222222222

Prostitution is commonly regarded as the oldest profession.

This characterization is used to justify the practice.

It is

timeless, a natural product of an inborn, human condition.

This assumption, however, is fundamentally incorrect.

Sexual

relief can be achieved through other means.

If people prefer

this means of sexual release so much more that the demand

produces a market, then there must be some other ulterior force

promoting it.

Why else would it be seen as so much better if

someone received, say, hand relief from another than if said

individual performed it himself?

Another poignant question

that arises from the practice of prostitution can be generated

from an analysis of the type of individuals who participate in

the market, and determination as to whether or not they do so

willingly.

Using utilitarianism, specifically the brand taught

by John Stuart Mill, as well as Carole Patemans anti-

prostitution article, Whats Wrong with Prostitution? this

essay will explain why prostitution exists, why the belief that

it is an inherent product of society is misconceived, and why

the practice presents a serious moral quandary.

Mill espouses that the moral relevance of an action is determined by the amount of happiness it creates, happiness being the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. The morally best action promotes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, as dictated by the Greatest Happiness Principle. The greatest number of people,

however, is not necessarily universal in scope.

When making

moral decisions, generally, one need only concern oneself with,

[] private utility, the interest or happiness of some few

persons (Mill, Utilitarianism: What Utilitarianism Is

23).

As far as pleasures are concerned, there are two general

categories: lower pleasures, the first classification, are

visceral in nature. Pleasures which stem from and stimulate

humans higher mental faculties are higher pleasures.

Because there are categorical differences between pleasures, it

should be obviously assumed that not all pleasures are

considered equal to each other.

Utilitarianism, preferential

to the majority as it is, determines the qualitative

differences (i.e. the differences that makes one type of

pleasure more desirable than another) between different types

of pleasures through consensus and experience; Of two

pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have

experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of

any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more

desirable pleasure (5).

Viewing prostitution through a utilitarianist lens sheds light

on some of the more troublesome social implications of this

contractual market.

Is the subordination of one group of

people in order to satisfy the desires of another merited,

according to Millian ethical theory?

Does utilitarianism allow

prostitution?

Answering yes presupposes that the sexual

satisfaction of the male gender is a greater good than womens

liberty, an idea that Mill would vehemently disagree with

because intercourse is a lower pleasure, it is physical,

purely sensational, while liberty is a higher pleasure,

born from (wo)mankinds higher mental faculties.

More

importantly, however, is that men do not simply seek the

service, but the server: All men, except the most brutish,

desire to have, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a

slave merely but a favourite (Pateman, Whats Wrong with

Prostitution? 16).

Prostitution diminishes the utility of the

female by placing her in contractual servitude, in doing so the

male client is denied the compliance that he desires, rather,

the woman is obligated to serve the buyer because she is

financially dependent on him.

This dichotomy is a dilemma of

diminished mutual utility.

The expression dilemma of mutually diminished utility

signifies that an action decreases the utility of all parties

involved.

From a utilitarian standpoint, it is the morally

worst action, one that reduces pleasure and increases pain for

all parties involved, a situation that directly contradicts the

Greatest Happiness Principle.

In the case of prostitution, the

woman is treated as sub-human, her autonomy stripped because

she is in need of income.

The man, contradictorily, does not

just want to partake in sex: he wants the woman to want to have

sex with him.

The womans financial dependence further

problematizes the situation by making it impossible for her to

partake in this act of reciprocation.

Wage labor implies that

the workers objective in doing the labor is to earn the wage,

not necessarily to provide the best good or service, but one

that is only satisfactory.

In short, prostitution itself does not provide either party

involved with what they truly need.

The plain truth is that

prostitution satisfies no one.

For women, it is a desperate

means of achieving basic economic means.

For men, it is just a

temporary microcosm of the marriage contract.

In either case,

what both parties desire is something more permanent then what

the prostitution contract allows.

Prostitution, consequently,

is just a poor substitute that has a final result which is far

less gratifying then the true, perhaps subconscious objective.

To this end, Mills writes, It is better to be a human being

dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates

dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the

pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know

their own side of the question. The other party to the

comparison knows both sides (Mill 7).

What makes

prostitution wrong is so profoundly different for men than it

is for women, while being equal in wrongness.

It is wrong for

men because participation in the sex market is the submission

of the higher, more difficult pleasure in favor of a lower one

that is immediate.

It is wrong for woman because their basic

need for money in order to survive is being exploitedthese

women are so far on the fringe of society that they have no

other option.

In Whats Wrong with Prostitution, Carole Pateman reverses

the common misconception that prostitution is a problem about

women, when truthfully, she argues, it is a problem with men.

She writes, [] the patriarchal assumption that prostitution

is a problem about women ensures that the other participant in

the prostitution contract escapes scrutiny (Pateman 6).

Prostitution is an aspect of a patriarchal capitalism that

commodifies the female body, therein subjugating women into

sexual slavery.

Prostitution cannot be universalized.

The

client is masculine, and the prostitute, female.

Prostitution

is inherently different from other types of labor because it

requires the individual.

Most other goods and services can be

performed or produced more efficiently with tools or machines.

What clients seek in prostitution is something more intimate,

or else they could relieve themselves through other means.

Prostitution, therefore, is a means of social validation.

It

substantiates the notion that male identity is inextricably

linked to sexual conquest.

Again, the man wants, not only to

have sex, but to have sex with a willing partner.

The exchange

of money is mistaken for reciprocation.

Pateman makes this

master/servant dynamic very clear by introducing elements of

bondage and S&M, two forms of sexuality that rely on the

concept of female subservience while maintaining stereotypical

male dominance.

Any familiarity with Patemans anti-prostitution argument

would cause one to recognize a great degree with which Pateman

s ideas have been interpolated into the description of the

utilitarian perspective on the topic.

This is because the most

informed opinion is one that is a collage of multiple differing

opinions.

In this case, utilitarianism and the concepts

expressed by Pateman complement each other, creating a strong

and cohesive discourse when paired together.

Individually,

however, utilitarianism provides the more complete analysis of

the practices moral implications, while Patemans ideas can

be used as supplementation.

Pateman makes claims that, while

valid and ultimately correct, require the context of some other

form of philosophy in order to be corroborated.

Meanwhile,

while the utilitarianist stance clearly benefits from the

addition of Patemans notions, they are not necessary in order

to make a substantial and meaningful argument.

Marxist theory refers to the capitalist wage labor system as

the prostitution of the worker.

Conventional Marxist-Feminist

discourse argues that prostitution is a form of labor and is

only wrong in so far as all capitalist labor is wrong.

In

referring to capitalism as the prostitution of the worker,

however, these scholars raise, [] the suspicion that what

she [the prostitute] sells is not quite the same as the labour

power contracted out by other workers (10).

It highlights

prostitution as the problem, of which capitalist labor is a

subset.

Prostitution is a multi-faceted problem.

