Prostitution

[Rebekka]

Well, what I was trying to communicate:
The first point you brought up makes no sense in itself. The argument has no merits, unless for someone who shares your feelings that you described in the other point. They are indeed related - in that the first point entirely depends on the second.
This means that - if we wanted to discuss - we would have to discuss your second point. Since this point is merely a description of your feelings, there is nothing to discuss.

I think opinions can be discussed, also because there are reasons behind them, but if you aren't open for moral reasons (or religious reasons if you will) then indeed there is nothing to discuss.

 

[quatona]

I think opinions can be discussed, also because there are reasons behind them, but if you aren't open for moral reasons (or religious reasons if you will) then indeed there is nothing to discuss.

Give me an idea as to how I could possibly discuss the statement "sex doesn´t belong into business". It gives no reason, it´s a blanket statement of belief. I won´t dispute that this is your belief.
I don´t know what you mean by "moral" or "religious reasons". As far as my experience goes, they all come down to "my god says so" or "my religious doctrine says so". How can I possibly discuss that? Ok, it says so, but since I don´t believe in your god and don´t accept your religious doctrine as authoritative, the thing that would have to be discussed first is whether the god of your concept exists or not. I´m not sure any of us wants to go there.

Moral or religious reasons are great for a guideline as to what you want to do or not want to do.
When it comes to advocate criminalization there needs to be more than that.

 

[Rebekka]

Give me an idea as to how I could possibly discuss the statement "sex doesn´t belong into business". It gives no reason, it´s a blanket statement of belief. I won´t dispute that this is your belief.
I don´t know what you mean by "moral" or "religious reasons". As far as my experience goes, they all come down to "my god says so" or "my religious doctrine says so". How can I possibly discuss that? Ok, it says so, but since I don´t believe in your god and don´t accept your religious doctrine as authoritative, the thing that would have to be discussed first is whether the god of your concept exists or not. I´m not sure any of us wants to go there.

Moral or religious reasons are great for a guideline as to what you want to do or not want to do.
When it comes to advocate criminalization there needs to be more than that.

Yes, that's what I meant with my post - if you don't want to discuss religion (or whether or not God exists), then we can't discuss why I believe that sex should not be for sale. It's shorter to just end the discussion then.

 

[quatona]

Yes, that's what I meant with my post - if you don't want to discuss religion (or whether or not God exists), then we can't discuss why I believe that sex should not be for sale. It's shorter to just end the discussion then.

I´m not necessarily unwilling to discuss your religious ideas, I just don´t see much point in discussing arguments that depend on preconceptions that aren´t common ground for the participants. First there would have to be a common ground, based upon which we can accept each others´ arguments.
The way you proceeded was putting the cart before the horse.

I guess what I have become a little tired of are arguments that merely rationalize the underlying belief. Whenever discussing them it turns out that in the end they are circular. "I believe prostitution is bad, because X, because S, because D,..., because prostitution is bad."

Like if I told you that I felt guitar lessons should be made illegal, because they objectify the teacher, because they are not an equal relationship, because one person buys the mind and body of the other and gets all the fun, etc. etc., you´d probably go "what? how does that make any sense?"
It´s not until I have told you that I think that music shouldn´t be subject to business that you know where I am coming from. And, in fact, that´s all you would need to know. The explanations above make no sense without this, and once you know that this is my premise, they are redundant. My only "reason" is my feeling that music shouldn´t be subject to business.

 

[Rebekka]

I´m not necessarily unwilling to discuss your religious ideas, I just don´t see much point in discussing arguments that depend on preconceptions that aren´t common ground for the participants. First there would have to be a common ground, based upon which we can accept each others´ arguments.
The way you proceeded was putting the cart before the horse.

I guess what I have become a little tired of are arguments that merely rationalize the underlying belief. Whenever discussing them it turns out that in the end they are circular. "I believe prostitution is bad, because X, because S, because D,..., because prostitution is bad."

Like if I told you that I felt guitar lessons should be made illegal, because they objectify the teacher, because they are not an equal relationship, because one person buys the mind and body of the other and gets all the fun, etc. etc., you´d probably go "what? how does that make any sense?"
It´s not until I have told you that I think that music shouldn´t be subject to business that you know where I am coming from. And, in fact, that´s all you would need to know. The explanations above make no sense without this, and once you know that this is my premise, they are redundant. My only "reason" is my feeling that music shouldn´t be subject to business.

Fair enough.

So, I assume that all non-believers can't find any reason why prostitution should be illegal?

 

[quatona]

Fair enough.

So, I assume that all non-believers can't find any reason why prostitution should be illegal?

I don´t know. I´d just like to clarify that this conclusion isn´t implied by anything I have said.
I personally can think of a couple of reasons, but on closer examination they turn out to be either inconsistent, illogical, circular or - most often - irreconcilable with paradigms that I argue from on other occasions.

