What is the point in being able to empathize with someone if it doesn't affect your behaviour in any way?

Is that a moral condemnation of someone elses' non-violent, non-thieving behaviour I see? Condemnation of a voluntary action like choosing ones' friends?

Edit: too bad you didn't realize your mistake and delete your post before I saw it.

What use is it to the prostitute if a John does change his behavior because he decides having sex with a prostitute is immoral? Absolutely none. Arguably she is worse off because she has less money.

lol I deleted that post because I decided my joke wasn't really funny.

I'm a computer programmer now because my parents forced me to work with computers all the time when I was a kid. Therefore you should not buy my services as a programmer?

I'm importing some people from africa and violently forcing them to tend the gardens around my house. Therefore gardening should be illegal?

Oh cool, now we're trivializing child rape. This forum's collective level of morality just keeps on getting better and better.

Look at the poll results before you post. Most of us aren't talking about keeping it illegal.

Go for it, I liked that post, would like to see what others think

Since both Borodog and you expressed this view already, I'm curious - what explains this existence of "bizarre sex taboos and hangups" not just in our society, but in nearly every society? Regardless of the religious or philosophical underpinnings of the culture - whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Confucian, etc - sex as a taboo (and consequent overarching society-wide rules on acceptable sexual behavior) appears to be a regular feature in every society.

I understand that it's presently fashionable to champion sexual freedom and sex-positivity - certainly any particular rule on sexual behavior can appear arbitrary, prejudicial and unfair to specific individuals with a certain disposition. But even completely arbitrary and unfair rules can be beneficial. Initial property allocation, for instance, comes to mind. It's completely arbitrary and completely unfair, but it's better to have almost everything owned by somebody to start with, than by no one. Rules on sexual behavior appear much the same way - any particular set of rules may be arbitrary, but it may be that some such set of rules is necessary.


This may be going too far. Once we remove all judgment from the situation, what's being reflected here is that our childhood experiences define our preferences, including sexual preferences, and seeking out such experiences and associating with people who will participate in those experiences are part of her nature, regardless of how socially acceptable we find the resulting practice to be. And on the flip-side, the "john" certainly has the same sort of psychological narrative compelling him to participate in this activity. While it's interesting to discuss what sort of policy or interventionist steps could lead to reduction in suffering caused by maladaptive preferences or behavioral patterns or better yet, break the cycle behind such suffering, I think it's incongruent to note the lack of real choice available to one group of participants, fail to note in the other group and solely blame them instead. Assignment of agency or blame in these circumstances is arbitrary. Why is it not prostitutes taking advantage of the johns?

While we dramatize specific types of suffering in our childhood (child abuse, sexual abuse, incest, parental neglect etc) and narrate their effect on our adulthood behavior, generally as a way to set some arbitrary lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, all children go through traumas, minor and major and our sexual behavior is largely dictated by those emotional wounds. They may heal over time, but continued itching of the wounds and scars, forcing us to scratch is the hallmark of human sexual behavior. Arbitrary lines aside, this is what goes on in ordinary relationships. It's not always clear what is healthy scratching and what reopens the wounds - but to the extent that prostitution is necessarily recreating the abuse the prostitute suffered as a child, all sex - with the same level of metaphorical certainty, necessarily recreates the traumas the participants suffered as children.



I need someone to tell me what sorts of "moral obligations" are "implied" by "friendship" in a libertarian sense because I didn't think libertarians (as in this forum) believed in the idea of implied moral obligations existing beyond non-violence or something along those lines. Otherwise, this sort of discrimination can be used to justify nearly any set of laws. Obviously, strangers have no such obligation, but members of a community do, right? And just as if your friend did something like that, he would no longer be a friend, one could forfeit the right to be treated as a member of a community by breaking some rules, right?


Do you think the society at large should be "cool" with such people? What does your not being "cool" with such people accomplish?

Perhaps he doesn't have moral obligations to me. But if he wants to continue to be my friend he needs to not bang my wife.

I don't see how this is trivializing child rape. Is what I said not your exact logic?

Libertarianism is a structural position about the socially desirable reach of legal institutions, not a mandate for a particular social order. This means that libertarianism cannot be blind to the facts of the lives of actual prostitutes - to notice that they suffer in prostitution, that they are often the victims of abuse, etc. The institutional question of whether the law should forcibly disallow prostitution (which is essentially a question of consequences) is entirely separate from the question of whether an individual in transacting with a prostitute is, perhaps indirectly, participating in something he or she might find morally repugnant (I recognize, of course, that the vast majority of real prostitutes are female). Whether a particular person who identifies as libertarian would or would not have a particular psychological reaction to prostitution seems to me largely irrelevant to the political questions prostitution raises, and the talk about morality in this thread is largely nonsense. Given that some people will seek out the services of prostitutes, and given the circumstances under which people usually become prostitutes (ranging from isolated voluntary acts to permanent enslavement), what is the legal structure that best promotes overall social welfare?

