There are, as everybody knows, various degrees of slavery, from the brutal chattel-and-chains variety, to indentured servitude, to that which isn’t official but which binds its victims to their bread and butter. Since slavery runs the gamut, there are greater and lesser degrees of evil associated with it. Some for instance are now arguing that slavery, especially sex slavery, under Islam wasn’t (and wouldn’t) be so bad, and wasn’t (and wouldn’t be) really worse than a bad marriage.
Hold that and consider this argument. First premise, a tautology: if a thing isn’t morally bad, then it isn’t morally bad. True, yes?
Second premise: That which is not morally bad, is morally good, or at worst morally neutral. Also true.
Third premise: If a thing is morally neutral, and especially if it is morally good, then it would be neutral or good for society to promulgate it. True, too.
Inference or clarification: by promulgating I mean publicly supporting, perhaps funding or even teaching children in official schools; I mean the opposite of suppressing or proscribing. The level of support would of course depends on the costs and total benefits. So here I only mean promulgating in at least the weakest sense on not condemning.
Conclusion: If a thing is not morally bad, then ceteris paribus, it would be morally good or neutral to engage in or approve of others engaging in the thing.
The ceteris paribus is a requirement because suppose we consider jogging a moral good, we wouldn’t then say for a 101-year-old man with broken hips that it would be morally good for him to jog.
Okay, let’s try an example. If sodomy isn’t morally bad, then sodomy isn’t morally bad. Must be true. And so, since sodomy isn’t morally bad, it follows that it should be supported or engaged in by members of society, and even taught to children. Like with the jogger, the ceteris paribus would warn us about the dangers in the act (if any) and precautions to avoid these dangers, but we would not and could not forbid the act and must at least not disapprove.
That was an easy one. Let’s do prostitution. If prostitution is not morally bad, it should be legalized. And if it is legalized and not morally bad, then it follows it would be an acceptable profession. Of course, there are always ceteris paribus considerations, but at the least it is not wrong for prostitution to exist, and it is good for the government to support prostitution.
First paragraphs from a story in the Telegraph from 2005 (that cropped up again recently):
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing “sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners — who must pay tax and employee health insurance — were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her “profile” and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job — including in the sex industry — or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
Now I have no idea of the veracity of this report—though the article goes on to document more incidents—nor do I know whether the law on this matter has changed since 2005. But. Since the German government has declared prostitution not to be a moral bad, prostitution is a morally acceptable profession; and since the law requires people (and not just women) to fill acceptable professions when offered or lose their benefits, it is not wrong for the government to insist the ex-waitress turn to prostitution.
If there is a flaw in this argument, it is with the first premise. Right, libertarians?
So what about slavery? Well, assuming the first premise is flawed for prostitution, then (assuming this law is still as reported), then in Germany there is a weak form of sex slavery.
QED
Outstanding!
What a perverse result. Kafkaesque.
Such an example ought to stand as some kind of “teaching moment”, especially for feminists and other progressives. I mean, just consider this from a first, second, third…..order perspective.
The ultimate conclusion is that we are all slaves. A slave army, an army of sex slaves, tax slaves, slaves for political experiments.
Now, with the CIA wiki/leaks revelations we begin to see the true horror and perversity of modernity.
As for the article, I presume that a public outcry will lead to informal backing down. However, that is just once, or twice. What happens when, say, in five or ten years time, and things like this happen? People will yawn. The media (if the MSM is still around) will either be much weaker, or unconcerned.
Finally, I though this article was going to talk about Islamic sex slavery in Germany. The irony, however, is that the sex industry is probably doing a booming trade due to the recent influx.
There’s an entry in wikipedia describing that the job was being misrepresented to the agency as being for a female barkeep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany
Whether a government has the right, consider the position of army priests. As this is a proper job, the government could force a Protestant to do the job. After all, he’s a Christian too.
