Does This Make Prostitution Moral?

[Sunstone]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

 

[Comprehend]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

I say no. It is still immoral, but I am deontological. To me, it makes no difference what the outcome is, but rather only in the rightness of the action in the first place. In other words, I believe the morality lies in the action not in the result of such action. You may be familiar with Immanual Kant and his Doctrine of Virtue, his view is deontological as well and I support much of it.

For the sake of argument, if one had a teleological viewpoint, then I would answer possibly yes. The ends justify the means. One would have to weigh the happiness of the customers against the injury to the prostitute. If the net result were still negative, then no, but if positive, yes.

Utilitarianism would also support a yes if it could be shown that the overall result is a net benefit.

EDIT: The prostitute situation is has similarities to ancient peoples who would sacrifice virgins or children for the good of the rest of the group. To appease gods or volcano's or whatever. Also, if you look at the Jewish tradition of animal sacrifice, and the Christian concept of Christ suffering for our sins, the theme is the same. The suffering of one or a few for the good of the many. People must have thought it was moral for that suffering to occur...

Anyway, cool question. I like thinking about this stuff.

 

[Sunstone]

Comprehend, do you think a person's intentions when committing an act have anything to do with the morality of the act? That might be a bit off topic here, but I'm curious about your view on that.

 

[Comprehend]

Comprehend, do you think a person's intentions when committing an act have anything to do with the morality of the act? That might be a bit off topic here, but I'm curious about your view on that.

Yes for the most part. I do not believe it is proper to fault/punish a person for doing what they reasonably believe to be the *right* thing to do. For example, say there is a police officer who shoots a person holding a hostage with a gun that had no bullets in it. This would be a terribly tragic incident and the hostage was NOT in danger of losing their life, but I have trouble morally faulting the police officer for acting upon a reasonable analysis of the best available information.

To be more general, one can only act upon what they reasonably know or think they know to be the case. If we do not allow a person's intentions to be weighed in a moral judgment of an action, we are holding them to an omniscient standard. We are demanding that an individual behave in the exact way they would if they knew everything.

It may be interesting to note that the law also does not expect people to be perfect. (I am a second year law student). The law allows for a persons actions to be judged if things were as they believed they were in some cases, and IF the belief is reasonable.
Maybe, if some guy breaks into your house and you think he is trying to kill you and so you shoot him, but really he was drunk and was only going to use the bathroom.... If you really believed your life was in danger, the law (in the US) would generally allow you to act as you did.

I am sure that was a lot more than you wanted but I love philosophy and sometimes don't know when to can it. Bottom line, I think it is only honest to allow a persons intentions to be at the very least a factor in the overall morality of an act.

 

[MaddLlama]

Is morality defined by how happy we can make another person? Being a "yes man" is not necessarily the height of morality.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

I don't think suffering for others' pleasure makes an act more moral, regardless of what it is. If anything, it makes her customers pretty immoral.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think suffering for others' pleasure makes an act more moral, regardless of what it is. If anything, it makes her customers pretty immoral.

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.

 

[opensoul7]

I have sinned so I will not cast that stone. I will say on the morality side that the burden of right and wrong is on those who take that action . Based on their beliefs they know beforehand what they should or should not do . At best we are all accountable to ourselves for our actions.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

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.

Because I think those people are perfectly capable of happy lives without this prostitute. If this were the only possible way for people to alleviate, say, feelings of crushing despair and ultimate meaninglessness in their lives, I might say yes, but I really don't think that's the case here. It's not an equal trade-off.

And I would argue that this woman has a right to happiness herself. She does not have an obligation in this case to sacrifice herself. I think there are really very few cases where a person is obligated to sacrifice their life on a large scale. Sexual gratification is not a reason I would generally include on that list.

 

[Sunstone]

What about the second situation:

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, I think maybe it would be easier to identify exactly what makes prostitution (considered) immoral. Is it the sex outside of marriage? Is it just the casual, noncommital sex? Is it the exchange of money involved?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Well, I think maybe it would be easier to identify exactly what makes prostitution (considered) immoral. Is it the sex outside of marriage? Is it just the casual, noncommital sex? Is it the exchange of money involved?

I wasn't necessarily arguing one way or another for the morality of it, mind you, only for the validity of this particular justification.

