zapnosis wrote:Alien4420 wrote:
I wouldn't hesitate to intervene in the case of a child, or someone who isn't capable of making an informed decision, like someone who's clinically depressed and considering suicide. Or if there was risk of harm to others, or to society.
Well said. What if, again purely for example, I had such a file and I wanted to upload to WMM, correctly described. Ignoring the fact that it would almost certainly be deleted straight away, and any legal issues, would that count as risking harming others? A danger to society? After all, people could decide for themselves whether or not to download it. But after 6 months any member could download it for free without anyone else being involved.
I think it would, inasmuch as the presence of such a file might encourage someone to take a harmful course of action. It would be like yelling "jump" to a despondent man on a ledge, or handing a book of matches to a child.
zapnosis wrote:Alien4420 wrote:
Third, there is a difference between creating a file which causes a person to adopt a damaging lifestyle, and suggesting that they kill themselves.
OK to take another, more practical, example. There are quite a few guys out there who have a smoking fetish. Smoking is habit-forming and can adversely affect health and increase the risk of serious disease. What if I were to try and upload a file that encouraged people to smoke, in order to please those who have a smoking fetish. Should that be allowed? Does anyone have an automatic moral right to object? Is consent mitigated by the fact that the listener has a fetish?
Allowed, yes, IMO, although that of course is a subjective decision, and just as some publications refuse tobacco advertising I'd have no problem if EMG or another site owner decided to reject such a file (but not if the government banned it).
I'd also say, whether I personally agree or not, that anyone has a right to object on moral grounds, just as some people object to portrayals of smoking in movies. And as I said in my last post if the objection is reasonably respectful, as so many of these objections are not.
The fetish question is perhaps the most interesting. I believe that fetishes are an aspect of personality -- little more than the consequence of infantile imprinting, generally on an accoutrement, a baby bottle, or something of the sort. Essentially a consequence of our adoption of clothing, tools, and the like. Sometimes bolstered by physical or emotional unavailability on the part of the mother. And I don't believe that personality should be medicalized. From what I've seen, when psychologists decide that aspects of personality represent "disorders" they're usually just imposing their own, usually middle class American values on behavior -- using a diagnosis as the equivalent of what, in an earlier age and still to some, would have been a declaration that something is a sin. So, really, I think we should avoid abusing psychology that way and make a frank decision as to what we're going to allow and what's going to be taboo, based on the criteria of obvious harm to self or others, informed choice, and so forth. Personality doesn't always give us much of a choice, but neither is it something that we should seek to outlaw except in extreme circumstances. Just as I respect the right of someone to put the pleasure of smoking ahead of the health risks, despite having myself made a different choice, I respect the right of someone to judge for themselves whether the pleasure afforded by a fetish outweighs any harm.
I, for one, always say that consent is not an absolute. Society and the law like to say that consent is either given or it is not, it is comforting to believe that things are that simple, but I disagree. We have instinctive urges that are not rational in the socities we live in, not least regarding arousal. We all have a degree of ignorance and we all have a degree of imagination. When we are born we know only our instincts, and what we grow up with becomes "normal", so every human action is in fact a reaction to our developing instincts and our experiences. An irrational or "surreal" act may be the result of an irrational or "surreal" experience or an instict that has outlived its purpose. I am wandering into my thesis, so I'll stop there, but...
I like your analysis, though, and agree. But I'd add that, all other things being equal, we're happiest when we're able to express our deepest instincts: with repression comes anxiety and an overall diminution of pleasure. So there is a reason to allow the fullest possible expression of instinct, to the extent that personal or social harm resulting from the expression of that instinct doesn't outweigh the pleasure. And for society, the dividing line is a moving target, changing from era to era and place to place. It also seems to be less a line than a penumbra, with some personality traits taboo -- bestiality, say, or pedophillia -- others tolerated but discouraged, like smoking or eating to excess, and others embraced or encouraged.
The point I'm making is, does a fetish change the nature of consent? Even the degree of consent? And if so, does that change the morality of the situation?
I'd say no, for the reasons I mentioned above, and taking into account the unusual power of human sexuality, which can lead us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do. But we live with that as part of who we are. It may seem objectively silly to listen to a file that makes you take up smoking, but then, it's also objectively silly to marry someone for their looks, and guys do that all the time.
And, really, from what I've seen, in real life, we tend to go overboard in judging and attempting to control the behavior of others. For example, I'll be damned if I can see any harm in gay marriage. What exactly is the harm that it's supposed to *do,* other than making some gay people happy? Long observation tells me that in many cases, people and society suffer more harm from the sort of overzealous meddling that produces a Larry Craig than they would from the consequences of loosening some social strictures. I'd much rather concentrate on taming and channeling those instincts that I think really do do serious harm, such as the instincts that lead to teen pregnancy or unsafe sex, or date rape or the exploitation of children.
And, mostly, I'm confident in the ability of most people to make choices that are reasonable, and in the wisdom of instinct. Sure, by nature, and it's part of our nature, we sublimate and repress our instincts; it's what makes human and particularly modern human society possible. But in our desire to impose our understanding, I think we sometimes fail to respect its limits, sometimes meddle with things that we don't understand or confuse our own instincts with rationality. Sort of like the Corps of Engineers replacing natural ecosystems with locks and levees, only to have to rip them out when they make the flooding worse.
Posted: April 25th, 2009, 11:40 am