It's a pretty simple argument. The outcomes for people who are engaged in it generally are extremely bad and the outcomes for society itself are not very good either. So I have a multitude of data points that we can go over during the debate. That depends on if my opponent wants to go through it logically or she doesn't. So let me just give you kind of a few of the counterpoints which I assume my opponent will use. The first one will be, 'Yeah, but if porn's bad, what about alcohol though, Andrew? Like isn't alcohol bad and isn't fatty food bad and aren't all these things actually also bad?' And the answer to this question is, well, yeah, sometimes they're bad. And they definitely can be bad for a person to engage too much in those things. But the argument and the point is, even if they were right and let's just assume for a second that they were that alcohol is bad, the debate's not actually on whether or not alcohol is bad or whether or not I'd want to ban alcohol. It doesn't really have anything to do with anything or ban smoking or anything like that. But whether or not I'd want to ban porn itself, even if I wasn't logically consistent about whether or not I would ban some things or not, it doesn't really matter because my opponent's a harm reductionist. That's what she is. And so from her view, she's at the mercy of the same argument which is, well, if it is the case even that I can just demonstrate that porn reduces harm, then she would actually have to bite the bullet that because it produces harm that she wants it gone and then she would have to bite the bullet. She'd want alcohol gone. She'd have to bite the bullet. She'd want cigarettes gone and fatty foods gone. Things like this from the harm principle. She's actually at the mercy of this argument. Now, it's a low tier one, but it's mostly what you'll find, you know, like OnlyFans, prostitutes, and stuff like this will use because they don't know anything about nothing. But they're actually at the mercy of this argument themselves. So, what she'll say is this. She'll say, 'Well, I'm for expanded freedom. I want more expansion of freedoms for the most amount of people.' I'll demonstrate very quickly that nope, she actually doesn't want that. If we were to ask her about like the Second Amendment for instance or things like this, I'm sure that she'd want all sorts of regulations put on those things. She's not right. She would absolutely be for the oppression of all sorts of freedoms. And then the last point is just this. It's all just preference anyway. Then if me as a Christian just prefer that porn is banned and alcohol is not, I don't even know what you would have to say about that anyway. Like what would your argument even be against that? I just say, 'Well, I prefer it.' and you say, 'Well, I prefer not it.' And then if we're talking about harm reduction, how we measure it, these people never actually have a hedonic calculator for their hedonism. They never actually have a way in which to give you the value of utils, right? They just go, 'Well, it's just stuff that they feel. You know what I mean? I just feel like there's more utility when it comes to not murdering than murdering.' It's nice, but when you ask them to quantify that with a measurement of some kind, they actually can't because as Bentham tried to do, one of the, you know, perhaps the father of hedonism, he had the hedonic calculator and it didn't work. It just simply didn't work because there's no actual good way to measure hedonism. Happiness is a subjective metric and so the harm principle around happiness also a subjective metric. Even if you poll people, even if you poll people with data and you get all of their little like 'I'm happy with this, I'm happy with that,' that's actually still not giving you a great result for these measurements. So, almost any line you go down for this from the Christian view. So, alcohol is fine. Shouldn't be a drunk, but drinking is okay. From the Christian view though, porn is not okay. It's bad for the soul. It has other properties about it that also aren't good and we can get into each one of those properties, but ultimately this is going to come down from her view to just simply harm reduction versus freedom. She's going to think that you have better freedoms and stuff if you sleep with lots of dudes whenever you want, get paid for it or vice versa. Dudes, you know, getting in orgies and stuff like this, getting paid for it. That's fine from her view because my freedom. But she can't actually quantify that and they never can actually quantify that. And then if we look at even the data that she would probably use for the porn industry being safe, I doubt she can account for things like human trafficking. I doubt that she can account for the drug use, the high STD rates. I doubt she can account for those things and tell us how that's actually beneficial to society. And then ultimately from her view, from the prism of the harm reductionist, just try to remember this that all I need is a single concession that alcohol bad and she should be wanting to ban alcohol then. But she's not going to want to. So I just want to point this out before we get the debate started and then I'm happy to dive right into it.
