Morality question re child pornography

[Hermlord]

Loosely inspired by the veal thread....

Is it wrong to download child pornography, anonymously off the Internet?

No:
--The damage has already been done, with absolutely no causation from the downloader
--No money is transferred so there is no financial support of the perpetrators

Yes:
--Morality is not about material consequences, it is about right and wrong. It is wrong to benefit from something that harms innocents.

A few more points:

--Assume that this is severely damaging for the child. This is not some he's-18-she's-17 scenario.

--Assume that downloading does not lead the viewer to actually commit these acts.

--This is a moral debate, not a practical question. If I was interested in downloading kiddie porn I would not be posting about it on my regular account. This should be obvious, but sadly this disclaimer is necessary.

Discuss.

[pshreck]

links please.

[BusterStacks]

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/images/smilies/ttiwwop.gif

[Hermlord]

You guys suck.

[Lazymeatball]

I'm not sure I can logically defend this opinion. But I think it's probably wrong just to think sexually about children.

[pshreck]

Is it wrong to have sex with a dead body, assuming all the assumptions (no one finds out, you dont disfigure the body, you wont get sick, etc...).

Answer: of course.

Answer to your question: of course.

[slickpoppa]

If you argue that looking at child pornography is immoral, don't you have to argue that looking at videos of people being killed etc, is also immoral? If not, how do you distinguish the two?

[Alobar]

In the state of arizona, getting caught with one pictrure of child pornography in your posession (on your computer counts), gives you the exact same manditory sentance as if you actually molested a child.

interesting, no?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you argue that looking at child pornography is immoral, don't you have to argue that looking at videos of people being killed etc, is also immoral? If not, how do you distinguish the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason for looking at the video is how I distinguish.

A cop investigating a sex crime would be able to watch these videos, no problem with that.

The catch for us is why would we watch the video other then for sexual pleasure or even sexual curiousity? I believe that is morally wrong, or at the least implies you have a mental issue.

EDIT:

To further answer your question, I dont believe curiousity about death, what it looks like and seeing it happen, means you have any mental problems. I think that is perfectly normal.

[Hermlord]

[ QUOTE ]
If you argue that looking at child pornography is immoral, don't you have to argue that looking at videos of people being killed etc, is also immoral? If not, how do you distinguish the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. Followup question:

Does the intentionality of the viewer matter? Is looking at child pornography for sexual pleasure wrong, but looking out of curiousity/research/desire to know all facets of life/etc. not wrong, or not as wrong?

[InchoateHand]

Hate to say it, but read Foucault and then argue that child pornography is INHERENTLY "damaging" to the child.

[slickpoppa]

What about getting pleasure at watching somoene else die? Is that also immoral?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
What about getting pleasure at watching somoene else die? Is that also immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since morality is all relative, I will answer it with my perspective of you have something mentally wrong with you if you find pleasure in this. This is just as ambiguous as morality, but its the best way I can say it.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about getting pleasure at watching somoene else die? Is that also immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since morality is all relative, I will answer it with my perspective of you have something mentally wrong with you if you find pleasure in this. This is just as ambiguous as morality, but its the best way I can say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if Osama Bin Laden were captured and his execution were televised? Would it be immoral for someone to derive pleasure from watching him die?

[Hermlord]

I did not argue that, I only claimed that in fact it did damage the child. That is an interesting debate but not the one I wanted to have. As a practical matter, it seems pretty clear that most of the child porn available on the Internet is damaging to the child.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]


What if Osama Bin Laden were captured and his execution were televised? Would it be immoral for someone to derive pleasure from watching him die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes? I dont see how this is really that different. I even think that most Americans that would love to see him die, would not actually experience pleasure in watching his death.

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
In the state of arizona, getting caught with one pictrure of child pornography in your posession (on your computer counts), gives you the exact same manditory sentance as if you actually molested a child.

interesting, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm as anti-kiddie-porn as the next guy, but something about that doesn't quite seem fair. (This is part of why mandatory minimums are stupid.) I remember reading somewhere that the people in the pictures only had to _look_ under 18 for it to count as child porn...anyone happen to know if that's actually the case?

There was also a case a couple years ago regarding virtual child porn - if all the characters in the image are computer-generated, but they look like naked children, is it illegal? I think the general argument was that the computer-generated images might lead someone to acts involving actual children, but I don't know how it turned out.

