Debate Mansion


Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

moral values- irrelavant today? (Page 3)

souro Moderator

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 8627

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 8:38pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by angie.4u

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by angie.4u

The breakdown of the family and the decay of discipline in the schools which the progressivists (so-called) have engineered has contributed in a very large measure to the groW*H of teenage vandalism, crime, drugs and alcoholism. The escalation of these problems corresponds to the decline of the family and familial discipline and to the groW*H of permissiveness.

I somewhat agree with the rest of the post but not this part. Progressive people didn't encourage decay of discipline in schools, over indulging parents did. Progressive would be to embrace new things but only the good ones, not vandalism, crime, drugs and alcohol. Something like introducing computer in school work, just when computer is emerging as the next hot thing, is what one can call progressive.
How do we define good things souro ? Smile 
There would be people strongly in support of things you listed as bad in these few examples above. You consider computers as progressive (so do I) but believe me there are  people even now, who strongly oppose computerisation in institutions giving various excuses.... ..for their own vested interests ! Each one has his own axe to grind !

Something that is good for an individual and a society without harming anyone or infringing on anyone's rights is good.
Out of the things that I listed (which I actually repeated from your post) vandalism and crime are upfront harmful for the society. Whereas drugs and alcohol can create addicts ruining the life of the person and placing others nearby in danger when the person is under influence.

blue-ice. IF-Addictz

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 55451

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 8:51pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by angie.4u

Its possible that people do not voice their opinions for fear of being ridiculed . Is that good or bad? Should one be ridiculing the other or not ?Would trying to stop one from ones way of addressing another constitute moralising ? Are the anti moralising brigade fine with that ?

Yes people are afraid of being ridiculed in actual life...may be on the forum also......coming to one's way of addressing things......yes if they are within the rules and they are being stopped from expressing themselves because they have a particular style of writing ...that is definitely wrong.................if you want me to follow the me the rules...don't go by assumptions...Tongue
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 24501

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 9:13pm | IP Logged
Since we are discussing morals, I chose to pull out some of my papers from Social Ethics and Applied Moral Theory. I guess any one can be pulled out as an individual topic.

Drug Control & Addiction

Drug Policy:

The 'drug problem' is a major issue of debate in the United States. Every year millions of dollars are invested in fighting a 'war on drugs'. For many years  law enforcement officials and other affiliates have diligently worked to end illegal trade of drugs and stop the use and sale of prohibited substances. Despite the significant investment of monetary and human resources, drugs are still a 'problem' and critical concern for the country. Illegal drug trade is still prevalent with drug cartels continuing their business despite significant setbacks. Drug abuse and addiction rates keep increasing every day. The number of recreational drugs and illegal compounds being concocted has increased over the years with new party drugs surfacing all the time. At the same time children and adults alike are turning to abusing legal prescription medications, and getting into the cycle of addiction through their bathroom cabinet.

All these known and evident fact make it clear that the battle against drugs is not successful. We have not managed to stop, limit, curb or control drug trade or abuse in any significant manner. In fact it seems that the drug problem has increased and the breadth of abused substances is not just limited to illegal drugs but legal pharmaceutical drugs and other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol as well. Since, current policy is proving to be a failure; it is clear that we need a different approach to the 'drug problem'.

One option is definitely adopting closer to a 'zero tolerance' policy and establishing stricter, stringent control and laws and perhaps even making some currently legal substances illegal. This view is extreme and impractical. It will exhaust and consume more resources and meet with strong resistance. The other option is to adopt the liberal policy of legalizing all drugs. While this view is quite controversial, I believe such a drug policy will be more viable and a better alternative to society. We can also achieve a liberal drug policy without sweeping and alarming changes. This can be done by a gradual and controlled shift slowly introducing illegal drugs in the market with control and regulation.

