Running head: PAPER TITLE 1

Paper Title

Student Name

Name of school
PAPER TITLE 2

What, if anything, is wrong with (inegalitarian, heterosexual) adult

pornography? Is the state ever justified in regulating the production, sale, and

consumption of this type of pornography by consenting adults? On what

grounds?

Merriam-Webster defines pornography as, “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show

or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual

excitement” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). What material depicts sexually explicit may differ in

various circumstances. There may be sexual acts that display as nonviolent as well as sexual acts

that are violent between consenting adults. Even with widespread use of pornography, generally

conservatives believe pornography is morally bad or wrong.

A. W. Eaton, a well-known feminist, describes inegalitarian pornography as sex between

a man and a woman in which the man degrades the woman. This behavior affects men because

it teaches them to view women as sexual objects. In addition, when men watch pornography

they believe that what they see on television is normal sexual behavior. Inegalitarian

pornography leads women to believe that men find weak or submissive women attractive. This

behavior could also lead women to think that sexual assault is normal behavior. Women who

view this pornography may believe that rape is acceptable. Inegalitarian pornography clearly has

no place in a moral society.

Pornography also affects men and women who are in relationships. It creates a negative

fantasy that is unrealistic. It does not foster a healthy relationship. Research shows that people

who constantly watch pornography may become addicted. Those addicted to pornography may

lose interest with having sex with the same partner and always expect newness. Some may even

become disinterested in having sex with their partners.

PAPER TITLE 3

Feminist’s argument against pornography states that pornography “harms women,

silences women, and subordinates women” (Langston, 1999, p. 109). Feminist Catherine

MacKinnon argues that the “same free speech that protects men silences the free speech of

women” (Langton, 1999, p. 110).

Feminists believe that not all women who participate in pornography have a choice of

their own free will. They feel that the pornography industry is attractive because some women

feel they have no other options. MacKinnin especially feels that pornography is a form of sexual

slavery. And it takes unfair advantage of women who may be weaker minded.

Liberals believe that the freedom of speech should protect those who wish to read or view

adult pornography. Liberals agree with laws that protect children from exploitation or women

from violence. Ronald Dworkin, a well-known liberalist, states that, “feminists are dangerously

confused” (Langton, 1999, p. 109). The argument between liberals and feminists is that although

the freedom of speech gives people the ability to read and watch what they want, it should not

violate the harm that pornography causes to women. At the heart of the matter it should asked

that if pornography is harmful to women, is all pornography harmful to women or is some

pornography harmful to women (Langton, 1999)

Conservatives believe that the government should step in and prohibit the reading or

viewing of pornographic material. They feel that the oppression of women is significant enough

to warrant censorship. The conservative argument iis that pornography is morally wrong. They

feel that it corrupts behavior. They also feel that it goes against what is taught as moral family

values.

Although pornography may be legal for consenting adults, that does not mean it is moral.

Conservatives believe in legal paternalism which is the governments right to act upon what is
PAPER TITLE 4

best for the community even if the community is consenting adults. The government is trying to

prohibit pornography to prevent undue harm to others. Maybe the community doesn’t see the

bigger picture. They don’t see how preventing pornography is for the greater good of the people.

Mill’s Theory of the harm principle states that the state is justified in interfering when

there is harm to other people. Mill further states that the harm principle should not apply when

the harm is to the individual. Liberals use this argument to deduce that if a mentally competent

person makes the choice to participate in pornography, whether it be a bad choice, it is their

decision to make. The state should not interfere in those circumstances. Rather, education

about their bad choices is a better option for those individuals (Langton, 1999).

Liberals use the right to privacy to defend their right to pornography. Liberals belive that

individuals should be able to pursue their own tastes and choices without interruption from

government. They believe the private lives of individuals should not be tampered with. Similar

to the right to freedom of speech, liberal’s right to privacy can cause harm to others thus it could

be prohibited by the state.

Liberals also state the harm in censorship could be too great to interfere in pornography.

They state that creating a legal definition of pornography that would cover all of the possible

definitions would be too hard to do. For example, if a picture in a medical textbook shows male

or female genitalia, would that be considered pornography? And where would this censorship

stop? It could lead to other material being censored that should not be.

Conclusion

There is growing research that both liberals and conservatives find pornography harmful

to society. Maybe not on the grounds of it being obscene, but rather how it is affecting the
PAPER TITLE 5

community as a whole. Men, women, and relationships suffer from pornography. Feminists do

not believe that pornography is harmless.

Do affluent individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in absolute

poverty? Discuss with reference to Peter Singer’s ‘Strong Sacrifice Principle’

and his alternative ‘Weak Sacrifice’ Principle.

Affluent individuals have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. Affluent

individuals can better afford to donate money than those who make much less than them.

Someone in absolute poverty is described as being destitute. Yolanda Williams (n.d.) defined

absolute poverty as “a condition where a person does not have the minimum amount of income

needed to meet the minimum requirements for one or more basic living needs over an extended

period of time.” People who are in relative poverty may have or earn comparably less than their

affluent neighbors. Although they still are not s poor as someone who is in absolute poverty.

