Download Philosophy 220

Philosophy 220
Consequentialism and
Pornography
Consequentialism: The Basics


Consequentialism is the name given to a family of more
specific normative ethical positions all of which share
the conviction that it is the consequences of actions
which determine their moral worth.
As Timmons expresses it, all of these positions are
committed to the following claim.


Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the overall intrinsic
value of the consequences of the action compared with the overall
intrinsic value of the consequences associated with alternative actions
an agent might perform instead.
Thus, an action is right iff its consequences would be at
least as good as the consequences of any alternative
action that the agent might instead perform.
Implications

There are a number of important implications of this
statement of these claims.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Consequentialist theories are value-based.
They are comparative theories. They make specific reference
to alternative actions and the rightness or wrongness of any
action is dependent on the value of the consequences of those
actions.
The consequentialist account of right action is a maximizing
conception.
Consequentialism is an impartialist moral theory. We have to
consider the consequences for everyone and everyone counts
equally.
It’s All in the Family


The various specific forms of consequentialism
share a commitment to these basic claims.
They differ in their theory of value.



The TV of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value with
human welfare or happiness (it’s expression).
The TV of Perfectionist Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic
value with human perfection.
The TV of Rule Consequentialism identifies intrinsic
value with the acceptance value* of rules.
*The value of the consequences of the rule were it generally
accepted
Utilitarianism

The basic idea of U is that the rightness or
wrongness of actions is determined by the their
effect on human welfare or happiness, with
maximization and impartiality assumed.


Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net value of
the consequences of actions.
Result is the Principle of Utility.

An action is right iff its performance would likely
produce at least as high utility as would any other
alternative action.
What makes you fare well?


An important issue that all utilitarians must
address is how to understand human welfare.
Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham)
identify happiness (and thus human welfare)
with pleasure and pain.


For this reason they are labeled Hedonsitic
Utilitarians.
As such, it is important to consider various
senses of pleasure and pain.

Bodily Pleasure vs. Intellectual Pleasures
Perfectionist Consequentialism

PC adopts a different TV than utilitarianism.


Thus, the TRC of PC says


Value Perfectionism: states of human perfection
(knowledge, excellence) that have intrinsic value.
An action is right iff its performance would likely bring
about a greater net balance of perfectionist goods
than would any other alternative action.
What is a perfectionist good?
Rule Consequentialism

Both U and PC focus on actions.




They are both forms of Act Utilitarianism.
There are a number of well recognized
challenges to act utilitarianism.
As a result, some utilitarians have shifted their
focus to the capacity of rules to guide our
action.
When we shift with them it becomes possible to
consider the consequences of the acceptance
of various possible rules.
Playing by the Rules

On the assumption that some rules produce more
valuable consequences than others we can specify a
TV for RC.


An action is right iff it is permitted by a rule whose associated
acceptance value is at least as high as the acceptance value of
any other rule applying to the situation.
In the face of more than one possible action, RC directs
you to identify the rules governing the possible actions
and then compare the rules’ acceptance values to
determine which action is right.
Consequentialism in Action



Applying consequentialism requires calculation
and comparison.
Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or a
more informal estimation. The explicit goal of
the calculation is to identify the action/rule that
maximizes the specified value(s).
Comparison must include all parties affected (in
a relevant or significant way) by the proposed
action.
Consequences of Pornography
The popularity of consequentialist thinking
is demonstrated by the reliance of the
Meese commission on broadly
consequentialist reasoning to determine if
pornography should be censored.
 When evaluating their reasoning, we need
to consider carefully the relationship
between the activities or behaviors and
the claimed consequences.

In Their Sights

Charged by then president Reagan, the
Meese commission identified and
evaluated the possible consequences of
the availability and use of 4 different
forms of pornography.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Violent
Non-violent, but degrading
Non-violent and non-degrading
Child pornography
The Problem of Causation
Specifying a causal link is a very
complicated process.
 There are a number of forms of causal
connection to consider.
 There is also the problem of correlation.
 Multiple causation is another complicating
factor.

Conclusions?



Violent Pornography: studies suggest a causal link between
exposure and aggressive behavior towards women but, “a link
between aggressive behavior toward women and sexual
violence…requires assumptions not found in the experimental
evidence. We see no reason…not to make these assumptions” (94c1).
Non-Violent but Degrading: “The evidence…is more tentative, but
supports the conclusion that the material we describe as degrading
bears some causal relationship to the attitudinal changes we have
previously identified” (95c2).
Non-Violent and Non-Degrading: though there is no evidence of a
causal link with sexual violence, “does not answer the question of
whether such materials might not themselves simply for some other
reason constitute a harm” (96c2). For example, displaying offensive
behavior or encouraging promiscuity.
Does it Add Up?


Nadine Strossen, among many others, has
serious reservations about the reasoning and
conclusions of the Meese commission.
Strossen goes further to argue that even if the
Meese commission is right about the
consequences of the broad social availability of
pornographic materials, censorship would not
solve the problems identified.
What’s Being Assumed?

According to Strossen, reasoning like that of
the Meese Commission makes three dubious
assumptions.
1.
2.
3.
Exposure to sexist, violent imagery leads to sexist,
violent behavior.
Suppression of pornography would significantly
reduce exposure to sexist, violent imagery.
Censorship could significantly reduce exposure to
pornography.
Monkey See, Monkey Do?

There are four types of evidence supporting
the link relied upon by the Meese
Commission.
1.
2.
3.

4.
Research Data on attitudinal effects (100c2).
Correlational Data on availability of materials.
Anecdotal Data from sex offenders (102c1).
Research Data on sex offenders (104c1).
Strossen notes in addition that not even the
advocates of censorship think that these
sources of evidence prove the point.
Is Porn the Problem?



Strossen goes then questions the supposition
that pornography is the most source of the
questionable imagery.
As we’ve already noted, our popular culture is
full of sexually explicit imagery.
Evidence suggests that accepting the rape myth
is just as likely to result from watching soap
operas as it is from pornography (105c1).
Is Censorship Effective?
Strossen’s final point is that there is good
historical reason to doubt that censorship
would serve as an effective limit to
exposure to pornography.
 Data suggests to the contrary that
censorship would have the effect of
increasing receptiveness to the imagery
being censored (105c2).
