Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

Thanks JVN!KantCon presents the consistency argument in a logical form in order to refute it, yet just to avoid any straw-mans I will reiterate the logic behind the assertion that treating people solely as a means is morally inconsistent.P1: Morality is based on logicP2: An inconsistent position is illogicalC1: An inconsistent position is immoralP3: Treating people solely as means to an end is inconsistentC2: Treating people solely as means to an end is immoralP1 is fairly self-evident; I commend its veracity to the voters.P2 is justified because, when one has an inconsistent position they are simultaneously stating that 'X is good' and 'X is not good' at the same time. This is a contradiction which is illogical.C1 is apparent if one considers that, if morality is based on logic, an illogical thing cannot be a moral thing.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.To illustrate, let X = 'Treat people solely as a means to an end'So if one was to say 'X is good' then, in order for them to be consistent, they would also have to say that 'X is good even if done to me'. As this latter statement would not rationally be desired, the former statement must be inconsistent.C2 is deductively valid from C1 and P3.Therefore treating people solely as a means to an end is immoral, and as viewing pornography treats the 'actresses' solely as a means to an end, viewing pornography is immoral.I do not commit the 'black or white fallacy' because this fallacy only applies to non-dichotomous choices. Yet choosing whether or not to use people solely as a means to an end is wholly dichotomous. We either can, or we cannot.Furthermore, I do not use the principle of universalisability to defend the principle of ends. It just so happens that the principle of universalisability is also based on arguments regarding consistency.Pro argues that a pornstar is being used in the same way as someone who works in a restaurant.However, the differences are very apparent. A pornstar is being considered not as a person but as an object for sexual gratification. When one watches pornography, they only consider the woman as an object (hence 'objectification').In contrast, someone in a restaurant is considered as a person (insofar as they are treated with respect that accords with one's personhood) - they are not being objectified, unlike a pornstar.The principle of ends opposes objectification, as objects have no intrinsic value (and so cannot be treated as ends in themselves). Hence if one treats persons as objects then they are not granting them intrinsic value, which entails that they are treating them solely as a means to an end.BenthamJVN postulates that man is inextricably motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Yet I dispute this premise. Robert Nozick's 'experience machine' is a thought experiment that shows that we can act contrary to the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain:'Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you anyexperience you desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulateyour brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel,or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you wouldbe floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should youplug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...]Of course, while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll thinkthat it's all actually happening [...] Would you plug in?' (1)If we could only desire pleasure then we would undoubtedly plug into the machine, yet it is perfectly plausible, if not expected, to choose to not be plugged into this machine despite the result being less pleasure and more pain.To conclude, Con's premise that we are only driven by pleasure and pain is refuted, and hence his following conclusions that altruism is impossible and that we cannot treat people as ends in themselves are invalid.As a side note, Con seems to misunderstand the principle. I will reiterate; it is not immoral to use people as a means as well as an end, it is only immoral to use people as a means and not as an end.RossJVN takes issue with the intuitional basis of the seven duties that are fundamental to W.D Ross's ethical theory. Yet trying to justify the goodness of these duties is like trying to justify logic or reality - we know by intuition that keeping promises, making up for bad things we do, showing gratitude, not harming others, doing good to others, acting justly and becoming better people are good.I know this is a debate, but that does not mean that we cannot accept fundamental axioms such as the goodness of the duties described above. It is absurd to suggest that these duties are not good, so reductio ad absurdum, they are most likely good.Pro asks me to justify that:'That whatever promotes the continuation of our species is moral good or suggestable'This is justified because humanity has a certain teleology, which is to say that we are naturally ordered towards certain ends. As a biological species, man is naturally ordered towards survival and continuation of our species. So as we are ordered towards that end, it is good that that end be sought. For example, a clock is ordered towards telling the time, so if the clock does tell the time then we have solid grounds to assert that it is a good clock.Pro says that I contradict myself when I say 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.'and'porn will stop people from seeking out relationships'I apologise for this lack of clarification. In context, the latter was in relation to adults and the former in relation to teenagers. The difference in reactions to pornography is because teenagers are more likely to try new things and take risks (2).JVN insists that the relationship between pornography and poor mental health could be reverse, but considering that there is such a clear link (as shown by my previously cited sources), it is implausible to maintain that all cases of poor mental health are not caused by pornography consumption. I do not doubt that occasionally it is a reverse relationship, what I deny is that this is the case 100% of the time. For example, loneliness is often linked to depression, yet it is absurd to assume without evidence that loneliness does not ever cause depression. The log cabin example is irrelevant, because the majority of mental health problems linked to pornography are in context of interaction with other people and with society as a whole, whereas the person in the log cabin has no interaction with others.Pro goes on to present studies that deny a link between pornography and poor mental health / rapist mentalities. Yet the glaring problem with these studies is that they are self-reporting. It is obvious that someone who views pornography will not talk negatively about it or admit that they are more likely to be a rapist ; as if that was the case they would not watch it (or at least not admit to it). To use an analogy, it is like determining how healthy smoking is by asking current smokers to report their experiences.To conclude, I have substantially defended my assertions on how pornography is immoral on a consistency basis and a mental health basis. JVN drops my arguments regarding how pornography is bad for society. ________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) http://www.uky.edu...(2) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...