Welcome to the new Ethical Dilemma Discussion Thread. scotty has given us permission to use the fifteen cases from the debate that he hosted at his University; when we finish with those we can come up with some of our own. Everybody feel free to join in.
Case 1: Minding Your Ethics
John is sitting at a bar having a drink to unwind from a long day when he overhears three men talking about how they believe that homosexuality is a sign of the decay of our society and should not be accepted. John has a number of homosexual friends and their standing in society is an important issue for him.
At first, John tries to ignore the men, but they are making no attempt to keep their conversation quiet or to themselves. While they clearly have no tolerance for homosexuals, the men do attempt to make a logical and reasoned explanation for why homosexuality is bad. John recognizes that people can have differing views on the ethical issues associated with homosexuality, but he believes that the conversation the men are having is insensitive and that their arguments are fallacious.
As the conversation goes on beside him, John finds himself unable to ignore the men any longer. He realizes he will either have to confront the men or leave the bar.
But John also believes that he may not be able to argue well enough against the men. When he speaks in public, things tend to come out muddled and not as clear as they are in his mind. He is not sure how much the men have had to drink, and while the men do not seem particularly angry now, it is possible that John’s butting into the conversation may lead to a fight. Even if it doesn’t, John believes the chances that his remarks will change their minds are remote.
Traditionally, John believes that one should mind one’s own business at a bar. But he reasons that if the men were racists, he would certainly be unable to leave without saying something. At best, the men would give him a spirited argument. At worst, they might consider his entry into the conversation rude or an invasion of their privacy. On the other hand, it was the men who were having a loud conversation about the topic at a bar. Furthermore, John is worried that it may be close-minded of him to think that his view is better than theirs, even if he holds his beliefs strongly.
As John is thinking through his next move, one of the men breaks from the group to come to the bar and get more drinks. In the process, he greets John and asks him how his night is going.
This first one seems to be more of a personal dilemma than an ethical one. There's nobody being physically attacked or insulted, a co-worker hasn't been fired or passed over for promotion, John's church hasn't refused to perform a wedding for John's friend or anything like that. So his dilemma appears to be whether to argue with three strangers in a bar or keep his mouth shut.
There is nothing wrong with either approach. Bars are places where strangers talk to each other, even if some are at their own table. A discussion over a topic like this can certainly lead to violence, but that seems unlikely in this case. The men at the table aren't acting like thuggish rednecks or skinheads. It seems likely that John would be able to join their discussion if he asked in a civil manner. In fact, at the end of this scenario, one of the men gives him an opening by speaking to him first. John could easily say, "I couldn't help but overhear your discussion and I'd like to make a counterpoint."
So I'd argue that this isn't really an ethical dilemma, as there is no imminent negative consequence to anybody. It would certainly be admirable of John to stand up for his beliefs in a civil manner, but he is by no means required to do so, nor should anyone think less of him for not doing so.
After sitting here staring at the blank "post a reply" screen for several minutes and found that this subject is a bit more heady than I anticipated. On the one hand if the men are spouting nonsense it would be nice for John to speak up. However this is a bar and there is alcohol involved so this might not be the best place to take a stand.
I agree with both of you. No one is being harmed here; it is simply a conversation, and people are entitled to have conversations, no matter how offensive I might find them to be. If I overhear statements that bother me, then it is up to me to leave, not to change the person. Clearly, no one is being harmed or discriminated against. If that were the case, then it's incumbent on any decent person to intervene.
A person with a great deal of friendly tact might engage these folks and get away with it. But personally speaking, I would mind my own business.
So RJ I think you are correct that because there is no anti-gay behavior going on, an intervention is unnecessary. And Lupy I think you are correct that alcohol-laden strangers are not the best people to pick an argument with.
RJ, how do you suggest we run this thread? Should we leave each case up for a week before posting the next case? And should we take turns posting cases or would you like to be the official case-poster?
I was thinking about that. I'm thinking we should give each case a couple of days, so everybody has a chance to read and consider and then post if they want. We probably don't have to give it a whole week, unless a discussion takes off. Also, everybody should know that they are free to post about a previous case even if a new case has been posted.
Case 2: CGI Child Porn
Second Life is an online community where members interact with each other through their avatars—they can explore, chat, shop, and have sex. Cybersex is a popular activity in Second Life because members can design their avatars to cater to their particular, even peculiar, sexual desires. And generally no one minds. But in recent years, one form of online sexual role-playing—called “age play”—has drawn attention. Age play involves adult users who create child-like avatars and use them to engage in virtual sex, sometimes with other child-like avatars and sometimes with adult-like avatars. This phenomenon is quite troubling, and some countries have taken steps to criminalize the creation, distribution, and possession of these types of images.
