Is pornography degrading?

Last week I attended a presentation on pornography at New College Florida. During the discussion, a student voiced her opinion that pornography is degrading to sexuality and the people taking part. I disagree. Does filming a couple kissing degrade the act of kissing? Does filming someone bicycling degrade bicyclists? It seems irrational to think that putting something to video automatically objectifies, degrades, exploits, or trivializes the act or the actors.

Pornography typically depicts frivolous sex acts outside of conventional standards such as monogamy, privacy, and romance. It is that casual and unconstrained attitude that most people tend to object to. But regardless of one’s specific reasons for protest, disagreeing with how sexuality is portrayed does not constitute an absolute moral judgment. Such judgments are merely personal.

One might argue that pornography cheapens and objectifies physical intimacy. But I’d respond that it only has that effect if the observer unrealistically generalizes what he or she is watching. It is the viewer in this case, not pornography, that is objectifying sexuality. Sex is not a solitary phenomenon. It is a collective name for a large variety of similar behaviors and instances existing exclusively from one another. The manner in which others have sex is separate from one’s personal sexual affairs. Every consenting adult is afforded the right to define and engage in sex as they see fit for their own purposes. No more. No less.

In that vein, opponents of same sex marriage claim that marrying gays violates the sanctity of marriage. The sanctity of whose marriage?, I ask. If a homosexual couple gets married, how does that affect the marriages of heterosexual couples? Will husbands and wives turn to each other and say, “Our marriage doesn’t mean as much now that gays are doing it?” Again, the reasoning seems irrational. Likewise, pornography may depict sexual relations that deviate from critics’ personal ideals, but it needn’t have any effect on their own sex lives.

It appears that opponents of pornography, like those against gay marriage, are disapproving in order to prop themselves up on high moral ground. Anything can appear offensive or depraved from such a self-serving viewpoint. Having a particular idea of what sex (or marriage, for that matter) should or shouldn’t be doesn’t mean everyone else must abide by one’s personal preference. What gives someone the authority to be a moral dictator? I think contempt towards others for having different opinions or lifestyles is degrading.

Pornography is said to “lack the moral standards and values of our Judeo-Christian heritage” in the 1965 anti-pornography propaganda film posted below. The vacuous notion that sex and nudity are almost inherently immoral and “dirty” continues to impose on our culture today. That oppressive idea is sadly self-validating. Current laws force people to hide their breasts, buttocks, and genitals, thereby turning those body parts into objects of indecency. A two-piece bathing suit not only hides a woman’s unmentionables, it also draws attention to those distinct parts of her anatomy by the very act of covering them up!

Sexual behavior is obscured by the same irony. Aren’t our laws and standards explicit evidence that society itself is objectifying and degrading sexuality while helping to create an atmosphere of suppressed sexual curiosity and impulsion? Perhaps pornography’s extremes might be explained as a retaliation against—and even a reflection of—society’s stubborn disgust and condemnation of one of life’s most fundamental and natural activities.


Evolution does not infer amorality

Christian evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have challenged two atheists to a debate over the existence of God that will air live at ABC’s website on May 5. What caught my eye in the article that introduced me to the debate was this quote by Cameron:

Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it’s taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn’t be surprised when there are school shootings.

Teaching evolution is responsible for school violence? Perhaps if no one had ever committed a wrong in the name of religion there might be some inkling of reason to consider his proposition (which also presumes that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive). But people commit crimes regardless of spiritual belief. And when religion is involved, the criminal always points to dogma, not it’s absence, as justification for his acts. No one has ever hurt another human being out of atheist fanaticism.

The Bible is not the only source of morality. And I’m grateful for that. If we all lived by it’s exact words we’d be stoning our children, keeping slaves, and offering our underage daughters to house guests for non-consensual copulation. Where might an atheist, then, get his or her moral sense? I agree with Albert Sweigart:

[…] I don’t think we have a moral mandate because God said so. I think we have a moral mandate because our actions, nevertheless what we think, make a difference. We affect the people around us in material and emotional terms, and our actions set an example for others to follow.

