prostitution in the Trek Universe?

[YARN]

I mean "unhappy" like one who works at a crappy low-wage job to support their family.

Like I said, it's a continuum. Some families are in situations comparable to that of the coal miner or those women who worked in the match industry suffering from necrosis of the jaw (losing their lower jaws due to exposure to yellow phosphorus). If you literally have to choose between starving to death and doing that one crappy job, then yeah you're in a coercive situation.

If, however, you stay in a job because it's the devil you know or because it's too much work to apply for another job, you are under much less coercion and are much more free.

Where can we draw the line? I've already described that in terms of broad vs. narrow rational self-interest and violating one's core principles and dignity under severe duress.

I have a good job. It pays good money and I enjoy the work. I am unhappy with the fact that it does not provide health insurance benefits, and I also dislike the fact that I have to drive an hour to get there. But it was the job that presented itself and, despite the couple of negatives, I took it. Was I somehow coerced into that job because of my lack of economic choices?

You've gotta read. Seriously. Words are your friend. There is a coercive aspect to all employment situations. What matters isn't whether you can tease out the coercive thread in your situation, but whether a given economic situation is manifestly objectionable given the level of coercion and the nature of the employment.

Is your situational objectionably coercive? Does it strip you of your fundamental dignity and humanity? Probably not.

Imagine, in detail, what your job involves. Got it? Good. Now imagine, in real-world detail (e.g., not Pretty Woman or The Happy Hooker, but you're average prostitute) what the prostitute's job requires. Got it? Can you see the difference? Can you see how that job is dehumanizing, humiliating, hazardous to one's health?

Michael Sandel (2009) raises the issue of cannabilism between consenting adults:

In 2001, a strange encounter took place in the German village of Rotenburg. Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, a forty-three-year-old software engineer, responded to an Internet ad seeking someone "willing to be killed and eaten." The ad had been posted by Armin Meiwes, forty-two, a computer technician. Meiwes was offering no monetary compensation, only the experience itself. Some two hundred people replied to the ad. Four traveled to Meiwes's farmhouse for an interview, but decided they were not interested. But when Brandes met with Meiwes and considered his proposal over coffee, he gave his consent. Meiwes proceeded to kill his guest, carve up the corpse, and store it in plastic bags in his freezer. By the time he was arrested, the "Cannibal of Rotenburg" had consumed over forty pounds of his willing victim, cooking some of him in olive oil and garlic.(pp. 73-74)

Where do you stand on this one? Would you have the government say "No" or "Yes" to this? It's consenting adults. It's their own property (their bodies). Suppose that Meiwes did offer financial compensation for this "service." Would you take this job?

 

[Rojixus]

If it's consenting adults, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[xortex]

I have yet to see a disgruntled porn star or an unhappy hooker.

 

[CoveTom]

You've gotta read. Seriously. Words are your friend.

I don't engage in discussion with people who can't present their argument without engaging in condescending and insulting behavior. So I'm done.

 

[sonak]

I mean "unhappy" like one who works at a crappy low-wage job to support their family.

Like I said, it's a continuum. Some families are in situations comparable to that of the coal miner or those women who worked in the match industry suffering from necrosis of the jaw (losing their lower jaws due to exposure to yellow phosphorus). If you literally have to choose between starving to death and doing that one crappy job, then yeah you're in a coercive situation.

If, however, you stay in a job because it's the devil you know or because it's too much work to apply for another job, you are under much less coercion and are much more free.

Where can we draw the line? I've already described that in terms of broad vs. narrow rational self-interest and violating one's core principles and dignity under severe duress.

I have a good job. It pays good money and I enjoy the work. I am unhappy with the fact that it does not provide health insurance benefits, and I also dislike the fact that I have to drive an hour to get there. But it was the job that presented itself and, despite the couple of negatives, I took it. Was I somehow coerced into that job because of my lack of economic choices?

You've gotta read. Seriously. Words are your friend. There is a coercive aspect to all employment situations. What matters isn't whether you can tease out the coercive thread in your situation, but whether a given economic situation is manifestly objectionable given the level of coercion and the nature of the employment.

