gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/01/70)
-- [I said, in response to Frank Silvermann] > > Sorry, you can't simply define away the problem [porn]. The fact is > > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > > pornographers responsible for their actions. [Evelyn Leeper] > Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists > who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect? > > Evelyn C. Leeper Sorry for the oversimplification. First off, there's a difference between having status to sue and expecting to collect. Second, having status to sue (in US law, anyway) is predicated on the notion of real (i.e., monetary or reducable thereto) damages. It's not a matter of feeling one is defamed--you have to be able to show how you, personally (or as a class, I suppose), were materially wronged. Some types of published material are already subject to such law. Who was it (Liz Taylor?) who took the National Enquirer to the cleaners? This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". (It's under- standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.) 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 personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, libelous. I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights, my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any analogous responsibilities. I thought that ethical egoism (the notion that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101. Now, these folks have almost no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they don't know. Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it false. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 17 Sep 85 [1ier Jour Sans-culottide An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/04/85)
In article <691@rduxb.UUCP> sja@rduxb.UUCP (Sam J. Anastasio) writes: >> > > Subject: DON'T TRY TO BAN PORNOGRAPHY!! IT WON'T WORK!! >> > I whole-heartedly AGREE!! >> Just to balance things out, I disagree. >NOT JUST TO UNBALANCE THINGS: I A G R E E (no ban man!!!) Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. Frank Silbermann
scott@scirtp.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (09/06/85)
> o o o Pornography is any literature > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression and > defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > Frank Silbermann That helps a lot !! The definition of 'pruriant (sp?)' interest has been debated in the courts for 30 years and is still controversial. Solve that and you'll have a definition of pornography. (the above comment was not intended to imply that UNC , where Frank works/studies , does not have the best basketball team in the world) -- Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC The views represented may or may not be those of my employer.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/07/85)
>> o o o Pornography is any literature >> or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual >> excitement, i.e. designed to appeal to the prurient interest. >> Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. >> Frank Silbermann: >That helps a lot !! The definition of 'prurient interest' has been debated >in the courts for 30 years and is still controversial. >Solve that and you'll have a definition of pornography. > Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp > SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC I don't pretend to be able to deliniate between what is and what is not obscene. My point is merely this: The feminist claim that pornography is by definition insulting and degrading to women is ridiculous. Indeed, "erotica" _IS_ pornography (not that I'm necessarily against it). Frank Silbermann
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/13/85)
-- > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the > definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest. Oppression > and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > Frank Silbermann Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem. The fact is that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make pornographers responsible for their actions. I claim that, although you have--and ought to have--the right to stand on a soap-box and exhort all who will listen to beat me up, that I ought to have some legal redress (such as civil suit) against you for your responsibility (admittedly small) in that action should I come to any harm from said mob. Do you have any responsibility in such an instance? Let a jury decide. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 13 Sep 85 [27 Fructidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/17/85)
> What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > pornographers responsible for their actions. No, it is a method to try to make pornographers responsible for the actions of people who consume their products. Thus tending to absolve those people of their true responsibility for their own actions. Just one of the many problems with pornography bans. Jeff Winslow "Why do you hate the Socratic method?"
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/21/85)
> Ken Perlow: > This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn > leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes > from", as in "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. Clearly, we must define what pornography is before we can talk about its putative threat to society. I believe that task is up to those who wish to ban. I don't believe morality is part of this debate at all. > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class of persons. You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant, or whatever, but libelous does not apply Marcel Simon
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (09/21/85)
> > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the > > definition of the word, "pornography". Pornography is any literature > > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement > > ... Oppression and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue. > > > > Frank Silbermann > Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem. The fact is > that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does > "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize > their oppression. What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify > the definition of the word is simply one method to try to make > pornographers responsible for their actions. > > ken perlow Oh, does this mean that men who feel they are defamed by feminists who claim "all men are rapists" can sue them and expect to collect? Thank goodness! For a moment there, I thought that there was (gasp!) discrimination going on. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Ken Perlow] > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. ------ Ken, could you please tell us why you think so. I'm seriously interested. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/22/85)