As such a thing is not happening, it is clear that there are more conditions than availability and suitability. Some jobs cannot be forced upon people, even if they are much more proper than prostitution.
Since it is morally bad, for this libertarian, to initiate harm on another and since both sodomy and prostitution can inflict harm on another; thus both are morally bad, ceteris paribus, and thus should be culturally frowned upon, in addition, when done egregiously, be considered criminal, though not necessarily felonious.
There is so much disinformation floating around the internet that you have to be careful before defending/discrediting one source over another. I do not recall the Telegraph offering a retraction. Snopes discredited which a sure sign that it is likely true.
There is so much disinformation floating around the internet that you have to be careful before defending/discrediting one source over another. I do not recall the Telegraph offering a retraction. Snopes discredited, which given their recent record, is a sure sign that it is likely true.
since both sodomy and prostitution can inflict harm
Prostitution means sex for money. Which part is harmful –the sex or the money?
‘Can do harm’ doesn’t mean ‘will do harm’ besides
ditch digging and roofing can also be harmful. Should they be frowned upon too?
The question is: should one be forced to work? The way the story goes here implies that one must take the first job proffered which means the person seeking unemployment benefits is for rent.
More reasonable is to have to select from a number of jobs within a given time frame.
In my state (and likely most others) there is a maximum time limit for benefits (6 mo). The benefit is based on previous salary and how much ‘premium’ (tax) previously was paid. Even then the benefit amount barely covers living accommodation (rent, mortgage) let alone food. A person who previously was paid $6000/mo might get around $1000/mo for six months and it is taxable income. During this time the benefit receiver must show attempts at job seeking (at least two per week)
First premise: if a thing isn’t morally bad, then it isn’t morally bad?
Always and consistently? Or can the moral value of something change depending on circumstance.
Hard work is good for the soul.
Slavery is (forced) work.
If all work is good, then slavery must be good. But no, the moral value of work changes depending on the work and the circumstances, and a good thing can be corrupted by bad circumstances.
Second premise: That which is not morally bad, is morally good, or at worst morally neutral.
Overly simplistic and does not account for a variable moral value. I would also say that some activities have an indeterminate moral value.
Third premise: If a thing is morally neutral, and especially if it is morally good, then it would be neutral or good for society to promulgate it.
Now here, especially with the call to libertarians in the conclusion is downright offensive to the libertarian philosophy. You are not entitled to impose your sense virtue on someone else.
I think I can see the problem here.
One of the a priori assumptions is that we are dealing in a Platonic world of absolutes, where ‘morally bad’ means ‘universally morally bad’.
Now, in the real world, we have a general moral sense appertaining to a country, often called it’s ‘culture’. And in multi-cultural countries, we have a variety of DIFFERENT moral senses. For instance, Christians would say that eating pork was not morally bad, but Jews and Muslims would disagree.
What you have here is a government (which has no morals at all) taking a ‘liberal progressive’ moral position on sexual mores, and then finding that most other groups don’t happen to hold the same position…
Why would anyone conflate morality (philosophy) and actual laws, as if there’s a genuine connection there?
And if one were in a situation where the terms of the law would force them to take an available job one find’s morally repugnant, one can fail the interview, or, quickly get oneself fired/dismissed for a variety of contrived [by the new hire] reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbV_Q2sfIpg
Dodgy Geezer’s point about Germany is right on.
As far as I know prostitution isn’t illegal, the crime of solicitation, or “living off Immoral earnings” is.
Perhaps that’s an urban myth.
The problem with the argument in this article is it’s use of agreed, for most, moral points which are black and white. The movement from the moral to therefore this must be taught to children is a bit odd and a recipe for outrage and horror. The moral code of a child depends upon their parents in large part. The law of a nation is all that is required of a citizen of that country unless in an islamic country where the religion is the law.
If a person is a prostitute should they claim benefit and be done for it if they do? The answer to that must be yes. What is done about the prostitute is a separate matter.
