The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[JamesDillon]

Live and learn.

Marx wasn't a Marxist any more than Jesus was a Christian. In any case, the article you cite to clearly states that Marxism and anarchism are distinct philosophies with some crossover. The same could be said for virtually any other pair of political philosophies.

 

[The Atheist]

This article from today's paper made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd link to it for the perspective of a child whose pictures appear in 80% of kiddie porn collections

I don't even have access to adjectives for that.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This article from today's paper made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd link to it for the perspective of a child whose pictures appear in 80% of kiddie porn collections

I wrote a longer post about this, but decided to delete it. The short version is, downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place. Even if a child abuse victim says otherwise.

I think there are defensible arguments for saying that it should be illegal to possess or distribute pictures of other people, if those other people do not want their pictures possessed or distributed. I think there are also defensible arguments for saying that criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea.

Obviously cases like those of Masha Allen are very different from cases involving fictional or theatrical portrayals of underage sex, or of cases in which a given activity is legal for the participants but selling depictions of that activity is not.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I wrote a longer post about this, but decided to delete it. The short version is, downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place. Even if a child abuse victim says otherwise.

But, can you understand that the victim depicted in those images (and his/her family) may feel revictimized and retraumatized and unable to move forward so long as the images are available? In that way, the person downloading and "using" those images contributes to the pain of the victim.

 

[Piscivore]

I wrote a longer post about this, but decided to delete it. The short version is, downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place.

No, it is a different immoral act. The same one as publishing pictures of murder victims at the scene of their deaths.

 

[hammegk]

No, it is a different immoral act.

Yup. And all the moral relativists are in a quandry since they must invoke Law as their savior ...

 

[Piscivore]

Yup. And all the moral relativists are in a quandry since they must invoke Law as their savior ...

So from what source does an immaterialist find his objective moral savior?

 

[hammegk]

Your question is immaterial in current western societies. The answer is not found in one individual's ontological position, sfaik.

I previously provided my prediction as to the future.

 

[dann]

The short version is, downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place. Even if a child abuse victim says otherwise.

Another false abstraction: "downloading a picture of a crime"! This is not exactly what is happening in this case. The poor girl is not talking about somebody downloading photos of the Kennedy assassination or films from a surveillance camera of somebody shoplifting.
She is talking about paedophiles downloading fotos of her being sexually abused with the intention of whacking off to these fotos! She is talking about people who get turned on by watching the humiliation that she was exposed to for several years as a helpless child, about people who use that as pornography.
Why do you have this need to abstract from what is actually going on? And why does it upset you so that one disgusting act may not be "morally equivalent" to another one?

And why do you have to make yet another abstraction from what this case is actually about?

I think there are defensible arguments for saying that it should be illegal to possess or distribute pictures of other people, if those other people do not want their pictures possessed or distributed. I think there are also defensible arguments for saying that criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea.

"... pictures of other people ..."!!! Are you actually unable to make the distinction or are you just being silly? Are you actually unable to distinguish between kiddie porn and a photo of somebody who did not look his best that day and therefore does not want the photo distributed?
Aren't you even able to see the distortions of the facts you have to make in order to present the case as an example where "criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea."? Is there no length you won't go to in your pursuit of presenting the "possession or distribution" of child pornography as something that "there are also defensible (!) arguments for"?

 

[Piscivore]

Your question is immaterial in current western societies.

So it should be right up your alley, then.

I didn't ask you to limit yourself to current western societies. In your ideal, immaterialist society, from whence does morality spring?

The answer is not found in one individual's ontological position, sfaik.

Then where is it to be found? You do not seem to hold "moral relativism" in very high regard and further have been twice compelled to interrupt the thread to mock it. What is the alternative?

I previously provided my prediction as to the future.

So you did. Relevance?




ETA: Dann, you've totally missed the f[rule 8]g point. Again. But since you have expressed your intention to disregard me in this matter, I'll refrain.

