Consequentialism and Pornography PHILOSOPHY 220 Consequentialism The Basics

Consequentialism and Pornography PHILOSOPHY 220

Consequentialism: The Basics Consequentialism is the name given to a family of more specific normative ethical positions all of which share the conviction that it is the consequences of actions which determine their moral worth. As Timmons expresses it, all of these positions are committed to the following claim. Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the overall intrinsic value of the consequences of the action compared with the overall intrinsic value of the consequences associated with alternative actions an agent might perform instead. Thus, an action is right iff its consequences would be at least as good as the consequences of any alternative action that the agent might instead perform.

Implications There a number of important implications of this statement of these claims. 1. Consequentialist theories are value-based. 2. They are comparative theories. They make specific reference to alternative actions and the rightness or wrongness of any action is dependent on the value of the consequences of those actions. 3. The consequentialist account of right action is a maximizing conception. 4. Consequentialism is an impartialist moral theory. We have to consider the consequences for everyone and everyone counts equally.

It’s All in the Family The various specific forms of consequentialism share a commitment to these basic claims. They differ in their theory of value. The TV of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value with human welfare or happiness (it’s expression). The TV of Perfectionist Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value with human perfection. The TV of Rule Consequentialism identifies intrinsic value with the acceptance value* of rules. *The value of the consequences of the rule were it generally accepted

Utilitarianism The basic idea of U is that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by their effect on human welfare or happiness, with maximization and impartiality assumed. Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net value of the consequences of actions. Result is the Principle of Utility. An action is right iff its performance would likely produce at least as high utility as would any other alternative action.

What makes you fare well? An important issue that all utilitarians must address is how to understand human welfare. Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham) identify happiness (and thus human welfare) with pleasure and pain. For this reason they are labeled Hedonistic Utilitarians. As such, it is important to consider various senses of pleasure and pain. Bodily Pleasure vs. Intellectual Pleasures

Perfectionist Consequentialism PC adopts a different TV than utilitarianism. Value Perfectionism: states of human perfection (knowledge, excellence) that have intrinsic value. Thus, the TRC of PC says An action is right iff its performance would likely bring about a greater net balance of perfectionist goods than would any other alternative action. What is a perfectionist good?

Rule Consequentialism Both U and PC focus on actions. They are both forms of Act Utilitarianism. There a number of well recognized challenges to act utilitarianism. As a result, some utilitarians have shifted their focus to the capacity of rules to guide our action. When we shift with them it becomes possible to consider the consequences of the acceptance of various possible rules.

Playing by the Rules On the assumption that some rules produce more valuable consequences than others we can specify a TV for RC. An action is right iff it is permitted by a rule whose associated acceptance value is at least as high as the acceptance value of any other rule applying to the situation. In the face of more than one possible action, RC directs you to identify the rules governing the possible actions and then compare the rules’ acceptance values to determine which action is right.

Consequentialism in Action Applying consequentialism requires calculation and comparison. Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a more informal estimation. The explicit goal of the calculation is to identify the action/rule that maximizes the specified value(s). Comparison must include all parties affected (in a relevant or significant way) by the proposed action.

Consequences of Pornography The popularity of consequentialist thinking is demonstrated by the reliance of the Meese commission on broadly consequentialist reasoning to determine if pornography should be censored. When evaluating their reasoning, we need to consider carefully the relationship between the activities or behaviors and the claimed consequences.

In Their Sights Charged by then president Reagan, the Meese commission identified and evaluated the possible consequences of the availability and use of 4 different forms of pornography. 1. Violent 2. Non-violent, but degrading 3. Non-violent and non-degrading 4. Child pornography

The Problem of Causation Specifying a causal link is a very complicated process. There a number of forms of causal connection to consider. There is also the problem of correlation. Multiple causation is another complicating factor.

Conclusions? Violent Pornography: studies suggest a causal link between exposure and aggressive behavior towards women but, “a link between aggressive behavior toward women and sexual violence…requires assumptions not found in the experimental evidence. We see no reason…not to make these assumptions” (94 c 1). Non-Violent but Degrading: “The evidence…is more tentative, but supports the conclusion that the material we describe as degrading bears some causal relationship to the attitudinal changes we have previously identified” (95 c 2). Non-Violent and Non-Degrading: though there is no evidence of a causal link with sexual violence, “does not answer the question of whether such materials might not themselves simply for some other reason constitute a harm” (96 c 2). For example, displaying offensive behavior or encouraging promiscuity.

Does it Add Up? Nadine Strossen, among many others, has serious reservations about the reasoning and conclusions of the Meese commission. Strossen goes further to argue that even if the Meese commission is right about the consequences of the broad social availability of pornographic materials, censorship would not solve the problems identified.

What’s Being Assumed? According to Strossen, reasoning like that of the Meese Commission makes three dubious assumptions. 1. Exposure to sexist, violent imagery leads to sexist, violent behavior. 2. Suppression of pornography would significantly reduce exposure to sexist, violent imagery. 3. Censorship could significantly reduce exposure to pornography.

Monkey See, Monkey Do? § There are four types of evidence supporting the link relied upon by the Meese Commission. 1. 2. 3. 4. Research Data on attitudinal effects (100 c 2). Correlational Data on availability of materials. Anecdotal Data from sex offenders (102 c 1). Research Data on sex offenders (104 c 1). Strossen notes in addition that not even the advocates of censorship think that these sources of evidence prove the point.

Is Porn the Problem? Strossen goes then questions the supposition that pornography is the most source of the questionable imagery. As we’ve already noted, our popular culture is full of sexually explicit imagery. Evidence suggests that accepting the rape myth is just as likely to result from watching soap operas as it is from pornography (105 c 1).

Is Censorship Effective? Strossen’s final point is that there is good historical reason to doubt that censorship would serve as an effective limit to exposure to pornography. Data suggests to the contrary that censorship would have the effect of increasing receptiveness to the imagery being censored (105 c 2).