Is your situational objectionably coercive? Does it strip you of your fundamental dignity and humanity? Probably not.

Imagine, in detail, what your job involves. Got it? Good. Now imagine, in real-world detail (e.g., not Pretty Woman or The Happy Hooker, but you're average prostitute) what the prostitute's job requires. Got it? Can you see the difference? Can you see how that job is dehumanizing, humiliating, hazardous to one's health?

Michael Sandel (2009) raises the issue of cannabilism between consenting adults:

In 2001, a strange encounter took place in the German village of Rotenburg. Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, a forty-three-year-old software engineer, responded to an Internet ad seeking someone "willing to be killed and eaten." The ad had been posted by Armin Meiwes, forty-two, a computer technician. Meiwes was offering no monetary compensation, only the experience itself. Some two hundred people replied to the ad. Four traveled to Meiwes's farmhouse for an interview, but decided they were not interested. But when Brandes met with Meiwes and considered his proposal over coffee, he gave his consent. Meiwes proceeded to kill his guest, carve up the corpse, and store it in plastic bags in his freezer. By the time he was arrested, the "Cannibal of Rotenburg" had consumed over forty pounds of his willing victim, cooking some of him in olive oil and garlic.(pp. 73-74)

Where do you stand on this one? Would you have the government say "No" or "Yes" to this? It's consenting adults. It's their own property (their bodies). Suppose that Meiwes did offer financial compensation for this "service." Would you take this job?

Sorry, no. There was an earlier argument about this in the thread, but I really don't see how being a legal prostitute is any more "humiliating or dehumanizing" than a lot of other jobs. In fact, it can be a lot better than doing back-breaking manual labor jobs. And it's NOT hazardous to one's health if it's legal since they do very strict and regular testing.

And as for your comparison to the case in Germany, it's an absurd comparison that doesn't deserve a serious response.



But as to the real topic at hand, I have to agree with what others have written. Given the economic situation presented in the Federation, there's no real reason for there still to be prostitution around as a job.

 

[YARN]

Sorry, no. There was an earlier argument about this in the thread, but I really don't see

This isn't about what you can see, it's about what you can establish using reasoned arguments. Your (lack of) vision warrants nothing.

how being a legal prostitute is any more "humiliating or dehumanizing" than a lot of other jobs.

Really? You don't think that having men ejaculate in your mouth for a living is humiliating?

You don't think that selling the most intimate use of your body so that others may merely use you as a receptacle for release is dehumanizing?

But wait... ...you said that it is no more dehumanizing than a lot of other jobs.

How many jobs sonak? Most of the jobs? Do you think most people on the job market are as bad off as prostitutes? Are the MAJORITY of jobs no more dehumanizing or humiliating? Are YOU better off than the average prostitute?
WHAT ARE THESE JOBS? Seriously. What are these jobs which are just as dehumanizing and humiliating.

You don't think that prostitution is a bit different than say, having to make photocopies or work the deep frier?

I agree that SOME jobs are comparably bad (i.e., bad enough that the job itself ought not exist under law). I am already committed to the claim that there are some jobs and conditions of employment which are dehumanizing. I maintain, for example, that it was morally repugnant to economically coerce poor people into working directly with yellow phosphorous to make cheap and convenient matches.

In fact, it can be a lot better than doing back-breaking manual labor jobs.

Any labor that literally breaks the laborer's back is morally repugnant. Hard, but non-debilitating, labor, on the other hand, which pays a fair wage on the market is unobjectionable.

You are gobbsmackingly oblivious to common knowledge facts about prostitution. This is one-click Google search stuff. Prostitutes suffer troubling rates of rape, murder, beatings, etc.

When prostitutes suffer people laugh. It is typical to hear people joke about pimping "Ho better have my money" as much as they laugh off prison rape "Don't bend over for the soap." When we hear of prostitutes getting beaten by Johns, people write it off as an occupational hazard. Serial killers target prostitutes, in part, because no one care when they disappear.

And it's NOT hazardous to one's health if it's legal since they do very strict and regular testing.

