Is pornography immoral?

Discussion in 'Porn Addiction' started by Paperweight, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. Gotham Outlaw

    Gotham Outlaw Fapstronaut

    Interesting perspective.

    I agree with some of what you're saying, but I feel like it's important to look at all sides. If not telling people what porn does is an immoral created by porn, then can't it be argued that porn is immoral because of what it created?
    Deleted Account likes this.
  2. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    But you didn't list all the victims. This is where my view of morality disagrees with most people. I say that if a person damages himself, he hurts his community by extension, indirectly.

    If the majority of people in a society are dysfunctional, the whole society will change to reflect that. It will become a different, likely worse place to live for all. The effects of one person damaging himself may only appear to be localised, but morality should take trends into account: "if this behaviour became a trend, would it be harmful to society?". People understand the importance of trends it comes to throwing plastic bottles into the ocean.

    It affects both of us if others in our societies are plagued by addictions, yet we were never asked our consent.
    Deleted Account likes this.
  3. Nope. They're two different things.

    Porn can still be created outside of the industry itself. ( See Amateur porn )

    A couple is free to choose to record themselves and then put it up for the world to see. You, as the viewer, can choose whether or not you look at it.

    However, a victim didn't choose anything, but still had the action taken against them anyway. It would be immoral to force somebody to watch porn or record it.

    So, in the example involving the couple, there's no lack of consent in either scenario. Knowing this, you'd eventually have to argue whether or not intentional self-harm/suicide is immoral as well since the viewer, whether they know it or not, is harming themselves. But this is a red-herring, I freely admit.

    You can also play the "what-if" scenario. If the industry itself is aware of what long-term exposure to porn does to a person, than yes, it is immoral on their part to continue to put it out. Since obviously, all they care about is raking in the money while they probably don't even watch it themselves because they know how bad it is for you, leaving their customers to feel the full effects of PMO. However, if they are as ignorant as the majority of people are when it comes to porn, who's to say the industry is intentionally evil?

    And I don't know if that question can really be answered nor could we expect a truthful reply.

    Those that create porn may be completely unaware of what it does to people. Unless we knew for sure, who can, without a shadow of a doubt, say that its distribution is actually immoral?

    There's people that love porn and people that hate it. Neither opinion would support porn being moral or immoral. Now, based off of a lot of anecdotal evidence, we know that porn use is ultimately damaging, but ( and I'm not saying you're saying this ) to take it away from people would be immoral.

    The industry being evil, it probably is, knowing how poorly they would treat pornstars, but we're not really talking about that.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2018
    Jennica and Gotham Outlaw like this.
  4. Hm. Would you care to elaborate just a little more? I'm afraid I don't exactly get your point. Why would indirect damage that you may not be aware of be immoral? Why does "listing" the victims of porn-usage matter?

    For your last sentence, I'm also confused as well. I'm not suffering from knowing that there's people out there struggling with addictions. My consent wasn't asked because that doesn't directly involve me. Nor do I see why the consent of the average person would have to be asked anyway.

    Anytime you put out a product, you as the consumer can still freely choose whether or not you indulge in it. Granted, you probably didn't want it to become an addiction, but who's fault is it exactly on getting you addicted? You for using it? Or the makers of the product? ( bit rhetorical there )
    Paperweight likes this.
  5. Yeah, bring back slavery! Lol!
  6. Bottomofthemap

    Bottomofthemap Fapstronaut

    I never once mentioned slavery. Put them to work does not mean capture them and force them to work for you.
    Paperweight likes this.
  7. Er, to continue since I have another point, if the people that created porn knew that using it was bad for you, then this would be intent to harm which is absolutely immoral.

    If you told somebody to step into a room and they chose to do so, then no harm, no foul. If you told somebody to step into a booby-trapped room and they chose to do so without knowing the room was booby-trapped, then it's immoral. Because you intended to harm them and withheld information from them that would've affected their decision.
    Jennica likes this.
  8. People bring God into this... Isn't the God of the Bible immoral anyway? Or is it moral to invade a foreign country and wipe out all its popular? That really bugs me about Israel in the OT. If a nation was doing what they did now there would be outrage.

