5 ms·

>He argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for children who vie

>He argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for children who view it at an early age. Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence?

jlgreco 14y ago
Technically he could be forming a logical argument with only his personal opinion as backing axiom. It wouldn't be a good argument, but it would technically be an argument. Not that this really matters. Evidence or "GTFO". Even then though that doesn't mean it is a valid plan. I could have all the evidence in the world that sending all men and women to separate prison camps would reduce domestic abuse, but that does not mean such a proposal, correct as it may be, is acceptable. I get that Iceland is their own country with their own laws and standards, but to my American sensibilities this seems to be clearly crossing the line. In other words, you can form a real argument with undisputed facts, but even that is not sufficient.
coldtea 14y ago
>Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence? A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence". I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence. Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the exact opposite. Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white? Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior? Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough -- personal feelings is no evidence. Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women might, or might not, be quantified. But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age" doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of being alive)).
- lovek323 14y ago
  You make a great point. The purpose of law is not to uphold scientific principles, but to reflect and enforce the standards of society.
- nostromo 14y ago
  You should read Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" if you haven't already. He writes convincingly (for me anyway) that moral discussions need not be arbitrary or driven by "gut instinct." Instead he proposes that a scientific approach to morality indeed would make us more moral.
  - lovek323 14y ago
    I am not dismissing Sam Harris' book out of hand (as I haven't read it), but I would be surprised to find his argument that "a scientific approach to morality would make us more moral" convincing. In order for Harris to show that his approach is more moral and to avoid a circular argument, he must have a definition of "moral" that can be proven without science.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      Exactly. I've read major philosophy on the matter (from Hegel and Kierkegaard to modern french theory), and this is a very common point. All our morals stand (and are inherited) from a cultural place outside science and proof. There is nothing scientific to suggest that one should not kill or exploit everyone in his way for his mere gain for example.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  If "easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women" is a "moral standard" that doesn't require evidence rather than a claim of fact that does, then coldtea's access to the internet through throwaway accounts is contributing to the intellectual decline of the Western world. Also, mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay.

jlgreco 14y ago

Technically he could be forming a logical argument with only his personal opinion as backing axiom. It wouldn't be a good argument, but it would technically be an argument. Not that this really matters. Evidence or "GTFO". Even then though that doesn't mean it is a valid plan. I could have all the evidence in the world that sending all men and women to separate prison camps would reduce domestic abuse, but that does not mean such a proposal, correct as it may be, is acceptable. I get that Iceland is their own country with their own laws and standards, but to my American sensibilities this seems to be clearly crossing the line. In other words, you can form a real argument with undisputed facts, but even that is not sufficient.

coldtea 14y ago

>Does he actually argue that, or does he just claim that? Wouldn't an argument come with some sort of evidence? A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence". I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence. Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the exact opposite. Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white? Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior? Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough -- personal feelings is no evidence. Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women might, or might not, be quantified. But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age" doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of being alive)).

lovek323 14y ago
You make a great point. The purpose of law is not to uphold scientific principles, but to reflect and enforce the standards of society.
nostromo 14y ago
You should read Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" if you haven't already. He writes convincingly (for me anyway) that moral discussions need not be arbitrary or driven by "gut instinct." Instead he proposes that a scientific approach to morality indeed would make us more moral.
- lovek323 14y ago
  I am not dismissing Sam Harris' book out of hand (as I haven't read it), but I would be surprised to find his argument that "a scientific approach to morality would make us more moral" convincing. In order for Harris to show that his approach is more moral and to avoid a circular argument, he must have a definition of "moral" that can be proven without science.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    Exactly. I've read major philosophy on the matter (from Hegel and Kierkegaard to modern french theory), and this is a very common point. All our morals stand (and are inherited) from a cultural place outside science and proof. There is nothing scientific to suggest that one should not kill or exploit everyone in his way for his mere gain for example.
pessimizer 14y ago
If "easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women" is a "moral standard" that doesn't require evidence rather than a claim of fact that does, then coldtea's access to the internet through throwaway accounts is contributing to the intellectual decline of the Western world. Also, mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay.