Is it morally wrong to make/show/watch pornography?
Utilitarian analysis
Consider potential harms and benefits to:
participants - consenting and nonconsenting
consent: does economic
pressure invalidate consent?
nonconsenting: children,
unwitting participants, coerced participants
viewers - consenting and nonconsenting (children,
accidental viewers)
third parties - all women, women victimized, society
in general
issue of causal relationship
between pornography/victimization
harm through reinforcement
of attitudes
Utilitarian analysis depends on empirical evidence of harm
Kantian analysis
Treatment of persons as mere sex objects is wrong; person treated as
mere means to the ends of others
Does depiction of persons as mere sex objects violate
Kantian proscriptions?
Treatment of women as sex objects arguably worse than treatment of
men in same way because of historical context of such treatment (asymmetry
argument)
Censorship
Harm principle: does pornography involve a direct harm to others
that violates their rights?
Mill would discount harms to third parties, such
as increased incidence of rape, because there is an intervening act that
can be prohibited
Issue will be whether persons (or specific classes
of persons) have a right not to be depicted as mere sex objects
Offense principle: Affects nonconsenting viewers. Regulation,
not prohibition, is likely solution.
Paternalism: Case for restricting pornography for good of consenting
viewers/participants is weak. Factors favoring paternalistic intervention:
irrational/impulsive actor, grave risk of serious harm, and minimal restriction
of liberty.
Free speech argument:
Does pornography present ideas?
If not, then arguments based on reaching truth are
inapplicable
Note feminist case against pornography depends on
its presenting ideas
Mill: if problem is presenting of false ideas,
cure is more speech
Consider value of ideas to presenter: do makers of pornography value it for self-expression, or is it purely instrumental?