I’d love to hear more arguments for or against the claims “Boris” is making here! He is for the affirmative in Prostitution as a “good thing” and I am against as a moral evil. nostr:note1ay5seahlvyz50v2wmxyx7utns7sxhw6j2m5uxaqeyt7c0m37m7nqcxyj0k
Discussion
Legal and moral needn’t always be aligned, because one’s view of morality is typically subjective.
People should be legally free to do (some) things that others consider immoral, as long as it doesn’t cause certain types of harm.
Decriminalizing prostitution reduces risks and unfair penalties borne primarily by marginalized women. If a person freely chooses to engage in a sexual transaction, that’s their right.
Abusive pimps, sex traffickers, etc., should still absolutely be prosecuted for committing real crimes against other individuals.
My two sats.
Thanks for your input. I do disagree with your statement that everyone has their own “moral” standards though. So is there no objective morality?
I wouldn’t say that there’s no objective morality. (In fact, I personally believe that there is a right and wrong in most situations, but this isn’t a debate on meta-ethics 😉)
I do believe that most peoples’ moral compass, while usually aligned, aren’t always in sync. More importantly, I don’t think that morality, with the unfathomable situation-dependent complexity of moral actions, should be the sole basis of lawmaking, because laws are effectively one-size-fits-all, and morality is far more nuanced, often beyond the capability of a bureaucratic system to handle.
So while I may hold myself (or others) to a high standard of moral expectation, I believe our legal system should allow people to behave in ways that are considered by some to be immoral. (Again, very situationally dependent, so this would be “permissible” in many ways and “wrong” in many others).
Thank you for the input🤝. I do believe this is a morality issue though in this situation. I’d there is a right in wrong for most situations, where does it come from? By what standard?
The point about morals is that we disagree on them.
And you saying "my morals are superior" cuts no ice. You follow yours, with it's really bonkers and restrictive view of sexuality, and I'll follow mine.
Human sexuality is wide and varied. You stick to the type your morals accept, but DO NOT claim that other people who simply have a different framework shouldn't follow theirs.
Vegans tend to think eating animals is immoral. Catholics have strong views on abortion (based mainly on misreading the Bible). Europeans have issues with eating dogs. But horses are OK, and smart pigs are delicious.
Society and it's laws tend to reflect the "broadly agreed morals" of that societies elite, and sometimes they are fine, and sometimes they are Nazis.
Prostitution is a fact of life. If it's a moral issue for you, don't visit one. End of.
That’s the meta-ethics. Not “is action A right or wrong”, but “what is the source of moral code and how do we know”?
Answers include religion, utilitarianism, intuition, local/cultural/social agreement… but that’s why it’s tough to argue that moral truths should always be equivalent to legal regulations.
In the specific example, it comes down to whether you think the moral question of sex work is “significant” enough to warrant legal restrictions.
(I’d hold that any form of abuse is both wrong and should be illegal, but voluntary activity that doesn’t harm another should be legal, regardless of whether it can be defined as morally wrong - or not!)
In a simple world, those significant things include the big ones: murder, theft, blatant fraud, etc., but perhaps not the controversial topics like personal drug use or sex work.
Moral nihilism
Moral nihilism, moral relativism, moral absolutism - these are all metaethical schools of thought.
Personally I land between relativism and absolutism: there is always a right or wrong choice but the action’s moral evaluation is deeply embedded in the relative situation. Some actions are “always” wrong but much more often it depends on the context, so the same action may be right in one scenario and wrong in another. But it still carries moral weight.
I separate my moral views from my opinions on law, to some degree. I am certainly not a moral nihilist; I just think there are circumstances where someone should be legally free to make a “morally wrong” decision. If morality and societal law were identical, there would be insufficient freedom to choose the “right” path and thereby develop your soul/spiritual self/personal growth.
If law and morality are identical, then all moral choices are coerced and therefor not a freely-chosen good action.
I see. Gotcha.
So to each’s own? If it’s always changing, then nothing is for certain. All laws and morals are based on the cultures norms?
So I wouldn’t say that, either. Thanks for helping me articulate this one clearly.
It’s more along the lines of this example:
1. It’s typically wrong to punch someone in the face.
2. It’s right to physical defend someone you love if they’re in danger.
3. Sometimes, I’m certain scenarios, it’s right to punch someone in the face, but otherwise it’s probably wrong.
Or this:
1. It’s wrong to arbitrarily murder a living thing
2. If your continued existence requires food, and you need to eat something that is alive, it is natural to take that creature’s life to preserve your own
3. Killing animals for fun is wrong, but for sustenance is okay.
(Note, I am not actually making an argument for veganism-unless-starving. Just using an example argument to try and explain my stance on morality in general).
Essentially, I believe a person’s choices *do* carry moral significance. It’s just that the significance is dependent on the situation itself, and upon the person’s condition when making the choice. Not always. But enough that legal “blankets” based on a moral code would fail to accurately represent the nuances of life.
Gotcha. So in those examples…who cares? Why is it wrong?
The point is that it may or may not be wrong, but that in certain situations a potentially “immoral” action shouldn’t be illegal
Partly because it’s hard for society to agree on what’s right and wrong (even though some things are definitively right or wrong). And partly because law will not always handle these questions in a fair/just way.
It seems Boris is saying there is nothing uniquely bad about prostitution and that all the evils in prostitution are to be found elsewhere too. Not to get reductionist but I don’t understand how Boris defines “good.”
Where prostitution is accepted as something which is simply part of the wide spectrum of human nature, and is allowed, and the women can run their own businesses, etc, there are essentially no pimps. UK, most of |Europe.
Pimps, in the sense of controlling violent bastards, are a feature of societies that criminalise prostitution.
Prostitution does not harm when freely chosen (and yes, some do. For many it beats a minimum wage bad boss retail amazon warehouse crapjob). It doesn't wreck families - that relationship is already gone. It doesn't spread diseases. Prostitutes are very health focussed.
If you disagree with prostitution, don't book one. If you think music is the devils work, don't listen to it. If you think art should not represent people or animals, don't draw them. But DO NOT run around making other people follow your rules.
Yes, the EU is a prime example. Much research has been done since legalizing much of it that would lead most to question it’s good. In Holland especially. Look, I’m not for taking away one’s freedom to act in whatever way they deem fit. Or “zap” “pay” etc. That’s one’s free choice to spend money on what THEY value. I’m making the observation that more harm has been done than good and that men in majority in the western world seems to be more willing to pay for sex than being husbands and fathers.