 

[Rebekka]

I don´t know. I´d just like to clarify that this conclusion isn´t implied by anything I have said.
I personally can think of a couple of reasons, but on closer examination they turn out to be either inconsistent, illogical, circular or - most often - irreconcilable with paradigms that I argue from on other occasions.

It was a general question to all here, not just to you. Sorry if it looked like it was.

Do you (quatona, not a general you this time) think inconsistency is to be avoided at all cost?

 

[quatona]

It was a general question to all here, not just to you. Sorry if it looked like it was.

No problem.

Do you (quatona, not a general you this time) think inconsistency is to be avoided at all cost?[/quote]
When trying to make a sound argument? Yes, most definitely.
Example:
If I´d argue that religious worship should be criminalized with the argument that usually there is one person in front of an audience trying to influence their opinion, I am implying that the situation of "a person in front of an audience trying influence their opinion" is negative and worth being criminalized. If, at the same time, I am perfectly fine with non-religious events in which a person stands in front of an audience trying to influence their opinion, my argument is obviously not the actual reason why I disapprove of religious worship and want it criminalized. Either I do not really know why I actually hold this position (in which case I would be well advised to think a bit harder before I start arguing for my position in a discussion), or I am trying to veil my actual reason (e.g. because I am uncomfortable with it myself, or because I sense that it is even more obviously inconsistent, illogical or otherwise a poor argument), or I am simply grasping at straws.

 

[rppearso]

All of the practical reasons it is illegal are posted towards the beginning of this thread, I think we are spinning our wheels here.

 

[Rebekka]

No problem.

Do you (quatona, not a general you this time) think inconsistency is to be avoided at all cost?

When trying to make a sound argument? Yes, most definitely.
Example:
If I´d argue that religious worship should be criminalized with the argument that usually there is one person in front of an audience trying to influence their opinion, I am implying that the situation of "a person in front of an audience trying influence their opinion" is negative and worth being criminalized. If, at the same time, I am perfectly fine with non-religious events in which a person stands in front of an audience trying to influence their opinion, my argument is obviously not the actual reason why I disapprove of religious worship and want it criminalized. Either I do not really know why I actually hold this position (in which case I would be well advised to think a bit harder before I start arguing for my position in a discussion), or I am trying to veil my actual reason (e.g. because I am uncomfortable with it myself, or because I sense that it is even more obviously inconsistent, illogical or otherwise a poor argument), or I am simply grasping at straws.

Thanks for your explanation.

In debate consistency is a good thing, but in life in general, it's morally neutral IMO (off-topic though). (As in: it's worse to never be kind to anyone [consistent] than it is to be generally kind but to be unkind in some circumstances [inconsistent].)

 

[cantata]

Thanks for your explanation.

In debate consistency is a good thing, but in life in general, it's morally neutral IMO (off-topic though). (As in: it's worse to never be kind to anyone [consistent] than it is to be generally kind but to be unkind in some circumstances [inconsistent].)

That need not be inconsistency. You may have sound reasons for behaving kindly in one situation and unkindly in another. Being consistent is not just doing the same thing all the time. As long as your reasoning is consistent - that is, if you don't do something for one reason but fail to give that reason equal weight when applied to a different situation - you can do different things in every circumstance if you want to.

 

[Rebekka]

That need not be inconsistency. You may have sound reasons for behaving kindly in one situation and unkindly in another. Being consistent is not just doing the same thing all the time. As long as your reasoning is consistent - that is, if you don't do something for one reason but fail to give that reason equal weight when applied to a different situation - you can do different things in every circumstance if you want to.

Yes, but even if you didn't have good reasons for your inconsistent behaviour. For example, it is someone's general rule to treat others horribly (because of... whatever). And he follows this rule all his life. That's consistent. But then there's another person. His rule is to treat people kindly. But he's inconsistent, because sometimes he's in a crappy mood and just doesn't feel like it. He doesn't have any good reason. He's inconsistent. Still he would have my sympathy more than the other fellow.

 

[cantata]

Yes, but even if you didn't have good reasons for your inconsistent behaviour. For example, it is someone's general rule to treat others horribly (because of... whatever). And he follows this rule all his life. That's consistent. But then there's another person. His rule is to treat people kindly. But he's inconsistent, because sometimes he's in a crappy mood and just doesn't feel like it. He doesn't have any good reason. He's inconsistent. Still he would have my sympathy more than the other fellow.

Well sure, but all you're saying is that being nice is more important than consistency, and I'm sure most people would agree with you. It doesn't mean that consistency isn't important at all. Of course, the person who was consistent to their general principle to treat people kindly would be the best of all.

 

[Rebekka]

Well sure, but all you're saying is that being nice is more important than consistency, and I'm sure most people would agree with you. It doesn't mean that consistency isn't important at all. Of course, the person who was consistent to their general principle to treat people kindly would be the best of all.

I don't think consistency isn't important at all. It is important in argumentation. I just said it is morally neutral. (But morally neutral things aren't necessarily unimportant. )

Yes, being nice is more important than consistency.