Again, what world are you living in? Legalized prostitution still exposes sex-workers to very real hazards.

Regular testing? Well, if everyone complies as they should, then future clients are protected, because the prostitute is no longer certified. This helps the John, but it does not help the prostitute.

Health? Condoms fail. Diseases can be passed by more than just genital to genital contact.

And as for your comparison to the case in Germany, it's an absurd comparison that doesn't deserve a serious response.

Prove that it is an absurd example. Don't just whine about it and refuse to engage. Tell me specifically HOW the example is irrelevant to the discussion.

NOTE: It's not my example. It was raised by Michael Sandel as a challenge to pure-libertarian thinking. I simply appropriated his example to make the same move (challenging the warrant of libertarianism justifying prostitution). You need to show, by extension, where our eminent philosopher has gone wrong.

 

[T'Girl]

I have a good job. It pays good money and I enjoy the work. I am unhappy with the fact that it does not provide health insurance benefits

By paying you good money, your employer is providing health care insurance. By putting you in the financial position to acquire health insurance insurance with your good pay.

coercive

If you concider the choice between having to work period, or permitting yourself to stare to death "coercive," then you setting the bar as to what qualifies is coercive pretty low.

I can only repeat the same unaddressed lines of analysis so many times before ...

At some point it should become clear to you that, not only aren't you making your point to the individual you're addressing, but also to all the others who read this thread, who could enter and respond, who also are not getting your point.

The possibility exist that you're simply not making yourself understood, with the logic you are choosing to employ.

 

[YARN]

If you concider the choice between having to work period, or permitting yourself to stare to death "coercive," then you setting the bar as to what qualifies is coercive pretty low.

Sigh... ...I am NOT setting the bar there.

See upthread where I discuss voluntariness.

The question is not whether if you don't work, you don't eat, but is (in part) whether the individual has options. If you consider the choice between having to work THAT job, or no job at all and thus starve, then you have a severely limited horizon of opportunity.

At some point it should become clear to you that, not only aren't you making your point to the individual you're addressing, but also to all the others who read this thread, who could enter and respond, who also are not getting your point.

I don't have reliable numbers on who reads this thread and understands it. Do you? Why don't I just postulate that all the lurkers get my point and agree with me? Or maybe they ALL get my point but would disagree on substantive grounds? Appeal to ignorance much?

At any rate, it is a gross exaggeration to say no one who reads this thread understand what I am saying.

The possibility exist that you're simply not making yourself understood, with the logic you are choosing to employ.

The logic I am choosing to employ is logic. There is nothing special here.

My interlocutors are simply failing to address points of analysis I have raised. You, for example, (above) raise an objection that I have already answered.

Someone objects. I respond. The same objection is raised again. I respond again. Am I supposed to spell it out in crayon? Those who wish to engage have to do more than make sniping drive by posts. Actually read what I've posted and respond to that and the conversation can go forward.

 

[Captain_Nick]

If the Federation has no money do whores work for free?

Wait a second. If there's no money in the Federation, how are males supposed to compete for sexual partners?

 

[YARN]

If the Federation has no money do whores work for free?

Wait a second. If there's no money in the Federation, how are males supposed to compete for sexual partners?

Well, if we look to Riker and Kirk, it's by being overdramatic, keeping your hair coiffed, and growing a manly tummy.

 

[Yevetha]

If the Federation has no money do whores work for free?

Wait a second. If there's no money in the Federation, how are males supposed to compete for sexual partners?

Charm, looks, ability to speak, penis size, rank and soo on.

 

[Rojixus]

I don't know about the Star Trek universe as a whole but I don't think there's much prostitution going on in the Federation, they have replicators and holodecks after all. However, I'm sure there are some religions somewhere in the Federation that practices sacred prostitution where the prostitution was part of their religion.

 

[sonak]

Sorry, no. There was an earlier argument about this in the thread, but I really don't see

This isn't about what you can see, it's about what you can establish using reasoned arguments. Your (lack of) vision warrants nothing.

how being a legal prostitute is any more "humiliating or dehumanizing" than a lot of other jobs.

Really? You don't think that having men ejaculate in your mouth for a living is humiliating?