All right. Hi, I'm Dudley. Oh, first of all, I find it interesting that Andrew brought up that I'm going to have to be the one to bite the bullet that I should want to ban fatty foods and alcohol. I think it's the complete opposite. He's going to have to bite that bullet because if public health concern is of any concern to him, then he should be the one advocating to banning those things. The ban on porn that Andrew is proposing sets a very dangerous precedent where the government has unnecessary control over what we as consenting adults do in the privacy of our own homes. These are the same ideas that have been echoed throughout history which led to the censorship or destruction of art, historical artifacts, and book burnings all based on a puritanical worldview that deemed these things too sexually explicit. Today, some of the notable countries that have successfully banned pornography include North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Now, I don't know about you, but those countries don't exactly scream freedom to me. In contrast, the United States is a country that values freedom more than anything. So much so that it's the very first amendment in their constitution. There have since been many attempts to ban pornography in the US, all of which have obviously failed. Many people mistakenly think that this isn't a free speech issue. However, federal courts have ruled that anti-pornography laws do in fact violate the First Amendment. Often when debating pornography, the main point of contention, as I mentioned earlier, is its impact on people's mental and physical well-being, which is of course an important conversation to be had, especially with how widely accessible pornography has become. However, we quickly start to run into issues when people start calling for bans based on some perceived level of harm, which evidently don't hold up when compared to other things that we allow in our countries. There are of course demonstrably worse freedoms we have that are undeniably contributing to the decline in people's physical and mental health. Obviously one of the most widespread examples being fast food yet obviously we don't have anyone calling for McDonald's to be banned although I think maybe Andrew should if he wants to be consistent. And let me be clear I certainly don't want it to be banned either. Because this is a situation where we've actually clearly outlined the level of harm that we as a society deem acceptable and the science is clear on this. Obesity is one of the biggest health crises that we're dealing with today, if not the biggest. And yet still, we obviously afford people the freedom to eat a Big Mac as often as they want, and we afford those businesses the right to exist. So, if the 300,000 Americans who die every year attributable to obesity isn't enough of a cause for concern to outright ban all fast food, then I ask, why should we ban porn when it doesn't even come close to the level of harm that fast food does? What then becomes abundantly clear here is that the issue the anti-porn crowd have is not one of public health concern. It is actually an issue of morality, which in the case of conservatives and religious folk essentially boils down to we should ban this because I think it's icky or we should ban this because God thinks it's icky. Well, I like to operate in a world that places facts before feelings. So, let's talk about the facts. Problematic porn use is something that is only reported by a small minority of people. The research indicates around 4% of men and 1% of women report adverse effects. So the vast majority of people are able to engage in porn in a responsible and healthy manner and porn is not something that negatively affects their mental health or other areas of their life such as relationships or work life. In fact, studies have shown that one of the biggest indicators of self-perceived problems around pornography use is actually moral incongruence. So, for example, if you're a very religious or conservative person and you hold the belief that porn is bad for you, it's sinful and you should stay away from it, but you watch it anyway, that can be very mentally distressing. And let me be clear, it is not the porn itself that is causing this psychological distress. It's the moral incongruence. Meta-analyses have found religiosity to be an even stronger predictor of perceived pornography related problems than the frequency of watching porn and even daily use of porn. And this is especially interesting when we consider the statistics showing that the Bible belt states in America watch a lot of porn. And on top of that, they're among the highest consumers of gay porn. So this really starts to paint a picture of how prevalent this moral incongruence phenomenon is in regards to perceived problematic porn use. For those who don't experience such moral incongruence, porn can often be seen as a rather positive thing in their lives or maybe even neutral, providing them with a sexual outlet and stress relief and even positive relationship and educative effects such as improved sexual communication with their partner and more attentive to their partner's sexual desires. Overall, the literature and academic community are in consensus that pornography does not negatively affect the vast majority of people. I'm not going to deny that there isn't some level of harm being caused here. But obviously, as I mentioned earlier, we as a society have deemed an acceptable level of harm. In the case of things like fast food, alcohol, the things that Andrew mentioned, much of people's disdain for pornography is one of moral disagreement rather than of public health concern. So, if you're someone who cares about freedom of speech and personal autonomy, we should instead advocate for better regulations around porn to ensure that it's being ethically produced and that workers are being treated fairly rather than state enforcement of what consenting adults should do in the privacy of their own homes.
All right, let's get into it. Thank you to both of our speakers for their introductory statements. Grab yourself a beer. It's going to be a long one. All right, we are going to be debating whether adult explicit content, as I'm going to put it, should be banned. So, I'm gonna hand it over to Andrew to respond to some of what he just heard. But in the meantime, I'd ask you guys to smash the like button and prepare those super chats because we are going to ask them at the end of the open discussion. Over to you, Andrew.
Yeah. So, Dudley, I'm not a big fan of Gish Gallops during a debate. I like to go down one line at a time until we can get it figured out. If we have consistency issues, we don't have consistency issues. Are you willing to do that?
Yeah. Okay. Could we start with defining pornography?
Well, actually, I think we needed to start by defining harm.
Something that results in negative outcomes.
And how do we measure what a negative outcome is?
We can do that multiple ways. We can look...
We could look at happiness. We could look at how a society is functioning in terms of maybe economic success.
Yeah. What way do you use?
Yes. You don't have to repeat the question. You just answer the question.
What do you mean what way do I use to determine harm?
What metric would you use to determine harm?
Well, I would use multiple metrics, not just one.
Okay. Okay. So if somebody was really happy for instance about, I don't know, unaliving themselves, is that harm?
Is it harm for someone to be happy about killing themselves?
Well, they would be causing harm to themselves by killing themselves. Yes.
Yeah. So we should not have that, right? Or we should...
People probably shouldn't kill themselves. Yeah.
Okay. And that's because of this harm principle.
Okay. If you had two brothers who were twins. Okay. And they wanted to have sex with each other. Can you give me a single reason that would be harmful?
Um, there could be potentially some kind of power dynamics at play that could be harmful.
So you wouldn't have any objection to incest for instance under this worldview?
Um, well, I have an objection just on the level of like, yeah, I think it's icky.
Well, but wait a second, they're really happy. And how does it affect you?