 

[Rebekka]

By the way (even more off-topic, sorry ), I brought the thing about consistency up because that's one of the things people always say about either vegetarians ("but you wear leather shoes! That's inconsistent! At least I am consistent because I wear leather shoes too, but I eat meat - so I'm better than you") or animal rights defenders ("you're against vivisection, but yesterday I saw you killing a fly - that's inconsistent!") - as if doing good is only worthwile if you do it all the time (protecting the life of bacteria, too), and therefore it is ridiculous to try to do good in that area. As if consistency (treating all animals like crap) is morally superior to trying your best but failing to be consistent.

(Just some info on where this came from, all of a sudden. )

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your explanation.

In debate consistency is a good thing, but in life in general, it's morally neutral IMO (off-topic though).

Yes, I think it´s an entirely different topic.
For a moment, forget about discussing and debating. Let´s say I have a strong aversion against prostitution and would like to see it done away with. I am looking for a good argument that supports the idea of criminalizing it. This would require the argument to be consistent with the paradigms that the judicial system of my country is working from (e.g. the constitution, and the way already existing laws interprete it).
Everything else would be revolutionary (not that there´s anything wrong with that - it just would lead to a completely different discussion). I would still take care that there is inner consistency to my revolutionary ideas - with the frame of reference being something else than the constitution, though.
If there is no consistency in regards to a certain frame of reference to our judicial system and practice, we are left with arbitrariness - exactly that problem which a legal system is supposed to solve.

(As in: it's worse to never be kind to anyone [consistent] than it is to be generally kind but to be unkind in some circumstances [inconsistent].)

It would be inconsistent in regards to the creed "I should be nice to everyone". It could be completely consistent in regards to a different creed/postulation. IOW the person could have a stance from which his idea to treat some nice and some not would be completely consistent. In which case I would expect him to reveal this creed/postulation in regards to which his idea is consistent, instead of pleading for it from a standard in regards to which it is not consistent.
Once he does so, I know at least that he doesn´t make up arguments as he walks along and as the suit his momentary needs.
I might, however, still disagree with his idea because I don´t accept his frame of reference, in the first place.
Sometimes this is predictable: Like, in a discussion between theists and non-theists (or between theists of different proveniences) the argument "because my god says so" is referring to a frame of reference that is clearly not common ground.

Anyways, as you have noted, this is a different topic altogether. I didn´t mean to use "consistent" as a moral term - in fact I can´t make much sense of the idea of "morality".

 

[quatona]

By the way (even more off-topic, sorry ), I brought the thing about consistency up because that's one of the things people always say about either vegetarians ("but you wear leather shoes! That's inconsistent! At least I am consistent because I wear leather shoes too, but I eat meat - so I'm better than you") or animal rights defenders ("you're against vivisection, but yesterday I saw you killing a fly - that's inconsistent!") - as if doing good is only worthwile if you do it all the time (protecting the life of bacteria, too), and therefore it is ridiculous to try to do good in that area. As if consistency (treating all animals like crap) is morally superior to trying your best but failing to be consistent.

(Just some info on where this came from, all of a sudden. )

Rebekka, let me explain (if that´s even necessary anymore by now) where there´s a difference between this and my criticism of your argument.

Let alone that in your example people judge others´ behaviour (and not their arguments), they - hopefully - at least agree on the greater goal "harming animals is to be avoided" (no matter whether they agree that it´s worth striving for or not) in regards to which they judge something consistent/inconsistent.

In the case of your argument (about prostitution being wrong because it is not an equal relationship)
a. I was wondering whether the goal your argument implied (every human interaction must be an equal relationship, else it should be criminalized) was really your goal;
b. in case this is your goal I might not agree with it.

 

[stan1980]

Joining this late, but God supposedly gave us free will. By making prostitution illegal are you not putting an obstacle in the way of the free will we were (allegedly) given?

 

[cantata]

If people can choose to do anything, I dare say they can choose to do illegal things.

 

[Rebekka]

In the case of your argument (about prostitution being wrong because it is not an equal relationship)
a. I was wondering whether the goal your argument implied (every human interaction must be an equal relationship, else it should be criminalized) was really your goal;
b. in case this is your goal I might not agree with it.

It wasn't my only argument. More precisely it would be: every sexual relationship should be an equal relationship. Not every business transaction or every human interaction must be an equal relationship, but rather, sexual relationships should not be business transactions (and the fact that prostitution is a business transaction makes it an unequal relationship).

But those are personal objections I have against prostitution. As a christian, it would be enough to say "because my God says so". However, before I was a christian (I was agnostic until about 5 years ago), I was against prostitution as well.

By the way, making something illegal doesn't have to mean that prostitutes automatically become criminals; it's possible to only punish the customer, not the prostitute. As you may have noticed, I see the prostitute as the weaker party (at least in a physical way - and yes, generalizing that a prostitute is a woman and the customer a man; I know that there are male prostitutes and female customers, but they're a minority).