It takes

advantage of desperate individuals in positions of limited

autonomy.

It objectifies these people.

It perpetuates

outdated and arbitrary beliefs on the dominant/subordinate

relationship between men and women but most importantly, all of

the womans lost utility is not balanced by a juxtaposed

increase in mans utility.

In fact, men dont really get

what they want out of it.

It is a waste of time, of money, of

human resource.

It continues a cycle of unfair male supremacy.

It is, quite frankly, wrong in every possible sense of the

word.

The main error I see in this argument is with the dilemma of

mutually diminished utility. If both parties were not

receiving what they wanted then neither party would partake in

the contract. While its true that many women are forced into

prostitution, there are also plenty that have chosen the

profession of their own free will and for their own reasons.

Some may partake in this line of work because they may enjoy

the experience while others resort to it as a last ditch effort

to make an income and be able to support themselves. On the

other side, men pay these women to have sex with them and to

enact their fantasies. If a man wants some one to willingly

have sex with them then the prostitute would act in a way that

would fulfill this fantasy as long as she was paid in return

and got what she wanted out of the contract. I agree that

prostitution and going after a lower pleasure is immoral, but I

dont think that saying neither gain from the contract is

right either. There are definitely repercussions for being

involved with this profession such as women devaluing

themselves and mens dominance over women, but I feel that

both parties still gain because they receive what they are

looking for in the contract.

Deciding to become a prostitute could be compared to say

becoming a masseuse. Both professions provide a service to

their client by using parts of their body and providing some

sort of relief and pleasure for them in exchange for money. Now

of course, to become a masseuse requires a larger amount of

training and learn different techniques, but I think the

biggest difference between the two is societys perception of

the two. Im not trying to support prostitution, Im just

trying to make a comparison to show that utility might not have

to be compromised for providing a service in exchange in money,

but whats more important is societys view of the actions. I

think what should be focused on more is that sex is a lower

pleasure, as was mentioned in the paper, and that this is the

main problem. Other than that I dont see much else wrong. All

other points are pretty valid and help support the argument.

Log in to ReplyJulian May 12th, 2011 - 11:04One argumentative error in this paper is

the idea of the dilemma of mutually diminished utility.

Jason argues that the act of prostitution decreases the utility

of both the prostitute and the buyer. He says that the man isn

t really getting what he wants in that he really just wants

something equivalent to love and the woman is degrading herself

for sake of making some money. Jason makes the claim that the

reason it decreases utility is because the man is substituting

his need for the high pleasure of marriage for the immediate

lower pleasure of prostitution. I find this problematic because

it holds the assumption that the man can actually attain

something like marriage or intimacy if they didnt resort to

prostitution. Prostitution for the man would be holding him

back from what he really needs. What if it is the case that the

man actually cannot get marriage or is unable to get close to a

woman for some reason? What if he is not capable of this higher

pleasure? Then it would seem that pursuing the lower pleasure

of prostitution would be fine according to the utilitarianism.

There is some benefit being reaped. Pursuing some lower

pleasures does not decrease happiness for individuals. In regards to the actual prostitute, Jason believes that they

are also not getting what they really want. They want to make

money essentially, but degrade themselves so badly in the

process that they arent getting any benefit. They are not losing their higher pleasure of liberty . I believe that you can make

the argument that it is not prostitution that is causing their

lack of liberty, but in fact social circumstances that forced

her to resort to prostitution. Clearly there are other job

opportunities available and the woman doesnt ideally have to

subject herself to prostitution. If she doesnt have access to

these opportunities then clearly there is something wrong with

society. If she doesnt have access to any other job, the

prostitution is the best alternative to starving on the

streets. In this case prostitution would increase her utility

in that at least she is not starving. And the loss of liberty

doesnt come from the actual act of prostitution anyway. In my opinion the best thing that Jason could have done to

correct this issue in his essay would have been to just stick

to his original argument that the subordination of one group of

people in order to satisfy the desires of another is not in

accordance with utilitarianism. The satisfaction of mens

lower pleasure shouldnt take precedence to the womans

higher pleasure of liberty. Clearly there is some benefit that

men attain from prostitution and clearly there is some level of

loss of liberty on the part of the prostitute. The woman

becomes obligated to the serve the buyer because she is

dependent on the income. I think this would have been the best

argument to prove that prostitution violates the greatest

happiness principle of utilitarianism.

11111111111111111111111111111 Log in to Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackbacks are disabled.

Kant Vs. Sterba on Affirmative Action Autonomously

Beautiful MetaLog inContact the Instructor:bdavisshannon [at]

gmail.com

Office: LNG331 Office Hours: TR 1:30 - 2:30 Whos online:Users: 4 Guests CategoriesAssignments (4) Featured Comments (18) Group 1 (8)

Group 2 (6) Group 3 (8) Group 4 (8) Group 5 (8) Group 6 (8)

Questions to Consider (4) Uncategorized (3) Avatars by Sterling

Adventures

1111111111111111

Prostitution: An Ethical Assessment The Ethical Consequences of Prostitution B.R., Yahoo! Contributor Network Apr 4, 2006 "Contribute content like this. Start Here." .More: Bangkok Objectivism Atlas Shrugged .tweet0PrintFlag Close To answer the question of morality and whether or not one can formulate a simple axiological opinion regarding prostitution, one must take into consideration the consequences and the basis for those opinions. Regarding the moral question of prostitution,

I stand in opposition to it on the basis of public health/safety, it represents the individual as a commodity, and basic tenets of what are right and/or wrong. Prostitution is defined as the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. Some statistics concluding the unethical position of prostitution:

82% had been physically assaulted. 68% had been raped while working as a prostitute. 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon. 76% were beaten by their "pimps."

79% were beaten by customers.

In deciding what route to take regarding prostitution, I base my opinions and beliefs on the theory of rule utilitarianism. By judging that prostitution represents something that is not in the best interest of the greatest amount of people , I based my moral and ethical decision on the pragmatic theory of truth. Prostitution represents solicited sex for money, violence, abuse, and degeneracy-all of which are not seen as things that benefit the public. By utilizing a rule utilitarian moral judgment, we can achieve the most efficient means to the desired ends. By not criminalizing prostitution, in a sense it's condoning and allowing males and females to license their bodies to be sold as a commodity and potentially contract and spread harmful diseases. By not allowing this to go on, we as a society are preventing more girls and guys from going onto the streets and entering the dangerous life of a prostitute, and secondly preventing the spread and contraction of harmful diseases amongst the public.

It becomes clear to the utilitarian that based on the statistics and argument provided that prostitution needs to be openly discouraged and fought against in a direct manner by the government. There are real people at risk here, and the physical and psychological effects of prostitution are utterly devastating. The saddest thing is prostitutes as of now don't have anybody to turn to. Prostitutes constitute those who have reached the bottom of society and are simply looking for a way out; they are a disproportional number of ethnic minorities and poorer people whom have succumbed to accepting themselves as merchants of sexual pleasure in order to survive. As a society that is supposed to be brought up on the principles of fairness and equality, we have neglected our job of taking care of the greater good of the people. Society is only as strong as its lowest class, and right now we are becoming weaker by the minute.

