Prostitution is immoral and therefore should be outlawed

[Pietro]

@Bricker

So why the surprise? Why shouldn’t I advance m own version of morality, and argue it should be law, especially when so much of the country, and from such a varying political and religious/theistic background, agrees with me?

Because it’s just that – your own version. How can you make a *legal *prohibition on a purely moral basis when you admit that other sane humans might have a different version? Just because a lot of people agree doesn’t mean you’re all right. Nor is that the point, in my opinion.

I know the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with me and instead believes that the police power is virtually unlimited – the government can legislate to safeguard the health, safety, welfare and morals of the public. I think that last one ought to be left out.

The problem is that a law which prohibits a “victimless crime” (or, to put it a little more accurately, a “crime” in which the perpetrators *are *the victims) like prostitution, gambling, drug use, jaywalking, driving without a seatbelt, etc. simply cannot be justified on social contract grounds, which most people agree is supposed to be the theoretical basis of the legitimacy of governmental authority in a democracy.

What I mean is that most legal prohibitions can be viewed as vast, multiparty (implied) contracts in which all of the parties have contracts with all of the other parties, and the terms of the contract are simply promises to everyone else that you won’t do X. By way of example, consider the crime of larceny (theft.) I promise you I won’t steal your stuff, and you promise me likewise. We have a contract. And there is consideration flowing both ways – your promise not to steal my stuff has value to me, and vice versa.

By contrast, consider your example, prostitution. How would my promise not to engage in prostitution have any value to you? I certainly don’t care whether you do it. There is no consideration to support this deal. Why, then, would I want to invoke the machinery of the state to keep you from doing something you may want to do?

The response “it’s wrong” just shows a lack of respect for those who don’t agree. Obviously there are people who don’t think it’s ethically wrong. Who are we to stand in judgment of them?

I think my social contract argument above, if fleshed out, would provide a reason why all legal prohibitions ought to be antipaternalist – that is, the only legitimate basis for a legal prohibition is that it forbids people from doing something which involves unconsented-to harm to another. Personally, I simply take this principle as a given. A society which purports to tell the minority what is good for them is, to me, so arrogant, condescending, and unjust. Sorry, you can see this topic gets me a little worked up.

As an aside, I know I’m painting with a very broad brush in the examples of “victimless crimes” given above. I know there are at least facially reasonable arguments that in each case, there is a non-paternalistic justification for the law (with the possible exception of gambling – I just can’t see any even arguably legitimate reason to outlaw gambling.) I include them as examples because the justifications given for these laws are almost always paternalistic (e.g. you shouldn’t do drugs because it’s bad for you.)

Further reading: John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.” Full text available here.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

I agree. I don’t think there can be any discussion. It’s immoral, and thus should be prohibited by law. When such diverse elements on the left and the right agree, how can there be any dispute?

Here’s what you’re missing: our system works because of the dispute. If you’re claiming that opinion on this subject is unanimous, then you’re clearly wrong.

If you’re claiming that a majority opinion ought to hold sway, then, to some degree I agree with you–but only because nobody will let me be dictator for life, which would really be the best solution for everyone. I grudgingly accept the current system because it also keeps you from being dictator for life, which would really not be the best solution for everyone.

If you’re claiming that, once majority opinion is established, the minority opinion needs to shut up, then I disagree with you. What constitutes the majority opinion changes, and one way it changes is that the minority opinion argues its viewpoint vociferously, rationally, and persuasively.

If you’re claiming that the minority opinion has no right to call the current state of law unjust, then I disagree with you. Our current system wavers and wobbles all over the place: it doesn’t come nearly as close to true justice as my lifetime dictatorship would (I’d be a benign dictator). Often it makes mistakes; often it’s wrong; often it’s egregiously, horrifically wrong, and in such cases, the minority opinion needs to work extra-hard to change things.

These comments apply equally to whatever we’re really discussing here.

Daniel

[Little_Nemo]

Bricker, do you believe that condoms or divorces should be made illegal? Both are violations of your religious beliefs.

[FinnAgain]

@Terrifel

**Bricker ** contains multitudes.

Very well played. It’s rare to see a Whitman refrence pulled off, let alone quite so well.

Meanwhile, further down the rabbit hole, Bricker on morality and law:

[

What’s your source of morality, betenoir? What authority are you relying upon to declare that it’s immoral, no matter what the courts say, and why should I also be expected to for that morality? Aren’t you just imposing your morals on me, in the same way that Falwell, Robertson, and Swaggert sought to do?