I think, if anything makes it wrong, it's the potential for situations like this. Exploitation and all that.

But along the lines of the second situation: if both the woman and customers are happier for it (not the most common situation, I shouldn't think, but that's another situation), then I suppose as long as everything's consensual and safe I don't have a problem.

 

[XAAX]

Regardless of pleasure. To sells ones body is very negative to ones soul. This goes in turn with those violating another by taking part in such acts. I have been dragged to a couple of strip clubs years back. It deeply saddened me to see women degrade themselves for money. Now, I can say that I have never had to turn to a prostitute, I have always held the idea that before I do, I will quit all together. Its just a boundary that I feel should not be crossed. This is not a religious stand point as much as it is a spiritual perspective.

 

[Ðanisty]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

Personally, I don't find prostitution immoral anyway. I have no problems with it. You might want to consult Sandy's mother though.

 

[s2a]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

Interesting conjectures, but both suggest an "a priori" inference of prostitution as being inherently immoral or amoral. (never mind the fact that sexual "prostitutes" can be male, or female).

Your inquiries seek to establish moral vindication of/for an occupation that has yet to be established as being either morally "good", or "bad".

Is prostitution, in and of itself, immoral? If so, by what standards?

If sexual prostitution is in fact amoral (neither "good" nor bad"), then of what value do assessments of morality (beyond personalized values or estimations of "right and wrong") play in such conclusions?

If one believes prostitution to be morally "wrong", then no rationalized justifications will make it "right".

If one believes prostitution to be morally "acceptable", then your conditional inquiries are moot.

If one is morally ambivalent regarding prostitution, then evaluations of provided service to "customers" is left to satisfactory/obligatory fulfillment of said services.

If we supplant the word "prostitute", with the word "waiter" instead, are aspects of personal morality applicably relevant?

 

[Sunstone]

Interesting conjectures, but both suggest an "a priori" inference of prostitution as being inherently immoral or amoral.

Really? Why do you think so?

 

[s2a]

Really? Why do you think so?

As I said:
Your inquiries seek to establish moral vindication of/for an occupation that has yet to be established as being either morally "good", or "bad".

Is prostitution, in and of itself, immoral? If so, by what standards?

Have you (or we) fairly established that [sexual] prostitution is subject to moral evaluations, and if so, what is the consensus conclusion? What standards of measure/comparison (between "right and wrong") were employed to reach such a conclusion?

If you can establish that prostitution is "immoral" by nature and a widely acceptable definition, then your presented qualified inquiries may invite further considerations.

Is it "wrong" to be a sexual whore?

Let's try to substantiate or invalidate that presented premise first....

;-)

 

[Comprehend]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

I don't think the point of this thread was to determine whether or not prostitution is immoral or not. Sunstone assumed that it was for the purposes of his question, it does not matter if it actually is or not. He could just as easily used another example.

It comes down to this: If A does X (which is assumed to be immoral), but by doing X, it increases the happiness of B, C, D, E, and F. Does the fact that the happiness of B, C, D, E, and F is increased affect the immorality of A doing X ?

Or in other words, do the ends justify the means (teleology) or is the morality of an act found in ones duty regardless of the consequences of ones action (deontology)?

Of course I could also be way off in my analysis as I still have not been able to read uncle Sunstone's mind.

 

[s2a]

I don't think the point of this thread was to determine whether or not prostitution is immoral or not. Sunstone assumed that it was for the purposes of his question, it does not matter if it actually is or not. He could just as easily used another example.

It comes down to this: If A does X (which is assumed to be immoral), but by doing X, it increases the happiness of B, C, D, E, and F. Does the fact that the happiness of B, C, D, E, and F is increased affect the immorality of A doing X ?

Or in other words, do the ends justify the means (teleology) or is the morality of an act found in ones duty regardless of the consequences of ones action (deontology)?

Of course I could also be way off in my analysis as I still have not been able to read uncle Sunstone's mind.

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).

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".

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.

"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.

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...;-)

 

[Ozzie]

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?

Suppose the prostitute and the majority of her customers are happier than they would otherwise be, and only a minority of her customers are either unhappier or the same because of what she does: Does that make what she's doing moral? Why or why not?

I don't think happiness makes it moral. But one party ending up less happy as a result of the transaction would be immoral IMO.