A key social benefit of such a 'drug policy' would be its effect on the illegal drug trade. With many prohibited substances being legal, legitimate pharmaceutical companies would be allowed to manufacture/import these substances and sell them. The result would be that there would be no need for illegal traffickers and drug cartels to procure, transport and sell drugs. It would be able to prevent the violent crimes and various illegal activities that are a result of the underground drug trade. Underprivileged kids will no longer be tempted to traffic drugs with the temptation to make profits from selling drugs. A whole new legitimate and regulated drug industry could transfer many risky and underprivileged jobs to a safe and legal environment.

Another result of a liberal 'drug policy' is the savings resulting from it. The government will no longer need to invest large sums of money in narcotics divisions. Large amount of personnel will be freed from regulatory and law enforcement fields of the war on drugs. We can utilize these savings in human resources as well as monetary income to invest in other aspects of our government and society that need these resources. We can also use these available resources to create a comprehensive drug education system that educates people about all drugs including current pharmaceutical drugs equipping people with realistic and practical knowledge about drugs. A better understanding of drugs and guidance in usage will prevent people from abusing pharmaceutical and other drugs.

One of the biggest benefits of regulated pharmaceutical drugs is regulation. Drugs are prescribed in required dosages. Sterile equipment is available for any drugs that require intravenous administration. The composition of the drug is known and it is tested to be safe and free of contaminants or toxic compounds. Pharmacists guide people on how to use drugs, teach people what side effects to watch for and when to consult a doctor. Drugs are divided into over the counter and prescription strengths.

On the other hand illegal drugs have no information infrastructure or regulation. People using illegal drugs will often use unsterile equipment and expose themselves to HIV and other contagious viruses and illnesses. The composition and quality is unknown and many people end up taking contaminated drugs that result in fatalities. Potency and recommended dosages are unknown and accidental overdose is a common cause of death. Since the drugs are illegal people are not truly informed of effects and side effects, and do not watch for their health as they should. Due to fear of criminal charges and arrests many will avoid visiting doctors or seeking help when they experience side effects.

With the legalization of drugs, drug users will receive the benefits of regulation, quality control and most importantly information. Drug abuse, overdoses, unhealthy practices, ignorant deaths and fatalities could be prevented by providing people with sterile equipment, safe drugs and knowledge about the drugs. People will no longer fear seeking medical help if anything goes wrong and society will benefit from a safer secure drug use environment.

Of course such a drug policy has been unheard of in the United States and will receive strong criticism. Many deterrents of legalizing drugs will present several counter arguments against legalizing drugs like marijuana, cocaine etc. 

One key argument made against such a policy is that these drugs are harmful. They can be severely damaging to people's health and cause drastic side effects. First and foremost in a society founded on individual liberty, people have the right to make decisions on their own health. We allow respect people's rights to refuse medication, resort to spiritual healing even when it may harm them; because we believe in individual rights and liberty. Similarly people should have the right to choose when it comes to drugs.  Secondly, we already allow drugs that are more dangerous than the ones made illegal. Tobacco has drastic long term effects like lung collapses, lung and mouth cancer, respiratory disorders compared to marijuana and similar drugs that have lesser long term harm effects. Also we cannot protect people from everything that may harm them. Obesity is becoming a growing problem with heart diseases and other side effects severely harming people and sometimes being fatal. However, we would consider it extreme to ban fat. We believe in informing people about balanced diet to keep themselves healthy. A liberal drug policy actually provides people with information, medical, legal and social support to prevent misuse and harm whereas current policies leave people susceptible by cutting of such support.

Another argument is that allowing all drugs will make drugs accessible to everyone, resulting in more addiction across the board. Addiction consequently deteriorates society as people are unable to perform their social responsibilities and function as a connected member of society. However, the assumption that just because drugs are available people will use them and get addicted is a fallacious assumption. Using a drug, let alone getting addicted has more to do with individual and overall environment instead of just the availability.

Those who want to use drugs and abuse them will do so no matter what. The creation of new party drugs, abuse of prescription medications, inhalant abuse just shows that there will always be people willing to abuse substances legal or illegal. On the other hand many people, who have used illegal drugs, have been able to do so responsibly. They use drugs for years merely for the relief, pleasure or recreation it provides them and continue to succeed at school, report to work, build a career and have successful families.  Similarly despite alcohol and tobacco being freely available many people refuse to use them for a variety of reasons. The key difference is the need to rely on drugs versus merely using them as a supplement in life.