To every ethical decision there are alternatives as well. When dealing with prostitution through a societal point of view it can be legalized, decriminalized, or outlawed. There is a logical basis for all of these, often times the argument stems from different points of view (ranging from utilitarianism to ethical objectivism). And while it is important to note that all three options can result in a variety of positive and negative consequences (which will be addressed next); it is important to choose what is ultimately going to serve the

greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

To take a stance against (or for) the ethical position of prostitution is a question of personal and societal values/morals. This is not to be confused with the reactionary Christian ideal of morals (as espoused by the Religious Right), but a universal sense of decency that stems out of utilitarian tendencies and secularism. Axiological questions regarding prostitution can be addressed at the two worst tenets of prostitution: exploitation and moral degeneracy. Looking solely at the moral dilemma of using sex as a commodity, a society loses focus of what sex is ultimately supposed to represent (note: naturally the point of having sex is for species reproduction, but this is taking a more social look at the act of sex). Sex should be something emotionally charged between two consenting, private individuals. When someone attaches a price tag and customers to the notion of sexual intercourse-in a way it's bastardizing the whole act and turning it into a cheap mode of profit making . The idea of selling one's body (or worse selling others' bodies for profit) is not something that should be looked highly or even tolerated by a society. When this becomes acceptable it leads to the degradation of not only sex, but also humanity as a whole.

To allow and or support such a degenerate "profession" is completely immoral. Diseases in the world's population increase through every interaction between client and prostitute. Women are dehumanized by the act of prostitution, because they are then looked at as an object used for a man's pleasure. Sex shouldn't be used as a way to gain a profit, but instead used for expressing a deep emotional love.

Simply mandating prostitution illegal alone, then doing nothing preventive to change the situation, will lead us right to where we are right now in the United States, where the problem isn't being seriously addressed. And when making arrests regarding prostitution, it's important to stop the real criminals involved, which are the pimps and clients. Arresting the prostitute alone will only increase her sense of self-worthlessness; and by doing nothing we are alluding to the fact that prostitution is the only form of lifestyle she may part take in or bring about any value or self-worth.

The ethical consequences of prostitution far outweigh any possible happiness that might be achieved through the act or "institution" itself. When using the rule utilitarian model, we must establish a universal rule or truth that states the soliciting of sex for profit is immoral, as well as using capital in exchange for sexual acts is also immoral. These truths established by the rule utilitarian model obstruct the spread of disease and social/emotional damage that is done to the prostitutes themselves. Overall, it's not really a basis of whether or not prostitution itself is moral (clearly it isn't though) but rather whether or not one can make a solid moral

judgment understanding the implications of prostitution, which when clearly studied, represent no beneficial purpose to society whatsoever.

222222222

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker Utilitarianism is judging an action by the utility of it.s outcome as it affects everything. Eating a sandwich is therefore good if you gain nutrition or pleasure, and bad if you throw up or get fat or if the rest of the world starves because you ate the last sandwich. Prostitution would be good if it proves income for the prostitute and pleasure for the customer, or bad if corrupts the morals of the society. So, it seems that Utilitarianism doesn't define prostitution as good or bad without adding sn ethical element to it. I don't think that utilitarianism has ethics, other than those defined by the utility of the action. Human trafficking would seem to benefit the trafficker and harm the traffickees and so be judged wrong because it harms more people than it benefits. This is an example of Utilitarianism having an ethical stance.

Kantians would judge only the action, not the outcome based on the Categorical Imperative. That being " Act such I may wish that my action should be the universal norm. So, be a prostitute if you want others to be a prostitute for you. This is interesting, I wasn't really trying to get to this point. The categorical goodness of this action would appear to be dependent on one's predisposed opinion of prostitution. The more famous criticism is " What if a masochist applies the categorical imperative? Does that make violence good?" Somehow, in order to be Kantian we have to to make prostitution always good or bad without being dependent on the outcome. Can we add the 6th commandment's prohibition of adultery? That would make prostitution always wrong, but are we being Kantian? I'm really not sure Human trafficking would be all wrong to Kantians because they would not want it done to them. So, interestingly, at least with me doing it, Utilitarians and Kantians would reach similar, somewhat ambiguous conclusions while using very different thought processes.

You deserve a star from me. This was a very interesting question to answer. Sorry if I waxed philosophically some, but that can happen when you ask a philosophical question. 2 years ago Report Abuse

33333333

Not sure what "utilitarianism of mill" is about, but if someone is willing to pay for sex, who is to get involved between the participants in the deal, including the authorities. It is as moral as a one night stand. What would make it immoral is if the guy has a wife and is suppose to be true to her and goes to a whore.

The morality depends one the "John" and the surrounding relationships and responsibilities he has to his world. If the act threatens or hurts his life involvements it is immoral. I would say there is nothing wrong if it is just a college kid that needs to get his rocks off before he explodes. Some lonely guy might just need the quick fix. It beats the guy going nuts and rapping someone. Why should a guy be arrested for giving someone twenty bucks to do what we all do for free. It should be legal but then you will have to pay your orgasm tax 3 years ago Report Abuse Answerer 2 Albert Einstein once theorized that time is relative to the observer. Likewise, I feel that morality is relative to the observer. If you're a Roman Catholic, chances are that your morality will dictate anti-prostitution sentiment. From a strictly utilitarian perspective however, you have to decide if the value that the prosititue offers outweighs the potential liabilities.

2 choice of act ut For instance, the prostitute offers her service to a stressed businessman who becomes relaxed and closes the big deal as a result of his encounter. That same businessman goes to another city with no prostitutes, becomes overly stressed with no outlet, commits suicide, ruins the international deal he was working on, the company goes bust, the economy suffers, workers get laid off...etc. And all because of a lack of prostitutes.

Now, another businessman goes to a prostitute, gets an STD, infects his wife and gets a divorce, requires extensive medical care, can't afford to pay his bills, files bankruptcy, creates a strain on the economy as a result.

The utilitarian would weigh these things, regardless of how improbable, and decide on which offered the greatest benefit. I would say that prostitution should be legal, from the utilitarian perspective, because it would create jobs , offer a safe environment for those who are currently doing it illegally, it would add STD screening thereby reducing diseases for those in that profession, increase tax revenue, and help feed the poor kids in Africa (OK, so I took liberties on that last one). 3 years ago Report Abuse 1 person rated this as good Answerer 3 It is my belief that if the pimps were forced to pay taxes, there would be so much less human trafficing in the world. The ladies would receive adequate medical care, enough food, and decent housing. Source(s): I'm thinking about the women - prostitution is NOT a victimless crime. 3 years ago Report Abuse 1 person rated this as good Answerer 4 The 'sex trade industry' makes billions and billions of dollars from prosituting people every year. We need to go after the high levels of thier organizations and them in jails..nothing should be legal with prostitution..it is so immoral.

3 years ago Report Abuse Answerer 5 "Moral" is a religious judgement.

It has no place in secular laws. 3 years ago Report Abuse 1 person rated this as good Answerer 6 Moral or not, it should be legal. What else is completely legal until money is exchanged? Nothing. 3 years ago Report Abuse 2 people rated this as good None of these answers doing it for you? Sometimes none of the answers get it just right. If so, pick "No Best Answer". Voters DO NOT get any points for voting on the No Best Answer.

444444444

PROSTITUTION

[Editor's note:

This column was one of a series I composed

in response to the controversy generated by Jesse Ventura's interview with PLAYBOY. It originally appeared in THE TWIN-

PORTS PEOPLE (February 2000), p. 6.]

Non-Random Thoughts

WHAT ABOUT JESSE'S VIEWS ON PROSTITUTION?

Jim Fetzer

Probably no one in the English-speaking world is unaware that our Governor has spoken out on subjects where lesser mortals, especially politicians, have held their tongue. His opinions on the assassination of JFK appear

to be well-founded (November '99), however, and his views about the religious right seem equally appropriate (Holiday '99). Perhaps his

proposals for the legalization of pot and prostitution also deserve some second thoughts.

The strongest argument against prostitution, no doubt, is its alleged immorality. If this means no more than that most people THINK But if this is taken

prostitution is immoral, that appears to be correct.

to mean prostitution actually IS immoral, then an argument is required. Believing something doesn't make it true. That the Sun revolves around

the Earth, which is immovable, are examples of false beliefs that once were widely held.

That an activity is illegal does not establish that it is immoral, any more than than its legality establishes its morality. Ownership of

slaves, among the most immoral of all activities, was legal before the passage of the 13th Amendment, but illegal thereafter, even though its moral status did not change. What is legal can be ascertained from statutes in books of law, while the morality of an action presupposes a suitable standard.

There are many claimants to that role, including subjective theories, family-value theories, religious-based theories, and culture-relative theories, according to which actions are right when you (your family, your religion, or your culture) approve of them. So if you (your family, your

religion, or your culture) approve of incest, cannibalism, or sacrificing virgins to appease the gods, those actions cannot be immoral. moral, necessarily! They are

All of these approaches make morality a matter of power, where right reduces to might. If someone approves of killing, robbing, or raping you,

you have no basis to complain on the ground that those actions are immoral, if subjectivism is correct. culture-based alternatives. Similarly for family, religion, and

Every person, every family, every religion,

and every culture is equal, regardless of their practices, if such theories are true.

As James Rachels, THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, has explained, on any of these accounts, the very ideas of criticism, reform, or progress in matters of morality no longer apply. If attitudes about right and wrong

differ or change, that is all there is to it, even when they concern your life, liberty, or happiness. If some person, family, or group has the

power to impose their will upon you, these theories afford no grounds for you to object.

Philosophers have therefore sought to establish some less-relative and

more-objective framework for understanding morality, including what are known as consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. According to consequentialism, an action is RIGHT when it produces as much GOOD (usually taken to be happiness) as any available alternative. But the

problem remains of deciding FOR WHOM that happiness ought to be produced.

According to Ethical Egoism, for example, an action is right if it brings about as much happiness for you personally as any available alternative. Consequences for others simply don't count. So Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and

Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, are home free--morally speaking--though few juries would be likely to be impressed by the argument that killing gave them more happiness than any available alternative.

According to Limited Utilitarianism, moreover, an action is right when it brings about as much happiness for your group as any available alternative. This is good news for The Third Reich, the Mafia, and If no available alternative would produce more happiness

General Motors.

for Nazis than territorial acquisition, military domination, and racial extermination, then those qualify as moral actions, if Limited Utilitarianism is correct.

Classic Utilitarianism, among consequentialist theories, is the only one that dictates encompassing the effects actions have upon everyone rather than some special class. result. But this virtue does not guarantee the right

If some social arrangement with a certain percentage of slaves,

say, 15%, would bring about greater happiness for the population as a whole--because the increase in happiness of the masters outweighed the decrease in happiness for the slaves--than any available alternative, that arrangement would qualify as moral, necessarily!

So if theories that qualify manifestly immoral behavior as "moral" ought to be rejected, perhaps a non-consequentialist approach can do better. According to what is known as Deontological Moral Theory, actions are moral when they involve treating other persons with respect. More

formally expressed, it requires that other persons should always be treated as ENDS (as intrinscially valuable) and never MERELY as means (instrumentally).

This does not mean that persons can never treat other persons as means, whch usually happens without generating immoral results. The relationship

between employers and employees is clearly one in which employers use their employees as a means to conduct a business and to make a profit, while employees use their employment as a means to make a buck and earn a living. Within a context of mutual respect, this is moral conduct.

When employers subject their employees to unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, or poor wages, however, the relationship becomes exploitative and immoral, which can also occur when employees do not perform their duties, steal from their employers, or abuse the workplace. Similar considerations apply to doctors and patients, students and faculty, or ministers and congregations, which may explain our dismay at their betrayal.

There appear to be no inherent reasons why prostitution should not qualify as moral so long as hookers and their tricks treat one another with respect. Hookers are immoral when they do not provide the services agreed

upon, steal their trick's money, or subject them to venereal disease, while johns are immoral if they do not pay for services rendered, engage in physical abuse, or infect them with disease. round. Respect works both ways

Even when prostitution happens to be legal, of course, immorality can enter by means of other relationships. When husbands or wives commit

adultery and thereby betray their commitments to each other, they are not displaying respect for their spouces and are acting immorally. remains the case apart from any fiscal aspects. But that

Indeed, marriage itself

has been described as "legalized prostitution" by George Bernard Shaw. The difficulties that arise in relation to prostitution are generated largely by its illegality, not its immorality. In those locales where

prostitution is legal, such as the sites of Jesse Ventura's youthful indiscretions, women can freely choose this line of work without the intervention of pimps, who turn them into sexual slaves. When

prostitution is illegal, no doubt, the consequences are often immoral for both hookers and their tricks alike.

As our Governor observed in his PLAYBOY interview, "If it's legal, then

the girls could have health checks, unions, benefits, anything any other worker gets, and it would be far better". Hooking, after all, is not As long as

referred to as "the world's oldest profession" for nothing.

men and women want to have sex and cannot locate suitable partners any other way, it shall persist and endure. properly. The problem is to handle it

The situation with respect to pot, if anything, appears to be even more clear cut. Our nation is saturated with drugs, from aspirin, Advil,

Tylenol, and Claritin, to cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and even cigars. You cannot read a newspaper or a magazine, watch television or listen to the radio, without encountering a plethora of advertising for drugs promising to reduce weight, to promote hair growth, or to overcome erectile disfunction.

The Noble Experiment that endured from 1920 to 1933 with the enactment and repeal of the 18th Amendment by the 21st had devastating consequences for the history of this country. The prohibition of the manufacture,

transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes appears to have produced consequences that precisely parallel those that we are encountering today from prohibiting the sale of marijuana.

The profound and enduring effects of Prohibition, as Peter McWilliams, AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO, has observed, included (1) generating disrespect for the law, (2) eroding respect for religion, (3) creating organized crime, (4) corrupting law enforcement, the court system, and politics, (5) overburdening the police, the courts, and the penal system, and (6) harming millions of persons financially, emotionally, and morally.

It also (7) caused physical harm, because safe alcoholic beverages were not available, (8) changed the drinking habits of the country for the worse, (9) made cigarette smoking a national habit, (10) inhibited the treatment of drinking problems, (11) produced a new category of "immorality", and (12) consumed vast finanacial resources that might have been better used to promote education, eradicate disease, and help the homeless.

Some of these effects are especially intriguing.

Because Prohibition had

been promoted by evangelists and others who wanted to control how other people choose to live their lives, the failure of Prohibition was interpreted as God's failure, especially in the eyes of those who think everything that happens happens in accord with God's will. If God had

wanted Prohibition to succeed, after all, surely Prohibition would have been a success.

Moreover, the cost of this social experiment may be difficult to calculate, but McWilliams estimates that it had to have run into the billions of dollars at a time when the average worker at Ford Motor Company made $5 per day. "In addition to this cost", he remarks, "let's

not forget the taxes on alcohol the government lost because of Prohibition and the profit denied honest business people and diverted into the hands of organized crime".

The situation with respect to pot appears to be precisely the same.

Every

consequence that attended Prohibition now attends the "New Prohibition". Marijuana is less addicting than nicotine and less harmful to health than alcohol. Yet cigarettes and alcohol are not illegal today: their use is

regulated, their quality is controlled, and their sales are taxed, thereby drastically reducing or complete nullifying the effects attending Prohibition.

The arguments that pot use leads to the use of stronger drugs, moreover, appears to be a red herring. This claim trades upon an equivocation

because, while it is true that use of marijuana CAN lead to using stronger drugs, it is false that smoking marijuana ALWAYS leads to the use of stronger drugs. Those who use stronger drugs usually have smoked

marijuana, but they typically also smoked cigarettes, consumed alcohol, and drank milk.

The strongest opposition to the legalization of marijuana, I suspect, comes from self-appointed religious figures who consider themselves to be the custodians of morality, cowardly politicians who are unwilling to address controversial issues with candor, and the liquor industry, which does not want competition from those who want to smoke their high rather than drink it. booze. Even the effects upon health appear to favor pot over

George Pataki, Governor of New York, has granted clemency to four first-time drug offenders, who were serving long prison terms under New York's harsh drug laws. But there are hundrends of thousands more.

Anthony Lewis of THE NEW YORK TIMES has observed that operating costs for prisons, overflowing with non-violent prisoners, will be about $40 billion in 2000, which could be drastically reduced by legalizing the use of pot.

Anyone who doubts that the New Prohibition is having even more profound and enduring effects upon our country than the Old Prohibition simply does not understand what the "War on Drugs" has been doing to our nation. When

our Governor applauds another governor who has called for the legalization of marijuana, he deserves our applause as well. We know those who ignore the past are destined to relive it. Surely we can do ourselves better.

__________________________________________________________________________ Jim Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at UMD, has used Peter McWilliams' AIN'T NOBODY'S BUSINESS IF YOU DO, which he highly recommends, in his course on Ethics and Society. amazon.com or buy.com. It is available in bookstores and via

5555555555555555555555555555
Prostitution and the arguments for and against why it should be legalized is the of this paper. The conflicting capitalistic advantages of legalizing prostitution and the condonation of exploiting womens bodies are debated. Is prostitution and what it represents ethical? Are there certain forms of prostitution that are more acceptable than others? If prostitution were to be legalized, how much control would the government have over its operation? Can prostitution ever become a widely accepted business practice? These ethical questions are defined by consequences; who will be affected by prostitutions legalization, and how will society as a whole be altered? As a result, John Stuart Mills utilitarianism is needed to explain why consequences are so important in determining morality of prostitution. Utilitarianism is so appropriate when discussing prostitution, because the central theme of utilitarian thought is to find the outcome that provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and label it the most moral action (Mills Moral and Political Philosophy, April 30, 2011). In this case, the actors will be the government, and the actions will be lawmaking attempts at either legalizing or delegalizing prostitution. What politicians intend to do is not relevant in this situation, as either choice would undoubtedly evoke both positive and negative reactions from different individuals; societal ramifications are what is most important. What needs to be decided is which action will yield the most moral result, as defined by Mill.

Mills utilitarianism is the idea that the moral value of an action is derived solely from its ability to maximize utility for all the individuals involved in that action. Mills rule utilitarianism states that actions are moral when they conform to the rules that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. These ideas are encapsulated by Mills most notable formulation of utilitarianism, or the greatest-happiness principle. Mill contends that intellectual pleasures hold higher value than do physical pleasures, believing that people should focus their time on pursuits that enhance the mind and progress culture, otherwise known as higher pleasures, rather than succumbing to lower pleasures, like overindulging in food, sex, and so on. The essence of Mills utilitarianism revolves around acting to find the highest form of collective pleasure, and even places this importance over adhering to moral rules. Mill would, for example, would consider lying to protect someone else as a more moral action than telling the truth, which could result in the physical or emotional harm of that other individual (Sheng, C. L. A Defense of Utilitarianism, April 30, 2011).

Utilitarianism would probably find the act of prostitution to be immoral, but would not definitively condemn it. The basic premise behind Mills utilitarianism states that any action that results in the greatest pleasure to the greatest number is a moral action, but in the case of prostitution, it is debatable whether the general outcome is positive or not. If a man, for example, cheats on his wife to have sex with a prostitute, but he gains sexual pleasure from the act and the prostitute acquires money, the action cannot technically be considered moral, because the mans wife is far from experiencing her maximum happiness. Regardless of whether she finds out about it, she is being lied to, which is inherently immoral in itself. However, if the man were single, the exchange would not be so complicated.Therefore, Mill would likely say that the act of prostitution in its simplest form is a moral activity, but when complicated by a third party, for instance, it becomes immoral from the harm it potentially presents to others.

The legalization of prostitution, however, would most likely be regarded as a moral action. If the government decides to legalize prostitution as a means to enhance the economy and provide jobs, one could say that this would be perfectly acceptable and societally beneficial. If health and safety standards are vastly improved, and both parties are guaranteed to be treated with respect during the process, then it would be considered ethically sound to legitimize a profession that would undoubtedly remain to take place without legalization.

The biggest problem that Mill would have with the legalization of prostitution, however, is that its practice fulfills only one of the lower pleasures. In Mills interpretation of utilitarianism, a lower pleasure, with sex as a prime example, is only a weak fulfillment of the greatest happiness principle. If both parties garner pleasure from a sex-for-money exchange, they are both satisfied, but are not seeking their full human potentials in that act. Consequentially, Mill would find this situation to be problematic. It is probable, however, that the proper validation and improvement by the government of an inevitable industry would outweigh the negative implications of prostitution.

Carole Patemans, Whats Wrong with Prostitution, compares prostitution with capitalistic exchanges as a whole, recognizing that it shares a great deal with the product-for-money market. She proclaims, Many recent feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker, like any other wage labourer (Pateman, paragraph 3). This statement shows that even feminists, individuals whose movement is defined by the championing of womens rights, believe that prostitution, if carried out properly, can give a woman the power to establish a well-paying career for herself. Pateman, however, challenges this sentitment by noting that a womans body can be considered a commodity, just like any other product on the capitalist market, She concludes with the assertion that men will always be inclined to take advantage and exploit a womans body if given the opportunity, and therefore holds that prostitution is wrong as it reinforces a mans patriarchal right.

The basic point of this text is to explain the reasons why prostitution could be considered a legitimate career, but ends with a definitive answer to the rhetorical, Whats Wrong with Prostitution? What is up for debate is obvious; how much will a mans desire for sexual dominance over a woman impede the business of prostitution as a form of female empowerment? According to Pateman, no matter how strongly a woman feels about her own autonomy in her decision to prostitute herself, a mans presence will always counteract these feelings. A man cannot help but to view a woman as a sexual object , in Patemans opinion, and that is why prostitution is an inherently immoral practice. The human element of prostitution is what separates it from any other capitalistic transaction; a woman can only distance herself from the act so much. She also makes the comparison between sex and food, claiming that there is no need for sex to be made publically available, as it is not required to survive as is food. Patemans most striking argument is her broad comparison of prostitution to wage slavery, stating that, To symbolize wage slavery by the figure of the prostitute rather than that of the masculine worker is thus not entirely inappropriate (Pateman, paragraph 12). The writers main dispute with prostitution is relatively basic; men will never cease to subordinate woman, so to deny them paid access to it in the private or public sphere, would be a victory for women.

Though Carole Patemans view of prostitution is quite obvious, and Mills probable opinion is slightly less clear, the utilitarian position would more effectively judge the moral questions that stem from prostitution and its possible legalization. According to Mill, if all involved in any particular action are positively affected by the outcome, then the action is moral. If prostitution existed in a bubble, with no outside influences or third party interference, it would be considered a lower, but legitimate pleasure. It is obvious that it is impossible for two people to engage in this type of exchange without any impact on anyone or anything else, but I believe that utilitarianism solves most of the issues of prostitution. If both people are

happy, then how much can we criticize the action? According to Mill, there are many other pursuits that people should be engaging in besides sex, but the greatest happiness principle would suggest that there is nothing wrong with prostitution in its most basic form, rendering it a moral action.

Pateman believes that prostitution is unnecessary, degrading and judges its legalization as a blow to true feminism. I agree with her appraisal of prostitution as a relatively unnecessary business, but I cannot grasp her opinion of it as completely and utterly morally bankrupt. Men will view women however they want to view them, regardless of the prevalence of prostitution. So long as women are content with their positions as prostitutes, and autonomously choose to be in those positions, then women can benefit just as much as men can from the exchange. Whether men want to sexually dominate women or treat them with respect is not under the jurisdiction of prostitution alone. It will always be a worldwide practice, legalized or not, and the government should take steps to improving it instead of condemning it.

The legalization of prostitution is a very delicate matter, because of the vast moral questions that it brings up. Legalizing it would serve a greater purpose than keeping it and illegal and taboo practice. Mills consequentialism suggests that the greatest enjoyment for all is the best possible scenario, so improving the health and safety regulation of prostitution would help to serve the best interests of those involved, and would enhance its existence as a legitimate source of business . Though Patemans argument suggests many truths about prostitution, she ignores the fact that is has the potential to be something much better than it currently is. Because it will exist anyway, it is almost neglectful of the government to leave it as is. Men will degrade women if they want to, and women will do the same to men if they want to; it will not cease with the legalization of prostitution.

Sources

1."Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 30 Apr. 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/>. 2.Pateman, Carole. What's Wrong with Prostitution?Women's Studies Quarterly Vol. 27, No. 1/2, Teaching About Violence Against Women (Spring - Summer, 1999), pp. 53-64. 3.Sheng, C. L. "A Defense of Utilitarianism." Google Books. Web. 30 Apr. 2011. <http://books.google.com/books?id=AZF_5t-PhbMC>. Posted by Jackie Filed under: Group 2 Leave a commentComments (1) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post ) greenman

May 13th, 2011 - 19:08I enjoyed the many questions that you raised in the opening paragraph as it gives the reader something to reflect on while reading the rest of the paper. It is good that you took a strong stance on utilitarianism in the opening paragraph and laid a framework in which the morality of consequences in the rest of your paper will be judged.

Your description of utilitarianism is entirely valid as it is important to know both the concepts of the greatest happiness principle and a hierarchy of pleasures. Using a real-life example also clarified the theory. Though, mentioning the word consequences would make this explanation even better.

I disagree with your statement in the third paragraph that utilitarianism would most likely find illegal prostitution immoral, as you do not acknowledge that happiness can be maximized through a market transaction. The example of a husband cheating on his wife does not hold up as both the husband and the prostitute received more utility even though the wife experiences less utility. In the example, there are two people who consent to benefit, while a single person does not consent to the loss. In order to make the argument for utility to be decreased in this situation you would have to argue a that the woman experienced much less utility than those that gained in this situation or that maybe there is an outside party that loses even more. I agree that legalizing prostitution would be the best utilitarian solution. It was also nice to see that you mentioned a flaw in the utilitarian argument in that sex is a lower form of pleasure.

You picked excellent quotes from Patemans article that really shows how prostitution can be viewed as just another job. If sex can be viewed as a skill, then someone should be able to specialize and make a lot of money in the process. I also see how it can be empowering for a woman if she can control her own career. I also agree that Patemans argument that a woman cannot distance herself from being a prostitute as you can with other jobs does not hold up to utilitarian arguments and that you are correct in your conclusion.

The main argument missing from your paper is how the status quo of an illegalized prostitution could be worse than a legalized prostitution under utilitarian theory. Much of the violence and abuse around prostitutes comes from the fact that it is in a black market and cannot be regulated as easily as in a legal market.

Log in to Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackbacks are disabled.