> > This "leads to" argument, as in "putting any restrictions on porn > leads to censorship", is bogus. There is no "leads to", only "comes > from", as in "legal rights come from moral rights". (It's under- > standable, of course, how hackers might not see this.) 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. "There is no 'leads to', only 'comes from'"? While I might agree that the "leads to" argument has holes in it, I can't believe that there is no such thing as cause and effect. What's more, it's hard for me to see how you don't believe it either. I think you made this statement only because it was an effective antecedent for the rest of your argument. Pardon me if I find this dishonest. > I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a better term, > libelous. I'm appalled at how many net-folks scream "my rights, > my rights..." ad nauseam, but have no concept that they might have any > analogous responsibilities. I thought that ethical egoism (the notion > that I ought to do what's best for me, period) was provably morally > bankrupt by the 2nd week of philo. 101. Now, these folks have almost > no legal responsibilities, though they piss and moan about even > those few, but they do have moral responsibilities--even to people they > don't know. Fortunately for the ethical deontologist, 10,000 angry > hackers shouting "Well that's just your opinion!" does not make it > false. > -- > ken perlow ***** ***** I am not only against censorship of pornography, I am also against censorship of Nazi hate literature, even though I am Jewish. Please explain to me why I should not find the above argument insulting. One of type of argument commonly used in favor of censorship of pornography goes something like this: "Pornography portrays women in a degrading manner, thus encouraging misogynistic attitudes. These attitudes harm women and society as a whole. Therefore, pornography should be banned, so that people's attitudes towards women might improve." I find this form of argument arrogant. It contains the attitude that no one should be allowed to believe that which I know to be false, and that I have the right to use coercive means to prevent this. There is always the seed of a possibility that one could be wrong. I would like to see the people who advocate a ban on pornography admit this. I agree that the portrayal of women in a degrading manner is immoral (although we might disagree on how much most pornography degrades women), but I don't agree that anyone has the right to ban any sort of expression he or she thinks can lead to attitudes or beliefs that are dangerous. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/24/85)
-- [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. Why the hell else even bother to have ethical principles? You can keep your own personal code of conduct in your diary. Now, if our ideas of what is moral clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't call a cop. There are no Morals Police. [Me again] >> I personally believe that a lot of porn is, for lack of a >> better term, libelous. > I am not sure what you meant, but the term is surely incorrect. > You must libel some person, not libel in the abstract, or a class > of persons. You may think pornography is offensive, repugnant, > or whatever, but libelous does not apply > Marcel Simon That's what I said, "for lack of a better term..." I believe that *some* pornographers bear *some* moral responsibility for *some* crimes committed against women. They themselves may even think so, but they probably don't. In which case, I don't rightly know what I ought to do about it. Note that I speak of my own actions, which I am responsible for. I leave the state out of it, though the state has a way of getting involved when individuals do not act responsibly. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 24 Sep 85 [3 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/25/85)
> Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps.
Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people
in net.religion. What was that about universality?
Jeff Winslowrob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/26/85)
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.
crs@lanl.ARPA (09/26/85)
> 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. I'm not sure that I agree with this premise, even within a restricted "universe." First you assume that you know what a "mass murderer" thinks but I doubt that is true. Second, you seem to be neglecting the fact that morality is cultural rather than hereditary. (It is, isn't it?) And, third, *how* do you "know perfectly well" that another's morals don't allow mass murder? Your appear to be assuming, rather, a lot here. > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? Morals, in the abstract, *may* be universal but I would be surprised if any particular set of morals, including yours or mine, were universal. > Now, if our ideas of what is moral > clash, I'm afraid this strikes me as contradictory to what I understood you to say earlier. If these morals are universal, how can two individuals "ideas of what is moral clash"? > and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is > another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't > call a cop. There are no Morals Police. ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Thank God, Fate or your favorite deity. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/26/85)
In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >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. Adolph Hitler. Charles Manson. Both were maniacal men whose twisted minds developed a morality in which certain people's lives SHOULD (as in morally imperative) end. Not to mention Ayatollah Kohmenhi. There are many moral systems which dehumanize others, thus permitting their slaughter. Morals are simply a codification of the interaction between "what feels right" and "foresight and planning". Since "what feels right" is an entirely personal, subjective concept, each person's concept of morals is based entirely upon subjective claims. Granted that most of us share a great many of those "what feels right" feels, but many others do no. And you can argue until you are blue in the face, its not going to change their minds. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/27/85)
-- > > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. > > Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people > in net.religion. What was that about universality? > > Jeff Winslow What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 27 Sep 85 [6 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/28/85)
Ken Perlow: >> > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. >What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual >ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, >but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to >apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe >this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. Now that Ken's clarified what he meant by "morals are universal", let's re-read his argument where he first said this. Someone else wrote: > 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. And Ken replied: > 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. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? You can keep your own personal > code of conduct in your diary. Now, if our ideas of what is moral > clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is > another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't > call a cop. There are no Morals Police. Now I understand Ken to be saying this: that morals are codes of conduct one would want everyone to adhere to. And since pornography is immoral by his set of morals, he wants it unavailable to everyone. It is precisely because of this attitude ("I want you to live like I think people should live") that we have Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights. It protects an unpopular belief against the pressure of a conflicting belief held by the majority. It is because some people want to impose their morality on everyone that we need such legal protections.