Studies have shown that people who tend to abuse drugs usually suffer from depression, anxiety and other forms of mental disorders. People turn to drugs due to social confusion, rejection and often resort to substance abuse. They abuse drugs in order to feel better or be able to do better. People with a strong network of friends and family, people who encourage and support them in life are less likely to use or abuse drugs. Making drug inaccessible does not solve the core of the problem. It leaves the problem unsolved and lets people seek illegal avenues or find other negative means to resolve their problems. Instead of banning drugs the focus should be on forming healthy social structures and providing means of emotional support to people who may seek drugs due to social shortcomings.

One of the strongest arguments against drugs has been the harm principle. Drugs can be mood and personality altering, causing people to become abusive, violent and irresponsible towards people around them. People can cause severe injuries or death, by driving cars or operating machinery on a high, or drug trip. Hence, drugs should be illegal due to the harm it causes to innocents.

While the argument in favor of protecting people from harm due to drug users appears sound, rational and logical. However, it misses the key aspect of near and present danger. Just because drug usage may result in these problems, does not mean every instance of drug usage will cause these problems. It is unfair towards responsible drug users who may potentially never do something like that. Alcohol is a mood altering drug that also diminishes reflexes and body functions. While there are a lot of people who do drive drunk, or become abusive while drunk causing harm to others; most users of alcohol drink responsibly. People wanting to use drugs with similar effects deserve the opportunity to use them responsibly.

Legalizing drugs will also prevent many incidents of harm caused by drug use. Many people who use drugs are unaware of its potency and how it affects them. Alcohol is legal and has requirements. The labels state that one alcoholic beverage has 5% alcohol while another has 50%. People know what their tolerance levels are. With no labels or information to guide them people using illegal drugs have no idea of the potency level of what they are consuming. Sometimes they are misguided about the potency as well as the additives and other drugs that could be mixed in. The result is people not knowing what they are consuming and what their tolerance is. With legalization of drugs people will know exactly what drug they are consuming, what potency level it is and what their tolerance is.

In many ways we are actually adding accountability and responsibility to drug use. Because people will be warned about drugs, just like they are warned about effects of alcohol, tobacco or pharmaceutical drugs. People no longer will be able to blame misinformation or lack of knowledge for their indiscretions.

On the whole legalizing currently illegal drugs will benefit society in the long run. There maybe initial hiccups in transition and implementation. However, it is the most reasonable alternative to a failed drug prohibition policy. It also forces us to tackle the core issues actually plaguing  society instead of using drugs as a scapegoat. Addiction, irresponsible behavior, etc. are not the result of drugs, but people and society. Anyone can be addicted to anything or behave in an irresponsible manner. The key is to prevent people from doing so in all walks of life.

Hate Speech

Perlocutionary effect and Illocutionary Force

The perlocutionary effect of an utterance is the final effect that is caused by the utterance. An utterance may cause a person to be angered, frightened, shocked, surprised and invoke a range of complex emotions and reactions. This reaction caused by the utterance is the perlocutionary effect. On the other hand the illocutionary force of an utterance is the way something is said. The illocutionary force relates to the actual act of the utterance and the way the ideas of an utterance were expressed.

To make a child improve their grades parents may use different illocutionary forces in their utterances. One parent may choose to explain the effects of a good education and doing well in school, while another parent may scold and punish. One parent uses the illocutionary force of explaining and the other used the illocutionary force of scolding. Both these different illocutionary forces could result in the perlocutionary effect of a child assuming responsibility.

In summary illocutionary force is the type of utterance and the perlocutionary effect is the net result.

