M.J. Watson offered something particularly interesting to our conversation about prostitution. So here it is:
At the root of the view that prostitution is harmful to women, and men, is (the idea) that there is something intrinsically valuable about our sexuality that should not be commodified. To engage in prostitution is to treat oneself as a means rather than an end. Connie's view seems to rely only on the criterion of consent. Whatever one consents to is legitimate.
My view is that one can consent to an activity that nonetheless is demeaning and immoral. I don't know that there is a prior principle to appeal to that would prove either of us right or wrong, but let me give two illustrations of why sex is intrinsic to us in a special way, even at the risk of making this too long of a comment.
1. Imagine Fred says to Steve, "Hey Steve, Betty and I are playing tennis on Thursday night. But I can't make it, would you be willing to fill in?"
Now imagine Fred says, "Hey Steve, Betty and I are having sex on Thursday night, but something has come up and I can't make it. Would you be willing to fill in?"
We may laugh at this, but our laughter reveals that we know there is something not quite right about this scenario. Sex is not just another activity.
2. On a more serious note, consider why we think rape is wrong. Leon Kass has an amazing article about the rape of Dinah in Genesis. He notes that today rape is seen as wrong merely because it violates a women's consent and because of the physical harm. But on the older view rape is also considered wrong because it also violates her "womanliness", or, to really use antiquated language, her virtue (her specifically sexual virtue).
But on the consent-only view it's hard to understand what makes rape the specifically awful crime that it is. It is a violation unlike any other because of the special nature of our sexuality, and thus the act of rape is intrinsically different from a punch in the nose or another violent assault.
I grant these examples don't prove that the consent-only view is wrong. As I said, I'm not sure what would do that. But I hope they illustrate why we have good reason to think there is something intrinsically valuable about our sexuality and that it thus should not be treated like a widget to be commodified.
10 comments:
I'm convinced that if prostitution should be made legal, it's not because of any libertarian ultimate and absolute "right to my body," but rather for prudential concerns such as Thomas outlines. It may well be that in some cases the legalization of prostitution functions as a sort of preservative order, a social safety net, preventing even worse evil and depravity from taking place...but I doubt I'd like to live in that place.
Alisdair MacIntyre was mentioned in the original thread where prostitution came up -- also, I think, germane to the wrongness of prostitution is the argument Roger Scruton advances in Sexual Desire, where he addresses the today very common claim that pornography is less bad than graphic depictions of violence, and might even in some cases be considered useful or at least benign. Scruton provides a moral framework that embraces sex as a great good, and that decries the demeaning of that good through voyerism or commodification as a far greater harm than the promiscuous depiction of violence, which has no similar inherent goodness at its root. It is like the difference between smashing a fencepost and smashing a harp -- if you look at the thing materially, after all, they're both made of wood.
His argument is both more subtle and more comprehensive than I have managed to express here, and at any rate Scruton deserves far more recognition so I highly recommend the book.
M.J. makes a wonderful point - with a fabulous presentation.
The first mention of prostitution in the Bible is in the context of a place that takes pride in having eliminated that from their society.
When Judah's friend asks (Genesis 38:21) the townspeople what happened to the prostitute who was at the fork in the road, they respond, "There was no prostitute HERE."
As Lewis would say, ideas do not grow moldy with time. The Pythagorean theorem is not less true for being old. If there is fault to be found with the Biblical disapproval of prostitution, it is not in mere chronology. Else whatever "modern" view that would move one will be out-of-date tomorrow.
(I mention Lewis not b/c authority is also dispositive, but for purposes of attribution. I should also mention in that vein that the tennis example in the original comment is from Hadley Arkes).
The Pythagorean theorem is not less true for being old.
Did you just conflate religion with mathematics? You might as well say that there's no difference between the objective and the subjective.
No. Religion has nothing to do with it. I said that the validity of an idea has nothing to do with its "age".
I was responding to Connie's view that she wanted a more "modern" answer, with modern usually meant to relay a connection with a time period(though I'm confused b/c now she doesn't seem to be interested in when the idea came about, but with the idea itself, so presumably the "modern" aspect of it is no longer important).
That said, I don't think morality is subjective. Relgious claims need not be either. But that's another subject entirely (and still subject to the MacIntyre princple mentioned previously).
An apt citation of Roger Scruton, Kathy. (I've seen him pop up here and there, and he seems quite a hard-headed yet soft-hearted [compassionate] thinker, my ideal.)
From the link you kindly provided:
[Scruton writes] "Sexual desire is not impeded by morality, but created by it," and in fact, "safeguards the integrity of our embodiment," that is, one of the central things that makes us human. Anything less than a personalist ethics of sex is contrary to the human dignity of its participants.
The entire review of Scruton's book, by one Kalynne Pudner, is worth a look before opinions get tossed to, fro, and past each other. Discussions should have form.
Sex may be a function of property rights, which at current market rates would make rape substantially less serious than Grand Theft Auto.
Or sex may be a component of human dignity, which we hold as priceless.
To buy the priceless in return for pennies must surely be immoral, even in a free market, and even with a willing seller.
Incidentally, according to the Talmudic tradition, King Ahab was a bit undersexed, so Queen Jezebel commissioned artists to paint erotic portraits on the inside of his royal carriage.
I've been thinking about this issue and something occurred to me. By striking down various sexual regulations, the court robs us of valuable middle ground. These laws have typically been unenforced, but having them on the books preserved the moral sense of the law. We could deny public approval, but permit the practice. That's being eaten away.
Exactly, HB, and what I thought you meant in your citation of Michael McConnell's thought on the "space" between society and the law.
When the law becomes the only reality, everything else ceases to exist, including wisdom and mercy.
Post a Comment