Morally obliged not to be degraded?

Forums: Philosophy, Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A remark by David Henry in the pornography thread raised an issue that, I think, deserves to be considered on its own.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that pornography* is universally considered to be "degrading," in that the persons depicted in the pornography (i.e. the actors and the models), the persons viewing the pornography, and the persons who are only indirectly affected by it are all, in some way or another, "degraded" -- that is, they are not only adversely affect their own status as moral beings, but they, in a very real sense, bring down the status of humanity in general. Furthermore, we can assume that such degradation constitutes a genuine harm.

Now, even if we adhere to a moral code that gives wide latitude to individual choices that do not harm others, the foregoing posits that the actions of those persons depicted in pornography (we'll ignore the consumers and those only tangentially affected) do not solely affect the actors/models. Given that their actions have effects on others, are they morally obligated to stop participating in pornography. In other words, is a person under a moral obligation to others to refrain from being "degraded?"

*Pornography is used here only as a convenient example. One can substitute any other degrading form of entertainment or spectacle: circus freak shows, "reality" TV shows, American politics, etc.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,647 • Replies: 68

No top replies

Oiy vey! What a can o' worms. I gotta think on this one.. :p

0 Replies

This would work better if you could find a universally applied example in real life, which I do not think you can do. The closest I can think of is sibling incest and not even that rule is universally applied, although it comes close. There in lies the problem of your question for if there were a universal definition of pornography and it were universally considered degrading there would be be no pornography. It is variation in definition and perception that makes those kinds of actions possible.

0 Replies

I had the same thought Acquiunk but I'm trying to just let the "Universal" part slide and work through on the 2nd part of the posit.

Quote:

Now, even if we adhere to a moral code that gives wide latitude to individual choices that do not harm others, the foregoing posits that the actions of those persons depicted in pornography (we'll ignore the consumers and those only tangentially affected) do not solely affect the actors/models. Given that their actions have effects on others, are they morally obligated to stop participating in pornography. In other words, is a person under a moral obligation to others to refrain from being "degraded?"

I think I'd have to split this in two. If a person knows that their acts would have a harmful effect on another person then, yes, they have a moral obligation not to degrade themselves.

I see this as being similar to me going out in my back yard and pouring dangerous chemicals into the ground. Hey, I'm moving right? What do I care? I won't be living there by the time the well is polluted and I don't drink from my neighbors tap anyway. But i know that it could easily have a negative effect on someone else so my doing so would be immoral.

But if the person does something that they honestly thinks is moral and there is evidence that it won't have any negative effect on anyone else then they have no moral obligation not to do it even if the act is questionable (assuming we aren't getting into illegal activites which would bring in the whole issue of moral vs. illegal.).

0 Replies

Acquiunk: I see no contradiction in saying that something is universally considered "degrading" and yet admitting that it nevertheless happens. Certainly, there are people who want to be humiliated, precisely because they view it as a form of degradation, just as there are those who would willingly inflict that degradation on others. Thus, even if porn (or freak shows or "Survivor" or the Republican national convention or whatever) is universally considered "degrading," that doesn't mean that it is thereby inconceivable.

fishin': Yes, we can assume, for our purposes here, that we are dealing strictly with an activity that is unquestionably legal.

0 Replies

But it's real - just think about entropy and the world being constantly degraded.
The industry that is polluting our air is degrading humanity and I wish they'd stop! The same for commercials : stupid, misleading commercials are degrading and there should be a communal interest to ban them!

As for pornography, ahem, I don't think that's really degrading Smile

Relative

0 Replies

Universal means just that, a rule or perception that everyone shares. If is to be assumed thats some people want to be humiliated because the act is degrading it is also possible to assume that some people simply think it is fun, or a form of self expression ,or simply a job, or a form of emotional release. In that case I would argue that there is no moral obligation not to engage in pornographic acts because while some people may feel offended and degraded, other may feel quite the opposite and willingly engage in some aspect of the process (production or consumption). It this case the responses to the action must be ranked, that is one is more desirable than the other, and then that ranking imposed on others.

0 Replies

Degredation is a personal thing - nothing can degrade you without your consent, nothing can be offensive to you or bother you or scare you without your consent. The degredation is a problem with the veiwer, not with the material.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

It this case the responses to the action must be ranked, that is one is more desirable than the other, and then that ranking imposed on others.

How do you determine what rank to assign to which values? For instance, are we to assign a higher value to the independent decisions of the actors/models, simply because it is their choice to be depicted in a degrading fashion?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Degredation is a personal thing - nothing can degrade you without your consent, nothing can be offensive to you or bother you or scare you without your consent.

