Essay by StartechUniversity, Bachelor'sA+, July 2003

download word file, 2 pages 4.3

Downloaded 86 times


Pornography, excluding child pornography, is defensible without regard to the means. There is no difference between a computer-generated picture of a naked person posing with the intent to excite and one that actually involves real people. There are, however, major objections to child pornography, computer generated or not. Any sex act, picture, or piece of literature involving children is morally wrong.

There are many arguments for and against pornography. A person could argue that pornography is morally right and should not be censored. There are others who think that pornography is morally right, but should be censored. And then there are those people who think that pornography is just simply immoral.

Before the issue of censorship can be addressed, a person must clarify if pornography is actually degrading and harmful to humans or if it has some beneficial effect.

As stated by the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, there is no statistical correlation between sex crimes and exposure to erotic materials; therefore it appears not to be harmful to humans.

The question may be; is pornography degrading? Pornography is only degrading if the people involved think it is so.

Natural law philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would say that sex not related to procreation is wrong, not to mention sex outside of marriage. And, that the separation of sex from love is degrading. Using the philosophies of Mills and Kant, the Golden Rule and Respect for person, that argument does not stand firm. People have different moral standards, what is right for one, may not be right for another. Disrespect for one person may mean something else to another. What if the so-called degrading sex acts were actually enjoyable to the people involved?

There are many situations in which pornography is used for personal pleasure, but...