[slickpoppa]

What I am trying to get at is that I don't think that the morality of an inconsequential action should depend on the mental state of the actor. Intent and one's thoughts is an important part of morality when the intent and thoughts play a part in an action that actually harms another person. For example, killing someone in self-defense is very different from killing because of jealousy.

I think you run into problems, however, if you say that one's mental state affects the morality of inconsequential acts such as looking at child pornography. The problem is that it basically means that pure thoughts can be immoral. This is a problem because to some extent people cannot control their thoughts. For example, according to your line of reasoning if a cop was investigating a child porn case and suddenly became aroused during the investigation, that would be immoral. Something about that seems wrong to me.

[BusterStacks]

I don't really care if people look at child porn as long as they do not harm a child in real life.

[Nick B.]

I think that if it is somebody underage who is doing it against their will, then yes. If it is an underage person that wants to do it, no.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really care if people look at child porn as long as they do not harm a child in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Supporting child pornography doesn't harm the child? If there is a demand for more child porn, wouldn't you think more would be created?

[masse75]

This is awfully heavy for OOT. Can we talk about setting up my new speakers instead?

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it wrong to download child pornography, anonymously off the Internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is illegal, and the penalties are awful. More to the point: "--Assume that this is severely damaging for the child."

Thus, deriving pleasure from it is morally wrong. Any why else are you downloading it? If it is for other reasons (i.e., you are a police office or conducting academic research), then that's something else.

[shadow29]

Basically, I think that the objections stem from the point that if no one looked at it, it would stop. So by looking at it, you're contributing to the propagation of more child porn.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, I think that the objections stem from the point that if no one looked at it, it would stop. So by looking at it, you're contributing to the propagation of more child porn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're leeching it and not contributing ANYTHING in return (let's say you're not even viewing ads) then how are you encouraging people to make more? Say you DL it off Usenet or Freenet, where no one even knows you DL it. I think that saying leeching it is causing people to make more is a bad argument for this scenario.

[bisonbison]

You discover a foolproof way to watch your neighbor (attractive 20-year-old member of whatever gender) naked every day. It costs nothing, they'll never know, and you'll never get caught.

Is it ethical to watch them?

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
You discover a foolproof way to watch your neighbor (attractive 20-year-old member of whatever gender) naked every day. It costs nothing, they'll never know, and you'll never get caught.

Is it ethical to watch them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends which school of ethics you belong to, which is the answer to this entire thread.

If you're a utilitarianist then yes it is. The combined value between the two of you is greater when you see her naked and she is completely unaware than it is when you don't see her naked. As you gain and she loses nothing this is obviously a better scenario and it's 100% ethical.

[trying2learn]

[ QUOTE ]
You discover a foolproof way to watch your neighbor (attractive 20-year-old member of whatever gender) naked every day. It costs nothing, they'll never know, and you'll never get caught.

Is it ethical to watch them?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the "they'll never know" line is the key here. as long as you don't ever variate from this scenario (ie start to stalk or attack said neighbor), then this is ethical for sure.

[bisonbison]

No, she has a right to privacy. You need her consent.

The child in whatever child pornography has not (and in a legal sense cannot) consent to forfeit that right, so it can not be ethical to view it.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if it is somebody underage who is doing it against their will, then yes. If it is an underage person that wants to do it, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an idiot. If the child is 3 and doesn't know any better, it's still wrong.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You discover a foolproof way to watch your neighbor (attractive 20-year-old member of whatever gender) naked every day. It costs nothing, they'll never know, and you'll never get caught. Is it ethical to watch them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd argue that if she can't be bothered with closing her curtains, and you can do this w/o trespassing on her property, then it's not unethical.

[bisonbison]

I should have been clearer - it wouldn't be based on a failure of normal due diligence on the neighbor's part. It's just some magic air vent or something.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have been clearer - it wouldn't be based on a failure of normal due diligence on the neighbor's part. It's just some magic air vent or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still of the mind that if you can see them w/o trespassing, then it's all good.

[bisonbison]

Ask your mom or your sister about that.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask your mom or your sister about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They should make sure they don't have any magic air vents...lol.

[DavidC]

The argument here isn't about benefiting from innocents being harmed. I don't think you benefit from this at all.

What has happened to the child has already happened. Certainly no money should go to the producers of this stuff, and this sort of thing should be prevented from happening if possible and punished if not...

