Should Pornography be banned in the US?

[Osmauri]

There are moral bases that have nothing to do with any kind of theology or religious dogma or superstition whatsoever. Just saying. Utilitarians, for instance. Whether Bentham or Mill. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is compelling enough for many folks.

"Greatest good for the greatest number of people?" How would you define good? You can't. If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

Good is what we define as good, whether the definition is based off of objectively good (not starving is objectively good for my health; statement of a logically desirable outcome) or subjectively good (Darjeeling is a good tea and Earl Grey is not; subjective statement of opinion based on experiences and second-hand accounts).
And you might rethink that chaos bit. All "chaos" still arises from a basic foundation of the laws of physics and some math. Even quantum mechanics has its own order to the madness.

Surely appealing to social contract is as much if not more valid than appealing to deities that cannot be confirmed to exist?

Cannibalism, the subjugation of women, and slavery can all be negotiated within the context of social contracts.

As someone else stated, religion is no different. It's also a human invention, after all.

[Necroghastia]

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

So? Just because god allegedly did that doesn't make him good.

[Ryemarch]

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

I'd like you to conduct a thought experiment for me.

Pretend that God is definitely not real. Pretend that no gods ever have been or ever will be real. Pretend that atheism is objective fact, that the universe and life and humanity all came into being without divine intervention. Pretend that the Bible is wholly fictitious, whether or not anyone currently or has ever believed in it.

Okay?

So in that pretend universe, why is anyone moral?

[Juansonia]

"A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;" this currently does not correspond to the moment to do so! We must ban!

Me laughing as i am a rifle at the 1000 lbs of tannerite in my house after i left the burners running without igniting as the anti porn team storms it.. Shoulda let me use hentia haven in peace..

*aim, *hentai, you accidentally double-spaced once.

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

If I was, that wouldn't make me more qualified on the matter of Morality.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

I get that. It's still nonsense. Christians in practice went from voting for Reagan, who showboated as the guy standing up to Russia, to voting for Trump, who accepted help from the Russians to get elected. They went from pretending to give a damn Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary to not caring if Trump committed adultery time and time and time again.

If anything, atheists are the most passionate detractors of adultery in practice, apart from their unfortunate opposition to mandatory paternity testing. (Who can forget Ana Kasparian's rant against Bill Clinton's excuses for cheating on Hillary?) If there's anyone who I'd believe about the "it's precisely because I'm so opposed to adultery I'm offended at having to prove I'm not an adulterer" talking point being sincere, it's an atheist, because the fact that similar arguments against having to prove they aren't terrorists not having won the day in TSA screening proves nothing about atheists' worldviews, as atheists aren't numerous enough to change TSA policies with their votes anyway.

[Techocracy101010]

Me laughing as i am a rifle at the 1000 lbs of tannerite in my house after i left the burners running without igniting as the anti porn team storms it.. Shoulda let me use hentia haven in peace..

*aim, *hentai, you accidentally double-spaced once.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

If I was, that wouldn't make me more qualified on the matter of Morality.

yea the touch screens annoying for my fat fingers . Sigh

[Senkaku]

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

We could be, you never know. Maybe you’re all figments of my imagination, it’s about as believable and testable as the Abrahamic god doing all this wacky stuff and then writing some books about it.

I feel like lately every thread has just been turning into the CDT lol

[Osmauri]

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

We could be, you never know. Maybe you’re all figments of my imagination, it’s about as believable and testable as the Abrahamic god doing all this wacky stuff and then writing some books about it.

No, you're a figment of *your* imagination. Almost as falsifiable.

[Techocracy101010]

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

which one???

[Cook-Out]

"Greatest good for the greatest number of people?" How would you define good? You can't. If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

How do you define good with a god?

The Bible says that God is goodness, truth, and love, among many other things. I can pull up the verses if you want. God also is the creator of the universe, and gave humans free will, but also commands that should be obeyed due to God's position as goodness itself and his other titles. We, as sinful humans are unable to obey them, so God came to earth as his son Jesus, and died for our sins. Christians trust in Jesus alone for their righteousness, and, out of gratitude, obey all of his commands as best as we can. God is good, his commands are good, and they should be obeyed. This is how I would define good based on the Bible.

[Delvian States]

How do you define good with a god?