Altman's views on hate speech

Most arguments for campus speech regulation are based on the moral perspective that racism, sexism, homophobia and similar discriminating acts are inherently morally wrong. This moral foundation of most campus speech regulation brings such policies under scrutiny. They appear to be a form of legal moralism, forcing of one moral perspective on everyone else. This also causes there to be a conflict with the first amendment freedom of speech granted to all citizens.

However, Andrew Altman tries to build his argument for campus speech regulation based from a view-point neutral standpoint. He acknowledges that the harm principle is one of the few defenses for any liberty limiting policy, and that legal paternalism or legal moralism cannot be viewpoint neutral. In his defense of campus speech regulation he makes a distinction between the illocutionary force of an utterance and the perlocutionary effect of the utterance. Unlike most campus speech regulations that focus on the perlocutionary effects, he feels that focusing on the illocutionary force can create a more viewpoint neutral law.

Regulations focused on perlocutionary effects try to prohibit racist, sexist or homophobic utterances because these utterances result in a perlocutionary effects like people being emotionally hurt, or people starting to view other groups of people in a negative light.  Instead Andrew Altman states that the first amendment allows people the right to engage in discussions that maybe racist, sexist or homophobic. People have the right to express why they believe a certain race, sex or sexual orientation is inferior and why certain groups are less worthy. However, people have the right to do so only when they express their opinions through open discussions and debates. He distinguishes that certain slurs and derogatory words have an illocutionary force attached to them. Instead of putting forth an opinion these words are designed to attack, demean and treat other people as moral inferiors. By utilizing these derogatory terms people cause harm by engaging in a speech-act wrong against another person. Campus speech act regulation should focus only on utterances that have this type of illocutionary force attached to them and allow other forms of illocutionary forces like discussions and debates.

Even though Andrew Altman tries to establish a view point neutral argument and tries to avoid legal moralism; his argument does have several flaws and conflicts. Despite his attempts at neutrality, he still engages in a form of legal moralism by invoking everyone to follow a form of respect-for-persons ethic, and he also does have a foundation that believes racism, sexism and homophobia to be wrong. While there are certain flaws and conflicts within Altman's argument, he does acknowledge the first amendment rights of all people.  His attempt to focus on viewpoint neutralism provide that people have the complete right to express their opinion irrespective of whether it appeals to common moral sensibilities or not. This is why people with different and contrasting perceptions on racism, sexism and homophobia can subscribe to Andrew Altman's argument for speech regulation. Even if they do not share his personal moral opinions regarding these subjects, they can affirm his views on campus hate speech regulation as he does protect their rights to express their opinion as long as they do not resort to the wrong form of illocutionary force.

Should hate speech be regulated?

Regulation of speech on campuses, especially regulation against hate speech is a delicate and controversial subject that has been the subject of a lot of heated debates. The first amendment of our constitution grants every citizen the freedom of speech and expression.  The constitution protects our right to express ourselves, irrespective of whether we are wrong or right and whether our opinions concur with the majority of people or not.


There is no legal or moral excuse to curb speech unless there is near and present danger, or immediate significant harm. For example screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater is a crime as it immediately puts hundreds of people at risk of harm in a stampede.  Hate speech raises the challenge of defining 'harm' and clearly outlining what is the near and present danger of hate speech.


The law protects people from harm. It protects us from being stabbed, raped or being physically abused in any way.  Anyone who causes such harm will be punished by the full extent of the law. However, since hate speech and there is no immediate physical damage there is no clear way identify a harm caused by it. Of course there is an emotional and psychological harm caused by verbal abuse and hate speech. Psychiatrists will testify to depression, loss of self esteem & confidence, even suicidal tendencies caused by hate speech. However, even with the most compelling scientific evidence emotional harm will always be subjective and perceptive. Different people will react differently to different words and situations and have a different definition of what is hateful and offensive.