Uh, yeah. I honestly don't really care. Could we get back onto the topic?
Yeah, we are. We are back to the topic. I'm trying to figure out what your harm principle is. I'm not going to let you evade. So, all I'm doing is trying to consider...
I just said I don't care.
Yeah, that's great. I don't care is not an argument and it's not a response to one and it's not even...
No, like I don't, I wouldn't see that as like a morally...
Okay, you're right. I don't care about the debate.
Okay, great. I don't care is not an answer. I'm asking you a question.
Well, no, it is because you're asking me if I find it immoral. I'm saying I don't care.
So, I don't find it immoral.
So, then the answer would be no, right?
Okay, great. So, next time say no and then I'll know that you actually mean no when you say that. Okay. So, if somebody had a dead body in their backyard and they dug it up and had sex with it every day and nobody found out about it, would that be immoral?
Um, because as a society we've decided that we have some level of respect for the dead and also it would probably harm the people who are related to the person who died.
I'm super confused. If you're the only person who knows the dead body's there. They have no...
Like I said, we as society have deemed that we have like some level of respect for the dead.
What if the person writes a note saying I want to have my body had sex with after I'm dead by my son whenever he wants. He can dig me up and have sex with that dead body. Is that...
Yeah, we could also have someone say, 'Yeah, I consent to someone eating me alive.' I still think that is a level of harm that is unacceptable.
Yeah, but you haven't really told me why. You just keep saying, you keep on making these weird general allusions to 'we as society have determined,' but the way we would use the metric under a harm principle for if society is doing the right thing or the wrong thing would be based on harm. So if society is doing something...
Yes. And I think for those particular things you've outlined a level of harm that we deem unacceptable.
I don't know why you're interrupting me. So if society is doing something which is actually not harmful and they have decided that that's okay, right? Then I don't understand why you're not saying that society needs to let people dig up, you know, Aunt Fester in the backyard and have sex with her body unless you can demonstrate who that actually harms because society would just be wrong then, right?
Uh, no, no, because as I've explained a few times now, we have a respect for the dead as a society so that would be violating that kind of social contract.
I see. So, society and society's moral intuitions become a social contract which we should adhere to.
Okay. So, as long as I change society's mind about porn being bad and...
Sure. So, let's begin. Could you...
Okay, hang on. Hang on. Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to make sure I got this correct. Wouldn't it, would it then not be the case that if society agreed that porn was bad that would now be a new social contract based on their intuition and you based on your own harm principle would have to concede that you should not do then porn right because you violating the majority of people don't see porn as harmful or bad.
That's not my question. I didn't ask what is. I asked about...
Are you saying hypothetically...
Yeah, I'm asking about a claim that would be...
So this would kind of go back to like what I said about fast food, which is something that is obviously like objectively bad for us. But we still allow people the freedom to eat it as much as they want, even though it's obviously has devastating outcomes.
Yeah, nobody's disputing that. So anyway, so my question...
So my answer would be the exact same for porn.
Yeah. If society... that's not my question. My question is since you say these things as a society, we deem them to be bad and that's why they're bad. Not that they're bad because you think it violates a harm principle. Then ultimately the arbiter of what you think is moral is society, right?
Uh, to an extent, I like, we have societal rules. Yes. So for example, if every single person who watched porn offed themselves, yeah, we probably shouldn't have porn.
Okay. I'm super going into hypothetical.
You have to help me out here. I'm trying to figure this out. Is society the rulemaker or is harm the rulemaker? Like which thing's the rulemaker here? Which thing, which do you consider like kind of interchangeable?
Yeah. So which thing do you consider moral? Is it...
Is it what society rules as moral or is it what the harm principle rules as moral?
Well, society basically has, like, we're the ones that have created the harm principle. It's kind of interchangeable.
Yeah, that doesn't answer my question. So, you have a view of what's moral and immoral inside your brain, right?
Okay. So, is that based on harm or is it based on what society says?
It's based on harm. So, then if something is demonstrated to be harmful...
It's immoral. And if something is...
So, like I said from the very beginning. So from the very beginning I've stated multiple times...
There is a level of harm that our society deems acceptable. This is why...
I'm asking, this is why I'm switching the argument though. It doesn't make any sense. I asked you what do you, I'm not, am I debating with society or am I debating with you?
Wait, what part aren't you understanding?
Who am I debating with, society or you? Can you answer my question?
What part aren't you understanding?
And so I'm not understanding the part about who... Well, here's what I need to reiterate. So since I'm debating with you about whether or not a thing ought be done. I'm debating with you.
Would you like me to describe like what my moral framework is? Is that why you're confused?
Would you just ask me to give you an answer and then cut me off while I was giving it to you?
Okay. So would you like me to give the answer or would you like to go on a diatribe?
I would like to know if you want me to give you the moral framework that I'm working from. Is that what you...
Okay, let's go with utilitarianism.
Yeah, that's okay. So that would be a harm principle, right?
Yes. And there are obviously harms that we accept within ourselves. But when you say 'we,' I'm not interested in what we accept. I'm interested in reality.