The Bible says that God is goodness, truth, and love, among many other things. I can pull up the verses if you want. God also is the creator of the universe, and gave humans free will, but also commands that should be obeyed due to God's position as goodness itself and his other titles. We, as sinful humans are unable to obey them, so God came to earth as his son Jesus, and died for our sins. Christians trust in Jesus alone for their righteousness, and, out of gratitude, obey all of his commands as best as we can. God is good, his commands are good, and they should be obeyed. This is how I would define good based on the Bible.

The problem comes with using a collection of Bronze and Iron Age fables as a guide for authority and morality.

[Necroghastia]

How do you define good with a god?

The Bible says that God is goodness, truth, and love, among many other things. I can pull up the verses if you want. God also is the creator of the universe, and gave humans free will, but also commands that should be obeyed due to God's position as goodness itself and his other titles. We, as sinful humans are unable to obey them, so God came to earth as his son Jesus, and died for our sins. Christians trust in Jesus alone for their righteousness, and, out of gratitude, obey all of his commands as best as we can. God is good, his commands are good, and they should be obeyed. This is how I would define good based on the Bible.

I mean... none of this actually provides a definition of "good," though. It's just an assertion that someone and the things they say and do are good.

[Hwiteard]

You can have my porn when you pry my computer and smartphone from my cold, dead hands.
That's not a joke.
I have no interest in actual sex because I don't like people and their ridiculous social rituals and expectations, but I still have the drive. Porn is my outlet.
It's here to stay.

If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

Thus, we make what order we can out of it.

You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

Or deadbeats.

[Arval Va]

Ever since I posted this, I've seen the thread take off so much so that I couldn't read it all. When i originally started this thread, my goal was to argue against porn from the standpoint that it propagates human trafficking and sex abuse, not from a religious standpoint. Most posters have ignored this, however. I was originally going to leave the thread alone. However, I have seen many posters proudly claim to be atheist, while throwing around terms such as "right" and "wrong". Tell me, if you are an atheist, how could you have any sense of right and wrong? If this planet was randomly created after the Big Bang and we are just evolved monkeys along with millions of other species on the planet, where does morality come from? If you say that morality is just a social structure, then there shouldn't be anything wrong if so-called "human rights" are violated.

This is a very old question, and one that there are lots of varying opinions on, but I'll give mine.

Well, the characteristic of "being moral" is a social construct. That's the case with basically our entire society. It's some tangible properties given a role in society and associated with other properties. By their very nature, social constructs are always subjective. Just as what any given society or person applies to the social construct of "motherhood" is subjective and varying, the same is true of morality. Now, a subjective idea is not necessarily an arbitrary idea. They can be held for their utility, or their logical explanations, or their connections to other ideas. It's my belief that something that is moral is that it does no harm to others without just cause, or prevents unjustified harm, where justified means it prevents more harm than it creates. This stems from the ideas that 1) people are responsible for their own actions and their results, and not the actions of others or their results, which is logically true because a person uninvolved in an event has no relationship with it; 2) harm is a punishing or painful thing that people dislike, an observable fact.

Religion can't do objective morality either. Even if you try and argue from authority, you need to prove that the authority is objectively right, which is impossible.

Regarding your arguments in the OP: Yes, large distributors like PornHub should absolutely be punished for association with trafficking, bad pay, or abuse. But there are also numerous independent creators like on OnlyFans, or illustrated pornography, which have no victims. The link between porn use and depression is tenuous except in instances of powerful shame (often religious in origin) or addiction. Objectification and unrealistic body standards are nasty, but don't really do a lot of tangible harm. Either way, implementing a porn ban would be impossible, like Prohibition but now with the internet. It'd be unmanageable.

[Arval Va]

"god says so" is pretty much the same as "I said so" or "My pa told me" in terms of quality of a moral standard.

It’s really not. You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

You have to prove that your authority is objectively right.

[Fahran]

So? Just because god allegedly did that doesn't make him good.

Then what does make one good if not setting up the very concept of justice and grounding it within us? Adherence to an arbitrary standard derived by some individual person or group of persons? Or mere gut feeling? And how can one say that these escape the reach of G-d?

[The North-Western State]

their failure to understand that some heathens simply don't want to rape/kill/burn/etc implies that they themselves would want to rape/kill/burn/etc. if not for their god.

You misunderstand. I'm only saying that if there were no God, there would be no standard for morality. That doesn't mean that I think everyone who is an atheist is a rapist murderer. it just means that atheists have no grounds for setting moral standards.

