Is prostitution wrong?

[Meow Mix]

I don't need a link. Your're the only atheist that I have heard claim that there is absolute morality in your worldview, if that is what you are saying. However your link doesn't satisfy me because it says that humans were created and says that "moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others..." That isn't absolute morality.

There might be a basis for morality in your worldview, which is the common good, but there is no basis for absolute morality where things are wrong in all situations. If you think there is, then you need to debate your own atheist philosophers first before me.

On the contrary, one of my points is that you and I (theist and atheist) are on equal ground in terms of absolute morality.

We can each demonstrate that there is an ultimate method to know what is moral, but the problem with each of our worldviews is that there is no absolute duty to take up that cause.

For instance, I've shown that there can be a moral system based on rationality. But there is no duty to be rational unless one is already rational. That's the shortcoming of the system I describe.

Your moral system is based on divine fiat, but it comes with a hefty paradox known as Euthyphro's Dilemma: is what God commands us to do good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

1) If what God commands us to do is good because God commands it, then morality isn't absolute: God could command us to punch babies and that would therefore be "good," and so morality isn't absolute at all but rather subject to God's whim rather than society's.

2) If God commands things because they are in themselves good, then notice that the goodness isn't coming from God: it appears in this case that God is simply following some principle of goodness outside of Himself and passing it along to us; in which case theism isn't in principle necessary for objective morality after all.

-----

The most common objection to (1) is that God would never command us to murder or to punch babies; but this is actually making an appeal to the fundamentally incompatible state of affairs in (2): why wouldn't God command us to punch babies? If he did decide to command it, it would in fact be just as good as commanding us instead to love one another -- if we're going to believe that "goodness" comes from divine command alone, then God ordering us to torture people is just as good as God ordering us not to -- so there's no reason why He wouldn't eventually decide to do exactly that. If we say that God doesn't "like" suffering, then we're again dangerously approaching (2): why not? If goodness derives from divine command, then it would be just as holy and good and righteous to command us to torture as not. Why wouldn't God like it?

If goodness doesn't come from God's command -- if there's some reason why God doesn't command us to torture -- then "goodness" comes from some other place than God, then, which God is just following. Again, this means that theism would not be required for absolute morality.

When it comes down to it, theists are not in a more rational place than atheists are when it comes to morality. In fact, it seems to me that they're much worse off. Euthyphro's dilemma devastates the notion of theistic morality; and furthermore secular ethics (based on rationality) is easier to demonstrate a duty for accepting.

 

[McBell]

Haha. Whatever I'll sleep at night either way it's not like I'm sleeping around. Or ever was.

Your loss.

 

[McBell]

There might be a basis for morality in your worldview, which is the common good, but there is no basis for absolute morality where things are wrong in all situations. If you think there is, then you need to debate your own atheist philosophers first before me.

Please be so kind as to present an absolute morality where it is wrong in all situations.

 

[Drolefille]

People will take this as far as they can.. What about incest? That can be justified too, with the logic floating around in here.

Your point?
The biggest flaw with legalizing incestuous relationships is the consideration of an inherently unequal balance of power, similar to how a teacher/student relationship could be (if all parties are adults) a good relationship, that type of relationship is prone to abuse due to the influence - real or perceived - that a teacher can have over a student's success. It's why companies may prohibit relationships w/in a chain of command.

So is incest ok? IMO, between consenting adults, if it's a non-abusive relationship, yes. Does that make it a good idea? Not really, no.


Most people, due to growing up with siblings and family members, actually are repulsed at the idea of being sexual with those close family members. It's a proven phenomenom and one that is likely genetically beneficial to us. That has developed into cultural taboos against incest, ones that vary fairly broadly throughout time and geography.

So therefore, what do you base your presumption of incest's immorality on? The cultural taboos that exist today? Religious scripture? Rational analysis of the situation?