That's great. But I'm interested in what you accept because I'm debating with you. I'm not debating with a guy over there. I'm not debating with the moderator. I'm not debating with Stephen. I'm debating with Dudley. So Dudley, I'm looking at your view for what is moral, what is immoral. From Dudley's view, is it immoral for two brothers to have sex with each other?
Can we get back onto the topic of pornography? I've already answered this question.
Did you not hear the first time? Did you not hear the first time?
I want to make sure it's from your view.
Did you not hear the first time?
No, because the first time you said society has blah blah blah and then...
No, that was about digging up dead bodies and...
That too. That too. Is that immoral from your view?
If we need to reiterate, I already stated it.
No, you said society says blah. I'm asking from Dudley's view. Is it...
Yes. And I agree that from your...
I've already... Wait, Ryan, can you... I already explained this, did I not?
No. Yeah. No. So, listen.
Well, I was going to say if...
I'm going to ask you again, if you just be quiet for a second, I'll reiterate the question. I just want to know the answer from your view without you shifting it to society. Okay. Well, I don't know. I haven't asked the question. We'll let him ask the question.
So, I'm going to ask the question. What I'm asking specifically is this. From Dudley's view, not society's view, not Joe's view, not anybody else's view, from the view of a utilitarian harm principle. Somebody had a contract from grandma saying he could hump her as much as he wanted after she was dead. Okay. And there was no reason that that would lead to any type of contagion to anybody else. From your view, is that immoral?
As I stated earlier, it is violating the way that we respect the dead.
No, no, no. That makes no sense. You're making now an appeal again to 'we'...
Oh, I respect the dead. Why? There's no harm.
Well, no. I believe that there is.
What's the harm? What is it?
That is the harm being done.
What is it? What's the specific harm? What is it?
The specific harm is that you are in complete violation of social contract.
Wait a second. So a social contract. So if it's a social contract then again you now you're deferring once again away from your harm principle to some type of societal principle. That's really weird. Yes. So we have societal harm reductionist. The harm reductionist. You just told me that your moral prism revolves around utilitarianism and harm reduction. I asked you what that would fall under rule.
I asked you, I asked you what you just read that from your own chat. You don't even, you couldn't even tell me what... I don't even have chat.
I'll tell you what. Tell me what rule utilitarianism.
Tell me what rule utilitarianism even is. Put your hands up before you Google it, though, because I know you're googling now. Tell me what is rule utilitarianism?
So, reducing harm is good. And reducing bad things is good.
You don't know what rule utilitarianism is.
Oh, okay. Tell me what it is. What is it?
So, act utilitarianism would be like there are certain situations where, for example, someone... utilitarianism... act utilitarian... I'm getting... can you let me answer the question? I'm...
I'm glad we moved away from act utilitarianism. Let's go down this...
is basically, yeah, certain situations might call for things that might be morally wrong could potentially be good. So for example killing someone could be good if it turns out that that person grows up to be Hitler. Rule utilitarianism would not be in agreeance with this because killing someone is generally always immoral.
What that would be? No, that would be the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. Has nothing to do with rule utilitarianism. You gave me a deontological ethic. What is rule utilitarianism?
Can you describe it for me then?
No, I need you to. You said you're rule utilitarian.
Okay. So, to get this right, murder's always wrong.
Okay. Well, then you're not a... What? What are you talking about?
You're a rule utilitarianist. You said killing Hitler would always be wrong. Why would killing Hitler always be wrong for you? The rule utilitarianist.
Well, because it would be from the perspective that murder is wrong.
Because that's the social contract yet again.
What? What are you talking about? Wait, hang on. I gotta actually start discussing the discussion. We're right now we're just talking about basic ethical frameworks. Before we could even get into the debate, I want to ask, so just to get this right, you said a rule utilitarian would say against an act utilitarian, you can't go back in time and kill Hitler because that's wrong. Why is that wrong?
Why? Even if it reduces harm?
Because you are violating someone's personal autonomy. Even if it reduces...
Violating someone's personal autonomy is morally bad.
Okay. Why? If it reduces harm to violate autonomy, why would that be bad?
Because violating someone's personal autonomy is like detrimental to their well-being.
Wait a second. If you violated Hitler's personal autonomy, thus killing Hitler, you would save the lives of millions upon millions of people. How's that not the ultimate in harm reduction? You're saying that we shouldn't do that because you would violate his personal autonomy.
Okay. Well, then if that's the case, then I should never defend myself if I'm being attacked by somebody because that would violate their personal autonomy.
That is not the same thing whatsoever. That would be self-defense.
Well, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry.
That would be an example of self-defense.
Isn't killing... But the reason self-defense is good is because it reduces harm to you, the non-aggressor. Right. Same thing for killing Hitler. The reason killing Hitler would be good...
Yeah. But someone is like trying to kill you versus someone merely existing in your presence.
I'm going to ask politely. I'm going to ask Andrew if you can just to really hardcore tie this into the...
Because she's making a topic that we asking to make, she's asking to make moral prescriptions for things inside of society as to what is moral, what is not, what is immoral. That's going to be determined and she brought this up in her opening statement, said Christians they have x value, y value, whatever, right? That's totally fine, it's completely fine for us to establish our foundation for ethics for when we're going to be making moral prescriptions to see if they even make any sense whatsoever. In this particular case, here's what I get from her. She says, 'Hey, I'm a utilitarian, a harm reductionist, I like to reduce harm.' Okay. Would you go back in time and kill Hitler which would reduce... I mean she agrees that that would reduce harm. Answer no because that would violate personal autonomy. That makes no sense. It's a conflict.
