3 ms·

To expand on what I take as your implied argument- Some (small) percentage of people are pedophiles, meaning they're attracted to children. Presumably they can'

To expand on what I take as your implied argument- Some (small) percentage of people are pedophiles, meaning they're attracted to children. Presumably they can't help that, just as others can't change their sexual preferences. Clearly acting on this urge with an actual child is wrong. That's true whether it's directly assaulting a child, or consuming child porn, as that market encourages others to exploit children to generate it. However, if it is possible to produce CP without involving actual children, it could provide an outlet for those desires that would reduce demand for actual CP, and thereby reduce incidents of children being abused to produce it. One could argue that such an outlet could even reduce incidents of direct sexual assault of children by pedophiles, but there is also a counter-argument that it would instead serve to "whet the appetite" and encourage such behaviour. And of course there are other counter-arguments; it could make actual CP more difficult to detect, for one. Finally there is the argument from the perspective of fundamental morality, that depicting children in a sexual manner is wrong in and of itself, and therefore the various potential effects are irrelevant. (Much like it's wrong to murder an innocent, even if you could harvest their organs and save five others as a result.)

hackinthebochs 3y ago
It's interesting to notice when utilitarian arguments are accepted and when they're rejected. The argument offered in favor of abortion without limits tends to be that women will get abortions regardless, they will just be dangerous. Presumably the greater good is served by allowing abortions despite the moral issues surrounding killing fetuses/unborn children. I have no trouble imagining many people supporting such a utilitarian argument for abortion but not for generated CP. Though I have a hard time making the distinction intelligible.
stavros 3y ago
That's a good summary, thanks. I think AI-generated will lead to actual child porn not making financial sense (hopefully, anyway). I also don't think that the "whetting the appetite" argument is true, from other areas I've seen (eg playing violent games doesn't lead you to becoming a murderer), but I have no data on that.
DharmaPolice 3y ago
>Finally there is the argument from the perspective of fundamental morality, that depicting children in a sexual manner is wrong in and of itself, and therefore the various potential effects are irrelevant. (Much like it's wrong to murder an innocent, even if you could harvest their organs and save five others as a result.) I don't think those two scenarios are usefully similar. Murder is wrong because of its effects. This would be more like if you could murder someone without _anyone_ dying.
- thegabriele 3y ago
  Murder someone without anyone dying is the plot of many, many videogames since the 80s
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    In the 80s you were "murdering" a handful of pixels. It's really not comparable. Neither In the 90s or 00s even though ever more pixels were involved. I have to say though that this argument starts making a lot more sense with current VR tech. Sometimes it's really disgustingly realistic. While I'm still not in favor of banning violent games, I do think a valid argument is emerging. I've never truly had a feel of fright playing on a 2d screen but since VR the spiders headcrabs of Half Life Alyx really make me panic sometimes. On the csam side I'm just not sure if this would diminish or increase their interest. I would leave that up to someone who studied for this kind of insight.

hackinthebochs 3y ago

It's interesting to notice when utilitarian arguments are accepted and when they're rejected. The argument offered in favor of abortion without limits tends to be that women will get abortions regardless, they will just be dangerous. Presumably the greater good is served by allowing abortions despite the moral issues surrounding killing fetuses/unborn children. I have no trouble imagining many people supporting such a utilitarian argument for abortion but not for generated CP. Though I have a hard time making the distinction intelligible.

stavros 3y ago

That's a good summary, thanks. I think AI-generated will lead to actual child porn not making financial sense (hopefully, anyway). I also don't think that the "whetting the appetite" argument is true, from other areas I've seen (eg playing violent games doesn't lead you to becoming a murderer), but I have no data on that.

DharmaPolice 3y ago

>Finally there is the argument from the perspective of fundamental morality, that depicting children in a sexual manner is wrong in and of itself, and therefore the various potential effects are irrelevant. (Much like it's wrong to murder an innocent, even if you could harvest their organs and save five others as a result.) I don't think those two scenarios are usefully similar. Murder is wrong because of its effects. This would be more like if you could murder someone without _anyone_ dying.

thegabriele 3y ago
Murder someone without anyone dying is the plot of many, many videogames since the 80s
- wkat4242 3y ago
  In the 80s you were "murdering" a handful of pixels. It's really not comparable. Neither In the 90s or 00s even though ever more pixels were involved. I have to say though that this argument starts making a lot more sense with current VR tech. Sometimes it's really disgustingly realistic. While I'm still not in favor of banning violent games, I do think a valid argument is emerging. I've never truly had a feel of fright playing on a 2d screen but since VR the spiders headcrabs of Half Life Alyx really make me panic sometimes. On the csam side I'm just not sure if this would diminish or increase their interest. I would leave that up to someone who studied for this kind of insight.