Resolved: Viewing Pornography is Morally Wrong

I must vehmenantly appologize for the tight response time, however I have completed my arguemts to my satisfaction and will now begin my argument:On Kantian DeontologyIdeal societies cannot exist and are subjective in nature. Ideal societies are essentially utopias which literally means, a place which does not exist. Perhaps Philocat is simply trying to say that we should do everything in the moral light of what we ultimately think is wrong or right however as a standard, it is vague and impossible. From what I can perceive, it is literally advocating a subjective moral standard, which is the complete opposite of the promoted idea of an objective morality that exists beyond one’s own personal opinion. Not one of the few hundred people who have read this have the same ideal society. Another key point that Philocat brings up is on using another person as a means to any end, and to this I must question and prod my opponent for further logical reasoning. His argument that “we ought not to 'use' people for our own end because this shows a lack of respect for human dignity.”…is unfounded. Simply put Philocat has stated that ANY use of another human being to achieve a given end, is immoral. Thus, treating one as a tool to achieve a sexual end is immoral. I can only see this as a sort of Black and White reasoning which limits literally everything into the realm of the immoral. For instance, Is a customer and an employer not treating his servant/employee as a tool to gain something (means to and end like food, money…ect)? Does one not literally survive to leach off of other people (whether it be beneficial for only them, or both people)? To demonstrate this point, take into account the philosophical writings of Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do......They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while.” The overarching theme here is that whatever we do, we do in search of pleasure. Whether it be a talk with your mother, or a raging orgy that is recorded for pornography. In this way, man can do nothing but use inanimate and animate objects, including humans, as means to an end. Thus I must reject this philosophy as of now. On another note, if we take a look beyond whether or not having sex is wrong in the first place and look towards the actual act of viewing porn, I can in no way see the connection between viewing something and thusly being required to support that thing in its bad nature. This connection is absolutely, and I repeat absolutely essential to the success of Philocat’s argument and without it, I maintain the argument is in no way relevant to the subject, nor would it be topical. On Rousseauian Ethics On the topic of Rousseau, I must first point out the comedic irony in making an argument holding that morality is based solely on reason, then to argue that 7 things are inherently good ‘just b’cuz’. This can be found in the beginning of second argument which states: “we do not need to try and explain why they are good because their good is intrinsic and intuitionally known” I will contend now that the two arguments are mutually exclusive and thus that philocat must choose one over the other and stick with it. Overall however I will humor the 7 arguments as truthful statements and refute the claims made. With this in mind we should do it the easy way and start with the first argument that Philocat makes concerning romantic success. Firstly I would like to point out the contradiction in here claiming that sex prevents one from having a sexual life at all, and then later claiming that pornography causes one to get into unsatisfying relationships. Next we should examine the underlying premise that seeking romantic encounters is good at all. Under this idea, porn wouldn’t be completely bad, think about the minors that we don’t want to engaging in sex, would porn not then stop underage sex and also save hundreds of thousands from STDs? Well, anyway the idea doesn’t hold up in the first place being that Philocat doesn’t cite any sources to back his claims up. Finally, lets examine the huge claims here, which again have no citations: “personal loneliness, social ineptness with the opposite sex and even sexual assault”……These are all things that Philocat claims are results of porn however I contend that Philocat, and many others, are perceiving a reverse relationship. It is not that pornography makes one depressed, lonely or socially awkward. It is that those types of people are attracted to pornography. Thusly, porn may be a host to those types but watching porn doesn’t mean that you become one of them. It is simply a means to feels pleasure like drinking, smoking cigarette, or having a chat with your boss. Here is one way to think about it, if you were a person who grew up literally by yourself in a log cabin and one day you found porn and began to watch it often, you wouldn’t suddenly become a lonely or depressed individual because that is simply not how porn functions. Philocat’s final claims states that porn increases sexual assault, this is quite ridiculous and is refuted by my last few statements. Sexual Health On the sexual health argument I will simply point out that your own citation contradicts your statement as proven by these quotes from it: “The specific numbers are unknown since it has been difficult to do proper research. “Researches could not find any college aged males who were not using internet porn. This created a blindspot. Imagine if all guys started smoking at age 10 and there were no groups that didn’t, we would think that lung cancer is normal for all guys.”” “conclusive scientific data is unavailable” I consider that negated Mental health Philocat’s citation that porn leads to depression is posted as a page that “cannot be found” thus the conclusion is not backed by literature and is not to be considered true. Philo then claims that pornography is addictive and to this I will simply say that he is obligated to provide quoted evidence when citing a full research paper so I can check his facts. But also I must note that whether porn is addictive or not is irrelevant, coffee is addictive, shopping is addictive and even daily routenes are addictive…addictiveness does not equate to morality unless it causes a net negative effect, which porn does not. Society In my opinion I dislike this argument the most as it is mostly pathos and ethos based, using broad assumptions founded on traditional and unsupported assumptions disguised as facts. First, I contend that sex is both a hedonistic and a loving act. Second I contend that this view does not have poisonous effects on society nor does it increase teen pregnancy which can be proven if need be, as well as contending that Philocat himself provides no evidence to support this claim. The argument on teen pregnancy is the same for desensitization, no evidence. I believe I have successfully refuted all of Philocat’s points and I now give then pen back to him to criticize my analysis of his arguments. Thanks for reading, hope everyone enjoys the ideas going about! -The JVN