~~~~
On teaching to children: There is no good evidence that the school teaching of Sex to children has a moralising affect on desired birth rate, crime rate, which is of concern to a government especially an atheistic one. School time spent on such things should be the absolute minimum. Recently on the news was a new idea for the curriculum that children be taught relationship education.
Right now there are a series of adverts on TV teaching boys what rape is.
I’m thinking it’s intended for the interlopers. Some women don’t seem to know either.
First I knew of it was in English literature where the teacher used the opportunity to tell us what rape was. The legal definition is clear and the word rape doesn’t appear.
The more children are taught in school obligatory sex education the higher the rate of such vice. I don’t think the one is causing the other. It’s more endemic. So ‘teaching to children’ is quite a lose term. Does this mean official government teaching? Well children get enough information from their friends and family evidently. At ten when my sister broke the awful news!
“THAT”s disgusting, it can’t be true,” She only knew because she’d been taught in school and was older than me. I thought she was being foolish to believe such nonsense but in fact when further investigated my mother only had a sheepish expression. “For goodness sake what’s wrong with people?’
On sodomy, there needs be no teaching and nothing will change. People are admitted to A&E with all sorts of imaginative injuries caused by male misadventure. It’s not that more people think it’s okay it’s that more people hear about it and talk about it. The media know it will attract readers, watchers and listeners.
At boarding school we were given obligatory sex education classes and all the girls used to look forward to them thinking they might be exciting. They were not. “oh that was boring” was the sort of out loud remark amongst the girls afterwards. We had an outside ‘Miss’ who came to teach girls from different years different things and nobody was left in any doubt about the most important thing which is sTD’s and the risk of HIV. There was little danger of teenage pregnancy since opportunity was kept to a minimum. Sodomy was never mentioned. The kitchen boy would have to have been very busy and talented since the girls never spoke to boys except him unless they went to church! At the age my sister was being taught about sex in mainstream school we were taught by the house mother over toast and tea in her flat about periods. There was only one class a year and four years altogether. Just enough to make sure that nobody was not warned, like visits from the nit lady.
In our ignorance we used to rather think the woman was wasting her time and rather insulting our snooty virtues. Didn’t she know we were Chorleywood girls?
~~~~~
Slavery? that’s a metaphor in this article. The only true slave is one who lacks the intellect or the physical ability to leave a situation. A real slave is not free even when their will would take it as they are held against their will.
By this measure above even a wild animal is a slave to survival. That’s not what slavery means.
That’s just life. Everybody has choices. The slave doesn’t. That’s the difference.
Ciber stalkers also call their girls slaves as well.
Meanwhile sex slavery is well and prospering in the US. I have few doubts several costumers of this blog are also customer of those service.
Sex silvery is a good way for men who wish to impose their power over women. Often the same that are against abortion.
About the German story:
It is conservative that keep placing arsher conditions on unemployed individuals, usually progressive are against placing condition on unemployed workers
Sylvain, What’s the word when you’re beyond tired and fed up? Is there a French one? Enervated, I’m thinking.
“Meanwhile sex slavery is well and prospering in the US.”
So are other illegal activities such as drugs and other vices, none of which are legal and that is the point which you are unable to recognise. That Crimes of all shapes and sizes and severity continue is not. a measure of the will of individuals to tackle it or continue to fight against it.
Did you watch Joe Kenda is living proof that there are police and crime fighters who are on the side of the angels. Nothing like what you paint.
As for costumers of the blog, well you’ve made this claim before and it is quite strange that you think it okay to make a judgment based on people’s politics that they must take the line you say where women are concerned.
If I thought that were true for a moment I wouldn’t read another word. So you insult everybody when you say these things and since nobody wants to say anything about it I will.
Maybe there are all sorts of forces and lurkers who frequent places on the internet. Anybody who states their political or religious views in these times is an enemy of someone purely based on their world view or political persuasion.