The important thing here (when determining whether to prevent the viewing) is that there's something negative happening to the viewer: part of their "soul" is being damaged or a damaged part is being encouraged through enjoying violence, manipulation and corruption of innocence.

This also goes for things like torturing animals for fun, etc.

--Dave.

Exchange soul with personality, psyche, whatever you're comfortable with, but understand that when speaking of the soul I'm not talking about the threat of a negative afterlife / futurelife or whatever, just the effects on the life of the viewer.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I can logically defend this opinion. But I think it's probably wrong just to think sexually about children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. Thoughts are just thoughts. The mind wanders outside the wills control, and a person cannot be held responsible for something out of their control. Yes it unhealthy, and it might be said if the thoughts are severe enough the person should get some sort of treatment, but it can't be immoral. I also don't think computer generated child porn is immoral. No one is harmed or exploited. It is just really sick and unhealthy for the individual partaking in it.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that if it is somebody underage who is doing it against their will, then yes. If it is an underage person that wants to do it, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an idiot. If the child is 3 and doesn't know any better, it's still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about two 16 or 17 year olds that are dating and are sexually active, and they decide to film it on webcam? They did not intend it for viewing by anyone but themselves, and once it was released, it damages them severely still.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
You discover a foolproof way to watch your neighbor (attractive 20-year-old member of whatever gender) naked every day. It costs nothing, they'll never know, and you'll never get caught.

Is it ethical to watch them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want a magic air vent.

Nobody is getting hurt in your example.

If we accept the assumption that kiddie porn is damaging to the child then you're not comparing like with like.


On other matters, it's biologically OK to be attracted to post-pubescent people. One of the things puberty does is make people capable of being sexually active.

It's not OK to be attracted to pre-pubescent people because they can't give informed consent, they are biologically not ready for sex, because society has decided that children are important. So, anything that involves attraction to pre-pubescent people is, and should be, forbidden.

Maybe in a society where children are not considered people, kiddie porn would be ok. Thankfully we don't live in a society like that.

I'm not saying children have full adult rights, rather that they deserve the protection of those that do. But basically, kiddie porn, even computer generated, is bad.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
If you argue that looking at child pornography is immoral, don't you have to argue that looking at videos of people being killed etc, is also immoral? If not, how do you distinguish the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the people being killed were killed for the purpose of making the video, it is clearly immoral. I think that answer's OP's question as well.

[bisonbison]

The original example assumes that downloading free kiddie porn on the net does nothing to encourage the suppliers of said porn to increase their activities.

The magic air vent example is simply another way of asking the same basic question: if the subject never knows, and the act of viewing is seen as just an independent act of voyuerism that sparks no further production, can it be said to be wrong?

I think that it can.


That having been said, there's nothing immoral or unethical about fetishes - however disturbing they might be - pedophilia, rape fantasies, bestiality, whatever... If that's what turns you on then you're not likely to have any control over it.

What is wrong is allowing the charge of those fantasies to convince you that no actual harm is done when you have a sexual relationship with a partner that hasn't or can't consent.

[Blackjack]

The question is..









Does this so called child porn include something being stuck "in the pooper?"


I remember a case where child pornographers were splicing different pictures of kiddy porn together to make like a generic child porn picture that did not contain the full picture of any single kid... Hence the court ruled that it was legal because they weren't directly exploiting any kids.
It's still so wrong though IMO.

Blackjack

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

What is wrong is allowing the charge of those fantasies to convince you that no actual harm is done when you have a sexual relationship with a partner that hasn't or can't consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that people under the age of 16/17/18 are not or should not be sexual in nature is a very Westernized view and a relatively new idea.

GoT

[Talk2BigSteve]

Be Proud and Wear this SHIRT!!!

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a326/a326.gif

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bisonbison]

GoT - Whether a 16 year old can meaningfully consent to sex with a 25 year old is obviously a lot grayer area than a 14 year old doing the same.

You have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere. I wouldn't object to it being 16, but I don't think 18 is a crime against humanity.

[whiskeytown]

since the person downloading is creating demand for a product that would not otherwise exist, I would state that those who download are as bad as those who create it -

It's existance, which I could argue is evil in the damage it does to children, is perpetuated by the requests for it - if no one wanted it, it would disappear tomorrow.

The argument that "it's already there anyways" doesn't hold water, since the viewer's presence created it in the first place.

RB

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]

if no one wanted it, it would disappear tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

While seemingly logical, I do not think this is a valid argument for things on the internet.