Is it wrong to view child pornography?

How does it reward the producer? The number at the bottom of his web page which counts the number of visitors, will go up by 1. Not much of a reward, is it?

Quote:

That's rather like saying that it is ethically better to receive stolen goods as a gift than to pay for them.

Yes, I agree with that statement.

Yes. But in the case of free porn accessed without contacting the supplier, the supplier is not rewarded.

In the same fashion, a producer of child porn who makes his product available for free to others must be getting some sort of benefit from his generosity, even if it is only a few clicks on his website's visitor counter. Is that worth it to him? Well, if the website owner has advertising on his webpage, then the number of hits may yield some financial reward.

Or he may just get some psychic benefit from having people view his website and download his porn. Whatever the reason, I think it's safe to say that he must be getting some sort of benefit or else he wouldn't be doing it.

Quote:

That's rather like saying that it is ethically better to receive stolen goods as a gift than to pay for them.

Yes, I agree with that statement.

I don't feel the need to pursue this particular issue any further, since you now admit that the mere act of viewing child porn is immoral -- at least to the extent that the porn depicts actual children.

agrote. You have an interesting way to rationalize wrong-doing; just because the victim doesn't know his property was stolen doesn't make it a victimless crime. The burglar should know what's right and wrong; it doesn't matter the reasons why there might be circumstances when it's okay to steal.

"I can get my jolly's from someone elses wrong doing, and I don't hurt a child for doing it this way...therefore I am fine"

By the way, the subconscious mind can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. It also can't tell the difference between right and wrong.

As for the point - depends what you are referring to : If you are referring to how you justify everything to yourself (a rather human trait in all of us), then that is patently obvious.

If you are referring to the subconscious mind, then there is no point except how the subconscious mind works...though the extension of that as it applies to 'just viewing child pornography' etc should be self evident.

In my view, unconscious thoughts, desires, beliefs etc. are just mental states that one is not aware of at a given time. Unconscious thoughts carry content about what is right or wrong, real or imaginary, just as conscious thoughts do. I don't see what consciousness, as I understand it, has to do with the ethics of viewing child porn.

What's the difference between "justifying everything to yourself" and providing arguments for your position, which you subject to the scrutiny of others, and modify according to whether it can withstand objection?

I don't know whether you've noticed, but I've changed my mind to quite a large extent in the light of Robert's comments about the right to privacy - an issue which nobody else seems to habe raised. I'm not as biased or close-minded as you think: I can be convinced by people who take the trouble to provide convincing arguments.

I wasn't talking about unconscious thoughts, but the unconscious/subconscious mind.

I would think that people haven't mentioned the right to privacy because comparatively it is such an insignificant issue besides the one of 'why would you want to view child pornagraphy'.

Bella Dea wrote:

Gross.

Good argument.

agrote wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

Gross.

Good argument.

Not an argument, genius. An observation.

If the stolen item isn't missed, the theft is a victimless crime.

Remember that the psychic benefit needs to be so great that the supplier is inclined to go out and rape more defenceless children, obviously harming them, but also putting himself at a serious risk of going to prison for the rest of his life. I don't think a few hits on a website would do that. Yes he must be getting some sort of benefit, but I don't think it's what makes him rape kids on camera.

agrote wrote:

If the stolen item isn't missed, the theft is a victimless crime.

So if I see a blind man begging on the street and I take some of the money he's received out of his hat without him noticing it's a victimless crime?

Bella Dea wrote:

agrote wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

Gross.

Good argument.

Not an argument, genius. An observation.

An observation of what? Grossness? I don't think grossness is a real property. I think it's in the eye (or the stomach) of the beholder. This is an expression, not an observation.

You have misconstrued my argument so thoroughly that I can only conclude that you've done it on purpose. Surely no one could misunderstand it so completely by accident.

You wanted to know what benefit would accrue to someone giving away child porn.

You now come back and say that the benefit "needs to be so great that the supplier is inclined to go out and rape more defenseless children."

As I have mentioned previously, however, I won't address your attempts to rationalize the viewing of pornographic images of actual children because you now agree with me that viewing such images is wrong.