That makes perfect sense.
Wait. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
Well, because then you have a conflicting value that's saying autonomy is actually the principle which is moral, not harm.
Well, yes, but autonomy is intrinsically linked to harm.
Well, no. Taking away people's autonomy and freedoms is harmful.
You can definitely reduce people's freedom and it could be not very harmful. Like for instance, should I own a nuclear bomb?
Why not? What about my autonomy? What if I build my back...
That's just... Wait, wait, wait, hang on, hang on. No, no. I can't let it go. Why is a nuclear discussion about morality? It's not...
It's very important that... Well, I'm sorry. You want me to say that I'm going to ban porn based on moral grounds and yet I can't understand my opponent's morality? Last question. I'll tie it in very quickly, very quickly. Why can't I own a nuclear bomb?
Because it is a level of harm that we deem unacceptable.
Okay. Okay. But you, we deem it unacceptable. Society does.
Would you prefer if I just said 'I' every time?
Yeah. I'm not competing with...
I think you perfectly understand what I mean when I say that.
I don't because here's what's... No. No. Well, first of all, semantics are super important to a debate. I don't know if you know that or not because it's clarifying what it is we're talking about. In this point, when we're talking about a nuclear bomb, and I own it, you say autonomy is the highest value a person should have because to violate it is to do harm. But then when I say if I have a nuclear bomb, you say that's too much harm for society. So, they deem it inappropriate.
Uh, yes. Because your personal autonomy can't infringe on other people's autonomy. You can't just kill anyone you want.
Got it. So our value for morality is actually autonomy then.
Yes. Which is intrinsically linked to harm.
Yes, it is. Explain how it isn't. Explain how...
You can limit people's freedoms for their own good and it delivers less harm and more happiness to them.
Linked to harm in the sentence.
Okay. Then everything is linked to everything. I'm linking it to your harm principle. So what I'm saying to you is that yes of course you can make a reduction in harm or whatever with any metrics you want but autonomy itself, right, you say ah it's linked to this harm thing, okay great, but I still haven't actually established what the moral parameters are. If it's harm thing and that, you know, autonomy or whatever, whatever, like your other axis is, let's say more good happens than bad thing happens, that means I should do that thing, right? You say no...
Okay so let's say I do an action, right, and more good things happen for people than bad things, should I do that action?
Well, wait, it's highly dependent on what the action is.
Why? Yeah, but then that's not utilitarianism.
No, it is because then again, your autonomy cannot infringe on other people's autonomy.
Because personal autonomy is something that is intrinsically linked to people's well-being.
And I care about well-being.
Yeah. But well, why do you care about well-being? Because otherwise it's harmful to not have well-being, right?
Uh, we kind of have a biological imperative to care about well-being because that's kind of what aids our survival.
Yeah. But how do you determine well-being except harm? This harmed idea.
How do I determine well-being?
And that would be linked to harm.
Or is it just what makes people happy? That's what I'm saying. Like if it makes everybody happy to molest children, should we do that?
Okay. Well, then it's not just about people's happiness. I don't have any idea what your actual worldview is.
All right. You promised to try to do a hard tie in here. All right. All right. I'll let you ask a whole... So, can we now hear what your worldview is? And then can we also circle back to you defining pornography?
That's what we're... I think that all things which are harmful should be banned. That includes alcohol and fried food and cigarettes and everything.
Wait, so you do bite the bullet then on banning fast food. You think like Macers, sorry, McDonald's?
Yeah. What do I care? I don't care. What do I care if you got rid of McDonald's? I don't care. Get rid of it. Do you think people should it be illegal for people to go out in the sun since skin cancer is harmful?
Oh, wait a second. Wait a second. Skin cancer harmful, but does the sun cause skin cancer?
Does the sun cause skin cancer?
Okay. And are there other things which would cause skin cancer other than the sun?
Wait. So, you would ban people going out.
So, I just want to make sure that I got this right. Let's say I ban Well, I'm just using the same metric you are. Let's say I ban McDonald's because society says so, right? They don't like McDonald's anymore. And then I ban alcohol because society says so. They don't like alcohol anymore. And then we ban porn because society says so because they don't like porn anymore. Do you actually have any problem with any of this?
Uh, well, it depends. What do you mean because they say so?
No, just society and the social contract has said no more.
Well, no, because like if society says that we love slavery, I don't think we should legalize slavery.
Oh, well, then I'm really confused about what can you answer my question about should we ban people going outside in the sun?
Well, because there's no ban things that are harmful. Because there's no social contract for it. Said we should ban things that are harmful.
Yeah. If well, if not there's no social contract. I mean, if we don't have a social contract, we can't ban it, right?
So, if people think it's bad, then that's Yeah. You don't actually understand. I'm still doing an internal critique. But here's what I'll do.
Well, I have asked for your I'll help you out frame and you haven't given it to me. I've continually asked you to give me your moral.