Asking about the morality of having sex with a prostitute, even one you know to be enslaved, is fundamentally question-begging. Morality is often a rough proxy for rules that are reasonably known to promote social welfare (prohibitions on murder, rape, etc.), and condemning an action as "immoral" is a simple expression of disapproval - a social discouragement of something perceived to be worse for society. But as for whether it is immoral in the sense of being finally and ultimately something of which human beings should disapprove, there is no way of saying without appealing to heaven. Unless we are prepared to begin merely to shout our nigh-on religious differences at each other, I suggest that this thread might be better served by an objective, economic analysis rather than an endless stream of doubts about the psychological proclivities of others.

Ah the wall of text cavalry is here. I'm not going to read it but did PB take a normative position or not?

Bible thumping, though he thinks he can do it better by just making men feel guilty, no threats of eternal damnation required.

I find this implausible. Isn't a much more basic drive, the mere urge to reproduce, the actual "hallmark of human sexual behavior?" Is this not the primary motivator for engaging in sexual conduct at all, differences in sexual practices aside? That is, while it may be true that recreation of certain experiences has an influence on the particular sexual choices a person makes, the mere fact of making the choice to have sex is not even mostly a product of this. In addition, are you using the word "trauma" in a technical way? The dictionary definition of the word makes speaking of minor trauma sound like a contradiction in terms, and it doesn't seem that most of us are traumatized - abused, seriously harmed, etc. - as children, though this may be primarily a response to social normalcy.

Didn't read whole thread, but cigarettes are NOTHING like cocaine. Hard drugs are not natural, they are man-made (like guns). Legalize them and the human race would destroy itself. There is a reason that hard drugs (not pot) are illegal. And it's not because the lawmakers from back in the day were morons.

Wow you managed to be both completely off topic and entirely wrong at the same time. Well played.

There are normative statements (statements that imply claims about public policy, statements that imply a particular evaluative framework) in his post, but he doesn't moralize. For what it's worth, with only a few exceptions (i.e. when he's irritated, though this is completely normal and forgivable), most Phone Booth posts are very thought-provoking. I think you'd enjoy reading them if you took the time.

It's because lawmakers from back in the day were racist. (See Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How they Got that Way)

I agree I wasn’t very clear and lost the thread. I tend to do that when I drink.

My point was that prostitutes with heavy drug addictions generally live day to day, with the vast majority of their income going straight to their fix until they run out and have to do it all again the next day. If they earned any more money than they’re willing to work for in a given day, they would most certainly spend it on more drugs, which is why it really wouldn’t matter how low the cost. They would just buy more of it.

Obviously the same can not be said for cigarettes and alcohol. You can only smoke and drink to a capacity before consuming anymore becomes completely undesirable. Yes there are rare exceptions when people experience severe alcohol poisoning and death, but most alcohol overdoses result in vomiting and falling asleep. There is definitely a big difference, and it's one of the reasons why some drugs are legal while others are not.

An alcoholic can fall asleep drunk with a fridge full of beer waiting for the next day. A crackhead will almost always run out of his supply before the night is over no matter how much he has.

You would have some serious mental issues if his post makes mention of child rape? Just that fact you project that toward another poster is pathetic.

If it was clear to me that they did I would have said so the first time. Again why don't you tell me what ethical rule/principle the examples violate and maybe I'll see what you mean.

Because we don't use "ethics" the way you're trying to use it.

I do? We constantly make tough decisions in life, but when I think through my day rarely is it "ethical choice" vs. "unethical choice" imo.

Is buying fast food "unethical"? I don't get where it ends when you conflate "ethical" to be, basically, "desirable".

I think you should establish whatever moral principle you think prostitution violates if you want to talk about this in the context of ethics. Otherwise we're just talking about how good or bad of an idea we think it is and why.

If you actually read the thread you'll find that much of the discussion is about how many prostitutes were raped, molested or assaulted as children, and whether it is bad to purchase sex from people who were abused in that way.

So in that context he posts this -

"I'm a computer programmer now because my parents forced me to work with computers all the time when I was a kid. Therefore you should not buy my services as a programmer?"

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like it's a feeble attempt at comparing being pressured into working on a computer as a kid, to childhood rape and abuse. I deem that comparison to be trivializing childhood abuse.

If I'm mistaken, and misread the way the post was intentioned , then of course, the guy has my sincerest apologies.

No one really believes this, though, right? If I offer a bounty for every anarchist heart that people bring me, it's "voluntary on both ends" (me and the guy I'm paying for a human heart) but could hardly be considered ethical.

I understand this is a ridiculous strawman, so much so that it pains me to write it in this context, but it seems to fit the bill. What am I missing here?

Brutal. But true. Some ideas require many words, but to keep things concise is always a worthy goal.

It's a substitution of something less emotionally charged so we can look logically at the issue.

Do you want a more realistic example? Replace programmer with athlete. I'm pretty sure there actually are parents that force their kids into sports and beat them when they lose or fumble or miss or whatever.

Replace programmer with singer and you have Michael Jackson right?

Okay, what if it was more extreme like having dad tape tennis rackets to your hands as a 2yo? Now he's a an adult tennis pro, do you think everyone who buys tickets to that show to be immoral? What about people who play tennis with other people who may or may not have been abused to varying degrees themselves?

Is it immoral to sell food to a fat person? Does it become immoral if she over eats because she was verbally abused as a child? Is it immoral to sell food to any fat people because some were verbally abused as children? Should you ask them before you sell?