Philosophy of Sex and Gender, Article Critique Example

In assessing potential arguments for and against the “regulation” of pornography, it is first important to establish what is meant by “regulation.”  For the purposes of this assignment, “regulation” will refer to restricting the planning, production, filming, and consumption in some way that is not total.[1] Overall, there are numerous, solid arguments for why pornography should be restricted: First, although pornography is usually consumed by an individual, pornography imposes public costs on society.  Thus, like other goods with excessive public costs (e.g. pollution), it should be regulated.  One could argue that pornography, particularly if one is addicted, affects society in numerous, negative ways: broken families, lost productivity at work, and even criminal behavior stemming from stealing to rape and murder.  An apt comparison may be to marijuana as an “entry drug”: Marijuana, although considered harmless in itself, can facilitate heavy drug use that imposes heavy costs on society; by the same logic, while pornography might not in itself be hazardous, it may facilitate behavior that imposes substantial costs on society.

On the opposite side, one could rightly argue that pornography is a personal choice made by adults; if one commits a crime that is a function of personal choice and not related to pornography For example, every individual (over the age of 18) has the right to make a decision regarding whether he/she wants to consume pornography or not.  This is not only part of an individual’s freedom of decision, but also freedom of speech on behalf of those who produce pornography.  In answer to the argument above, individuals who consume pornography have made that decision and must be held accountable for it.  If they engage in criminal behavior, they are aptly punished by the law including offenses of rape, kidnapping, and use of underage individuals in the production of pornography.

The main issue in the two arguments above relies on one’s conception of how individuals are ultimately responsible and connected to society. Some maintain that as long as an individual’s behavior does not “negatively” affect anyone else, it should be permitted in our society.  In this interpretation, pornography may impose costs, but it is ultimately a victimless crime and should not be regulated. This argument is a relatively strong because it relies on principles of individual freedom and accountability; in addition, the causal link between pornography and negative behavior cannot be proven.  On the other side of the argument, some conceptualize that an individual’s relationship to society is more holistic in nature- that is, society faces costs for an individual’s decision, even though there may not be robust evidence for it.  Although this argument is particularly emotive, it lacks solid evidence.

[1] That is, regulation doesn’t result in the total abolition of pornography.