Kerry Sullivan Animal Rights Final Assignment Essay (Affirmative Action) MetaLog inContact the Instructor:bdavisshannon [at] gmail.com

Office: LNG331 Office Hours: TR 1:30 - 2:30 Whos online:Users: 3 Guests CategoriesAssignments (4) Featured Comments (18) Group 1 (8) Group 2 (6) Group 3 (8) Group 4 (8) Group 5 (8) Group 6 (8) Questions to Consider (4) Uncategorized (3) Avatars by Sterling Adventures

I enjoyed the many questions that you raised in the opening paragraph as it gives the reader something to reflect on while reading the rest of the paper. It is good that you took a strong stance on utilitarianism in the opening paragraph and laid a framework in which the morality of consequences in the rest of your paper will be judged.

Your description of utilitarianism is entirely valid as it is important to know both the concepts of the greatest happiness principle and a hierarchy of pleasures. Using a real-life example also clarified the theory. Though, mentioning the word consequences would make this explanation even better.

I disagree with your statement in the third paragraph that utilitarianism would most likely find illegal prostitution immoral, as you do not acknowledge that happiness can be maximized through a market transaction. The example of a husband cheating on his wife does not hold up as both the husband and the prostitute received more utility even though the wife experiences less utility. In the example, there are two people who consent to benefit, while a single person does not consent to the loss. In order to make the argument for utility to be decreased in this situation you would have to argue a that the woman experienced much less utility than those that gained in this situation or that maybe there is an outside party that loses even more. I agree that legalizing prostitution would be the best utilitarian solution. It was also nice to see that you mentioned a flaw in the utilitarian argument in that sex is a lower form of pleasure.

You picked excellent quotes from Patemans article that really shows how prostitution can be viewed as just another job. If sex can be viewed as a skill, then someone should be able to specialize and make a lot of money in the process. I also see how it can be empowering for a woman if she can control her own career. I also agree that Patemans argument that a woman cannot distance herself from being a prostitute as you can with other jobs does not hold up to utilitarian arguments and that you are correct in your conclusion.

The main argument missing from your paper is how the status quo of an illegalized prostitution could be worse than a legalized prostitution under utilitarian theory. Much of the violence and abuse around prostitutes comes from the fact that it is in a black market and cannot be regulated as easily as in a legal market.

Log in to Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

6666666666666 Every day, we are confronted with questionable circumstances that test our ethical judgment. While

they might not seem inherently wrong, some situations leave the lingering thought, Is this really right? There is still no perfect answer to the question What makes right acts right, but many theories attempt to help us define good actions versus bad choices. After reading the article by Miguel Bustillo, Behave, the

Video Vigilante is Watching, I was even more unsure where the line falls between right and wrong acts. While a behavior in the article may seem somewhat unethical, it can also be honorable taken in another light. By analyzing the Video Vigilante through the reigning moral theories, utilitarianism, deontology, and prima facie duties, we may get a clearer sense of what constitutes a right act.

Activist Brian Bates, aka the Video Vigilante, cultivated fame by busting prostitution throughout his community in Oklahoma City. After years of watching Johns pick up prostitutes on the

streets of his neighborhood, in full sight of schools, parks, and young children, Bates decided to put a stop to this growing problem. Although prostitution is a crime, many previous police attempts to slow this illicit Bates took matters

business resulted in dropped charges for the men, and women still working the streets. into his own hands and began following perpetrators to the scene of the crime.

He would sneak up on a His camera,

Johns remotely parked vehicle with his video camera, surprising the man and prostitute. however, was not directed at the prostitute, but instead on the ladys client. then end up on Bates website, JohnTV, with dozens of other exposed men. girlfriends, wives, or families, but will forever be outed on the internet.

The revealing video would Many of these men have Bates brags that, If you Right or wrong,

get caught by the cops, you pay a fine. If you get caught by me, you get a life sentence. Bates has indeed reduced the amount of prostitution on the streets of his community.

Taken at first glance, the Video Vigilante fits very well with the theory of utilitarianism.

A term

coined by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism has one basic principle: Do the greatest good for the greatest number. basic assumptions. This greatest happiness principle, as explained by Peter Singer, comes down to two First, suffering and death are bad, and second, we ought to prevent suffering. Singer

would most likely agree that Bates is doing the right thing, because prostitution is bad.

However, Singer

probably feels prostitution is bad, because the money spent on tricks could be better spent on ending the suffering of starving children in third world countries. This may seem like an odd way of looking at the If you had the

matter, but Bates would be ethically correct to reduce prostitution according to Singer.

choice between spending $20 on sex or $20 on food for dying children, the moral option would be pretty obvious.

If that seems a little too far out of the box, other utilitarians edited and added some provisions to the greatest good theory. Instead of impractically trying to count the utils or amount of happiness an act generates,

other philosophers focused on the quality of happiness. Not only does the Video Vigilante help a great number of people by reducing prostitution and making the town a better place for its children, but hes also improving the quality of his community. John Stuart Mill believed that pleasure was the ultimate goal for Prostitution may lead to many utils of

humans, but not inferior pig pleasures (swine doctrine).

pleasure for the John, yet as Mill would agree, that is not the higher type of pleasure people should be seeking. In order to have the greatest happiness (and thus least suffering) in life, one must strive for quality rather than quantity.

In contrast, other ideas within the theory of the utilitarianism might disagree with Brain Bates unceremoniously interfering with other peoples lives. Even though Mill preaches quality over quantity,

to know the calculations of what is the greatest quality happiness, people must have experience with all possible choices to know which is superior. In order to have these experiences, we must try all options to gather data. Though doing a possibly Thus, the principle of

unethical action, the experiment cannot be interfered with until data is collected. liberty further complicates utilitarianism.

How do we know prostitution is morally wrong unless we Bates surprise ambush on

experience both sides and decide its a lesser quality than another option?

prostitution could be interrupting a valuable experiment, making the Video Vigilante the unethical one.

Deontology, based on the good of the action rather than the good of the outcome, would probably not be as supportive of Brian Bates JohnTV. ut rely on experience to judge ethical validity, deontology explores the basis of human rights. reasoned in the late 18th century, It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world , or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will. utilitarianism, Kant suggested that good will is not good because of what it achieves, but it is doing the right thing with the right intent duty for the sake of duty. Unlike As Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant Relying on reason rather than

What started as a Good Samaritan act in Oklahoma City, JohnTV soon drew national attention, and with it, an ulterior motive. To stop prostitution for the sake of children and the community is good will. But as

Brian Bates fame magnified, he began to exploit the subjects of his videos for profit.

Not only is Bates

degrading the dignity of these people with public humiliation, but he is earning $70,000 a year off others shame. Kant did not support using people as a means for self-seeking purposes. While Kantian

theories may disagree with Bates actions, other loopholes in deontology might sustain the Video Vigilante. Although people should not be used as undignified means, Bates has implied consent. Because the people are engaging in an illegal activity, we can assume they consent to the consequences. Implied consent seems vague and patchy, and it is.

But even more vague and patchy than deontology loopholes are prima facie duties.