There's no standard for morality, so you're free to create your own. You are your own person if there is no god, so why not take advantage of that and do what you think is right? There are some things that you must never do as a human being, even without the existence of a god, because a good number of us aren't bloodthirsty psychopaths. Without a God, you have free ground to create your own morals, but there are also some things that basic human empathy should make you not do. You don't need Religion to be a good person, Religion just provides some things that are supposed to make you a good person.

[Narland]

I know that all the free speech advocates are gonna jump on me for this one but here goes.
Porn has no benefits besides temporary pleasure. Meanwhile, porn has many downsides such as the objectification of women (and men), sex addiction, and depression, as well as unrealistic body expectations and bad relationships. Porn also is linked to human trafficking and child sex abuse. Therefore, I believe that all porn access in the US should be banned, both digital and physical, judging based on the Miller Test. Feel free to discuss your opinion in the replies on how this would be implemented or if it shouldn't be implemented and why.

Obscenity has never been covered by the first amendment. Art is not pornography. Pornography is obscenity by definition that excites lewdness and lasciviousness. There is no right to be obscene or provoke others to hostility by one's obscene (such as lewd and lascivious) behavior. It is within one's right to respond in proportion to the obscenity perpetrated upon them.

Letting the federal government screw up yet another function of societal behavior and civic virtue is not an option. They lie and act in bad faith continuously. Let the local communities deal with it while using state and federal instruments as means when necessary but never as the final authority. The Federal Government cannot be trusted with authoritarian control of media. No new laws are needed, just use some common sense polity.

[Fahran]

I mean... the same can be said of religion, y'know.

Actually, yes, and that's quite the excellent counter-argument. The only response a religious person can then give is "Well, their religion is wrong and evil. Mine is the true faith and mine the true god." But, ethically and epistemologically, that's quite a distinct argument from relativism, deontological ethics, utilitarianism, hedonism, nihilism, social contract, virtue ethics, etc. But all this talk of ethics is dancing around the basic topic we came to discuss - and one can and should use multiple ethical frameworks when having an intellectual argument about a particular topic that isn't a formal debate.

So let me just leap back into a different paradigm real quick.

[Necroghastia]

So? Just because god allegedly did that doesn't make him good.

Then what does make one good if not setting up the very concept of justice and grounding it within us? Adherence to an arbitrary standard derived by some individual person or group of persons? Or mere gut feeling? And how can one say that these escape the reach of G-d?

Is this not the same thing as saying something that may or may not exist did so?

[Necroghastia]

I know that all the free speech advocates are gonna jump on me for this one but here goes.
Porn has no benefits besides temporary pleasure. Meanwhile, porn has many downsides such as the objectification of women (and men), sex addiction, and depression, as well as unrealistic body expectations and bad relationships. Porn also is linked to human trafficking and child sex abuse. Therefore, I believe that all porn access in the US should be banned, both digital and physical, judging based on the Miller Test. Feel free to discuss your opinion in the replies on how this would be implemented or if it shouldn't be implemented and why.

Obscenity has never been covered by the first amendment. Art is not pornography. Pornography is obscenity by definition that excites lewdness and lasciviousness. There is no right to be obscene or provoke others to hostility by one's obscene (such as lewd and lascivious) behavior. It is within one's right to respond in proportion to the obscenity perpetrated upon them.

Whether something "excites lewdness and lasciviousness" is subjective.

[Fahran]

Is this not the same thing as saying something that may or may not exist did so?

Not really, no. The worldview and framework underpinning theistic and secular arguments is quite different, though one can argue that certain secular ethical frameworks conjure forth some shadow of the divine.

[Fahran]

Whether something "excites lewdness and lasciviousness" is subjective.

I remember when this argument was used by pornographers to justify deliberately depicting scenarios involving minors - albeit while using adult performers.

[Fahran]

Or deadbeats.

Well, aren't we spicy as a habanero today.

[Techocracy101010]

You can have my porn when you pry my computer and smartphone from my cold, dead hands.
That's not a joke.
I have no interest in actual sex because I don't like people and their ridiculous social rituals and expectations, but I still have the drive. Porn is my outlet.
It's here to stay.

If we are just hurtling through space on this spinning rock, created by chance, no God, simply more evolved animals, there is no good, there is only chaos.

Thus, we make what order we can out of it.

You and your father aren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or responsible for all creation.

Or deadbeats.

this