You don't think that selling the most intimate use of your body so that others may merely use you as a receptacle for release is dehumanizing?

But wait... ...you said that it is no more dehumanizing than a lot of other jobs.

How many jobs sonak? Most of the jobs? Do you think most people on the job market are as bad off as prostitutes? Are the MAJORITY of jobs no more dehumanizing or humiliating? Are YOU better off than the average prostitute?
WHAT ARE THESE JOBS? Seriously. What are these jobs which are just as dehumanizing and humiliating.

You don't think that prostitution is a bit different than say, having to make photocopies or work the deep frier?

I agree that SOME jobs are comparably bad (i.e., bad enough that the job itself ought not exist under law). I am already committed to the claim that there are some jobs and conditions of employment which are dehumanizing. I maintain, for example, that it was morally repugnant to economically coerce poor people into working directly with yellow phosphorous to make cheap and convenient matches.



Any labor that literally breaks the laborer's back is morally repugnant. Hard, but non-debilitating, labor, on the other hand, which pays a fair wage on the market is unobjectionable.

You are gobbsmackingly oblivious to common knowledge facts about prostitution. This is one-click Google search stuff. Prostitutes suffer troubling rates of rape, murder, beatings, etc.

When prostitutes suffer people laugh. It is typical to hear people joke about pimping "Ho better have my money" as much as they laugh off prison rape "Don't bend over for the soap." When we hear of prostitutes getting beaten by Johns, people write it off as an occupational hazard. Serial killers target prostitutes, in part, because no one care when they disappear.

And it's NOT hazardous to one's health if it's legal since they do very strict and regular testing.

Again, what world are you living in? Legalized prostitution still exposes sex-workers to very real hazards.

Regular testing? Well, if everyone complies as they should, then future clients are protected, because the prostitute is no longer certified. This helps the John, but it does not help the prostitute.

Health? Condoms fail. Diseases can be passed by more than just genital to genital contact.

And as for your comparison to the case in Germany, it's an absurd comparison that doesn't deserve a serious response.

Prove that it is an absurd example. Don't just whine about it and refuse to engage. Tell me specifically HOW the example is irrelevant to the discussion.

NOTE: It's not my example. It was raised by Michael Sandel as a challenge to pure-libertarian thinking. I simply appropriated his example to make the same move (challenging the warrant of libertarianism justifying prostitution). You need to show, by extension, where our eminent philosopher has gone wrong.

1. The example is absurd because it compares death and harm to prostitution. Legal prostitution doesn't harm anyone provided appropriate safeguards are maintained. It's funny how someone who keeps talking about "logic" can't see the distinction.

2. You keep talking about how prostitution is "demeaning" and "humiliating." You obviously have Puritanical attitudes toward sex and think it is inherently "dirty" or "degrading." I don't share those nonsensical beliefs of yours so I have no issue with prostitution.

3. Again, I reiterate that there are many jobs that are worse than prostitution. There are low-level service jobs that pay minumum wage. There are tough manual labor jobs that cause all kinds of health problems later in life. There are many prostitutes who are satisfied with what they do, and in many places they are unionized as sex workers. You obviously have an issue with sex. That's your issue though, not mine.

4. Finally, when talking of the "poor treatment" of prostitutes, you seem to keep confusing legal prostitution with illegal prostitution. Many of the very problems you refer to are a result of prostitution being illegal. Your arguments are really supporting making prostitution legal and protected.


Back to you

 

[Nightdiamond]

TNG suggests humans still have problems with prostitution in the 24th century.

In The Perfect Mate (the one where one culture sends a woman to marry a man from another) Beverly has a problem with it;

BEVERLY:How can you simply deliver her like a courier into a life of virtual prostitution...

And yet on Risa apparently the waitresses will have sex with you if you display that horga'hn thing in the open. These employees are sex workers, then.

Sometimes it seems like Trek wanted it both ways-to show how libertarian and free the Federation was, and at the same time have very conservative values about things like sex, drugs, chewing gum etc.

 

[sonak]

TNG suggests humans still have problems with prostitution in the 24th century.

