3 ms·

You are equating the happiness of the individuals involved as the basis for determining whether or not the action is moral. Its inherently a hedonistic perspect

You are equating the happiness of the individuals involved as the basis for determining whether or not the action is moral. Its inherently a hedonistic perspective. Of course you can't make a moral claim that prostitution is wrong if you consider the "happiness" of the pimp, prostitute, and john as the highest good involved. Frankly, I'm not sure how you could make many moral claims considered reasonable based on that kind of criteria. Using the same measure you could justify all sorts of abusive situations so long as the exploited is "happy" with their circumstances.

smoldesu 4y ago
I make no moral claim because I don't see a moral axis here. It's equivalent to arguing about the morality of cigarette companies or breweries; our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause. Same goes for selling knives, guns, porno films or sex toys. We can obviously regulate the obscene and dangerous conduct surrounding these things (and we do), but the right to having them is what drives our free market. It's no more exploitative than Apple teasing you with an iPhone 14 event, getting you tech-horny enough to open your wallet come October.
- powerslacker 4y ago
  You are making many moral claims. Your standard for what is moral are all over the place but you just made one: > "...our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause" You've just appealed to a relativistic moral standard. Essentially, because we have a precedent for "freedom" in regards to possession of certain substances or items we as a society are justified in ignoring the detrimental effects of the mentioned items. By that same train of logic, societal reform of any kind is actually a bad thing because you are overturning the existing precedent 0f that society. Its absurd.

smoldesu 4y ago

I make no moral claim because I don't see a moral axis here. It's equivalent to arguing about the morality of cigarette companies or breweries; our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause. Same goes for selling knives, guns, porno films or sex toys. We can obviously regulate the obscene and dangerous conduct surrounding these things (and we do), but the right to having them is what drives our free market. It's no more exploitative than Apple teasing you with an iPhone 14 event, getting you tech-horny enough to open your wallet come October.

powerslacker 4y ago
You are making many moral claims. Your standard for what is moral are all over the place but you just made one: > "...our societal precedent for freedom overrides whatever personal harm it might cause" You've just appealed to a relativistic moral standard. Essentially, because we have a precedent for "freedom" in regards to possession of certain substances or items we as a society are justified in ignoring the detrimental effects of the mentioned items. By that same train of logic, societal reform of any kind is actually a bad thing because you are overturning the existing precedent 0f that society. Its absurd.