beyondtimeandspace said:
I always accept possibilities, but I also know how to weigh possibilities, and I'm fairly certain that "the effects their dissemination has on the population" are not more wrong than prostitution.
What I find interesting is that you're willing to make that statement without actually knowing what the underlying moral principles that I hold are which allowed me to make my previous post. Actually, you're going on a presumption of what my moral principles are. If I asked you to describe the moral principles that I hold, which, I imagine, you reject, I'm am quite certain that you could not. Which is curious, because I find that most people reject the reality of moral priciples or moral standards without actually having first defined a moral principle or standard to which reject. More often than not, people reject some vague, preconceived, or intuited idea of morality, instead of an actually defined one. I presume the reason they reject absolute morality is because they are unable to define it.
i was postulating a hypothetical. i didnt presuppose that you were anything. i was saying that i supposed that i could understand your statement if i put it in that framework, but without that particular framework its ambiguous.
It's a sad day when...
This kind of question is asked and and the answer seriously considered to be no.
there is your statment. since you believe it is sad that people would consider the answer to be "no", that prostitution is not wrong, then you clearly do not agree with prostitution. then one has to say, well why does this person not find at least some degree of subjectivity to this question? most obviously you would presume that they have a moral objection to it. now, morals based in pure logic would allow for at least a reevaluation of this question on a periodic basis, and also for an analysis of what exactly it is that is harmful to purveyors and recipients of the services of a prostittute. to do that logical analysis is to almost invariably come to the conclusion that the damage done to prostitutes is largely inflicted by its criminalization and the emotional effects of the negative social stigma that is attached to it. this is because criminalizing prostitution has forced it underground where its patrons are now mostly a subsection of society who has little respect for law, the feelings of others, moral standards, or hygenics. this results in the mistreatment of prostitutes both by pimps and clients, as well as a feeling of entrapment in the prostitute which is bred by fear of being prosecuted, stigmatized, and possibly sought after for reprisals due to their criminal conduct. this allows for a nearly endless cycle of physically and emotionally abusive conditions which would routinely turn even non-prostitutes toward drug use and other forms of escape, further deepening their involvement in criminality and dangerous conditions which put them at risk for more physical and mental abuse and helath problems.
you may speculate on what pre-existing conditions must be in place for someone to want to become a prostitute when they (presumably) know all too well the effects it will have on their life. it is, i think, often true that those who become prostitutes in places where prostitution is illegal have already experienced abusive or destructive childhood situations before moving on to the illegal sex-trade, with its many similarities. if you were to follow that train of thought, then much damage has been inflicted on a person before their entry into service as a prostitute, and their desire to participate in a criminal black market is more a reflection of their desperate circumstances than an expression of a desire by a "normal" person to expose themselves to a potentially abusive and damaging range of scenarios.
so, having said that, logically, you could say that prostitution itself is not "wrong", but that many of the negative effects of prostitution are created by external factors such as its criminalization and the disproportionately high level of emotionally and physically abused who become prostitutes in the first place. you may then go on to picture a world where prostitution is legal and highly regulated and destigmatized. in this scenario risks are relatively low, emotional abuse is at a minimum, and service providers are paid appropriately, work in a clean environment, and may actually enjoy thier work to one extent or another. i do not see what would be "wrong" about that in any moral sense.
however, if your stance against prostitution is based on a set of morals that are not based on reason, but inflexible rules of a particular tradition, then you would not feel the need to analyze prostitution or any of its possible alternative outcomes in the way that i have. this is because you accept a rule against prostitution and believe it to be wrong without equivocation, thus requiring no further analysis of the situation. that could safely be presumed by your statement since you offered no explanation as to why you believed it was wrong, do not see the issue as subjective, and have not considered the possibility that prostitution could be removed of nearly every single one of its negative stigmas through decriminalization, regulation, and an attitudinal shift among members of society in favor of sexual expressiveness instead of the current religiocentric model (in most civilized societies today) of sexual guilt.
i think thats a decent basis for my presumption. you can of course feel free to explain to me how i am wrong.