In The Perfect Mate (the one where one culture sends a woman to marry a man from another) Beverly has a problem with it;

BEVERLY:How can you simply deliver her like a courier into a life of virtual prostitution...

And yet on Risa apparently the waitresses will have sex with you if you display that horga'hn thing in the open. These employees are sex workers, then.

Sometimes it seems like Trek wanted it both ways-to show how libertarian and free the Federation was, and at the same time have very conservative values about things like sex, drugs, chewing gum etc.

the situation in "the perfect mate" was more like involuntary arranged marriage than prostitution.

 

[YARN]

1. The example is absurd because it compares death and harm to prostitution.

Strange, that you'd say so since a lot of hookers end up diseased, discarded, and dead. You want to try that again?

Wait, you don't want to talk about actual prostitution and the material conditions which drive people into working as prostitutes. No, you want to talk about prostitution as a sort of abstract concept right? We're supposed to imagine that in a world of legal prostitution, no one would be significantly exploited or harmed.

Legal prostitution doesn't harm anyone provided appropriate safeguards are maintained. It's funny how someone who keeps talking about "logic" can't see the distinction.

OK, here comes the point again [Bracketing, for the moment, the question of whether legal prostitution entails no harm to anyone (an assertion from hell)]. Try not to miss it twice.

1. T'Girl brought in libertarianism as an ideology which could justify Federation Prostitution.

2. The libertarian basically holds that person should be free to do whatever they wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. If I want to smoke, that's my biz. If I want to eat fatty foods, that's my biz. Etc. Etc. Self harm is OK, so long as I do not harm others.

With #1 and #2 we have a justificatory logic for prostitution. Prostitution is justified, because it does not violate the other-harm principle advocated by libertarians.

If, however, we find an example that serves as an exception to the other-harm principle, however, then we discover that matters are more complicated than the libertarian suggests. In such a case, we would not be able to stand on libertarianism as a justification we could use for any activity.

That case is found in...

3. The German Cannibalist Here we have a case which puts our libertarian sensibilities to the test. If you say that the state should not allow for these activities (i.e., cannibalism), then you are not a pure libertarian and cannot, therefore, invoke simple libertarianism (resting on the other-harm principle) as the justification for prostitution.

It's funny that you object to the example, but do so under grounds which simply prove my point. You object to this example, because it involves self-harm, but so what? Self-harm is OK under libertarianism. You object to cannibalism which involves harm, but throw a thumbs up to prostitution because it does not. Libertarians, however, allow for harm so long as it is voluntary. If you really want to smoke Black Lung ciggaretes, the libertarian won't tell you "No."

Again, the example is offered by Micheal Sandel (an eminent philosopher) making the same point as myself.

2. You keep talking about how prostitution is "demeaning" and "humiliating." You obviously have Puritanical attitudes toward sex and think it is inherently "dirty" or "degrading." I don't share those nonsensical beliefs of yours so I have no issue with prostitution.

LOL, even if I did, such notions would be irrelevant to our discussion, unless you want commit the genetic fallacy.

3. Again, I reiterate that there are many jobs that are worse than prostitution. There are low-level service jobs that pay minumum wage.

Wow, this is quite possibly the most ignorant thing anyone has ever said on the internet. Congrats.

If you take a reasonable person of good will (i.e., not you) and put them behind the veil of ignorance and tell them that they can pick one of two realities. You can work an average minimum wage job or you can live the life (it ain't just a job, there's a reason they call it "the life"), of the average prostitute. Which do you pick?

There are tough manual labor jobs that cause all kinds of health problems later in life. There are many prostitutes who are satisfied with what they do, and in many places they are unionized as sex workers. You obviously have an issue with sex. That's your issue though, not mine.

And there are some manual labor jobs which are exploitative and which I oppose on moral grounds.

As a conceptual ideal, it is possible to imagine women freely entering into this workforce freely. Then again, I can imagine honor among thieves, honest politicians, and unicorns. Moving away from the conceptual ideal, to the material realities that drive women into this trade in the first place complicates matters considerably.

In addition we have to consider the Kantian argument which is a priori.

4. Finally, when talking of the "poor treatment" of prostitutes, you seem to keep confusing legal prostitution with illegal prostitution. Many of the very problems you refer to are a result of prostitution being illegal. Your arguments are really supporting making prostitution legal and protected.

Ah yes, if only prostitution were legal all the problems would melt away. A "legal" dehumanizing and degrading job is still harmful. The same sort of people who fall into illegal prostitution would wind up in legal brothels. The health checks benefit the Johns, not the prostitutes. When the prostitute gets a disease (when the condom breaks, when mouth-to-mouth contact, when mouth-to-genital contact occurs, etc.), it is the prostitute who is kicked out of the legal sex-trade. The Johns, however, are protected from her because she is put right back out on the street where the pimp is waiting for her and where the legal market forces her to make even riskier choices (for less money) than she did before.

At any rate, I think the issue is complicated. I am not sure whether continued criminalization, decriminalization, or legalization is the answer. This isn't as simple as talking about pot. Whatever the answer is, we have to consider which behaviors, in principle (regardless of effects), are acceptable and dignified enough that allow for them. We have to consider the material realities that drive people into this lifestyle. We have to consider how legalization ramifies.

If it isn't as simple as "Do what you want so long as you don't bother me" (which is what the cannibal example establishes), then we have to seriously consider the complexity of the issue.

 

[Nightdiamond]

TNG suggests humans still have problems with prostitution in the 24th century.

In The Perfect Mate (the one where one culture sends a woman to marry a man from another) Beverly has a problem with it;

BEVERLY:How can you simply deliver her like a courier into a life of virtual prostitution...

the situation in "the perfect mate" was more like involuntary arranged marriage than prostitution.

There are hints of some willingness in it-- She said she was bred to sense whatever a male wants, and be whatever that is. And be the perfect mate. Yeah, right

Sort of like a willing slave--like the alien race that likes being servants to other people because it's in their nature?

With Call Girls it appears to be voluntary, most of them brag about the money they make. And even drug addicted prostitutes willfully do it by choice albeit to support an addiction.

Now if a government or TPTB deliberately denies opportunities to its population or certain groups to the point that they have to prostitute to survive--that's when the argument gets stronger.

 

[scotpens]

Then again, how many kids do you know who ever said, "When I grow up, I want strange men to put their penises in my mouth for cash!"

I knew a few of them in school — at least according to the graffiti in the boys’ room.

There are tough manual labor jobs that cause all kinds of health problems later in life. There are many prostitutes who are satisfied with what they do, and in many places they are unionized as sex workers. You obviously have an issue with sex. That's your issue though, not mine.

And there are some manual labor jobs which are exploitative and which I oppose on moral grounds.

Such as?

If it isn't as simple as "Do what you want so long as you don't bother me" (which is what the cannibal example establishes), then we have to seriously consider the complexity of the issue.

My only moral objection to cannibalism is that civilized society generally respects the wishes of the dead with regard to the disposal of their remains — and most folks would probably rather not be in someone’s stew after they die.

I still want to know what human flesh tastes like, though.

 

[sonak]

1. The example is absurd because it compares death and harm to prostitution.

Strange, that you'd say so since a lot of hookers end up diseased, discarded, and dead. You want to try that again?

Wait, you don't want to talk about actual prostitution and the material conditions which drive people into working as prostitutes. No, you want to talk about prostitution as a sort of abstract concept right? We're supposed to imagine that in a world of legal prostitution, no one would be significantly exploited or harmed.

Legal prostitution doesn't harm anyone provided appropriate safeguards are maintained. It's funny how someone who keeps talking about "logic" can't see the distinction.

OK, here comes the point again [Bracketing, for the moment, the question of whether legal prostitution entails no harm to anyone (an assertion from hell)]. Try not to miss it twice.

1. T'Girl brought in libertarianism as an ideology which could justify Federation Prostitution.

2. The libertarian basically holds that person should be free to do whatever they wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. If I want to smoke, that's my biz. If I want to eat fatty foods, that's my biz. Etc. Etc. Self harm is OK, so long as I do not harm others.