 

[hammegk]

I didn't ask you to limit yourself to current western societies. In your ideal, immaterialist society, from whence does morality spring?

For me, let every man do as he will, and be ready to accept the consequences.

What is the alternative?

Islamofascism provides a good current example. Any brand of totalitarianism will be happy to explain alternatives.

Until that unhappy point we can all continue meaningless discussions like this one.

 

[Piscivore]

For me, let every man do as he will, and be ready to accept the consequences.

And this is not a morally relativistic position?

Islamofascism provides a good current example. Any brand of totalitarianism will be happy to explain alternatives.

And which of these do you particularly favour over "moral relativism"?

Until that unhappy point we can all continue meaningless discussions like this one.

"Until that unhappy point" we are a nation and culture of laws, yes? So how are they meaningless?

 

[The Atheist]

No, it is a different immoral act. The same one as publishing pictures of murder victims at the scene of their deaths.

Yup. And all the moral relativists are in a quandry since they must invoke Law as their savior ...

Music to my ears!

The fact that two acts are different, one being the result of the first makes it no less secondary in moral equivalence. That's why these laws are as they are. Ain't it a bitch that the loudest voices have the greatest say in what those laws are and how they're applied?

For me, let every man do as he will, and be ready to accept the consequences.

Islamofascism provides a good current example. Any brand of totalitarianism will be happy to explain alternatives.

Until that unhappy point we can all continue meaningless discussions like this one.

Ditto.

Slatibartfast: "I'd rather be happy than right".

 

[Piscivore]

Music to my ears!

The fact that two acts are different, one being the result of the first makes it no less secondary in moral equivalence. That's why these laws are as they are. Ain't it a bitch that the loudest voices have the greatest say in what those laws are and how they're applied?

From where does a self-described Atheist get a non-relativistic morality?

Ditto.

Slatibartfast: "I'd rather be happy than right".

I invite you to answer the same questions I put to Hammy.

 

[The Atheist]

From where does a self-described Atheist get a non-relativistic morality?

What do the two have to do with each other?

May as well ask me where a rugby player gets his non-relativistic morality from. Both questions are equal and both could equally be applied to me.

I invite you to answer the same questions I put to Hammy.

Didn't appear to be any left unaswered, but fire away.

 

[Piscivore]

What do the two have to do with each other?

For most people who decry moral relativity there is a source for their absolute morality. Most of the time this is some god or another. As you proudly disavow all gods as well, I'm wondering where you get yours.

May as well ask me where a rugby player gets his non-relativistic morality from. Both questions are equal...

No, they aren't.

Didn't appear to be any left unaswered, but fire away.

"s not [let every man do as he will, and be ready to accept the consequences] a morally relativistic position?"

"...[W]hich of these [brands of totalitarianism] do you particularly favour over "moral relativism"?"

""Until that unhappy point" [when the fascists ultimately take over, which Hammy can somehow mystically forsee], we are a nation and culture of laws, yes? So how are [discussions of legality and morality] meaningless?"

 

[Gurdur]

For most people who decry moral relativity

You confuse moral subjectivism with relativism; it's a very time-consuming and unhelpful conflation.

I am a moral subjectivist, unabashedly. I decry relativism, unabashedly and wholeheartedly.

 

[Piscivore]

You confuse moral subjectivism with relativism; it's a very time-consuming and unhelpful conflation.

I don't think so. Explain what you think the difference is, please.

 

[Earthborn]

I am a moral subjectivist, unabashedly. I decry relativism, unabashedly and wholeheartedly.

Explain what you think is so great about moral subjectivism and so horrible about moral relativism.

 

[Gurdur]

Explain what you think the difference is, please.

It's not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of using terminology correctly and clearing up misapprehensions about moral subjectivism.

NOT a matter of what "I think"; here are some good articles on it from a fairly standard dictionary of philosophy:

Relativism in general

Relativism specifically in the moral sphere (ethics)

Subjectivism in general

Subjectivism in morals