putnam@steinmetz.UUCP (jefu) (09/29/85)
In article <1186@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not >necessarily subjective. What can morality be but subjective? >Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Huh? Engraved on what stone tablet? Now, on a more sober note. Im really bothered by this whole pornography question. There are a few (ok, maybe a lot of) people out there who are convinced that they know the truth about pornography. They claim that they _know_ something about pornography, and therefore they have the right to make decisions. Actually, they _believe_ something. I, unfortunately, dont happen to have the direct-dial-9600-baud-error-correcting line to Truth (or God, or whatever). This means that i may hold contrary beliefs, or that i may be willing to admit that i dont know something (ok ok, thats rare enough, but it does happen, sometimes, maybe). This puts me at a disadvantage. When the local DAR (:-) decides to ban nude dancing in Half Moon, they all _know_ how horrible it is. Even if i decide to oppose their ideas, i can only admit to _belief_, and clearly that puts me at a disadvantage. I always thought that a good part of the point of free speech is that it implicitly says that nobody _knows_ the truth so nobody should make decisions for everyone else. oh well, just another net.liberal... "The worst are full of passionate intensity..." -- O -- jefu tell me all about -- UUCP: edison!steinmetz!putnam Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@kbsvax.decnet@GE-CRD
vause@ncrcae.UUCP (Sam Vause) (09/30/85)
Please remove net.motss from your article header. I believe I speak for several members of this category when I say that the subject matter has strayed from material normally associated as being of general interest to members of this group.
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (up547413042) (09/30/85)
I guess some people didn't take to well to my opinion on pornography. I think already it's been argued that morality is subjective. I think there is no arguing around that point. It is also a basis by which I have formed my veiwpoint. Personally, I really don't think pornography is such a nice thing. I don't care for it too well, anyway. I think it depicts sex in a negitive light. That's just my opinion though, and my opinion, as with everybody's opinion, may be wrong (if there is such a thing). I do believe censorship of pornography *can* lead to censorship in other areas though. For instance, lets assume pornography is banned because we believe it's obscene and leads to immoral attitudes and behaviour. Then, what is to stop big bad Jerry Fallwell from leading a campaign against Gay publications? It is, to him, obscene and leads to immoral homosexual behaviour. We can't have that, can we? It may sound far fetched, but similar things have happened (in Nazi- Germany, for instance). I have no great respect for pornographers or nazis, etc, but I do respect the rights of people to hold views which I disagree with. As long as they don't force them on me. I agree that, if one feels something is wrong and is suffciently moved to do so, one should take action. This would best be manifested in persuasion and the demonstration of alternatives to what one is objecting to. Censorship I feel is unacceptable. Finally, I am not convinced that pornography leads to violence against women. Nobody would buy that stuff unless they already had an attitude which is manifested in the pornographic publication which is degrading to women. It seems to me that such pornography is the *manifestation* of a much more deeply rooted problem. I would therefore suggest that the reason why people buy the stuff be given closer scrutiny. I was talking to a friend a mine, by the way, (I say this because I don't which to attatch myself to this viewpoint, though I'm neither for it nor against it) who felt that pornography actually reduces the amount of violence against women. He said that pornography allows a release of whatever it is that they have inside of them (their fantasies, or whatever), and they then have no impulse to carry their fantasy out in reality. -- Chris Young.
jan@ccice5.UUCP (John A. Nicowski Jr.) (10/04/85)
In article <1195@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. >> >> Oh, really? Is homosexuality moral or immoral? Now go ask the people >> in net.religion. What was that about universality? >> >> Jeff Winslow > >What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual >ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, >but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to >apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe >this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. >-- > *** *** >JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** No. Morals are individual guidelines that we develop through life, and use to guide *OUR OWN* decisions. I have my own set of morals, thank you, and do not wish to apply them to anyone else, and will certainly not allow other people to apply their morals on me, in an attempt to determine how I act or live. John.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (10/07/85)
-- > Now I understand Ken to be saying this: that morals are codes of conduct > one would want everyone to adhere to. And since pornography is immoral > by his set of morals, he wants it unavailable to everyone. NO, NO, NO!!! All I said was "Morals are universal and morals are for keeps." I've been very careful to differentiate between what is moral and what is legal. Porn is (and ought to be) legal. Some of it is immoral. That which is immoral *still* ought to be available, though perhaps not to everyone. Even if I thought it should be unavailable to everyone *does not mean* there should be laws proscribing it. That's what the "for keeps" is about. Moral transgressions are answerable on some other plane of existence. If you don't believe this, well, you don't--in which case I am appealing to whatever it is inside you that keeps you from being a sadist even in the company of masochists. I can and do differentiate between moral and legal because I find the prevailing belief in utilitarianism (in essence, greatest good for the greatest number) politically expedient and generally beneficial, but morally bankrupt. Anyone who has been involved in actions of civil disobedience has had to come to a similar conclusion. I'm glad to see I've touched a few nerves here, but I'm dismayed at the frequent misinterpretation of my comments. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 Oct 85 [16 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***