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6909226&postcount=105)

[

But for crissakes, stop with the posture that asserts, as though it were gospel truth, that your view is the only possible correct one. Argue from a “It SHOULD be this way,” and I’m not going to disagree much, if at all. Argue that “It IS this way, and those that disagree are criminals,” and this is the result.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6909391&postcount=120)

[

My question to you is simple: why are you imposing your morality on me? Why is your morality Automatically Right? What makes you different from Falwall, Swaggert, or Phelps? When they do it, it’s an affront. When you annoucne that YOUR moral compass is the only one that can guide us all, you are to be believed and followed.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6909709&postcount=133)

[

I generally refuse to discuss right and wrong outside the bounds of “legal” and “illegal” because it’s been my experience that people accept such definitions only when it comports with their personal views. I believe abortion is wrong. Yet it’s legal. I accept that. I argue for a change in the law, but I do not call “evil” those who practice it, because they have an objective measure - the law - on their side.

Now you come along. You don’t want to hear that abortion is wrong, I presume. Yet you’re eager to foist your own view of right and wrong on me for this issue.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6910066&postcount=147)

[Sage_Rat]

@Digital Stimulus

Really? That’s very interesting. Do you have a cite handy? Was time-frame considered? What was the extent of the increase/decrease?

This Word Document gives an overview of legalisation through various countries but doesn’t give hard numbers in most instances. You have to research them separately.

Here’s Australia:

@New Zealand Gov. Review

Concern has been expressed that Victoria’s system of legalised prostitution has resulted in a split, two-tiered sex industry evolving, with a tightly controlled legal sector operating alongside a large and often vulnerable illegal sector (Dobinson, 1992, cited in Sullivan, 1999). Thus one group of workers hold positions in the state-approved brothels, often claiming that they work in virtual slave-like conditions for the privilege of being ‘state approved’. Those who cannot obtain employment in the licensed brothels work instead in the illicit underground sex industry where their insecure legal status renders them vulnerable to exploitation, harassment and organised crime (Arnot, 2002).

Both the legal and illegal sectors are said to have expanded since the legislation’s introduction, with the real growth occurring in the illegal sector, which now outnumbers legitimate sex businesses (Arnot, 2002; Sullivan, 1999). In December 1998 there were 82 licensed brothels in Victoria (79 of which were in Melbourne), as well as five ‘exempt’ brothels (solo or two-person establishments that were exempt from the licensing requirements but still needed town planning permits (Sullivan, 1999)). The number of unlicensed premises was unknown but believed to be considerable. Hence Sullivan argues that:

The cost and legal scrutiny involved in the licensing process means that many (perhaps a majority) of prostitution businesses in Victoria remain illegal. (Sullivan, 1999, 10).

Concern has been expressed that the legalisation process has been accompanied by a proliferation of different forms of sex businesses all seeking to meet clients’ demands for more explicit and alternative commercial sexual services (Sullivan, 1999). Rather than resulting in sex workers in Victoria being empowered by law reform initiatives, it is argued that, despite the legislation seeking to limit this, large-scale sex industrialists now control the legal industry (ibid.). Women working in legal brothels may be forced to hand over 50-60% of their takings to managers and operators, while women who want to work from home or smaller cottage-type settings are forced into industrial or docklands areas if they want to work legally. Such environments bring increased risks of violence and isolation and work against health and safety concerns.

In Germany, Austria, etc. places where it is legalised, there appears to usually be about 50 to 60% illegal work versus legal at 40-50%. Extending this to Autralia, by this quote: “Since the (NSW) Government effectively legalised [decriminalised] brothels in 1995, the number of establishments operating in Sydney has more than tripled. Unsurprisingly, criminal elements retain a disturbing presence in the industry.” (Sydney Morning Herald investigation, 31 August 1999.) So that’s a tripling in 4 years. So where we would have began at 100 illegal prostitutes in 1995, in 1999 there would be 150. Per this article it appears to be holding at three times the original number as of 2004.

Sweden had prostitution legal for a lengthy period of time, then illegalised it. The number of illegal prostitutes decreased by about half within a year, and the importation of illegals from Eastern European countries essentially stopped dead. Since then they have been working on getting the remaining girls moved over into the workforce–but the numbers appear to be mostly holding at about half. (PDF)

I can’t find any good numbers on Holland. It appears that the central government has not sought to make any studies. This site is saying that somewhere between 70 and 80% of prostitutes in Holland were trafficed in, but that Holland is currently trying to make their status a legal one for taxing.