 John Doe may be a mentally strong and confident person who will be unperturbed if people called him 'faggot' while walking down the street, but Jack Doe maybe exceptionally sensitive and take offense to his friend absentmindedly stating that his dress looked 'gay'.  Similarly one person may view a Jewish joke to be funny, while another will view it as 'hateful' and 'spiteful' against Jews. It is virtually impossible to identify a clear and evident effect of harm. Any attempts to create such definitions will be subject to moral and paternal perceptions of the lawmakers who try to define it. The lawmakers will bring their personal perceptions of homophobia, sexism and racism in defining these 'harms'. The result will be the imposing of their moral perception on everyone.


Andrew Altman recognized that hate speech could not be regulated by perlocutionary effects. Not only do people have the right to express their racist, sexist and homophobic viewpoints  the perlocutionary effect will vary by person to person. He suggests an alternative that focuses on the illocutionary force of the utterance. He distinguishes that there is a difference between using slurs and derogatory terms like 'nigger' or 'faggot' and giving an articulate speech on why blacks are an inferior race and why homosexuals are a disgrace to society.


Regulating campus speeches based on the illocutionary force appears to be a better option to the perlocutionary effect. It targets illocutionary forces that are intended to cause harm. Words like slurs, derogatory terms that are used as words to cause speech act wrong to others and treat them as moral inferiors are to be regulated as inappropriate illocutionary forces. On the surface it seems appealing to pass regulations against words that maybe equated to 'fighting words' or words used to injure or harm others.


However, even the illocutionary force of the utterance fails to be a reliable means to regulate speech. It attempts to enforce a respect-for-persons ethic on society, expecting people to treat each other as moral equals. The bigger flaw is it attempts to define and assign a specific connotation to a word.  In modern communication it is almost impossible to pick and choose which words have the illocutionary force of speech act wrong and which do not. Altman himself recognizes that the lines cannot be clear cut. 'Queer' which was a derogatory term used for homosexuals is being changed to be used as a term of pride. 'Nigger' which is also socially considered as a racial slur is often used by the African American community to address each other. So regulating speech based on illocutionary force would require sweeping regulations that will censure the usage of any word termed derogatory irrespective of the usage intent or it would require laying elaborate foundations of defining intent drawing lines between appropriate and inappropriate use. Such regulations will also have the challenge of keeping up with an up to date dictionary of new epithets, slurs and insults introduced in slang and of words that have started to lose their previous negative connotation.


Regulating hate speech appears to render itself as a moral catch 22.  From an ethical perspective it seems to be fair and morally justified to protect citizens from psychological harm and prohibiting people from using words that can be classified to have 'harmful' intent.  However, due the nature of speech it is impossible to determine an objective, completely neutral, unbiased and fair hate speech regulation that regulates speech while protecting the first amendment rights of everyone involved. There also appears to be no way to create regulations that are clear, unambiguous and easy to apply and follow. As it has occurred in the past they can be too sweeping or become too confusing and complicated.


While my personal moral perceptions state that hate speech is morally wrong and morally impermissible, there is no legitimate reason why campuses should regulate hate speech. The law already protects people from physical harm and harassment. Campuses should impose regulations in conformity to these laws. Speech that forms a pattern of harassment can be regulated and legal action against harassment can be charged. Similarly speech that invites people to cause physical harm and injure others can also be regulated. However, at present it appears that there is no legitimate means for additional regulation.


Regulating speech cannot fix the 'harm' caused by a slur or epithet.  Campuses who want to help all citizens live with dignity and self respect can organize support groups that help people who feel emotional 'harm' caused by hate speech. This offers support to people who were intentionally harmed and people who maybe unintentionally harmed by reckless utterances. Natural and unnatural events like death, divorce, accidents cause emotional 'harm' to people. We cannot find a way to regulate everything.  The best alternative is to help people restore their dignity. Helping people find their inner strength and dignity through supporting each other will help them face future challenges and be immune to harm by thoughtless utterances.


Education and social awareness have brought about a change in many social attitudes. Many communities that once suffered constant mistreatment are able to command equal dignity and respect in most places. Regulating campus speech may suppress attitudes and opinions, avoiding too many regulations will constantly bring light upon attitudes, behaviors and opinions that we want to correct and fix. It gives the opportunity for education and social awareness to continue bringing changes in our society.