Here's my framework. I operate under the framework of Christian ethics. Christian ethics is going to be a biblically founded ethical system which comes from the church. Okay? It comes from the church and it comes from the Bible and it comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Right? That's my moral ethical system. And so it's within those parameters the belief in Jesus Christ that would be the way in which I would act and the thresholds with which I would act and why I would value things like duty, though harm principles are included in Christian ethics. Yes. All of those things. When it comes to pornography, I think it's perfectly appropriate for us under Christian ethics to ban that. For other things, other considerations like things like dignity, dignity to society, dignity to a person, things like this in the moral consideration, if you were to get rid of pornography altogether, I'm not sure how society gets worse.
Um, so are you saying that basically things that you would deem banable in society is just based on the Bible?
So we should ban any It's not based on just the Bible. What were the metrics that I gave you?
So the Bible and the church and the teachings of Jesus Christ, right?
So the Bible Well, no, you have here's the thing. Jesus Christ said, 'All of my teachings will never fit in this book.' So there's also things like divine revelation, revelation of our saints. There's many other factors that would go into the complex system which is Christian ethics. But what I have that you don't have is an unchanging standard from which to appeal. You don't even have any standard from which to appeal. You just say either society has a social contract that they don't like it or that's it. You have not actually demonstrated why anything would be immoral except just my preference.
So, have you read the Bible before?
Is there anything in the Bible that you would deem morally reprehensible?
Well, does that have to do with this debate?
What? Because it's your entire moral framework.
Well, wait a second. I thought that when I was questioning your moral framework that wasn't allowed. Now it's allowed.
I never said it was allowed.
Oh, okay. Then why did I have to move off when I had pinned you down on your utilitarian ethical framework and now you get to move into mine? Can the moderator explain that to me?
You're arguing from the affirmative and I don't get to hear your moral framework.
I'm willing to give it to you. I just don't understand why. So, can you answer the question?
But I don't. But can you answer the question?
No, I don't find anything objectionable in Christian ethics.
Okay. Would you mind if I read out some Bible quotes then since um Go ahead. Go ahead. So, are you for legalizing rape?
Uh, there's no such legalization in the Bible.
Okay. So, in Deuteronomy 22:28, if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver, he must marry the young woman, for he's violated her, he can never divorce her for as long as he lives. Is this something that you would morally uphold?
Uh, for the Do you know what the fallacy of presentism is?
Yeah. Well, I'm going to explain it to you. The fallacy of presentism is you looking through a present view for things which are culturally considered to be bad or things like this without actually looking through the system of the time through the eyes of the people at the time. So yours was
That's interesting because didn't you just say your moral system is unchanging?
Yeah. I'm not changing it. I'm telling you.
No, you said it's unchanging. So why does the time matter?
You're using a facetious argument. You're the one who is using a time argument in order to say that something is moral or immoral. Let me explain and then at the time, first of all, this is not rape. Okay, here's what was actually happening. If it was the case that a man were to assault a woman, there's very few people in this time period. If it is the case that a man were to assault a woman like this, okay, and do horrible things to her, he would be held to account under a patriarchal system, okay, what do you do with these people? Well, often they put him to death. Okay. In
Well, in this case, he's forced to marry her and can never divorce her.
In Deuteronomy, it also moves into death. It moves into death for reason.
No, but this specific verse that I'm talking about, he must marry her and never divorce her as long as the Bible self referencing, right? So, Deuteronomy doesn't just have one passage in it, does it? Does it have other passages?
Oh, okay. Great. And so I can read some more if you would like.
Uh, okay. So, Deuteronomy 22:20. Uh, but if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's home, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel. Read it again.
Wait, read it one more time. I just want to make sure, by the way, which version are you reading out of?
Uh, this is the New King James Version, which I believe is the version that your Orthodox church uses, right?
No, but I mean, close enough. I mean, I can get a different one if you want.
No, it's fine. Just read it again.
Um, so but if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young
Give me the passage first. Sorry.
Um, okay. I can get the context before that.
No, no, I just want the passage.
So, this is Deuteronomy 22:20.
But if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.
Yeah. So, is this something you condone?
Yeah. So, Deuteronomy is referencing the law which is given to the Jews. I follow Christian ethics. Do I follow Jewish?
Okay. Well, we can talk instead about Let's see. Um, well, we can talk about Genesis. Um, so that would be okay. You want to What about Genesis?
So, we can talk about the genocide that God committed against the entire world.
It's a lovely children's story. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's commonly known as Noah's Ark when he killed evil people.
Mhm. So, Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he made man on earth and he was grieved in his heart. So the Lord said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and the beast, creeping thing and bird of the air, for I'm sorry that I've made them.' And I heard just a little comment earlier. So wait, so you endorse this genocide?
Uh if if you killed every evil person on Earth.
Oh, no. It was everyone on planet Earth except for the few people who were on the ark.
That's because they were cool with just wiping off the entire planet if they were all evil. Sorry. Evil meaning that they simply weren't obeying God.
Evil as in they were raping, murdering, thieving.
No, no, no. This is just people who like God was No, no, no. It definitely isn't. You need to go back and read Genesis because
All right. Well, we can go instead to 1 Samuel 15.