    Another thing is why does God allow church leaders to sexually abuse people in his name? If you've seen the Netflix documentary The Keepers you will know that an abusive Priest said he had to ejaculate on one of the girls for her to be filled with the holy spirit. There was an episode of The Liturgists Podcast where they told a story of a girl would get abused by a church elder as he sang worship songs. I just wonder what was God doing then. We had a thread a few months ago questioning if someone should report an abuser and some were saying it should be reported so the abuser couldn't abuse again. But when it comes to God he doesn't intervene. An abuser singing worshipping songs or saying their act is the filling of the holy spirit isn't just abuse, it's blasphemy. Surely if he could kill Ananias and Sapphira for stealing money from the church he could kill someone for abusing in his name? And if could and doesn't, does that make him immoral? No good parent would let their child be abused but God sits back and just watches? Or is God not powerful enough to do anything?
    Gotham Outlaw likes this.
  9. How do you put them to work then? You didn't say anything about job applications.
  10. sHshSHH...

    YoU'Re gOiNg tO dErAIL tHe THread...

    Joking aside, if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I used to believe in God until I read Numbers. I found it confusing how a being that's supposed to be more moral than I am does things that I would never do to my own children. ( Why would I ever tell my children to kill each other? Why would I ever kill my children? Why would I tell my kids to kill somebody? ) Not only that, but according to the Bible, Moses had to convince God twice to not kill anyone. Why would Moses be more moral than God? :confused: If God dictates what is morally good and evil, why does he break his own principles?

    But yes, that's why not only is using God is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy and is logically irresponsible, it also assumes God is actually moral in the first place.

    I know. My earlier comment will only help further detrail the thread, but uh... hey, you started it. :p
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2018
  11. Bottomofthemap

    Bottomofthemap Fapstronaut

    Take away their internet and video games, and get them off tide pods and dope. Their parents need to crack the whip on them explain that if they don’t work they don’t eat. Once that concept kicks in their will be plenty of job applications.
    Deleted Account and Paperweight like this.
  12. Has anyone read I, Robot?

    It is a bunch of stories about morality as defined by The Three Laws of Robotics.
    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
    3. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    In each short story the robot is more intelligent. The more intelligent the robot becomes the trickier it is to interpret the three laws. What if human A will cause harm to many humans? What if humanity itself is harmful to itself? What is humanity? etc.

    Morality is tricky, even if you're sure of what your fulcrum is. Overpopulation is a problem. Does porn actually help correct that problem? Are some of the "actresses" victims of sex trafficking? Is sex trafficking the result of poverty, indirectly or directly caused by overpopulation, which porn might help to alleviate?

    Does porn help weed out weak genes? Does it also weed out good genes that only have one particular weakness? Porn people make money and then spend it. Is it therefore helpful to the economy? Should we be helping the economy grow given that ultimately, all it does is grow and will eventually destroy the earth?

    I'm not smart enough to solve all that. I try to look at things objectively and as simply as I can. Porn is a phenomenon. It is harmful to me, and indirectly to those in my immediate vicinity. Therefore I change. Others are also in the same boat, so I support the community that is trying to make that same change.

    My point? I don't know. It was good typing practice, anyway.
    Gooding and Deleted Account like this.
  13. The thing is if someone makes a reference to something I feel it's right to say something about what they referencing.:emoji_stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    I was going to ask what book that was but then realised you were talking about Numbers in OT. Yeah, it's a problematic book in regards to Christian morality. I would still say I'm a believer but I have plenty of doubts. A great amount of the commands in OT are disturbing. Rob Bell, Peter Ennis and Greg Boyd have some interesting things to say on this subject but I'm still not sure.