We have a moral mandate to take responsibility because we are in the rare position among life forms on earth to think, reflect, and take consideration of consequence. I think to fail to excogitate on our actions with our unique mental capabilities is tragic. And we see the problems that arise out of this failure, both in problems of hurt emotions and damaged relationships, and in problems of brutal violence and conflict.

Our ancestry from millions of years ago doesn’t limit our intellectual capability to find solutions to these problems today. It doesn’t impede our moral imperative to heal ourselves.

From what I can tell, most atheists take the ethical position of humanism. While humanism may not contain moral absolutes, it certainly objects to murder and other forms or cruelty and injustice. If there’s anything immoral suggested by Kirk Cameron’s statement, it’s that blaming science courses for deadly violence without sound reason is intellectually, socially, and ethically irresponsible.

There is no connection whatsoever between the teaching of evolution and school shootings. There does however seem to be a link between the promotion of creationism and a delusional cognizance of one of the greatest achievements of science.

Knowledge vs. utility

Gary Wolf’s article describing the New Atheism movement and Khalid Mir’s post on the value of intuition have prompted me to consider the difference between a belief system’s validity and usefulness.

One such ‘use’ is morality. Is morality superior to knowledge? To make an extreme case: I’d rather live among friendly and fun imbeciles than I would mean and murderous intellectuals. Or as Trey Parker explained it in Reason Magazine’s article, South Park Libertarians:

If a religion’s going to take over the world, and the one that really believes “just be super nice to everyone” takes over, that’s all right with me. Even if it’s all bullshit, that’s OK.

Parker is forgetting all the other things that come attached to religion. Though some beliefs in themselves might be useful or even true, the beliefs in the remainder of a belief system might not be.

[to be continued]

Existentialism as science?

This post is a result of considering the comments from my previous post.

Perhaps with the aid of some thoughtful comments by my readers I’ll be more able to quickly clean this draft up into something coherent.

If there is any philosophy that can eventually be scientifically proven, existentialism appears to be it. One of the primary tenets of existentialism is that human experience and all things meaningful are inherently subjective. The limits of human knowledge can easily be demonstrated. So at least in a general sense, subjectivity can be shown as part of the human condition by that observation.

One’s understanding of truth and meaning can likewise be shown as subjective assuming neuroscientists eventually pinpoint how these ideas are constructed in the brain. This is not to assert that truth and meaning cannot transcend subjective experience, but that the intrinsic subjectivity of humanity necessitates equally subjective ideas. Thus, any absolute or transcendental truths are outside the scope of human understanding and verifiability. Even scientific objectivity is ultimately subjective in the sense that it’s always relative to human experience.

Science depends on the validity of the observer. Studying the observer has the power to validate science itself by showing that observable reality is superior to other possible realities because it is the only reality we experience. It is ‘superior’ in a subjective sense as that’s the only sense we have. Perhaps to an absolute being, absolute reality is superior. However, we are not absolute beings.

Scientists can verify a fact with rigorous, peer-reviewed experiments. Philosophers can question the nature and scope of that fact, but my argument is that such questioning is pointless. The only reality we experience is the reality we observe. It follows that the only truth we experience is the truth we observe. What purpose do truths outside our experience serve? And if we cannot observe them, how can we possibly know or understand them?

In a sense, existentialism is like a philosophical version of Einstein’s relativity. The only truth we can know is relative truth. We are our own frame of reference. And although we can imagine what it’s like to see things from another point of view, we must always compare and contrast with our own perceptions in the end.

Agreement with others does not make a perception more likely to be absolute. It only shows a likeness in observational capacity with members of our kind. We could all be dreaming the same dream, and in absolute terms, all truth would be illusion. But that’s irrelevant. What we experience is real because it’s what we experience. Reality’s nature is beyond observation and is consequently beyond human knowledge and significance.

A better school system, a better social system

Sometime around 1992, Amherst built their own high school. Before that, the Amherst kids attended Milford Area High School. After the development, MASH—as it was called—dropped the A to become MHS, where I served four years of hard time.

Many of my friends were from Amherst, New Hamsphire. There was a day that MHS had off (probably a teacher’s meeting or something) and Amherst didn’t. The geek that I am, I went to AHS for a day.

Continue reading