Is pornography immoral?

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

  1. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    I'm not sure what you mean, could you give an example?

    Yes and no, depends on the context. Ultimately one could argue that there is no such thing as purpose, merely existence, and I can't argue against that with logic alone, I just think it's a philosophy that leads to early extinction, and my morality stems from survival.

    I prefer the word "purpose" in this context because "function" could mean "the way something is in fact functioning", and I'm saying that if something is currently functioning so as to decrease the odds of survival, we may say that it's current function is contradicting it's purpose. I choose to regard survival as the ultimate source of purpose.

    Survival. Beyond that, surviving well, flourishing, but that is more subjective, survival is the objective underpinning of this.

    I made the case to you previously that pornography lacks certain redeeming qualities of alcohol, namely social and cultural assets.

    Yes, if the government has any value to society, it is in protecting society from harm. At the very least, those in government should have moral compasses guided by the long-term interests of the society. They should also be intelligent enough to understand the harmful effects of pornography on society and include that as one factor in relevant policy decisions.
  2. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    I have several examples. For one, we could ask about whether or not morality exists when divorced from human life i.e. are there objective moral truths or is morality subjective? Assuming the former, we could ask whether moral truths are determined via consequentialism (like a utilitarian calculus), via universal deontological principles (like 'lying is always wrong'), or via virtue ethics. We can discuss these matters without assuming a particular context for them to take place in.

    In this case, you're saying that the function of a thing is not the same as that thing's purpose. If you believe that the purpose of a living thing is to survive, but that it might not function that way, then how did you determine that its purpose was to survive in the first place?
    Gooding and Paperweight like this.
  3. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    I don't understand how morality can be considered apart from human life, unless we talk about the morality of other species. Morality asks the question of what actions are right and wrong, and those actions invariably exist within the greater context of some kind of society, whether or not we specify exactly what that society is, my answer will remain "what is bad for the society should be deemed immoral".

    One way I can think of artificially divorcing morality from society is in some thought experiment where we imagine a man created from scratch in total isolation on the other side of the universe so that he has no connection to, history with, or even descent from life on Earth. Granted that his actions cannot possibly affect anyone but himself, that he exists truly independently of community, and that he cannot even reproduce: can his actions be said to be moral or immoral?

    Is this the kind of thing you mean by divorcing morality from context (context=community in my mind).

    This reminds me of something @Chris said earlier in the thread:
    What is the purpose of a blind man's eyes? The purpose of his having eyes is in order that he may see (to aid his survival), they are not functioning to serve their purpose.
  4. Ridley

    Ridley Fapstronaut

    I think that's a really interesting question, and I don't think the answer is obvious. If you believe in virtue ethics, then yes, his actions could be considered moral or immoral. One can exhibit certain virtues (such as strength, courage, patience, etc.) without being an active member of society. I'm not implying that virtue ethics is the correct analysis of morality, but my point is that there are some interpretations of morality that do not require the context of a society to make sense. Perhaps you believe the fact that virtue ethics is consistent without the context of a society is an argument for rejecting virtue ethics as a proper analysis for morality, and I can understand that position, but my point is just that there are useful interpretations of morality (whether they're valid or not) under which we can describe this artificial man's actions as moral or immoral, and we can certainly consider them and discuss them.

    How would you have discovered that this was the purpose of his eyes without first knowing the function of a pair of eyes that can see? You're not defining the purpose of the eye in terms of the function of the blind man's eyes, but you're still defining it in terms of the function of other eyes (particularly, ones that can see). What made you decide to define the purpose of the eye based on the ones that can see rather than the ones that cannot?
  5. Beingpure

    Beingpure Fapstronaut

    LiquidShoes Pornstars might be mistreated, yes, but as far as I know, no one forced them to become a pornstar, now did they?
    As far as I am concerned, some porn stars are forced to do the job.They are controlled by the gangsters with drugs and violence.And some children actresses maybe seduced.
  6. This is slavery.
  7. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    I don't deny that. I think my example of the blind man demonstrates a possible contradiction between function and purpose, in answer to your earlier question. This contradiction is why I may prefer the word purpose in a context where you prefer the word function, I don't care to defend this preference to the death.

