Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <899@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 09:17:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.899
Posted: Thu Sep 26 09:17:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 05:58:40 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.women:7552 net.motss:2106 net.flame:12086

In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes:
>--
>[I said]
>>> ... legal rights come from
>>> moral rights ... And thus legal responsibilities,
>>> which seem not to exist w/r/t porn, but certainly ought to,
>>> derive from moral responsibilities.  Responsibility is not
>>> proscription. 
>
>> I disagree.  Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective
>> and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a
>> heterogeneous society.  The law thus form a "barebones" moral
>> framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own,
>> presumably more restrictive moral codes.  It is necessary in a
>> free society that the law not be restrictive of individual
>> morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e.  my
>> morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws
>> in order to prevent chaos.)
>
>> In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the
>> social order is threatened by the continued availability of
>> pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was
>> unavailable. 
>
>I agree with your logic, but not your premise.  Morality is not
>necessarily subjective.   For instance, I know perfectly well
>that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder.  In fact, I'll
>bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought
>his acts were moral.  Which is not the same as "acceptable",
>"defensible", or a host of other excuses.  Please don't confuse
>immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered.
>
>Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps.
>   I believe that
>*some* pornographers bear *some* moral responsibility for *some* crimes
>committed against women.

If you want to say the morals are universal, then you can't claim that
pornography (by virtue of being pornography) is immoral, because some
of us out here don't think it is immoral. Either you're going to have
to stick by your morals-are-universal argument and enhance  it by showing
that we ALL think pornography is immoral, or try a different tack.

I actually think this notion of morals being universal and somehow
distinct from ill-mannered and ill-whatever is silly. It seems to
imply that morals is a well-defined category that exits in Nature,
rather than a construct we humans have set up to for the convenience
of describing our own behavior and experiences.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com