Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

It is a great round so far and I thank Philcat for is response, here are my arguments:Consistancy 1.) Morality is based on logic 2.) Logic will never contradict itself 3.) Thus logic is consistent 4.) The alternative of not being a means to an end, is being a means to an end 5.) This is not consistent with what we would want someone to do to us (the universality principle) 6.) Thus the alternate must be true This argument even on face value doesn’t seem very logical. Here are my points A.) Pro hasn’t logically stated why the supposed converse of the ends principle is logically inconsistent. B.) Pro has committed a Black or White fallacy in that those are not the only 2 options. You yourself have said that you can treat someone as both a means and an end. This is still logically consistent. C.) Pro is using circular logic in that he is justifying one principle on another (end on universiality) and yet hasn’t defined why the universality principle is logically sound. My Argument: Philocat is making a silent assumption that a porn star is being used solely as a means to an end when in reality I content that she has the same job as someone who works in a restaurant. Philocat must prove that hiring porn stars is solely using them as a means to an end. I argue that it does the opposite and thus embraces human rational intrinsic value. Bentham The idea is simple. Man is literally driven by either pleasure or pain in any given moment. Philocat fails to recognize that I do not mean that man is driven by his DESIRES, but that the pure pleasure and pain that might result in the future or in the current situation is what drives desires themselves, thusly these two masters drive all actions as a whole. Philocat is correct is suggesting that there is no such thing as altruism. Ultimately though that is a slightly different debate. The altruism debate comes down to whether the word altruism refers to if an action results in the overall lesser wellbeing of an individual, sacrificed for the gain of someone else, or if it refers to whether or not an individual does what is in his personal subjective best interest at any given moment. The conflict comes in that the definition of the word supports the second idea and the common meaning supports the latter. Over all however it is simply irrefutably impossible for someone to act out of their own personal subjective best interest. Which is exactly my point. At all times we use people to achieve our end of pleasure, whatever form it may take. There IS no such thing as only using someone as a means instead of an end because we are all simply using one another to get some pleasure, whether we are trying to or not, this is simply the essence of being alive. Thus the proposition that we can even act beyond treating someone as anything EXCEPT a means to an end is a ridiculous claim which would need proof to back itself up. Rossian ethics Hey I noticed it was rossian ethics lol, I kinda realized when it was already posted though lol. My bad but I have it now. Philocat brings up many new basis arguments and claims that they are common sense and were thus assumed, Since this IS a debate, I would like to point out that nothing of that scale should be assumed. The entire purpose of any debate is to define and clarify certain ideas while casting out those which are untrue. Philocat must justify these assumptions: That whatever promotes the continuation of our species is moral good or suggestable That “ If one is presented with sexual material then they will be more inclined to seek more of it or try out what they watch.” (Especially given that philocat literally just claimed that porn will stop people from seeking our relationships, a massively clear contradiction) Bodily and Social Effects Make no mistake, this IS a reverse relationship and con will need some pretty convincing evidence that shows how simply watching the act of sex will somehow cause the same effects as being an alcoholic, schizophrenic or other drug addict, including: depression, lack of sexual drive, an increase in teen pregnancy ,social anxiety and extreme addiction. Simply go back to my log cabin analogy. If a man were to grow up 100% alone in a log cabin and then find a pornography tape and start the process that takes place when one finds a pornography tape, that he would somehow become this angry depressed rapist. It simply isn’t ‘Logically Consistent’, bringing it back to your point made earlier. I have not addressed many of the specific claims simply because philocat lack evidence and I consider the things provided to be below substantial in the evidence confidence section. Just provide substantial evidence, that’s all Here is substantial evidence concerning the effects of pornography: "In The Sunny Side of Smut, Scientific American’s Melinda Wenner Mover says the research in several studies suggests that “…moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.” Mover does not see this as proof that porn decreases sex crime, but Christopher J. Ferguson, a professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M told Mover that the trends “just don’t fit with the theory that rape and sexual assault are in part influenced by pornography.” Participants of both sexes in a 2007 study of more than 600 Danish men and women aged 18-30 found that self-reporting adults said that “hardcore” pornography had a positive effect on their lives. Researchers Martin Hald and Neil M. Malamuth asked the subjects to report the effects of hardcore porn consumption on “sexual knowledge, attitudes toward sex, attitudes toward and perception of the opposite sex, sex life and general quality of life.” Along the quality-of-life lines, Dr. Donald Ardell, who was credited with helping found the wellness movement in the 1970s, writes in A Wellness Perspective on Pornography, that wellness is about quality of life, and that pornography, with its ancient lineage (he mentions the Kama Sutra, circa 300 AD) and huge number of users “seems to enhance life quality, unless of course they get caught looking at it.” He sites humor and stress release as two possibly life-enhancing qualities of porn. In a small study from the University of Montreal in 2009 -- also self-reporting -- the male participants claimed that watching porn didn’t change their views of women or impact their relationships. An oft-repeated punchline of the study was that the researchers tried, and failed, to find men who had never viewed porn. Then there was a 2009 study by Michael Twohig (cited in Sunny Side) from the University of Utah, which asked students whether or not their porn consumption was problematic. Twohig found that porn itself didn’t affect the students’ mental state; it was only a problem when they tried to control their urge to watch it. So some studies indicate that adult entertainment could have its positive effects. Are there other benefits, ones that might be more difficult to quantify?" In sum: We arent treating porn stars and others in the industry as anything more that one would treat a store clerk, the simply do their job, Man can do nothing but treat others as a pure means to an end, I seek justification for a few moral assumptions, I point out just a few of the glaring contradictions in philocat's sexual and societal impacts contentions and finally I show that the hard evidence supports porn has no adverse effects. I now rest my speech and give con his time to respond. Thank you all for reading thus far!