Many/most Political Liberals are right on about everything unless it is a view held by the right. It’s hypocritical. It’s intolerant.
Joy,
1) the crowd on this blog and its main author adopt a holier than thou attitude. That kind of people are usually the worst offenders. Just take a look at the Catholic Church they keep rewarding the sexual offenders.
You had a conservative representative in or around Massachusetts who passed the arechest anti-gay law in his state. Then he was caught a regular costumer of a gay bar meeting man and having sexual relations. He was holier than thou. Just like Briggs.
Intolerance is not about disagreeing with people. You can tolerate people without agreeing with them or their action.
Intolerance is making sure that others cannot act on what you don’t tolerate. For example, forcing a transgender to use a toile according to his birth certificate sex.
A man doesn’t have to pretend to be transgender to rape a woman in a toilet. But transgender using male bathroom are often assaulted by them.
Also:
Have you noticed how many Foxnews female contributors have been complaining of sexual harassment?
Yes, conservatives are holier than thou!
how many [Fox News] female contributors have been complaining of sexual harassment?
One thing that came up in my Corporate Sexual Awareness training is that “sexual harassment” is whatever the the supposed victim claims it to be. IOW: There are no real standards and anything goes.
FNC employs lots of women. Strange that only a few were “victims”. Are the rest of them keeping their jobs with their tails? At least two of said “victims” had falling ratings. Perhaps the real problem and the charges are diversion?
1 Nov 2016: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/01/megyn-kelly-emerges-weak-link-cnn-breaks-fox-news-october-first-time-since-2001/
Megyn at NBC: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/bc-guest-blogs/megyn-kelly-hardly-lock-succeed-nbc/162441
Even if the allegations are true, they apparently are centered on one person. Converting it into sweeping condemnation is a lot like using the following story to make generalizations about French Canadians or perhaps anyone with similar name.
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/justice-et-faits-divers/201501/05/01-4832583-meurtre-deric-gauthier-sylvain-allard-plaide-coupable.php
Dav,
“FNC employs lots of women. Strange that only a few were “victims”. ”
How do you know that it is only a few? It is not because one hasn’t come forward to complain that one wasn’t assaulted.
In FNC case you are talking about the president of the company. To whom should have they complained? It would make sense that someone would complain once they are near the door, or even out, since they don’t have to be afraid to lose their job over it.
In my teen I had an incident when a pervert (costumer) grabbed my ass work. I have only recently started to talk about it, but I still remembered how disturbing it was. It causes the person to have many doubts about themselves. The first reaction is to believe you did something wrong. My incident was very minor and cannot be compared to what the majority of women deal with.
The fact that you use their ratings has justification is asinine to the max.
Abuser of women are found everywhere, even here in Quebec and I know many of them.
How do you know that it is only a few?
How do you know there weren’t only a few? Clairvoyance?
In FNC case you are talking about the president of the company. To whom should have they complained?
Who did Carlson complain to? Companies do have HR departments. I imagine FNC does as well.
It would make sense that someone would complain once they are near the door, or even out
Also makes sense to deflect the reason for leaving from job performance — blame shifting. Both Carlson and Kelly could have left earlier with much better ratings making them more desirable job prospects. Why did they wait until their ratings slipped if things were so bad?
In my teen I had an incident when a pervert (costumer) grabbed my ass work.
I’ve never ever had mine grabbed. But then I may not be as cute as you.
The first reaction is to believe you did something wrong.
You poor thing! Mine would have been to flatten the costumer’s (customer’s?) nose. Maybe your weakness was sensed making you a target? Stay out of prison if you can.
I still remembered how disturbing it was.
Nothing like having the victim card up your sleeve. Possible explanation for the lapresse.ca article?
Abuser of women are found everywhere, even here in Quebec and I know many of them.
Many? Of course, absolutely nothing to do with your obvious tendency to see what you want to see.