I think first we're going to respond.
Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish Am for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him. Can I just Could I just finish this? This is
You just really couldn't just before you move on. Could I finish this? This is completely separate.
Well, I was going to say before we do the completely separate from Noah's Ark, I do think it's fair just because you know somebody I am very interested in doing this type of unpack but I do think it is fair for Andrew to say that as the Bible I think does describe them as wicked people. But go ahead there Andrew. You know whether you think that's valid or not you know you can debate that. But
Sure. And God describes anyone who doesn't believe him as wicked people. That's why they get condemned for all eternity. Right. Because what the reference there is is they're referencing that people who don't have some type of synergistic relationship with God are doing wicked things like raping, murdering, I don't know, prostitution, things like that.
Wait, so do you agree that simply not believing in God means you are wicked?
No, I think that not believing in God. So you have to understand that there's two different covenants which you're talking about. So, I believe in the new covenant of Christianity. When you're talking about what Jesus Christ came, right, he set down what Christian ethical law is. You continuously reference Jewish law, which has nothing to do with Christian ethics. I have no idea why you're doing that. What moral framework did I say I followed?
Uh, you specifically said you follow the church, the Bible, ethics. Yes.
Yes. This is the Christian Bible.
Yeah. But do you recognize that in the Christian Bible there's people groups who have specific laws which are given to them which is made for Jews only for specific reasons that there's a new covenant under Jesus Christ and it's the new covenant under Jesus Christ with his two additional commandments, the ten commandments, things like this and Christian ethics under the guidance of Jesus Christ that we follow. Do you get that?
So you're saying you don't condone these acts. Is that what you're getting at?
I'm saying I follow Christian ethics and you don't understand what you're reading. So there's Do or do you not condone the genocide in the Bible?
Yeah, I think Why is it not genocide?
I think if you kill a lot of people Wait, can you define genocide?
Yeah. So, can you just stop talking?
So, anyway, I did. I'm great. Okay. So, I think if you kill lots and lots and lots of bad people, that's fine. If you call that a genocide, I don't care.
Wait, so can you define genocide?
However you define it's fine. If you think it's a genocide, How do you not agree that that's genocide?
Oh, if you're defining that as a genocide, fine. I'll concede. If you kill all the bad people and that's genocide, I don't care.
Okay. Well, you just said it wasn't a genocide. So, that's nice. Um, so now we've established my moral foundation of Christian ethics.
I like that you both had an I don't care moment. This is kind of
Well, why do I care about whatever the idea of whatever she considers genocide to be?
Yeah. So that's kind of exactly my point is that your moral framework does not care whatsoever about people's well-being. You care only for
Oh, really? It's my moral. Okay, I see. So, let's just make sure I got this right. I'm willing to say that it's acceptable for evil people to get killed. You would save Hitler, right?
Um, okay. So, evil people would include anyone who doesn't believe in God. So you're saying you condone?
I know that's a straw man. Did I say genocide? Did I say that's what makes a person evil? You said that.
No, of course not. And would you like for me to give you reference in
So then why people who don't believe in God sent why they sent to hell to suffer for all eternity or they're not evil?
The Orthodox don't believe in hell in that way. I don't know if you knew that or not. But also, just so you understand, if you're talking about Paul and you're talking about the apostles, the apostles would often talk about how there's good written on people's hearts that comes from God, right? And that we are not to take wrathful judgment against people, kill them, things like this. That's against the bones of Christian ethics. Now, if it is the case that evil people are trying to dominate or do bad things and God smites them for doing that, well, I mean, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it?
Maybe could we see like what constitutes as like an evil person views it? Do adulterers count as evil?
I think that that's a sinful act, but it wouldn't necessarily facilitate. So, I'll explain how the Orthodox view sin. So, what we would say is that's sinful. But think about this beer. So, every sin you do, if you have small sins, it fills up the beer bottle a little bit. If you have large sins, it fills up the beer bottle a lot more. Right? All sin is corrupting and all sin is bad. Right? And the more sin you have in you, the more corrupted you are. But that doesn't mean that you're not redeemable and it doesn't even necessarily mean that you're evil. There could be sins of omission for instance that you have.
I'm going to have to Andrew.
Yeah. We wouldn't consider that to be evil, right? But all sin is born to God, right? It's just that there's metrics for which they poison you, the person. What you're doing is you're trying to argue with a Protestant, of which I'm not. And I don't know why you're trying to do that. It's very silly.
Well, aside this aside, I have an unchanging standard. You have a changing standard. So, when we're talking about porn and banning porn, what I'm trying to do is get consistency from you. If porn Now, I've just answered your questions. Please answer mine. Society itself is society itself from your view the arbiter of what is moral or isn't it?
Uh is society the arbiter of what's moral?
So then you're the arbiter of what's moral?
I mean I don't think so. I think
Who the is the arbiter of what's moral?
I well I would say I have a pretty good like moral framework which aims to
So then you're the arbiter of what's moral.
Um, I think it's better when people like come together and agree on things that would benefit based on empiricism. And
How many people then would be the arbiter of what is moral? How many people does it take before we have an arbiter of what is moral?