In the United States, however, these images are not illegal.
In the United States, virtual sexualized depictions of children are not illegal as long as no actual children are involved. These images, referred to as “virtual child pornography,” must be distinguished from “morphed” images or “pseudo-photographs,” which are digital manipulations of photographs of actual children. These morphed images are illegal because they include actual children as a part of the sexualized image. And even entirely virtual images are illegal if they are considered obscene. The United States Supreme Court has drawn the distinction between virtual and actual (even morphed) sexualized images of children because children are not directly harmed by the virtual images.
On the other hand, some argue that the morphed images are more like the virtual images because they are not the product of sexual abuse, as other child pornography necessarily is. Either way, as technology continues to develop, it may become increasingly difficult to distinguish between images that incorporate photographs of real children and images that are entirely virtual.
Many other countries have addressed this problem by criminalizing computer-generated, sexualized images of children. This approach resolves the issue of distinguishing between virtual and actual images, focusing instead on the possibility that these images—whether virtual or real—are detrimental to children.
This one is also a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. Criminalizing fiction is a very disturbing precedent. If laws can be passed banning images of children having sex, then any simulated images of crimes can be banned-- no more murder mysteries. Or action movies, or video games, or much of anything else.
Some people think that being disgusted with something is enough to ban it. It's not. Some measurable harm has to be done.
For me, this is not a no-brainer. You could argue that as long as no actual children are involved, it should be legal for people to create (and to view) simulated depictions of children having sex. But it seems to me that very realistic CGI depictions can only fan the flames of pedophiles' sexual desires. I don't see how that couldn't lead to more pedophilic crimes.
On the other hand, I understand the argument that we should punish behavior, not reading text or viewing animated films.
I hope more people weigh in on this issue. I'm still trying to form a solid opinion.
RJ does make a good point that if you criminalize fiction it could lead to a "slippery slope" type of situation at worse and overzealous prosecutions at best. For instance many Anime features characters who are as young as 17 and are occasionally appear nude. Would having a DVD of your favorite Japanese cartoon be the same as possessing child-porn?
Plus there are other crimes such as people writing about rape fantasies or mass-murder sprees. These are alarming signs of potential mental health problems, but should they be criminalized?
Lupine wrote:... many Anime features characters who are as young as 17 and are occasionally appear nude. Would having a DVD of your favorite Japanese cartoon be the same as possessing child-porn?
My concern isn't the depictions of sex between 17 year-olds. It's the depictions of 5 or 10 year-olds.
What about people with "furry" avatars? Should they be banned because somebody thinks that they might have sex with animals, maybe, someday? Once we start down this path, anything considered repulsive or criminal in real life could be banned or punished in fiction.
Should we ban books like The Turner Diaries because they might incite violence or rebellion? What about books that depict criminals getting away with rape or murder? In the 1950s, the Comics Code was instituted, stating that all criminals had to be punished by the end of the story-- should United States law reflect that same view? And if we can ban books that depict fictionalized crimes, what about books that are racist or sexist?
As for images of pedophilia inciting pedophilia, the same has been said of adult pornography, as well as violence in movie or video games. That's like saying we should ban Columbo episodes because they might incite somebody to carry out a really elaborate and clever murder.
We can't criminalize fantasy or punish people for crimes they haven't committed. The only reason this is being considered is because pedophilia is especially repugnant. But once that precedent is set it won't be long before the next person comes along with their own special cause saying that if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me. And then the endless parade will begin....
But the truth is that some people do indeed engage in behaviors that they witness in film and on television. For example, repeated exposure to violence has been shown to desensitize people to violence, making it easier for them to become violent. The two links below describe some evidence.
You're absolutely right that banning some types of fiction sets up a slippery slope, down which all forms of nefarious censorship can take shape. Maybe in a free society there should be no compromising on freedom of fiction or fictional depictions of anything, no matter how repugnant. But I worry about the effects of making these heinous depictions freely available.
This case kind of reminds me of the debate regarding whether drugs should be legalized. Interestingly, I have no problem legalizing all drugs, even though such legalization may make it easier for people to take drugs. I don't believe it's the government's job to protect people from eating fast food, either. So maybe, just maybe, I can use this logic to support your position on CGI porn, RJ.
And read 
