Prostitution is immoral and therefore should be outlawed

Great Debates
101

Actually, if not a flat-out untruth, that statement is, at very best, a dramatic oversimplification.

Some liberal feminists do indeed adopt the position your ascribe to them.

Others dislike prostitution, but accept its inevitability and believe that the best way to protect the women involved is to legalize and regulate it.

Still other liberal feminists believe that prostitution as currently practiced is problematic, because of our society’s long-standing imbalance of power between the sexes, but that if this broader issue could be addressed then there would be nothing inherently bad about prostitution.

And still other liberal feminists believe that, while prostitution poses dangers to some of its practitioners, it also acts as a form of empowerment for many women, allowing them economic and social opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have.

But of course you, as “a conservative, a practicing Catholic, [and] a Knight of Columbus,” are the right person to speak for liberal feminists.

102

And homosexuality. And euthanasia. And mandatory charitable giving.

103

That’s different. I didn’t agree in that other thread that wiretapping was immoral. I did ASK why some other posters’ moral views should influence the law. In this thread, though, I’m pointing out that idea that prostitution is immoral is shared by people on the right and the left, and by a large segment of the population.

I would respond more, but I am afraid that doing so may cause the moderators to take the view that I was dishonest in starting this thread. So I’d prefer to keep the two discussions completely separate.

104

I don’t think it follows that something should be outlawed because it is immoral. I can think of many things that I believe to be immoral (such as hypocrisy, greed, pay-day loan operations) that I don’t think should be outlawed.

I think morality is a very complex topic that spans both the objective and the subjective; there are things (stealing, murder) that everyone agrees are immoral and other things (booze, gambling, pot, abortion) that aren’t quite as clear cut.

I think that prostitution falls in to the subjective category: while it’s true that people from all the political camps are for toughening prostitution laws, it doesn’t follow that a majority of people in all political camps are for toughening prostitution laws. For example, you could find “evangelicals, feminists, liberal activists and conservative human rights advocates” whose favorite color is blue, but that doesn’t mean that there’s universal agreement that blue is the best color.

Because we’re a country with such a diverse set of beliefs, I think the criteria used to determine if an act should be outlawed needs to be more complex then just “it’s immoral.” I think we also need to look at the impact the act in question has on the common good, the impact that criminalizing the act will have on those who practice it, and we should also consider if it’s possible to regulate the act without criminalizing it outright (an in doing so strike a balance between the two).

I, personally, think that prostitution is immoral. And I think that prostitution, as it currently exists in most of the United States, does harm the common good, because it harms the health and well-being of poor desperate people, brings down property values, is often accompanied by other crime, etc.

But I don’t think it has to be so: I think regulated prostitution, like what exists in parts of Nevada, seems to do a pretty good job of reducing the harm prostitution does to society and the sex workers and at the same time gives people who want to participate in prostitution the legal oppurtunity to do so.

Less verbosely: Prostitution is immoral; laws making prostitution illegal are just; laws making prostitution legal but highly regulated are also just; the exact nature of prostitution laws should be up to individual locales. Nevada has it right.

105

No, I’m not claiming it’s unanimous - merely persuasive.

Well, I’d say we’re in agreement, then. The majority supports the position I’ve advanced, right?

No. When I said there can be no discussion, I merely meant that the proposition is firmly established. Of course I welcome discussion - why else would I place a thread in GD?

See above. Of course the minority can yell. But I’d say the argument is unassailable.

106

I certainly believe there should be no constitutional BAR to such laws.

But I recognize that I’m in the minority on those points, so I’m content to respect the will of the majority.

107

This contradicts the assertion in the thread title. Do you accept that some laws may be unjust, even if they’re based on “morality”? Or are you using “system of justice” to mean merely “system of laws”, without considering what justice is?

108

Water is wet. Everyone knows it.

Prostitution is immoral. Everyone – or at least, a strong majority of people – knows it.

What more is needed?

109

I am afraid to reply in substance to this accusation, given the Moderator Sword of Damocles that for some reason this thread seems to have placed over my head.

If I could get some definitive guidance from the mods on what I can and cannot do, I’d be happy to address the point you’ve raised.

110

It’s just immoral. Everyone - or, more accurately, most people - feel that way. What else is needed?

111

Most people feel that gay marriage is immoral–aren’t you in favor of legalizing it? Why?

112

Justice. If “everyone knows” that it is immoral to read a book about homosexuality, then it ain’t justice, now is it?

113

Bricker, I know that you come down on the authoritarian side of things (making an exception for the morality of gambling however, as a specific circumstance, for reasons that have never been quite clear), but clearly you recognize that one of the principles that have made this country great is that our government respects the rights of individuals to make their own choices even if they are mistakes in the minds of others? That it is precisely the tyranny of the majority that our freedoms defend against?

By your framework The Inquisition was a moral and justifiable act because it was in keeping with majority opionions about morality at that time. By your framework atheism should be illegal because most Americans are not atheists.

The question boils down to when does the State’s interest in the morality of its citizens trump the citizens’ rights to freedoms of thought and action? Down your path of Authoritarian Conservativism lies 1984 and the enforcement of right-thinking.

I’d prefer to live with others’ distasteful choices.

114

You are assuming that public consensus or majority opinion can legitimately define morality. Doesn’t that go clean against the teachings of your church?

115

I have a question:

Given the perception that this thread is tied to the Pit thread concerning eavesdropping, I am very concerned that addressing, in order to distinguish, my statements in that thread from my statements here may give rise to a negative inference against me and my motives with respect to this thread. Therefore, I’d like some sort of guidance before I do that.

Thanks.

116

Stop using excuses, and defend your statement. Are you . . . .

Or do you actually not understand? They are waiting for you to turn around and use people’s replies to this thread, in another thread, then berate you, not some causeless banning for actually debating.

117

The article I cited in the OP. I’m in favor of the measures presented there.

118

It’s clear to me now that I don’t know enough about New Zealand to address this effectively. Accordingly, I withdraw any argument I made about New Zealand. I simply don’t know what the situation there is.

119

Someone pled guilty to it within the past two years.

120

Bricker, surely you know that there are ways to argue ethics other than “here’s what most people believe” and “it’s obvious to me.” Have you never taken a philosophy course?