“According to the World Bank, over 1 billion people—at least one quarter of the world's

population—live in poverty” (Andre and Velasquez, 2015).

Through the drowning child thought experiment, Peter Singer tells the story of a small

child in a shallow pool of water, all alone. If there is no one else around, who should jump in to

save the child? What would it cost to save the child? Are those costs so great that it is not worth

it to save the child? It is the same scenario when it comes to absolute poverty (Singer, n.d.).

Singer’s example of the drowning child is meant to show that one should give money to those

who are suffering from not having the daily necessities such as food and clean water, who need

help. The major differences in his example is that the drowning child is nearby, as he is on his

way to a lecture. Also, in the drowning child example, it could result in his death whereas

feeding those in absolute poverty could potentially save multiple lives in the future. Also, in the
PAPER TITLE 6

drowning child example, he is the only one present to save the drowning child. Whereas in the

case of poverty, multiple people could donate money to help that situation.

What would it cost to prevent an impoverished person from dying from poverty? If there

are no other bad scenarios that would happen why not save the person in poverty? Peter Singer’s

Strong Sacrifice Principle states, “that you are obligated to do something good if there is no

sacrifice of something that is equally as moral.”

Peter Singer believes that it is one’s duty to give. He states that it is not charity, but

rather, it is the duty to give to the worlds impoverished. Singer states that it is a duty to help

prevent disease and death when it can be done without sacrificing one’s own welfare. It could be

stated that with Singer’s argument one may not act in their own best interests. If one always acts

because it is a duty to do so, then one would not be acting under their own freedom of choice

(Singer, n.d.).

Other arguments that are adverse to Peter Singer’s thoughts are that people who are in

extreme poverty are far away and don’t have to be helped by those in the richer countries such as

the Unites States. People in the richer countries need to help their own. There are many people

living in relative poverty in the United States, so should money from the United States be sent

overseas to help those poverty stricken countries? Another plausible argument against Peter

Singer is that “it is not my problem”, or “I didn’t create the problem so why should I act to

correct the problem?” Also, “If there are many people who could help, why should only one

person be expected to help?” Finally, “This is a huge problem so how can one person be

expected to help correct the problem?”

Thomas Pogge also states that people in rich cultures should give to the poor. However,

Pogge lists different reasons for helping the poor than Peter Singer. According to Thomas
PAPER TITLE 7

Pogge, instead of taking action to help those in poverty, action should be taken not to help create

poverty situations. For example do not trade with countries where poverty is created. Thomas

Pogge feels that people in the rich cultures have caused the poor nations to become poor.

Thomas Pogge states that richer nations could possibly support better alternatives when creating

situations that lead to poverty but they typically do not.

Other people feel that the developing countries will not be self-sustainable if they are

constantly given aid. These countries with the highest poverty estimates also have the highest

birth rates (Andre and Velasquez, 2015). Therefore, by giving these countries aid, they will be

harmed more than they are helped. Due to high birth rates, there are more people to eat less

food. Aid helps more of those in poverty survive, which in turns hurts the whole country.

Peter Singer’s Weak Sacrifice Principle states that, “if it is in our power to prevent

something very bad from happening, then we should do it if it is not sacrificing something that is

morally significant” (Singer, n.d.). However, with this principle, one could give and give until

they too delve into poverty. This principle does not describe anything outside of very bad. This

principle might refer to someone who may die but it does not address a normal everyday

occurrence that could be prevented.

Conclusion

In Peter Singer’s Strong and Weak Sacrifice Principles, neither principle is proven with

certainty. The weak principle lets us off the hook if the action would cause a similar scenario.

For example, one would not be obligated to give up so much charity that it turns them into a

poverty victim as well. And no one is obligated to act just because they have the means to do so.

People should donate to charity out of the goodness of their hearts rather than just because they

have reached a specific financial status. Most people do not want to sacrifice whatever standard
PAPER TITLE 8

of living they have grown accustomed to. Therefore they would not want to sacrifice their

lifestyle just to ensure that people in poverty can eat a well-balanced meal or have proper fitting

clothes and shoes, or have fresh water to drink. People in richer countries could sacrifice new

clothes or eating out in fine restaurants to donate money to charity, but they typically do not do

this.
PAPER TITLE 9

References

Andre, C. and Velasquez, M. (2015). World Hunger: A Moral Response. Retrieved from:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/world-hunger-a-moral-response/.

Langton, R. (1999). Pornography: A Liberal’s Unfinished Business. Retrieved from:

http://web.mit.edu/langton/www/pubs/UnfinishedBusiness.pdf.

Pogge, T. (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press

Pornography. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/pornography.

Singer, P. (n.d.). The Obligation to Assist. Retrieved from:

www.thelifeyoucansave.org/portals/0/images/resources/item_82.doc.

Williams, Y. (n.d.). Absolute Poverty. In Study.com. Retrieved from:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-absolute-poverty-definition-causes-

examples.html,