    Someone like Rob Bell would say many of the things God says in the OT are the invention of the writers. There is some historical evidence that may back up that claim. I think the writers of Numbers were more interested in writing their own propaganda rather than giving an actual historical account of
  14. You're just cutting down branches instead of digging up roots. Your posts in this thread seem to indicate you have little understanding of how PMO addiction works. You think everyone who is an addict doesn't work hard? I had a full-time job where I worked 12+ hours a day and 6 days a week on a remote Island but I still looked at porn. Porn was my way of relaxing from a hard day of work. Do you even understand the role pain plays in PMOA?
    boborosso likes this.
  15. Theguywiththething

    Theguywiththething Fapstronaut

    You are making several conclusions that are based on... some preconceived notion of how the world works. Lets talk about the first
    One has to be unemployed to look at porn.
    Working men do not look at porn.
    with the unspoken premise that porn is bad.

    Therefore, your conclusion is that we should lock all these single, horny men on a artificial island together with no sexual outlet... and then what? Sexual frustration is a pretty easy trigger. So is isolation. More likely we get twenty new forced hard mode threads begging us to help them while they are trapped on this theoretical oil rig, and the rest just fap in between their shifts, because hey, there aren't any women on this stupid rig. I mean, I guess your premise doesn't preclude them, but your language does ("porn watching pussies," "Working men.") I also assume you exclude gay men in your "reasoning." Just as well, they are the only ones who are going to be getting some non manual stimulation out there.

    Also, the hole in your reasoning is that working men don't look at porn. I feel like I can very easily disprove that, with some pretty easy interviews on this very site. Working, even long hours and desperately hard labor, is mutually exclusive to pornography consumption. I would even wager that increases such. When you're working 88 hours a week, you don't have time to meet people and masturbation is an easy way to get a dopamine hit so you can go to sleep.

    Your last "point" about millenials being moochers on dope and tide pods made me take umbrage, but given that it sounds reactionary, with no basis in fact, I've decided to ignore it.
  16. There would be outrage because how life is today is different from how life was back then. Taking today’s standards and apply them to an ancient civilization is illogical. The purpose of the actions in acient civilizations deals with tribal wars which would continue for ever if you practiced warfare like we do today.

    Why did God allow His only begotten son to be murderd?
  17. A great point but we should go further. A man who willfully damages himself is still immoral because he hurts himself and those around him. Lack of consent can makes an action immoral when it comes to victims while consent to act in a way which would hurt someone, including yourself, is what makes something immoral when it comes to the perpetrator.

    So in your above situation the man is immoral not only for hurting himself but for hurting his community as well.
    Paperweight likes this.
  18. So an abuse victim is a sacrificial lamb? So we should tell people who are being abused that they should stop complaining and just allow the abuse to happen since Jesus died on a cross?

    You may have a point but it has very little to do with tribal wars. They took the land because their God told them to take the land.
  19. No. What I’m saying is you don’t see the point for why God allows these things but He has a reason that is hidden from your eyes. This is why you need faith! If you didn’t have faith you would have left Christ on the cross and missed His resurrection on Easter Sunday!

    Yes, they took land because God told them to but they took the land from other TRIBES! That’s what makes it tribal warfare! And for those who do not understand how that type of warfare works it goes like this: “Kill the dad but not the child, the child will avenge the slain father when he/she is old enough”. So in this way it’s really an act of mercy on humanity as a whole for them to completely take out the entire tribe rather than have more people die over countless years of fighting.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2018
  20. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Fapstronaut

    in some cases yes, but not in this one because God is the law and moral giver. if you don't believe in God this is immaterial for what we are discussing. If we accepted that say, Coco Chanel was the arbitrator of good taste in clothing in the 1920s, and we were in a argument whether so and so dressed well, and you said yes, and I said, no, look what Coco Chanel said about her.. that would NOT be a logical fallacy.

    Do you understand the difference? And please don't join the long list of people who, ironically, become irrational and crazy by trying to filter everything through these 'laws' of reason, and start to believe that if the whole world just followed those rules, we'd have paradise. (Hint, it has a long, bloody, violent, ugly history).
    Paperweight likes this.

Share This Page