With #1 and #2 we have a justificatory logic for prostitution. Prostitution is justified, because it does not violate the other-harm principle advocated by libertarians.

If, however, we find an example that serves as an exception to the other-harm principle, however, then we discover that matters are more complicated than the libertarian suggests. In such a case, we would not be able to stand on libertarianism as a justification we could use for any activity.

That case is found in...

3. The German Cannibalist Here we have a case which puts our libertarian sensibilities to the test. If you say that the state should not allow for these activities (i.e., cannibalism), then you are not a pure libertarian and cannot, therefore, invoke simple libertarianism (resting on the other-harm principle) as the justification for prostitution.

It's funny that you object to the example, but do so under grounds which simply prove my point. You object to this example, because it involves self-harm, but so what? Self-harm is OK under libertarianism. You object to cannibalism which involves harm, but throw a thumbs up to prostitution because it does not. Libertarians, however, allow for harm so long as it is voluntary. If you really want to smoke Black Lung ciggaretes, the libertarian won't tell you "No."

Again, the example is offered by Micheal Sandel (an eminent philosopher) making the same point as myself.



LOL, even if I did, such notions would be irrelevant to our discussion, unless you want commit the genetic fallacy.



Wow, this is quite possibly the most ignorant thing anyone has ever said on the internet. Congrats.

If you take a reasonable person of good will (i.e., not you) and put them behind the veil of ignorance and tell them that they can pick one of two realities. You can work an average minimum wage job or you can live the life (it ain't just a job, there's a reason they call it "the life"), of the average prostitute. Which do you pick?

There are tough manual labor jobs that cause all kinds of health problems later in life. There are many prostitutes who are satisfied with what they do, and in many places they are unionized as sex workers. You obviously have an issue with sex. That's your issue though, not mine.

And there are some manual labor jobs which are exploitative and which I oppose on moral grounds.

As a conceptual ideal, it is possible to imagine women freely entering into this workforce freely. Then again, I can imagine honor among thieves, honest politicians, and unicorns. Moving away from the conceptual ideal, to the material realities that drive women into this trade in the first place complicates matters considerably.

In addition we have to consider the Kantian argument which is a priori.

4. Finally, when talking of the "poor treatment" of prostitutes, you seem to keep confusing legal prostitution with illegal prostitution. Many of the very problems you refer to are a result of prostitution being illegal. Your arguments are really supporting making prostitution legal and protected.

Ah yes, if only prostitution were legal all the problems would melt away. A "legal" dehumanizing and degrading job is still harmful. The same sort of people who fall into illegal prostitution would wind up in legal brothels. The health checks benefit the Johns, not the prostitutes. When the prostitute gets a disease (when the condom breaks, when mouth-to-mouth contact, when mouth-to-genital contact occurs, etc.), it is the prostitute who is kicked out of the legal sex-trade. The Johns, however, are protected from her because she is put right back out on the street where the pimp is waiting for her and where the legal market forces her to make even riskier choices (for less money) than she did before.

At any rate, I think the issue is complicated. I am not sure whether continued criminalization, decriminalization, or legalization is the answer. This isn't as simple as talking about pot. Whatever the answer is, we have to consider which behaviors, in principle (regardless of effects), are acceptable and dignified enough that allow for them. We have to consider the material realities that drive people into this lifestyle. We have to consider how legalization ramifies.

If it isn't as simple as "Do what you want so long as you don't bother me" (which is what the cannibal example establishes), then we have to seriously consider the complexity of the issue.

Please cite these examples of legal prostitutes facing the sort of issues you bring up.

Your argument is nothing more than a continued assertion that prostitution is degrading. You don't say why, so I can't respond. It's just charging money for a service. And yes there are many worse jobs.

 

[YARN]

1. The example is absurd because it compares death and harm to prostitution.

Strange, that you'd say so since a lot of hookers end up diseased, discarded, and dead. You want to try that again?

Wait, you don't want to talk about actual prostitution and the material conditions which drive people into working as prostitutes. No, you want to talk about prostitution as a sort of abstract concept right? We're supposed to imagine that in a world of legal prostitution, no one would be significantly exploited or harmed.