Nothing can degrade you without your consent? What on earth does that mean?

rufio wrote:

The degredation is a problem with the veiwer, not with the material.

To the extent that the material is never viewed by anyone, I suppose this is correct. But it is correct in only the most trivial sense. And since we're not dealing here with "invisible" pornography, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

How do you determine what rank to assign to which values? For instance, are we to assign a higher value to the independent decisions of the actors/models, simply because it is their choice to be depicted in a degrading fashion?

You first must decouple the "choice" to engage in an action and the value "degrading" assigned to it. Some who chose to engage may find the action degrading but do it anyway, others may not and assign other values. Some who view the action may assign the value degrading and others may not. The question then become how are these possible values (in this simplistic analysis) to be ranked? That is what politics (in the broadest sense) is all about and in the example we are using there is no clear prediction of how they would be ranked and which would prevail. That is a social process which includes both the numbers of people assigning a particular value, the intensity, focus and organization of a particular group, status and power.

0 Replies

Following on from my point on the "moral relativism thread" I would argue that in as much that the producers of "pornography" are deemed to indulge in actions that may harm others, there is a moral obligation for them to desist. Such "harm" cannot be evaluated by recourse to the concept of "degredation" except where subsequent behaviour of viewers degradesthe stability of relationships or the rights of individuals. The "evidence" could be go either way !

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

... in as much that the producers of "pornography" are deemed to indulge in actions that may harm others,

Who is to make that decision? In complex cultures and societies that reflect the western world at the moment, everybody is offended by something done by others. I am on a university campus and there are a fair number of female middle eastern students who walk around fully draped (abyah's) because the female form is thought to be too alluring for the "less inhibited" male. Am I to be offended by this "slur" on my character and demand that they dress in the same revealing manner of most American coeds?

0 Replies

Aqualink

No. I am arguing that what you or they "think" is irrelevant. All that matters is subsequent "action".

0 Replies

Joe, degradation is something that requires an interpreter. Things are not degrading on their own. They are not degrading unless there is someone to feel degraded. The reason that the person feels degraded has nothing to do with the porn.

0 Replies

No man is an Island. All of our actions, if you trace the ripples far enough, will affect everyone. I say if you are not getting directly splashed, mind your own business.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

You first must decouple the "choice" to engage in an action and the value "degrading" assigned to it. Some who chose to engage may find the action degrading but do it anyway, others may not and assign other values. Some who view the action may assign the value degrading and others may not. The question then become how are these possible values (in this simplistic analysis) to be ranked? That is what politics (in the broadest sense) is all about and in the example we are using there is no clear prediction of how they would be ranked and which would prevail. That is a social process which includes both the numbers of people assigning a particular value, the intensity, focus and organization of a particular group, status and power.

So, in other words, you don't know.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Following on from my point on the "moral relativism thread" I would argue that in as much that the producers of "pornography" are deemed to indulge in actions that may harm others, there is a moral obligation for them to desist. Such "harm" cannot be evaluated by recourse to the concept of "degredation" except where subsequent behaviour of viewers degradesthe stability of relationships or the rights of individuals. The "evidence" could be go either way !

"Degrades the stability of relationships or the rights of individuals?" I'm not sure I understand your definition, fresco, and I'm pretty sure I don't share it. As I see it, "degradation" is a state of debasement or humiliation. To the extent that one person's degradation affects someone else, it does so by bringing the community or all of humanity into the same state.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Joe, degradation is something that requires an interpreter. Things are not degrading on their own. They are not degrading unless there is someone to feel degraded. The reason that the person feels degraded has nothing to do with the porn.

Insofar as one must interpret anything non-physical for it have any effect, I agree. But then that's not saying anything particularly new or interesting.

For instance, to the same extent that "one cannot be degraded without one's consent," we could also say, with equal justification, that "one cannot be kidnapped without one's consent." For surely the only thing that makes a kidnapping a kidnapping is the victim's unwillingness to go along with the kidnappers. If the victim agreed to accompany the kidnappers willingly, however, there would be no kidnapping. Thus, according to your reasoning, rufio, kidnapping relies on the victim's consent, and so it follows that no one can be kidnapped without their consent.

I must say, this is a rather idiosyncratic view of consent, but I suppose a case can be made for it. Nevertheless, it is as jejeune as it is true. "Degradation" requires an interpreter just as much as kidnapping does, yet we still consider kidnapping to be immoral.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

No man is an Island. All of our actions, if you trace the ripples far enough, will affect everyone. I say if you are not getting directly splashed, mind your own business.

In the context of the hypothetical that I posed, what constitutes "getting directly splashed?"

0 Replies

Morally obliged not to be degraded?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know