 

[Sleeppy]

Your point?
The biggest flaw with legalizing incestuous relationships is the consideration of an inherently unequal balance of power, similar to how a teacher/student relationship could be (if all parties are adults) a good relationship, that type of relationship is prone to abuse due to the influence - real or perceived - that a teacher can have over a student's success. It's why companies may prohibit relationships w/in a chain of command.

So is incest ok? IMO, between consenting adults, if it's a non-abusive relationship, yes. Does that make it a good idea? Not really, no.


Most people, due to growing up with siblings and family members, actually are repulsed at the idea of being sexual with those close family members. It's a proven phenomenom and one that is likely genetically beneficial to us. That has developed into cultural taboos against incest, ones that vary fairly broadly throughout time and geography.

So therefore, what do you base your presumption of incest's immorality on? The cultural taboos that exist today? Religious scripture? Rational analysis of the situation?

Mostly.. the consequences that will manifest in the later generations due to rationalizing things like prositution, abortion, and incest. I'm really not here to argue. I don't look up statistics or famous theories. This is my own speculation. People are not able to handle or even see the full spectrum of consequences that will result from condoning these. Even if people think it's starting off as planned, the plan will eventually collapse under fickle human beings.

 

[McBell]

Mostly.. the consequences that will manifest in the later generations due to rationalizing things like prositution, abortion, and incest. I'm really not here to argue. I don't look up statistics or famous theories. This is my own speculation. People are not able to handle or even see the full spectrum of consequences that will result from condoning these. Even if people think it's starting off as planned, the plan will eventually collapse under fickle human beings.

I agree.
I mean, just look at the total epic failure called "abstinence only".

 

[Drolefille]

Mostly.. the consequences that will manifest in the later generations due to rationalizing things like prositution, abortion, and incest. I'm really not here to argue. I don't look up statistics or famous theories. This is my own speculation. People are not able to handle or even see the full spectrum of consequences that will result from condoning these. Even if people think it's starting off as planned, the plan will eventually collapse under fickle human beings.

So you think something bad will happen because of no real reason you just think so?

Cool story bro.

Why are you in a debate section if you're not really wanting to back up what you post? Because "Hey that's just my opinion man" gets old as a fall back every time you're challenged on what you say. If you're not used to having your opinions challenged, try stopping and thinking and supporting them. You never have to change your mind, that's always your choice, but I've always found it healthy to question and evaluate why I believe what I believe, even when I end up more certain that I believe it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Mostly.. the consequences that will manifest in the later generations due to rationalizing things like prositution, abortion, and incest. I'm really not here to argue. I don't look up statistics or famous theories. This is my own speculation. People are not able to handle or even see the full spectrum of consequences that will result from condoning these. Even if people think it's starting off as planned, the plan will eventually collapse under fickle human beings.

Something bad could happen by keeping the internet free, is that a good reason to start censoring it?

 

[Watchmen]

Hi Watchmen,

We've already discussed STD's, forced prostitution, and violence against women of the night.

Maybe you missed the part where those in favor of legalization have all agreed that it would be regulated. That means no STD's, no forced prostitution, no pimps, no violence.

I'm sure those things would still exist, but they would be greatly diminished -- look at it in the context of Prohibition. Making alcohol illegal ramped up the violence because it was profitable to an underground industry. Once alcohol was legal again, all the money was redirected to regulated sources of alcohol and suddenly the criminal industry collapsed.

Scumbags will always exist in any industry, but legalization and regulation will diminish them to negligible levels. Legalizing and regulation would help, not hurt, prostitutes and those that use their services.

Regulation is a myth. Many parts of Nevada are regulated and the trafiking and forced prostitution are horrendous there.

 

[McBell]

Regulation is a myth. Many parts of Nevada are regulated and the trafiking and forced prostitution are horrendous there.

Source please.

 

[Meow Mix]

Regulation is a myth. Many parts of Nevada are regulated and the trafiking and forced prostitution are horrendous there.