    With as little bias towards our own morality as I can muster, I look at humanity and ask what evolutionary purpose morality serves, what selection pressures shaped its evolution. I come to the conclusion that it exists not for the preservation of individuals, but for the preservation of communities, often at the expense of individual interest. Therefore, I believe that any system of morality, regardless of its own rationale, will only survive if it proves to sufficiently serve the interest of a community.

    Evolution is never perfect or final, and there will always be harmful mutations and vestiges present, but the fundamental truth about any product of evolution is that it satisfies a very basic condition of nature. If nature is in the eternal process of eradicating anything which ceases to meet this condition, then I may as well consider any moral value that I regard as detrimental to community preservation (which is the vehicle of its own survival) to be defunct, a dead-end. My opinion is just opinion, nature is the true arbiter. What's my favourite biblical quote?

    "The wages of sin is death."

    That moral system which describes evolutionarily beneficial behaviours as moral, and harmful behaviours as immoral, simply out lives that moral system which gets it backwards. That's why we should not be quick to reject traditional wisdom out of hand, simply because we no longer agree with its rationale. There may be no God, but a sin is still a sin, and the wages no less.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
    Deleted Account likes this.
  8. Bottomofthemap

    Bottomofthemap Fapstronaut

    Nope!!! It’s parents slapping the tide pod out of their children’s mouth, and saying look you don’t work you don’t eat. Get off the internet get off the couch and go to work.
    Paperweight likes this.
  9. Anybody who argues that porn performers consent and choose their job, most of them probably do. But many do not and are exploited. So if you you watch porn you are supporting exploitation, which is obviously immoral.

    Fight the new drug had a lot of articles about it.
  10. @Paperweight I thought you were just going to beat people with hessian sacks full of door knobs if they disagreed with you.
    Paperweight likes this.
  11. NoBrainer

    NoBrainer Distinguished Fapstronaut

    Maybe I'm going out on a limb here. I don't think it's immoral, though I don't have a big moral conscience.
  12. Well, you are a decent bloke @NoBrainer (IMHO). When you were a moderator here for well over a year, I got the impression that most people found you acted fairly and sensitively. I think that demonstrates a morality of sorts. You certainly have a clear understanding of right and wrong. I do not think the judgements you make in your life are amoral. I think you live your life by certain principles - so they would be your morals - yeah?

    In view of my eulogy, lol, why do your instincts tell you that porn is not immoral. Can you explain or quantify that mate?
  13. Live life

    Live life Fapstronaut

    Hey everyone who has quit porn knows why it is immoral.I will say my reasons.

    First what do you gain by seeing pornography?Just a false pleasure. Isn't it right. We are giving tons of our time to just a false pleasure. It makes you an addict and takes you to zero.Just think what if you concentrate on a game or skill if you had spent the time in it during the Time and energy spent in porn. I bet that you will get an international recognition If u did it with that vigour.

    Secondly, Its practically immoral. Have you ever seen a guy with normal life who has got addicted to pornography. He lusts everyone and EVERYTHING. It may be a doll or real women. Just guess at least 15% people in world are addicted to porn in world(heavily). How many have them passed infront of your mom or sister wife or daughter. Can you guarantee that they didn't lust them. This means you had been encouraging these boys to lust you family. Lust doesn't sees who is on the other side. It just happens to a person addicted to porn.

    Thirdly, how many deaths have been occurrd in pornography till date? Aren't we responsible(at least a percent) for them. What you say to death of august ames? Arent we responsible for it? Think brother think.

    I won't encouage the industry that kills humanity,that lusts my family, which kills people around the world , not even a second i cant spend my time on porn....
  14. What if the solution to the physical survival of the community requires that some of the community be killed due to a lack of natural resources? Would this killing of innocent lives then be moral?

    A lot of what you’re saying I agree with, however if you believe the source of morality comes from the physical universe, meaning its source isn’t from a spiritual entity, then you’re going to fall into the moral conundrum of “the ends justify the means”? Which in the above situation is debatable. If we take evolution as being the arbiter of morality then yes the killing of innocents to ensure the survival of the community is “moral”; however, if we dont believe this killing would be moral then the arbiter of morality would need to transcend the physical reality and be spiritual in nature since morality would have to deal with the life of the soul rather than just the life of the body.

    “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”—Mark 8:36

    Edit: Also if there is no God then there can be no sin, and if there is no sin then there is no evil. We wouldn’t judge the actions of men as being evil just like how we do not assign morality to animals in nature; chimps who kill each other are not considered evil. Animals that eat their young are not considered evil. Animals that forcefully take over their mates are not considered rapists.

