Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

Kantian DeontologyCon's initial point of contention is that an ideal society is utopian. I agree with this sentiment, but just because something is impossible it does not mean that we ought not to seek it. For example, it is impossible for someone to not commit immoral acts, yet we still acknowledge that one ought to seek to avoid immoral acts. Nonetheless, critiques of Kant's principle of the ideal society do not pertain to the debate, as the basis for asserting the immorality of pornography is based on Kant's principle of ends and means. Even if the principle of the ideal society is unsound, it will not harm my arguments. Con goes on to request logical reasoning to support the veracity of the principle of ends - Why ought we not treat people solely as a means to an end? It is all a matter of consistency; one can only hold a rational moral position if it is a consistent proposition. The proposition that "we ought to treat people solely as a means to an end" is not consistent, as one would not rationally desire that they be treated solely as a means to an end. Therefore the negation must be true, that "we ought to not treat people as solely a means to an end". Con opines that such a principle limits the majority of human interaction to the realms of immorality. This is a common misconception; it is only immoral to treat people solely as a means to an end - as this does not respect our fellow man as a rational moral agent with intrinsic value. There is nothing immoral about using someone as a means as well as an end, as this still respects that person. To use an example, a customer is using a shopkeeper as a means to an end (the end being the providing of wares), yet this is not immoral if we still treat the shopkeeper as an end in himself as well as a means, which entails treating the shopkeeper in such a way that his intrinsic value is recognised. Con presents a differing account of morality, that of the utilitarian-egoist approach of Jeremy Bentham. But all Con does here is provide evidence that we act out of our desires, he does not provide any justification for the reasoning that, just because we only act out of our desires, it is moral to do so. It is later claimed that man can do nothing else apart from using both animate and inanimate objects as means to an end. Aside from the previously-mentioned fact that Kant only condemns using people exclusively as a means to an end, this claim entails that altruism is impossible. As altruism is clearly present in our lives and the lives of others, the above claim cannot be correct. Finally, Con fails to see the link between viewing pornography and supporting pornography in its "bad nature". He is correct in highlighting that proof of such a link is imperative to the success of my argument, but I maintain that such a link exists. The link is that viewing pornography entails either purchasing the pornographic material or visiting a pornography website. Both of these methods of viewing pornography provide financial support to those who produce pornography. Rossian EthicsJust to clarify, this argument is based on the ethics of W. D. Ross, not Jean-Jacques Rousseau as my opponent seems to believe. Firstly, Con opines that the rational basis of Kantian ethics contradicts the intuitional basis of Rossian ethics. I am aware of this but I maintain that it does not harm my arguments. The reason I presented both ethical systems is to show that viewing pornography is wrong both on an intuitional and a rational basis. I was catering to whoever reads this debate; if the reader happens to be a moral rationalist, then I explain why pornography is wrong under that paradigm, if the reader instead is a moral intuitionist, then I explain why pornography is wrong under that paradigm as well. I understand that one cannot hold both ethical theories to be correct at the same time, but the reason I use both in this debate is to pertain to the moral sentiments of the readers. Con claims that I contradict myself by 'claiming that [pornography] prevents one from having a sexual life at all, and then later claiming that pornography causes one to get into unsatisfying relationships. 'But I never said that pornography causes one to get into unsatisfying relationships, I maintain that it hinders one's own sexual life, but what I said was that, if someone was to enter a relationship then that relationship would be less satisfying if that person does watch pornography than if he does not. The premise that romantic encounters are good is questioned by Con. I did initially think this to be evident, but perhaps it needed reaffirming that romantic encounters are good because they lead to the continuation of our species, increase our mental health as well as increase our self-confidence (1). Obviously this would only apply to consensual adults; teenagers are often not mentally stable enough to cope with the emotional rollercoaster that is a sexual relationship. Con suggests that pornography could decrease underage sex as well as STDs. Yet statistics and common sense would suggest otherwise. If one is presented with sexual material then they will be more inclined to seek more of it or try out what they watch. A Rand study showed that watching sexual material on TV (analogous to pornography) leads to a higher proportion of teenagers losing their virginity in the period afterwards(2). This would suggest that watching pornography actually increases promiscuity among teenagers. Many of my claims are highlighted to lack citation. The reason I did not deign to add citation is because reason dictates that my claims are true. I will explain:'loneliness': Pornography is a major factor in relationship breakdown (3)'social ineptness with the opposite sex': Constant exposure to women portrayed as sexual objects will inadvertently lead to the brain perceiving them as so. So when one interacts with women they will struggle to view them as persons. 'sexual assault': Pornography presents women as submitting easily to sex - so men would perceive this to be normal and will be frustrated when they find resistance in real women. Frustration could lead to assault. Of course, this could be a reverse relationship, but the reasoning displayed above explains why this relationship is most likely not reverse. Sexual healthIf Con had read the source, it goes on to say that there is evidence of sexual health problems despite there not being any quantitative data. This evidence comes from likeness to symptoms of other addictions as well as evidence from people who have previously watched pornography and experienced these problems. Mental healthI apologise for my source, it appears the end of the link got cut off. Here is the link: . https://www.psychologytoday.com...I know that most things can be addictive, but my point was that pornography is especially addictive, as much as cocaine in fact. (4)Mary Anne Layden, a psychologist, wrote:'Porn is the most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today. ' (4)SocietyI agree that 'sex is both a hedonistic and a loving act', but the problem with pornography is that it doesn't present the latter. The reason it could lead to an increase in teen pregnancy is that, if teenagers are given the impression that sex is only hedonistic and not necessarily loving, then they will not see love as a prerequisite to sex. Hence it would be easier to justify the decision to jump into bed together if they believe it is not necessary to love the partner. ________(1) . http://selfconfidencetips.blogspot.com...(2) . http://www.rand.org...(3) . http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...(4) . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...