Then actually regulate. It doesn't have to be a myth. The real issue here is a question of how much business a country has telling citizens what they can do with their own bodies or transactions.

 

[Drolefille]

Regulation is a myth. Many parts of Nevada are regulated and the trafiking and forced prostitution are horrendous there.

So enforcement is lacking, or the regulations need improving?

Because there's forced prostitution and sex trafficking in my <100k city in the Midwest too. And plenty of "consensual" prostitution sometimes for money, often for drugs, etc. Is it worse with regulation or better?

(Statistics!)

 

[9Westy9]

There is plenty of opposition to prostitution in many religions and society as a whole but is it really wrong?

I'm thinking about both sides of the profession - the customers and the workers.

Surely if you want to provide it then that is your choice and if you want to partake in the services offered then that is your choice also. Obviously free will and standard consent issues apply.

any views?

nothing wrong with it if it's a job that the prostitute wants to do rather than needs to do. Also I'd argue that the people involved need to be adults.

 

[Sleeppy]

So you think something bad will happen because of no real reason you just think so?

Cool story bro.

Why are you in a debate section if you're not really wanting to back up what you post? Because "Hey that's just my opinion man" gets old as a fall back every time you're challenged on what you say. If you're not used to having your opinions challenged, try stopping and thinking and supporting them. You never have to change your mind, that's always your choice, but I've always found it healthy to question and evaluate why I believe what I believe, even when I end up more certain that I believe it.

No. I have real reasons. I haven't collected statistics, or other 'scholarly' opinion. I speak for myself. If you want to test/argue with what I say, sure. I don't have any reasons for interactively arguing with you though. People are very egotistical, so arguments don't really result in anything but more arguing. Not interested. If not debating gets my posts deleted, so be it.

Something bad could happen by keeping the internet free, is that a good reason to start censoring it?

What do you mean? Free from censoring?

 

[Meow Mix]

What do you mean? Free from censoring?

I mean that it's a fundamental question of how much business the government has telling you what you can do. "It might be dangerous or have unseen repurcussions" isn't a very good argument.

Alcohol can be dangerous and have bad repurcussions, but it was worse when Prohibition was actually attempted.

The government shouldn't be able to tell you what you can put in your body, what you do with your body, or how you spend your money unless you are fundamentally harming someone.

 

[Drolefille]

No. I have real reasons. I haven't collected statistics, or other 'scholarly' opinion. I speak for myself. If you want to test/argue with what I say, sure. I don't have any reasons for interactively arguing with you though. People are very egotistical, so arguments don't really result in anything but more arguing. Not interested. If not debating gets my posts deleted, so be it.

I'm asking why you bother posting in a debate section if you're not actually wanting to debate. If you just want to keep posting "it's my opinion" without anything to back it up, well fine. I'll just ignore your posts, or respond to them without actually expecting anything worthwhile from it. But I haven't the foggiest idea if that gets your posts deleted, I just think it's a waste of your time (and a bit silly).

 

[Sleeppy]

I mean that it's a fundamental question of how much business the government has telling you what you can do. "It might be dangerous or have unseen repurcussions" isn't a very good argument.

Alcohol can be dangerous and have bad repurcussions, but it was worse when Prohibition was actually attempted.

The government shouldn't be able to tell you what you can put in your body, what you do with your body, or how you spend your money unless you are fundamentally harming someone.

In any government - gain enough support and you can work to do anything you want. That was the case with alchohol and becoming the case with marijuana and other things.

I know it seems to you like i'm saying might.. I'm really not. I'm firm in my belief that the negative consequences will quickly outweigh the short-lived pleasures.

But this is a different argument like you said in your first sentence.. mentioning government. The government can either conform to the majority or whoever has most power. I don't care which. I govern myself.

I'm asking why you bother posting in a debate section if you're not actually wanting to debate. If you just want to keep posting "it's my opinion" without anything to back it up, well fine. I'll just ignore your posts, or respond to them without actually expecting anything worthwhile from it. But I haven't the foggiest idea if that gets your posts deleted, I just think it's a waste of your time (and a bit silly).

