Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

Philocat has offered me a unique experience to debate moral principles and for that I am glad that we can have a civil debate about something as controversial as pornography, but haste is for the old so I will begin my arguments. I will begin with a disclaimer of sorts. I would simply like to state; despite the fact that I have not refuted the usage of Kantian and Rossian ideologies as moral platforms, that does NOT mean that I agree with them. I say this in order to prevent a claim of concession to them in the last round. Again, for the purposes of the debate I Do Not support Kantian or Rossian ideologies acceptable moral platforms to base the outcome of the debate however I may use its own logic against the claim in order to test its own integrity and logic. Let’s begin: Kant-Deon A.) Consistency Pro has stated that treating people solely as a means to an end goes against the logic of morals. Verbatim he said: “P3 is justified because that statement 'Treat people solely as a means to an end' is inconsistent. The reason for this is that one would not rationally consent to be treated as solely a means to an end.” My first point on this is that Philocat has simply pushed back the question instead of giving a substantial answer. I saw this before last round and that is one reason I assumed he must have been just using the universality principle as the answer, which he was not I now know. Back to the point, I would like to say that Philocat must answer the question, “Why ought we treat people how we want to be treated?” This must be justified with logic or reason even if it seems obvious. My second point starts at the definition of the word ‘inconsistent’ which turns out to be: ‘not compatible with’ or ‘staying the same throughout’. This entails that there is something already substantiated beforehand which has been violated, in some way, that would then create an ‘inconstancy’. This is also a reason I thought Philo was using the universality principle. Philocat however doesn’t have any aforementioned points, he is adding a new moral contention to back the claim of inconsistency. Moving on from the definition, my next point will be in contrast to you claim made in the last paragraph. I say you must back your claim that one cannot Morally consent to being treated as solely a means to an end; which leads me to the next piece of this argument, that one CAN consent to being treated solely as a means to an end, furthermore that Kantian deontology allows it. Take the following verbatim quote form Kant himself: “The sole condition on which we are free to make use of our sexual desire depends upon the right to dispose over the person as a whole…. But how am I to obtain these rights over the whole person? Only by giving that person the same rights over the whole of myself…..Matrimony is an agreement between two persons by which they grant each other equal reciprocal rights, each of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person to the other with a complete right of disposal over it.” Thus clearly even Kant concedes that one can agree to be treated solely as a means to an end. Remember, even without Kant agreeing, I still maintain you can agree to it. Recently I saw a debate talking about an scenario in which a man has the option divert an oncoming train from a track which has 5 people tied up to it, onto a track with only 1 person, thus saving more lives. The con argued that this is wrong because according to Kant, if you switch the track then you treat that sacrificed person as a means to an end, the end being saving other people and thus that would be wrong. But if I were on the track and yelled for him to change it then I would be agreeing to be used as a means to an end, would I not? Certainly I could do that. B.) More Unsupported Claims Do an F3 search for “A pornstar is being considered” – this claim is unsubstantiated Lastly, I would like to address Philocat directly. I fell as if you are kind of like my math teacher, she knows what she is talking about but she doesn’t know exactly how to explain it sometimes. In the same way that I might ask her to explain something in a bit more detail I would like a little more clarification on what exactly it means to treat someone as a means to and end and some examples of what would be wrong and vice versa. That’s all, thank you. C.) Viewing Porn VS Supporting Porn Earlier in the round we discussed how viewing pornography is giving it financial aid and thus supporting something immoral, making watching it immoral, however I would like to point out that according to Kantian deontology it is not the outcome that makes an action moral or immoral, but the intent of the action being done. One does not watch pornography to support it and thus according to kant, this argument must be thrown out. Thus viewing porn isn’t immoral. If viewing pornography is not immoral then Philocat has no connection to the case and must lose as the resolution specifically states is viewing porn bad rather than is making porn bad. This is a case take out. Bentham A.) Robby Noz Pro said that Rob’s analogy proves my entire argument on altruism is wrong, but alas the argument is very very flawed. Remember that the difference between our two points is that Philocat believes altruism refers to an action that results in putting the person being altruistic in an undisputable, over-all disadvantaged position for another person, while I contend that while that may be the laymen’s definition, the actual definition, which talks about motives is inherently flawed, this is because although we may do an action that is physically worse for us, like dying or taking a bullet for someone else, we do this not out of pure selflessness, but that on a purely fundamental level we do all things for what we think will benefit us subjectively the best. So an example would be that, a man takes a bullet because in his own HEAD the outcome of him dying is BETTER than the outcome of that other person dying. Not that over all, for him, it is factually or ‘evolutionarily’ better for him. So while your argument offers a state of nirvana to anyone who hooks up, and while that may be Over-all, factually more pleasurable, the person doing deciding doesn’t understand the full pleasure and thus when he weighs factors like the uneasy feeling of thinking yourself as being in a fake reality, you consider In Your Head that it is better to not hook up. Again its just you doing what is best for yourself, with the knowledge you have. Thus the argument on altruism as a take out to Bentham has been thwarted. Secondly, This further proves that humans ultimately are going for the best possible idea and always use people as a means to achieve that end, thus making literally every interaction immoral, invalidating the Kantian ideology because if everything is immoral than that is not logically consistent. Physical Effects of Porn Watching porn is the same as watching two people have sex live, logically, does it make sense that simply watching sex live will make you a depressed rapist? no, logically no it doesnt. + all evidence philo used is unreliable becuase everyone watches porn so there are no control groups as I have proven. My evidence only has 2 of the 7 studies listed that do self report. Rossian EthicsA.) TurnPhilo has in his eyes justified that "That whatever promotes the continuation of our species is moral good or suggestable" thus since sex promoted the continuation of our speecies, it is good. That entails that porn is also good, and since watching porn makes you go have sex and seek relationships, according to philo, then porn promotes the continuation of the spcies and is thus morally acceptableMoral AgencyA.) promotes expression + freedompornography gives women the right to express themselves sexual which help combat sexism. I contend sexism is bad and thus getting rid of it is good. so porn is good then. This means watching porn is supporting it and that is moral.NoRoom4Conclusion