OK, here comes the point again [Bracketing, for the moment, the question of whether legal prostitution entails no harm to anyone (an assertion from hell)]. Try not to miss it twice.

1. T'Girl brought in libertarianism as an ideology which could justify Federation Prostitution.

2. The libertarian basically holds that person should be free to do whatever they wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. If I want to smoke, that's my biz. If I want to eat fatty foods, that's my biz. Etc. Etc. Self harm is OK, so long as I do not harm others.

With #1 and #2 we have a justificatory logic for prostitution. Prostitution is justified, because it does not violate the other-harm principle advocated by libertarians.

If, however, we find an example that serves as an exception to the other-harm principle, however, then we discover that matters are more complicated than the libertarian suggests. In such a case, we would not be able to stand on libertarianism as a justification we could use for any activity.

That case is found in...

3. The German Cannibalist Here we have a case which puts our libertarian sensibilities to the test. If you say that the state should not allow for these activities (i.e., cannibalism), then you are not a pure libertarian and cannot, therefore, invoke simple libertarianism (resting on the other-harm principle) as the justification for prostitution.

It's funny that you object to the example, but do so under grounds which simply prove my point. You object to this example, because it involves self-harm, but so what? Self-harm is OK under libertarianism. You object to cannibalism which involves harm, but throw a thumbs up to prostitution because it does not. Libertarians, however, allow for harm so long as it is voluntary. If you really want to smoke Black Lung ciggaretes, the libertarian won't tell you "No."

Again, the example is offered by Micheal Sandel (an eminent philosopher) making the same point as myself.



LOL, even if I did, such notions would be irrelevant to our discussion, unless you want commit the genetic fallacy.



Wow, this is quite possibly the most ignorant thing anyone has ever said on the internet. Congrats.

If you take a reasonable person of good will (i.e., not you) and put them behind the veil of ignorance and tell them that they can pick one of two realities. You can work an average minimum wage job or you can live the life (it ain't just a job, there's a reason they call it "the life"), of the average prostitute. Which do you pick?



And there are some manual labor jobs which are exploitative and which I oppose on moral grounds.

As a conceptual ideal, it is possible to imagine women freely entering into this workforce freely. Then again, I can imagine honor among thieves, honest politicians, and unicorns. Moving away from the conceptual ideal, to the material realities that drive women into this trade in the first place complicates matters considerably.

In addition we have to consider the Kantian argument which is a priori.

4. Finally, when talking of the "poor treatment" of prostitutes, you seem to keep confusing legal prostitution with illegal prostitution. Many of the very problems you refer to are a result of prostitution being illegal. Your arguments are really supporting making prostitution legal and protected.

Ah yes, if only prostitution were legal all the problems would melt away. A "legal" dehumanizing and degrading job is still harmful. The same sort of people who fall into illegal prostitution would wind up in legal brothels. The health checks benefit the Johns, not the prostitutes. When the prostitute gets a disease (when the condom breaks, when mouth-to-mouth contact, when mouth-to-genital contact occurs, etc.), it is the prostitute who is kicked out of the legal sex-trade. The Johns, however, are protected from her because she is put right back out on the street where the pimp is waiting for her and where the legal market forces her to make even riskier choices (for less money) than she did before.

At any rate, I think the issue is complicated. I am not sure whether continued criminalization, decriminalization, or legalization is the answer. This isn't as simple as talking about pot. Whatever the answer is, we have to consider which behaviors, in principle (regardless of effects), are acceptable and dignified enough that allow for them. We have to consider the material realities that drive people into this lifestyle. We have to consider how legalization ramifies.

If it isn't as simple as "Do what you want so long as you don't bother me" (which is what the cannibal example establishes), then we have to seriously consider the complexity of the issue.

Please cite these examples of legal prostitutes facing the sort of issues you bring up.

Your argument is nothing more than a continued assertion that prostitution is degrading. You don't say why, so I can't respond. It's just charging money for a service. And yes there are many worse jobs.

So you're dropping the charge of irrelevance with Sandel's example?