Thailand’s trying to tighten up the laws appears to be so far ineffective due to police corruption and poverty.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

Prostitution is immoral because even without enslavement, it’s coercion, drug addiciton or even needing the money drives women to do that which they would otherwise not do. It’s loveless sex that exploits women.

And of course it should be illegal. Are we an immoral country?

Bricker, welcome to the socialist left! I never imagined you of all people would embrace socialism, but here you are. As the bold type indicates, you have finally realized that all work is coerced in a capitalist system, hence all work is slavery. Obviously, the thing to do is pay everyone enough money to live decently just because we are all human beings and deserve to live decently. Anything over that you want, you have to work for, but at least no one will be coerced into prostitution or (yech) working retail.

Good to have you on my side, working resolutely for the socialist utopia of the future! (Insert heroic Maoist poster here.)

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’d like to ask Bricker, and actually most people in this thread - why do you assume prostitution is immoral? You’re all saying “Clearly, it’s immoral, so why should it be allowed?” and debating around whether the government has any right to legislate against it - You miss out the first assumption.

I disagree that prostitution, as a base factor, is immoral. A person can pay their money, in return for which they have sex with the prostitute. Where’s the immorality? Please explain it to me.

I think you’re all thinking of prostitution in terms of things that are often seen in conjunction with it - the pimping out of women, the married man who sneaks off to cheat with a prostitute, the prostitute who steals from their john the moment his back is turned, the prostitutes being purposely addicted to drugs so they can’t escape their life. Sure, these things are all immoral. But you can add surrounding factors to anything and make it immoral - it’s immoral to feed a starving child if the food is poisoned.

Also, you’re thinking of prostitutes as naive women who are taken advantage of at every turn. Sure, there’s going to be people like that - possibly even the majority. But who’s to say there aren’t people (because men can be prostitutes, too) that do the work because they enjoy it? Perhaps for the money?

I say prostitution, as a base idea, is not immoral - it’s the things that surround it that are. Therefore, I would agree with Bricker that the reality of it is immoral - but rather than banning it, why not make it legal, and have government checks on the prostitutes/brothels to make sure nothing illegal is ocurring. It would help solve Bricker’s problems with the morality of it, and those people who still want to do the work would be allowed to. Seems a fair comprimise, to me.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

But you’re wrong. If it’s immoral, it SHOULD be illegal. That’s all there is to it.

You’ve asserted that three or four times in this thread so far without offering any argument to back it up. Care to try?

[BrainGlutton]

@An Arky

His threads are getting more like december’s every day.

Come to think of it . . . have you ever seen Superman and Bruce Wayne at the same time?

Oh, wait . . .

[FinnAgain]

@BrainGlutton

You’ve asserted that three or four times in this thread so far without offering any argument to back it up. Care to try?

Well, I think he advanced the argument that since the majority of Americans would feel it’s immoral, that it is. Although he also seems to have taken that argument to an illogical and absurd conclusion by saying that other countries that decide to legalize it are being immoral because their populations do not agree with the majority of Americans…

[CandidGamera]

Lying is immoral. Yet we only outlaw it when there’s a financial transaction involved, or a matter of the courts.

Should we throw parents who tell their children there’s a Santa Claus in the gulag?

Bricker, you’re made a very bad argument here, and I’m disappointed. The assertion that prostitution is immoral is unprovable - and even if you amend the argument to “immoral by popular opinion” you’ve got jack squat. Then the presumptuous statement that if A is immoral, it should be outlawed…

I’m not in the other thread people have mentioned, so maybe I’m missing the ulterior motive here.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

I’ve never posted this sort of argument before. But I’m a conservative, a practicing Catholic, a Knight of Columbus. I absolutely believe that prostitution is an immoral act. I absolutely believe that prostitution should be illegal. Why should I hide my own morality under a basket?

I believe the Catholic Church also considers homosexuality immoral; and adultery; and fornication (defined as any sex outside marriage); and masturbation; and pornography; and blasphemy; and sacrilege; and a great many other things the law, at present, allows Americans everywhere to do. Would you outlaw all of those things, by the same argument?

[FinnAgain]

Interstingly enough, there already exists a word to describe a government where the law mirrors a religion.

Maybe we should ask the Saudis for some advice on how to go about things?

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

All immoral activity should be illegal, to the extent it’s practical to do so. Why should this country countenance immoral activity? Are we an immoral nation?