Campuses should not regulate speech unless it is in some sort of violation of the law. There is no legitimate reason to enforce such regulations. There are other alternatives to manage the potential of 'harm' due to speech and unregulated speech gives society the ability to keep evolving, changing and improving.


Liberty Limiting Principles

There are several principles that are used to defend censorship and other means of curbing civil liberties. Two of these principles are the harm principle and the principle of legal moralism. The harm principle justifies limiting liberties in order to prevent harm to others. According to the harm principle certain liberties need to be contained or limited to prevent people from inflicting harm to other people. On the other hand legal moralism justifies the limiting on liberty in order to prevent immoral behavior. According to the principle of legal moralism the behavior of people should sometimes be limited in order to prevent them from acting in an immoral manner.

Of the principles used to limit liberties, the harm principle is the most universally accepted justifications. Many supporters of the harm principle oppose legal moralism because it attempts to dictate moral terms to people. Subscribing to legal moralism would allow few people with legal stronghold to force their moral views upon people.

Legal moralism is often defended based on the fact that legal moralism prevents immoral behavior like kidnapping, murder, rape and other crimes. However, opponents cite that the harm principle already addresses such issues. This aspect of the harm principle brings to light the fact that even the harm principle seems to display some forms of legal moralism. The harm principle itself rests on the fact that causing harm to others is morally wrong and must be prevented. Basically the harm principle is also legalizing morality in another way. So it seems conflicting and contradictory to be in favor of the harm principle while rejecting legal moralism.

However, there appears to be a key difference between the two. The liberty of one person ends, where the liberty of another person begins. If the exercising of one person's liberty takes away another person's liberty then there is a conflict, both people are not free to exercise their liberty. Murder takes away an innocent victims right to life, similarly other forms of criminal activities take away from other people's rights and liberties.  The harm principle addresses this conflict by preventing people from being harmed and having their liberties unfairly taken away. It avoids imposing any other moral judgment on people. It leaves people to do as they wish personally as long as they do not harm other people or invade other people's liberties.  On the other hand legal moralism restricts people's liberties irrespective of whether it causes harm to others or not. Hence, it is not inconsistent to subscribe to the harm principle while rejecting legal moralism.

This perspective appears inconsistent with Christian ethics of 'Love your neighbor, as yourself'. According to a Christian ethic, if someone is capable of causing harm to themselves then what is to prevent them from harming others? People ought to be made to behave morally so they treat everyone morally. However, this perception follows a very thin line between potential to cause harm and actually causing harm. While it seems prudent to proactively prevent behavior that may cause harm to others, there will always be the potential of unfairly limiting the liberty of someone who probably would never have crossed the line into harming others.

Many feminists have called for stringent censorship/banning of po*nography because po*nography degrades women and shows that women are merely means for sexual satisfaction of men. po*nography encourages men to treat women as second class citizens and violent po*nography even encourages harsh and violent behavior against women. Because po*nography encourages and causes harm to women it must be banned.

Should po*nography be censored


In his essay 'Feminism, po*nography and Censorship' Mark Wicclair provides a counter argument to the traditional feminist perspectives that call for the censorship of po*nography. Mark Wicclair also builds his argument on feminist perspectives and ideas. However, instead of calling for censorship he states in stark contrast 'anyone who supports the aims of feminism and who seeks the liberation of all people should reject the censorship of po*nography'. Mark Wicclair believes that censorship would work against feminism.


Mark Wicclair's statement appears to be surprising, shocking and even conflicting. It seems odd that a feminist would argue against censorship of po*nography. It seems an absurd conflict that a feminist does not want to curb a medium that encourages degrading treatment of women and has led to the rise of violent and sexual crimes against women. It must be noted that Mark Wicclair's call against censorship is not an affirmation or support for po*nography.  He does agree with other feminists that there are negative side effects caused by po*nography. He also concurs that po*nography does encourage degrading treatment of women and even violent sexual abuse in some cases.  His main argument is against the institution of censorship. He does not believe censorship will offer any real solutions to women. In fact he believes that censorship is a tool for legal moralism that will have more long term negative effects than any positive effects. 


