Determine whether or not the consumption of pornography would be morally permissible according to utilitarianism and the 2nd formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative.
We all are human born from the same procedure, and that is the only till yet natural way to born. But we all different in behavior, color, thoughts, paradigms of society, culture and norms which make each of us different from each other even there is two brother from same parents will behave oppositely in major cases it is very rare when they behave same over still they will be different in some traits. Same like we all have different kind of rules and our rationale determination of the good and bad which we can see in our life. Some would like to flirt and feel it fine for himself and as a regular thing but someone will consider it prohibited might be due to religious belief, her social nourishment or own rationale.
Pornography is one of the booming industry in beauty shaping after cosmetics beauty. Pornography is industry based on developing sexual content using visual, audio and writing with the only motive to arouse sexual excitement. Also, we can see different statistical reports for utilization of this industry, and there is a big debate in the world is it moral or immoral under which many moments are there which are fighting to make it legal and somewhere illegal. Still, it is ban in many countries, but it is accessible in one click to everyone nowadays, and youth are partially using it too much, and it is breaking debate in a different field on porn-watching because it is mostly seen people use to see more than listening audio or reading erotic books or novels.
There are two famous philosophical schools of thoughts, i.e., Utilitarianism and Kant 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative. Under which we will try to identify whether it is moral or immoral and the government should legalize it or not(Wood and Hughes).
It is a theory which belongs to the normative ethics and it can be said as another form of Consequentialism which was originated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart who are English philosopher of the 19th century. It is one of the most historically influential moral theory which is still practiced while always faced criticism but originated with changes but still seems as the critical component in theological perspective of moral study. It says that every action is right if it is spreading happiness and every action is wrong if it gives unhappiness to anyone. This theory assesses wrong or right with the resulting outcome not on the motives which are behind it and it considers the human happiness more than anything else. They also believe the effect is on the wide circle, not the individual and they are against egoism where a person goes with own self-interest it had to be looked to everyone.
Under this theory, there are different debates, but what matters for us to highlight our topic under this statement in which let’s go further with asking these question from ourselves in a wide perspective. Do pornography gives happiness to us? Do it had a good impact on our lives? Is there a benefit for developing sustainable life? All can be YES, and all can be NO because we all think different but let’s see it with a wide perspective. Utilitarianism fully considers it moral act is watching porn because it gives happiness to many people and helps them in their mode of sexual excitement and help them to know about sex and different techniques which can help them to strengthen their sexual relationship with their partner. While it can be immoral regarding child porn, animal abuse in porn, some categories making torcher on male and female pornstar like Fetish, Gangbang etc.because they are not a natural way to conduct this activity. If we look it up into the matter of legalization Utilitarianism will support because everyone has right to happiness and have its own choice what gives him pleasure and everyone can stay away what it does not like it or feel bad should not do it. While utilitarianism mostly does decide after affect of the activity might if health issues increase they would support to ban it and make it illegal(Sandin).
Kentan 2nd formulation of Categorical Imperative
Now looking to Contain 2nd formulation of Categorical Imperative which was initiated or presented by the Immanuel Kant who was German philosopher which give the idea of universal morality it rejected and prohibited all kind of punishes, thefts and murders considered them illegal. The Kantian developed theory and ask to act on something if you are satisfied with answering questions so you should go for acting on that thing. Firstly, will everyone will act as I propose to act? And the second one is, Does my action respect the goal of a human being which I am using for my purpose? The 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative in Kant Theory says we should not be using a person as an object but respect them in their value beside instrumental values we should focus inherent values.
If we see pornography under this theory, it is considering it as an immoral act and will even not support legalizing it because if we take it as universal behavior majority do not like to go for it and they consider it as unhealthy for their children and another human. There are side effects been highlighted people those watch porn movies also been viewed with some health deficiency in which they lose their sexual control on their self. So under this theory, it would be immoral and illegal to be conditioned by government(Reynolds and Bowie)t.
Porn is not a solution to the sexual excitement with that we cannot say it as immoral because everyone has right to enjoy their life with their ways while such content should be limited and things like child porn should be banned because it is in child abuse as they are unable to be good with that activity. Also touching women or kind of activities like this should be banned because it can be rising the marital rape ratio.
Reynolds, Scott J., and Norman E. Bowie. “A Kantian Perspective on the Characteristics of Ethics Programs.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 2004, pp. 275–92. Cambridge Core, doi:10.5840/beq200414214.
Sandin, Per. “Virtual Child Pornography and Utilitarianism.” Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, vol. 2, no. 4, Nov. 2004, pp. 217–23. emeraldinsight.com (Atypon), doi:10.1108/14779960480000254.
Wood, Michael, and Michael Hughes. “The Moral Basis of Moral Reform: Status Discontent vs. Culture and Socialization as Explanations of Anti-Pornography Social Movement Adherence.” American Sociological Review, vol. 49, no. 1, 1984, pp. 86–99. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2095559.