2 ms·

In these discussions, its easy to think about the person harmed by a (known to be) fake video of them having sex. I think it's odd that we purposely ignore the

In these discussions, its easy to think about the person harmed by a (known to be) fake video of them having sex. I think it's odd that we purposely ignore the joy created for the other side of (thousands and millions people). In a utilitarianism view we'd weight these sides in a 1000:1 ratio because of this. I don't think a video that I know and everyone else knows is fake is very harmful. And it's clear that many people get joy out of it. I think it should stay (though it's here to stay regardless of the law).

chug 9y ago
I'm not quite sure you can just hand wave away the harmfulness. It's very possible that a lot of people would feel highly violated by it. It basically takes away your control over your modesty and to an extent even the autonomy of your body. Yes, the videos are fake, but that doesn't change that the entire premise is for people to imagine it's real. I'm much less decided about the legality side of this, but I think the from the moral side, this is pretty hard to defend. Obviously this is taking things a bit to the extreme, but where exactly do you draw the line from a utilitarian perspective? Is a gang rape morally permissible if the perpetrators enjoy it enough to outweigh the victim's suffering? Why should people ever be (morally) allowed to derive their pleasure from another's suffering?