looking for a broader answer on morality rather than a specific one on prostitution.



Understood, you and a lot of other people in the thread have made the point that they do not think prostitution is immoral or that it is up for debate so I am definitely in the minority. Personally I think that our opinion on prostitution was meant to be bypassed entirely by the OP but I see no reason why the way I saw the question is any more likely to be correct than yours. I will have to admit, it is an assumption on my part that he was really going for the larger philosophical question . (I guess Kierkegaard would say I couldn't help my bias).

Sunstone could save us further speculation with a clarification...

We're in very substantial agreement about the point of the OP and my intentions to raise philosophical questions with it, rather than focus too narrowly on prostitution per se.