In his essay Mark Wicclair constructs a point by point argument on why censorship will miss the point, fail to serve any purpose and could have long term negative effects.  Not all po*nographic material is violent, nor does it always show criminal activity like rape or abuse. Some po*nography just shows women being treated in a degrading manner as a sexual means. Our own law is flawed in this aspect. While rape and abuse is illegal, there is no law against degrading treatment of women. There is no law that prohibits men from using women for pure sexual satisfaction as long as it is not forced or abusive. It seems counterproductive to legally censor depiction of an activity that is completely legal.


Censorship will actually open the doors for legal moralism and inflict moral judgment on all form of sexual behavior. It will work against the freedom gained by the sexual revolution and impose the moral perceptions of a few on everybody. The definition of po*nography is based on ambiguous words like 'demeaning' and 'humiliating' which can be interpreted in different ways by different people. What is demeaning or degrading to some would be perfectly fine with other people. Censorship could interpret these words to consider lesbian sex demeaning. Sex outside of marriage could be considered morally wrong and censored. On the long run by approving censorship we are saying it is ok for a few people to impose their interpretations of morality on all people.


Movies, books and other media are open to interpretation and the point of view cannot be easily determined. A person could probably interpret a documentary about sexual crimes against women as a documentary that condones sexual crimes against women. Such a person may even act by sexually assaulting a women based on this. It seems illogical to try and guess what point of view a movie portrays.


Finally censorship of po*nography seems to limit the scope of feminism. Feminism is a movement that wants to establish an equality of sexes and have men and women to receive equal treatment in all aspects. Censorship of po*nography limits this equal treatment to sexual activity only. There are several forms of non po*nographic media that show women in a degrading light and show that they ought to be considered less important than men.  It also seems to show that women need special consideration to protect them from harm and are not equal to others. Why protect only women from sexual violence, what about depictions of sexual abuse against other minorities, or perhaps depictions of men being abused? Censorship based on the principle of harm against women seems to affirm that women are fragile and need protection, a concept that feminism is against.


Instead of censorship Mark Wicclair calls for other forms of protest against po*nography. He encourages everyone to help people understand why po*nography is objectionable and why it should be rejected. He calls for public discussions, educational campaigns, public forums and letter writing.  He even encourages boycotts, pickets and other means to restrict the production sale and distribution of po*nography. He feels that citizens taking matters in their hand is better than government censorship.


Mark Wicclair is completely right in stating that feminists should reject censorship instead of calling for it. Censorship seems to affirm that women are special and need protection and does not address the key issues. Censorship limits the scope of feminism and opens the door to legal moralism. The real problem of degrading treatment of women is not with restricted to po*nography, but society in general and people who consider women lesser. Instead of trying to censor the situation, educating society on the real issues of women and the principles of feminism is a realistic alternative. Censoring po*nography does nothing to elevate the status of women in society. Bringing po*nography up along with other issues related to the treatment of women for discussion will help highlight the negative effects of po*nography. Censorship simply prevents portrayal of degrading treatment of women; it does nothing to show why such treatment is wrong and must be stopped. Public discussion of issues is the only way to bring the important issues to light.

Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11413

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:03pm | IP Logged

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:


-Believe- IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 25723

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:27pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Define "morality" and "moral values" first, and then we can continue the discussion from there. Do you consider morality to be stringent and absolute or do you feel there is room for change depending on the time and context? Do you equate tradition with goodness and morality?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...every morality creates hypocrisy..... It will do so inevitably. Hypocrisy will remain with morality..... It is part of it  the shadow...for eg...Have you observed the fact that in your bathroom you become more childish...Sometimes you can show your tongue to yourself in the mirror, or you can make faces, or you can hum a tune, sing a song, or you can even have a little dance in the bathroom. Bt while you are dancing or showing your tongue in the mirror, if you becom aware tht ur sis/bro/kid is looking through the keyhole, you change immediate change! The old face comes back...So I think moral person is not an individual becos he is divided, moral person has a personality bt no individuality..... Personality means persona, mask. And he/she has many personalities, not only one ...becos he/she has to have many personalities around him..... In different situations, different personalities are needed...and morality is a social phenomenon... society needs it becos society consists of millions of we all follow differnt ideas / moralities/masks in our life...sub chaltha hey boss!!!Smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:


mr.ass IF-Rockerz

Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 9469

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:35pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