That's fine.

 

[Kathryn]

There is plenty of opposition to prostitution in many religions and society as a whole but is it really wrong?

I'm thinking about both sides of the profession - the customers and the workers.

Surely if you want to provide it then that is your choice and if you want to partake in the services offered then that is your choice also. Obviously free will and standard consent issues apply.

any views?

Everything that is illegal isn't wrong, and everything that's legal isn't right.

It's legal to drink yourself into a stupor in the privacy of your own home, but that doesn't make it a wise decision.

Personally, I think that what consenting adults want to do in the bedroom ought to be their own business, and legal as long as no one's rights are infringed upon - but that doesn't mean I agree with the morality of it.

But hey, that's just me. Personally, I find prostitution rather sad.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Many things can break a person emotionally.

and,
not every person is broken emotionally by the same things.

Quite true, but anything that has to do with sex has a great potential to be a breaking point for many people. Especially when it is done for something with so little of value as money.

 

[Man of Faith]

On the contrary, one of my points is that you and I (theist and atheist) are on equal ground in terms of absolute morality.

We can each demonstrate that there is an ultimate method to know what is moral, but the problem with each of our worldviews is that there is no absolute duty to take up that cause.

For instance, I've shown that there can be a moral system based on rationality. But there is no duty to be rational unless one is already rational. That's the shortcoming of the system I describe.

Your moral system is based on divine fiat, but it comes with a hefty paradox known as Euthyphro's Dilemma: is what God commands us to do good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

1) If what God commands us to do is good because God commands it, then morality isn't absolute: God could command us to punch babies and that would therefore be "good," and so morality isn't absolute at all but rather subject to God's whim rather than society's.

2) If God commands things because they are in themselves good, then notice that the goodness isn't coming from God: it appears in this case that God is simply following some principle of goodness outside of Himself and passing it along to us; in which case theism isn't in principle necessary for objective morality after all.

-----

The most common objection to (1) is that God would never command us to murder or to punch babies; but this is actually making an appeal to the fundamentally incompatible state of affairs in (2): why wouldn't God command us to punch babies? If he did decide to command it, it would in fact be just as good as commanding us instead to love one another -- if we're going to believe that "goodness" comes from divine command alone, then God ordering us to torture people is just as good as God ordering us not to -- so there's no reason why He wouldn't eventually decide to do exactly that. If we say that God doesn't "like" suffering, then we're again dangerously approaching (2): why not? If goodness derives from divine command, then it would be just as holy and good and righteous to command us to torture as not. Why wouldn't God like it?

If goodness doesn't come from God's command -- if there's some reason why God doesn't command us to torture -- then "goodness" comes from some other place than God, then, which God is just following. Again, this means that theism would not be required for absolute morality.

When it comes down to it, theists are not in a more rational place than atheists are when it comes to morality. In fact, it seems to me that they're much worse off. Euthyphro's dilemma devastates the notion of theistic morality; and furthermore secular ethics (based on rationality) is easier to demonstrate a duty for accepting.

At first I thought you were arguing that atheists can have absolute morality. However this post shows me that you are attempting to put atheist and theists on the same footing in both not being able to have absolute morality. Let me begin by saying whether we like it or not, there is such a thing as absolute morality in the world. There are things that are wrong in all cases. The explanation as to why that is can be best explained by a divine creator and a moral giver, in my opinion. A naturalistic big bang and evolution doesn&#8217;t explain absolute morality, it only explains morals that are good for a community. If something is wrong, whether or not it is good for the community then that would be absolute and would destroy relative morality.

When it comes to Euthypros delimma, that can be easily explained by the nature of God. What God says is good and moral because of his nature, it&#8217;s a part of him. God is good so what he tells us to do is good. It&#8217;s not just because he commands it, it is because it is who he is.