This is exactly the kind of reason why I support free and equal worship of Shiva, in the fashion to which my fellows Thugees are accustomed.

As everyone knows, morality is doing what the Gods tell us to do. And my goddess, Shiva, commands me to kill Demons who have disguised themselves as rich merchants. Thus, my killing of “people” is moral. Anyone who tries to stop me is preventing the will of the gods, and thus acting in an immoral fashion. We need to outlaw such perversions of morality.

Cite. :rolleyes:

[lissener]

I’m very confused. Trying to stay within tomndebb’s reminder of Board rules, I must nonetheless ask if starting threads with a straightfaced, unacknowledged, “devil’s advocate” position is, or is not, against the rules?

Is an “ironicized” OP within the forum guidelines, or outside of them? Is it kosher to initiate a debate–especially in GD–whose agenda is intentionally hidden?

I would have thought that kind of thing was frowned upon. I know “joke threads” are not allowed in the Pit, and I’d’ve thought that would have gone double for GD. But recent trends have made me think maybe otherwise.

If Bricker is using this thread to make a point about an entirely different subject–if this thread is intended as an illustration of the dangers of black-and-white attitudes on torture–then is it really a valid GD thread? Shouldn’t the hypothetical have been posed within the other thread?

What would GD be like if every hypothetical (and hypotheticals are so *rare *around here!) spawned its own hidden-agenda GD thread?

(Disclosure: when I started my infamous “homophobes can suck my dick” Pit thread in order, not to invite homophobes to suck my dick, but to illustrate the absurdity that the debate had reached, it was pretty quickly shut down, because I had not clearly stated in the OP that my intent was satirical and not literal. So I’m confused here.)

[Scott_Plaid]

As I understand it, it is frowned upon, but not illegal. However, some people can be reprimanded for it, for from what I understand of these forums, judgment calls are a matter of life.

[Apos]

I came into this thread expecting a debate on prostitution. It’s very hard to see that a sincere debate on this issue can take place in such an odd context. Bricker’s responses seem to be parodies of arguments he opposes, not his own reasoning (it’s pretty easy to tell: normally Bricker does not employ short defensive/reflexive language except in irony or comedy, instead going into arguments in detail). I would like to discuss the subject, but I think it right that we have some sort of clarification of what’s going on here and perhaps a reboot.

[BrainGlutton]

@lissener

I’m very confused. Trying to stay within tomndebb’s reminder of Board rules, I must nonetheless ask if starting threads with a straightfaced, unacknowledged, “devil’s advocate” position is, or is not, against the rules?

I believe Bricker has made it clear enough that that is not what s/he is doing in this particular thread.

Should s/he reverse him/herself at this point, let us all to the Pit and roast Bricker’s ass.

But for now, we might as well debate the issue as stated in the OP.

[Apos]

I guess I should put in my two cents while I’m at it in the case that this dicussion goes somewhere: I don’t know whether prostitution should be illegal or not in principlem and this, like gay marriage, seems like something worth having be a state by state issue for a time. But if it is illegal (and it is in most places already), then it certainly would be a good thing to target johns simply because it will probably be far far more effective to target the demand than supply in this sort of market. Prositutes by and large accept criminal conviction as part of the costs of doing business. Johns by and large don’t and aren’t willing to take those risks. Driving those risks sky high should largely dry up the market.

[tomndebb]

While I agree that there are problems with the presentation of the OP, (particularly with regard to perceptions of statements that Bricker has made regarding the topic of “law and morality”), until such time as Bricker posts either a declaration or a clear demonstration that he is merely playing devil’s advocate or that he is “really” arguing another thread, why don’t those of you who are bothered by the presentation ignore this thread?

It is entirely possible that Bricker is playing some game, just as it is entirely possible that some folks are so eager to be offended that they are not able to accept his actual words on the topic.

Among your choices:

• of pointing out (with citations) that Bricker is contradicting his own stand on issues;
• of debating his actual assertions in this thread;
• of ignoring the whole thing;
• or of coming in here to express displeasure that he had the temerity to actually post the OP,
  only the first three are relevant or even useful.
  The fourth should be expressed in the Pit (unless you want to add your nme to the list of people claiming that they have inside information that he is trolling, in which case use the Report function).

That said, if Bricker later confesses to starting the thread for the purpose of arguing a wholly separate debate, the staff will address that at that time.

Until then, post to the debate on the table or stay out of the thread.

[ /Moderator Mode ]