Well, that's like why we have things like democracy, isn't it?
No, that's not why we have things like democracy. Unless you're saying kings can't decide what are moral. [laughter] But that aside, they a king can't decide what's moral.
Well, they behave in like a way that is like beneficial to them. Not for the benefit of people.
You behave in ways that are beneficial to you.
I'm not a king or a queen.
Why would that matter? Why couldn't a king make moral decisions for their people? I don't get that. I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying their interest. So then the arbiter of morality is who is it? You or is it someone who's not you? Who ultimately is the determiner of what is moral?
I don't believe in objective morality.
That's not what I'm asking you. Even so if it's objective morality, then you definitely are the arbiter of what is moral. Right.
In my own personal worldview, yes.
Okay. So there is no such thing as objective morality. It's all subjective.
unless of course you can prove that God exists right now.
So, then it just comes down to preferences.
Uh, yes. And as to yours.
Oh, okay. Well, then it's my preference. Porn is banned.
Um, yeah. So, I wanted to ask, so obviously, you get all your role. Like, would you say you're an advocate for commander?
I just told you it's my preference that porn is banned. What's the problem? So, is that based on am I doing something? Wait, am I doing something?
Is that the way that the Bible talks about doing something moral or immoral or bad or awful or in any way against your worldview? If my preference is that porn is banned and so therefore it's banned.
Oh, okay. Well, then if it's not immoral, I don't care.
I'm the status quo, not you.
Oh, okay. So, it's only your preferences which are moral and not mine.
Uh in well I mean in my worldview yes I'm obviously in my worldview it's the same way.
My world my preferences are more moral than your preferences.
Yes that's what you believe obviously.
So if your preferences are the and you're the orchestrator and arbiter of all that is moral and I also from my view is am the orchestrator and arbiter of all that is moral. How could a third person determine which one of us is right? Which one of us is actually the most
A really great question actually because if you're advocating for divine command theory, how would you argue against a Muslim who says
What does that have to do with my question? I didn't ask you to ask me a question. I asked you to answer a question. Can you answer my question?
My question is this is that if it's the case that my preferences are the ultimate arbiter of what is morality, just like you claim yours is,
but this is based on your own worldview. That's not based on reality. My worldview is not based on reality whatsoever.
Listen. Listen. What do you mean preference?
Listen. It's my preference to follow Christian ethics. It's my preference to follow the preferences of God. It's my preference to do all these things. Is any of that immoral?
Like is it immoral that you have those preferences?
Yeah. Even if they're wrong, like let's grant Christianity was not true. Let's just grant it for the sake of argument. It's totally untrue. It's totally fake. It's totally false. It never occurred. I just believe it because it's my preference. Is that in any way wrong to hold those standards?
No. Yeah. I believe in freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
If that's the case, unlike you, is that right?
Then all that matters is that it's my preference, Christianity is true. It's my preference that porn be banned and I'm at no more of an immoral position than you are. So, you can't even say that me wanting to ban porn based specifically on just my own preference is in any way even bad.
I don't think I'm not a thought police. I'm not Christian.
Yeah, you're the ones that do thought policing.
But if I try to enact my thoughts on to you because it's my preference, why is that bad?
Wait, that's completely different. Are you talking about state enforcing violations of human rights?
Well, that's different than just holding an opinion.
Why? That's really weird. If I walk It's my preference though.
No, there's a difference between preferences and state enforcement, right?
No, it's all preference. A king prefers that you be oppressed. Why is he wrong?
So, hold your same standard.
What you consider morally good? Is that based on God's preferences?
It's based on my preferences for God's preferences.
Oh, so something is morally good just because God commands it?
No, it's good because it's my preference that it's good.
Wait, so then God has nothing to do with it?
No, it's my preference that God's preferences be enforced.
So then I'm correct that something is morally good simply because God commands it.
No, it would be is morally good because it's my preference that everything God morally commands be enforced.
Okay, that's what I just said. And that means it's completely arbitrary and based on your own personal preference.
I agree. I'm the only one that will admit that though.
Then if that's the case, then if that's I'm the only one who's going to admit that.
Hey, I'll just bite it. That's the case and we're just doing arbitrary and we're just basing it on our own personal preferences. Then if I get a whole army with machine guns to come in and say no more porn, you can't actually say there's anything wrong with that, right?
No, I can because now we're talking about state enforcement of violating people's rights, which is completely different than just holding a thought in your but it's my preference and I'm the ultimate arbiter of what is moral just like you.
What part are you not understanding between like thought policing and state enforcement?
Well, here's what I don't understand. If I want to use force and I say that it's moral because it's my preference, can you demonstrate how that's immoral?
If like if you're actually actively using force or if you're just thinking
if I kick in your door right now then tell me how it's immoral. How?
Because you are violating my personal autonomy.
So what you're that's all your preference?
Yeah. So my preference, what about my preference?
I'm my moral framework is I'm concerned with people's well-being and yours isn't. Yours is based on simply what God tells you to even if that results in mass human suffering.
Why is mass human suffering bad?
Do you think those are good things?
I That's not what I asked you. Did I ask you to ask me or did I ask you?
No, I was asking you first.