    If nature was the arbiter of morality then there would be none hence why so many humans look towards nature to justify their own actions.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2018
    Paperweight likes this.
  15. NoBrainer

    NoBrainer Distinguished Fapstronaut

    I don't know. I just prefer the simplicity of the nihilistic argument I guess. ;)
  16. Hmm, I had to look that up. Apparently, "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." Is that how you view you life and the world around you? Well, fuck me! I never knew you. o_O
  17. Paperweight

    Paperweight Fapstronaut

    I wonder exactly what I've said that you agree with?

    I'm explaining where I believe morality comes from. I don't believe in God, but I believe there are clear utilitarian purposes for our conception of Him. God is a proxy for community and His immutable law calls those activities which harm the community "sin" (people don't have to understand how sins actually harm the community, mere obedience to the law is simple and efficient). If people obey His laws, the community flourishes, if not it withers, if there exists a more powerful religion with a stronger God, His law may succeed the old in time. We've seen Gods come and go.

    I'm not saying that a scientific view of morality is functionally superior to dogma, it isn't, it's vastly inferior. But if people are going to tear up religious dogma and call themselves "thinking men of science" they should consider the science of morality and the evolutionary pressures promoting religious practices.

    The greatest drawback of the internet, emojis are a poor substitute for a good
    knobbing, knob-sacking
    door-knobbing. Take this! :emoji_field_hockey:
  18. A great set of questions and some great answers and comments. Here I'll try and address the first three.

    I actually got to nofap after watching the documentary 'Hot Girls Wanted.' This looks at some of the youngsters who get lured into the so called Amateur Porn industry. These girls, few of them much over 18, get free tickets from small towns in the USA to come to Miami and 'try and make it big' in the porn industry.

    These kids are at the age where sex is great fun and they imagine they are going to be paid big money to have fun.They get paid about $500 to be shot giving a blow job or having sex and there's a sliding scale depending how extreme the act is. Out of this they have to cover all expenses, clothes, hair and makeup and other extras. One girl started off saying how she wasn't on birthcontrol because normally they want to shoot cum on body or whatever. Subsequently when the 'director' persuaded her to do a creampie scene she had to pay $50 for a Plan B morning after pill.

    Sexual related health problems caused by extreme acts are also quite common and, of course, expensive.

    During the movie we learn that most of these kids have careers of about three months maximum. Then they have the choice to go home or find alternative work. Many seem to end up in prostitution or massage parlours.

    I'm also inclined to think that free porn, like the stuff those amateurs are making, is actually a gateway to a bigger money spinner, Web Cam girls. As we've heard addiction leads to a desire for more simulation and all the free sites give links to Cam girls.

    Of course, such exploitation of sex workers is not new. Nor is the predisposition of capitalism to normalise dangerous, addictive products. So, to those first questions I'd answer YES.

    To these questions I'd have to answer NO. Man must be allowed free will. Even if he endangers himself.

    If the production of porn was criminalised, or one might say de-normalised, its consumption would be viewed differently. But if porn production was stopped tomorrow there is enough material circulating to keep the websites going for years.

    But the problem most of the members on NOFAP have is addiction.

    What needs to be recognised is the addictive nature of porn and then humans with intelligence and freewill can find ways of dealing with it. I regret to say that it took me over 50 years to work it out but watching the movie 'Hot Girls Wanted' made me start looking at the topic and finally seeing it as a problem of addiction.
  19. jordan0

    jordan0 New Fapstronaut

  20. solsticeboy

    solsticeboy Fapstronaut

    This is just the kind of toxic masculinity that assumes that people who watch porn and play video games while with their parents (maybe they're in high school, are recovering from physical or mental trauma OR are trying to gain an upper hand financially for their future)...are losers. It's complete bullshit.

    Now that's not to say there are healthier ways to improve one's confidence, self esteem and validation - working on an oil rig for a long stretch would be a way to do that perhaps if the person's a right fit. I know I probably wouldn't be - and yet you consider people who don't fit that standard to be "pussies." A real man doesn't care how others define or label him because he's comfortable with his own definition as long as it's sustaining and striving for self improvement.

    Who are you to judge, troll?

Share This Page