Originally posted by old-black-joe

"  Morality is not black and white as some here make it appear.  There is alwyas a huge grey area left that is subjective to the situation.  "

Theres a show called we the people where in every show, someone realises this and says it halfway during the show LOL
ReallyLOL  I know the words are overused and cliched but there's no other substitute when one starts measuring everyone's morality using the same yard-stickLOL

yes, but by now one would think it would become academic to the so called intellectuals on we the people. LOL
mr.ass IF-Rockerz

Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 9469

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:36pm | IP Logged
"how you should be, what you should be."

one can't get more subjective than that!
blue-ice. IF-Addictz

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 55451

Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:46pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades

Define "morality" and "moral values" first, and then we can continue the discussion from there. Do you consider morality to be stringent and absolute or do you feel there is room for change depending on the time and context? Do you equate tradition with goodness and morality?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Morality is concerned with ideals... how you should be, what you should be. Therefore, I think morality is basically condemning...every morality creates hypocrisy..... It will do so inevitably. Hypocrisy will remain with morality..... It is part of it  the shadow...for eg...Have you observed the fact that in your bathroom you become more childish...Sometimes you can show your tongue to yourself in the mirror, or you can make faces, or you can hum a tune, sing a song, or you can even have a little dance in the bathroom. Bt while you are dancing or showing your tongue in the mirror, if you becom aware tht ur sis/bro/kid is looking through the keyhole, you change immediate change! The old face comes back...So I think moral person is not an individual becos he is divided, moral person has a personality bt no individuality..... Personality means persona, mask. And he/she has many personalities, not only one ...becos he/she has to have many personalities around him..... In different situations, different personalities are needed...and morality is a social phenomenon... society needs it becos society consists of millions of we all follow differnt ideas / moralities/masks in our life...sub chaltha hey boss!!!Smile

@POH....morality is something that u have to decide for will depend on different one can define morality for set of morals will be different from you...that soesn't mean that either one of us is immoral..its just that we believe in different things.....and no...nothing is absolute in this world all depends on ur perspective.......and u don't have to follow what u think is not one can force u to adhere to a particular set of morals because there is not a set of morals that is universal and holds true for everyone....
@ Vinu....I think u are confusing morals with tradition and human nature.......we do a lot of things out of peer/society pressure.........for e.g..touching the feet of ur elders is an old Indian tradition.....some follow it some do not...those who follow it ..if they just do it for name sakes then they can be called hypocrites.........if u don't like it then don't do touching the feet is a tradition but respecting ur elders is a moral value are not bound to follow either if u don't think they are right.....Just because someone follows what they feel is right doesn't make them hypocrites..for God's sake...this is a new one I have heard...

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
In wake of SKS: censorship/moral responsibility?

Author: --arti--   Replies: 9   Views: 1099

--arti-- 9 1099 12 August 2009 at 6:04pm by angelic_devil
Valentine's day - values anything?

2 3 4

Author: raj5000   Replies: 31   Views: 2985

raj5000 31 2985 15 February 2008 at 6:10am by rockstallion
Soldiers killing is moral?


Author: raj5000   Replies: 15   Views: 1375

raj5000 15 1375 02 October 2007 at 10:28pm by sareg
Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15

Author: raj5000   Replies: 117   Views: 7949

raj5000 117 7949 06 April 2007 at 6:41pm by raunaq
Moral Inspector of TV?

Author: realitybites   Replies: 8   Views: 905

realitybites 8 905 07 February 2007 at 12:13pm by realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index