While I personally love

the theory of prima facie duties, they are based mostly on personal duties, rather than ethics of entire societies. actions. wrong. W. D. Ross makes a strong point that most questions of morality are between right versus right Choosing between right choices causes a much more difficult moral quandary than right against People, Ross explains, have many moral duties to themselves, but those duties often contradict.

Prima facie, translated at first glance, can mean rebuttable duties, or values that you can choose between. So how do you know which act or outcome is right? According to Ross, you dont.

Fortunately, Ross does give some examples of prima facie duties that help us analyze the Video Vigilante. Duty 1. Me: Bates is being loyal to himself by earning money from what he enjoys doing. 2. Others:

Based on the article, little or no gratitude has been given to the Johns or prostitutes that spurred Bates fame. Justice: However, he did happen to save a prostitute by chance, by videotaping as she was being mugged. Johns get what they deservehumiliation. Bates gets more than he deservesa living Prostitutes get nothing. 5. Beneficence: 4. Non-maleficence: Bates does harm people, in a way, 3.

off exploiting people. by destroying dignity.

However, Bates also helps the children of the neighborhood by 6. Self Improvement: Financially,

giving them a safe environment with less prostitution and drugs.

Bates improved his life, but ultimately, he didnt improve much as a person. duties are personal preference.

So good or bad, prima facie

Every theory has many more offshoots than discussed and can be interpreted in multiple ways. thing is that unlike a complicated math problem, ethical dilemmas have no one answer. stint as Oklahoma Citys Video Vigilante seems both right and wrong to me.

The exciting

Brian Bates and his

We might not yet

know what makes a right act right, but through centuries of theories, we can better understand the worldwhich is a good thing.

77777777777777

Solicitation of Sex Controversial A hooker, a whore, a call-girl, a prostitute-whichever the name a person of this profession would rather be called, he/she still solicits his/her body for a living. Is it necessary for one of such a profession to go to vocational school for this? Many questions have been raised about the solicitation of sex, or prostitution, which makes it such a controversial subject. Several states in the U.S. and some countries have legalized prostitution. For example, Las Vegas is well-known for prostitution on the streets; it is legal throughout the state of Nevada. Should prostitution be legal? Is it OK? I, myself, do not believe prostitution is right. According to the famous philosopher Imanuel Kant, prostitution is not OK. According to the ethics of Imanuel Kant, an act gains it's moral worth not from it's consequences, but from

it's motivation-goodwill. In other words, an act one performs has moral value to it from goodwill. What is goodwill? Well, according to Kant, goodwill in an act follows the two forms of the categorical imperative (command):

-act only on that maxim (motivation) through which you can at the same time will that it (the maxim) should become a universal law

-act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end

The first type of the categorical imperative says to only act on a motivation which could become a universal law; do not do something which one would want another to do to oneself. If one stole fifty dollars from another, would he/she want someone else to steal fifty dollars from him/her? In all likelihood, he/she would not want that to happen to him/herself. The latter form of the categorical imperative deals with respecting humanity. It is saying to not just use people as tools, as a means to an end; do not disrespect a person's humanity (which also applies to oneself). Human torture for one's enjoyment does not respect one's humanity; the human being used for torture is being a tool for another's enjoyment. As with human torture, prostitution does not meet the standards of the two types of the categorical imperative. The person selling his/her body to another person is using his/herself as a tool. The person purchasing the prostitute is not respecting the prostitute!

's humanity; the person is using him/her as a tool for sexual gratification. Yet sexual gratification brings about pleasure; and pleasure is good, right? Utilitarianism believes that pleasure is goodness. If prostitution were applied to the principles of utilitarianism, Kant would be wrong about prostitution and it would be OK.

According to the philosophy of utilitarianism, goodness is maximized through pleasure. It says an act is right and just if it brings about pleasure, thus prostitution should be good. What is wrong with prostitution? If it brings about pleasure, thus the maximization of goodness, should it not be allowed everywhere? Goodness is happiness, right? Yet, how does happiness determine goodness? The problem with utilitarianism is that it confuses proper action from proper motivation. Utilitarianism does not want to face reality. Imagine a perfectly happy society where the only way to get happy when one is sad is through the use of drugs. Whenever a person dies in this society, whether it be painful or sad, the only thing the person possesses before he/she dies is a pill to get happy. Depression and sadness and all other moods except happiness and pleasure have become extinct from this society due to the society's addiction to drugs. This society is good according to utilit!

arianism, correct? How has the good been maximized? The goodness has been maximized through the

addiction (or dependence) to drugs. When utilitarianism claims prostitution is OK, what is the motivation for this action? How is prostitution proper? The motivation for prostitution is pleasure and lust, yet where is the goodness found? Pleasure is not necessarily good and is not something which should always be maximized. How does one maximize an indefinable goodness? Kant's ethics does not believe that goodness be maximized; it emphasizes that an individual must act upon goodwill which makes Kant's ethics much more rational than the maximization of indefinable goodness in utilitarianism. Another problem with utilitarianism is that it does not respect humanity.

If prostitution is good according to utilitarianism, does it believe that people should not be used as a means to an end? Does utilitarianism claim to respect one's humanity? No, utilitarianism does not claim to respect one's humanity or to not use people as a means to an end. For example, say there are twenty people stranded in the middle of the ocean in a tiny boat waiting for help. The people outnumber the boat's capacity; the boat will sink in a certain amount of time. If the people in the boat decide to choose one person to j

The Dispute Over The Legalization of Prostitution .... One controversial subject is the dispute over the .... for feminist campaigns against commercial .... to be .... to privacy and liberty protect solicitation and other .... (3138 13 )

The Effecs of Censorship

.... were administered to 22 students through random solicitation. .... compaies away from products with .... and explicit .... on rapper Ice-T and his controversial album Cop .... (4332 17 )

OLD

According to the philosophy of utilitarianism, goodness is maximized through pleasure. It says an act is right and just if it brings about pleasure, thus prostitution should be good. What is wrong with prostitution? If it brings about pleasure, thus the maximization of goodness, should it not be allowed everywhere? Goodness is happiness, right? Yet, how does happiness determine goodness? The problem with utilitarianism is that it confuses proper action from proper motivation. Utilitarianism does not want to face reality. Imagine a perfectly happy society where the only way to get happy when one is sad is through the use of drugs. Whenever a person dies in this society, whether it be painful or sad, the only thing the person possesses before he/she dies is a pill to get happy. Depression and sadness and all other moods except happiness and pleasure have become extinct from this society due to the society's addiction to drugs. This society is good according to utilit! The first type of the categorical imperative says to only act on a motivation which could become a universal law; do not do something which one would want another to do to oneself. If one stole fifty dollars from another, would he/she want someone else to steal fifty dollars from him/her? In all likelihood, he/she would not want that to happen to him/herself. The latter form of the categorical imperative deals with respecting humanity. It is saying to not just use people as tools, as a means to an end; do not disrespect a person's humanity (which also applies to oneself). Human torture for one's enjoyment does not respect one's humanity; the human b

888888888