In this essay I will argue that the state should not put any restrictions upon the production and circulation of pornography created by consenting adults beyond the production and circulation of that which depicts acts which are already prohibited by law. I will do this by opposing arguments made by those who suggest that the state has a responsibility to legislate on the issue of pornography according to the social moral consensus, and will argue that such principles have no place in state legislature or what the state should restrict. I will then argue that state legislation on pornography with content that which isn't already illegal would be a state incursion into an individual's negative Liberty, which cannot be justified according to
…show more content…
Aurel Kolnai argues that “If the moral views of men are multiform and contradictory, and are conditioned by and varying with different types of social organisation and fast-changing social circumstances, then Moral Consensus cannot be the central principle of morality" (Kolnai, 1969: 103) so it would not be accurate to argue that you are legislating on the good of that which is moral by legislating on the moral …show more content…
I agree with Mill’s stance as I don't believe the state needs to legislate beyond that which the harm condition covers, because the harm condition covers against all of the reasonable dangers of pornography. Pornography created by consenting adults is unlikely to include acts which are illegal in themselves, and if they do then the law would already cover such acts without an extra level of restriction by the state specific to pornography.
Some arguments however centre around the actions inspired by pornography made by consenting adults, such as pornography with content which could inspire illegal acts I.e rape fantasy pornography, or arguments like that of MacKinnon who describes pornography as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures / or words” (MacKinnon, 1993:
Aurel Kolnai argues that “If the moral views of men are multiform and contradictory, and are conditioned by and varying with different types of social organisation and fast-changing social circumstances, then Moral Consensus cannot be the central principle of morality" (Kolnai, 1969: 103) so it would not be accurate to argue that you are legislating on the good of that which is moral by legislating on the moral …show more content…
I agree with Mill’s stance as I don't believe the state needs to legislate beyond that which the harm condition covers, because the harm condition covers against all of the reasonable dangers of pornography. Pornography created by consenting adults is unlikely to include acts which are illegal in themselves, and if they do then the law would already cover such acts without an extra level of restriction by the state specific to pornography.
Some arguments however centre around the actions inspired by pornography made by consenting adults, such as pornography with content which could inspire illegal acts I.e rape fantasy pornography, or arguments like that of MacKinnon who describes pornography as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures / or words” (MacKinnon, 1993: