Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-13-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Of course, running isn't immoral. YOU accept any emotional damage or physical damage when you get a prostitute or agree to become a prostitute, because YOU know the risks, so any emotional or physical damage is purely your fault. Any immorality(like intentionally spreading an STD), isn't and shouldnt be connected with prostitutions morality.

I don't know if any of us were arguing that it should. We got a bit sidetracked, myself included.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 11-13-2002, 08:54 PM

Or even better-

1. Sex may or may not be fun, depending on the individuals involved.
2. Sex may (or may not) prove emotionally or physically damaging, depending on the individuals involved.
3. For something to be bad, it must cause harm to someone.
4. Prostitution may or may not be enjoyable for those involved (might be more than the two your statement posited), and may or may not harm either.
Therefore:
Prostitution may or may not be bad, depending on the individuals involved.

Which of course leads to the conclusion:
Prostitution is not inherently bad (that's why it can be good for many people). Which is really the issue we're discussing, isn't it? I think "inherently bad" and "morally wrong" are essentially interchangeable...

Faced with the conclusion that prostitution isn't inherently wrong, one who opposes it must resort to saying it is so dangerous that it should be outlawed anyway, even if it's ok in some cases. This argument fails of course, because prostitution would be safer if it were legal, and cases of it not being bad are far from rare.

-B

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2002, 08:54 PM	#122
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Or even better- 1. Sex may or may not be fun, depending on the individuals involved. 2. Sex may (or may not) prove emotionally or physically damaging, depending on the individuals involved. 3. For something to be bad, it must cause harm to someone. 4. Prostitution may or may not be enjoyable for those involved (might be more than the two your statement posited), and may or may not harm either. Therefore: Prostitution may or may not be bad, depending on the individuals involved. Which of course leads to the conclusion: Prostitution is not inherently bad (that's why it can be good for many people). Which is really the issue we're discussing, isn't it? I think "inherently bad" and "morally wrong" are essentially interchangeable... Faced with the conclusion that prostitution isn't inherently wrong, one who opposes it must resort to saying it is so dangerous that it should be outlawed anyway, even if it's ok in some cases. This argument fails of course, because prostitution would be safer if it were legal, and cases of it not being bad are far from rare. -B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.