Did you ever stop to wonder why prostitution is illegal? I did. Aside from explicitly religious moral reasons, I can’t see why it is.
Pick your jaw off the floor. Got it? OK, then, I’ll continue.
When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, what is a prostitute doing? She…I know men prostitute themselves, too, but definite pronouns are less confusing…She is selling the use of her body for a span of time. Why is that illegal? It’s her body. It’s not like there isn’t legal precedence for it.
Anyone who does physical labor, be it working in a coal mine, building a house, or being a body guard, is selling his body. His physical strength and endurance is an economic asset to himself, his family, and his employer.
Take athletes for example. They sell the use of their highly trained bodies to sports teams. They can be beaten up repeatedly and left with a multitude of lingering physical ailments when they retire. Nobody’s arresting them (at least not for what they do for a living). Not only do they sell their bodies for competition, but they also sell themselves as clothing racks. Companies pay millions of dollars for a sports star to wear their logos or their brand.
Athletes aren’t the only ones who sell their bodies as advertizements. These days, any ordinary Joe can walk around with an ad for GoldenPalace.com tattooed to his forehead. It’s happened. There have even been pregnant women renting out ad space on their extruded abdomens. That’s not illegal. It’s capitalism.
Let’s not forget the quintessential walking billboard, models. In fact, not only are they paid to use their bodies to show off clothing, they’re paid to do so with sex appeal. Models use their sexuality as a business asset for themselves and for their employers, something they have in common with prostitutes.
Pornographic models are even more closely related. They’re not just selling sexiness, they’re selling eroticism. One might even argue that the goal of their work is to assist in bringing about sexual gratification for viewers. We Christians consider pornography vulgar and sinful, and rightly so, but it’s quite legal (except under certain extreme circumstances).
What, then, makes prostitution illegal? What’s the difference between a guy paying for a dirty magazine, looking at it, and pleasuring himself, and a guy who pays for someone else to arouse and pleasure him? From the preceding, it’s clear that the selling of one’s body, even for sexual purposes, isn’t illegal. Nor is the purchase of goods and services rendered by another body. It must be the sexual act itself.
I suppose one could argue that prostitution detrimentally affects society in the form of broken marriages and the like. Then again, so do spending too much time at work or play, drinking too much, and adultery. When was the last time you saw someone get arrested for any of those?
Maybe prostitution is a public health hazard because prostitutes often carry and spread diseases. Well, there are a hell of a lot of people engaging in consentual unprotected sex and spreading diseases. Are we going to arrest them?
A common arguement is that prostitution is degrading to women. I could list a number of legal things that are degrading to women, but I’ll refrain for fear of being mislabeled as sexist. Of course, for a lot of prostitutes, the job goes well beyond degrading when their pimps beat them or otherwise treat them as cheap property. Well, abuse is illegal on its own, so that’s a red herring. Besides, this problem, and the health hazards, could be more effectively dealt with if prostitution were legal, which brings me to my next point.
Not only can I find little reason for it to be illegal, I can think of potential benefits of making it legal. In fact, legalization could help alleviate or ameliorate most of the problems mentioned above.
Prostitution’s hard work and could permanently damage prostitutes’ bodies. OK, give them health insurance. Better yet, force their pimps to pay for their insurance. As it stands, they’re working anyway, but without insurance.
I mentioned that people sell themselves as billboards. Well, if prostitution were legal, the possibility of endorsement deals would open up. Condom makers, for instance, could endorse prostitutes. Another possibility would be clothing designers paying for their clothes to be worn on the job. There are other economic benefits, though. As a legal form of employment, prostitution would generate tax revenue through income tax collection.
How about the public health hazard? Well, that can be helped in two ways. The first is that legalization would put prostitutes and pimps into a legal employee-employer relationship that would be regulated by applicable laws concerning fair hiring practices, fair wages, etc. The second would be regulation. Corner hotdog vendors have to have 1) a sales permit that allows them to legally solicit on the premises and 2) a health permit that says that their equipment, methods, and raw materials have been inspected and found to produce safe foodstuffs. Why couldn’t the same ideas be applied to prostitution? Permits for solicitation and health code certification could be required. Furthermore, periodic health screenings would help ensure not only the health of the workers, but also their customers.
As legally recognized members of the workforce, prostitutes could unionize. This would give them leverage against their pimps and result in better treatment and probably better pay.
Another considerable benefit of legalization would be spare law enforcement man-hours. If cops didn’t have to investigate and arrest, lawyers didn’t have to prosecute, and judges didn’t have to judge and sentence prostitutes and pimps, they’d be free to pursue other, perhaps more dangerous, criminals.
All in all, the only harm I can see in legalizing prostitution is moral in nature. There are a great number of societal ills, as defined by religious morality, that open acceptance of the practice would cause. Since when is that a reason to make something illegal, though? If it were, there’d be a lot more we’re not allowed to do, and we wouldn’t be very free people. If, as a country, governed by representatives elected to wield legislative power by the free consent of the governed, we can agree that moral grounds are sufficient to make laws, so be it; prostitution should remain illegal. A corollary to that, though, is that the same moral grounds could justifiably be used to ban abortion and homosexual marriage. If, on the other hand, the electorate decides that moral grounds are insufficient by themselves for legislation, prostitution should be made legal.
Please realize that this post is a long out-loud thought. I’m not irrevocably attached to any of the preceding arguments. I just thought they’d spur interesting conversations. So, dear readers, what are your thoughts on this matter?
Addendum 02/08/06: A certain theme in the comments has convinced me that some clarification is needed. A representative sample:
“I was just aghast that so much ink (or pixels, as the case may be) would be spilled on a Christian website arguing that prostitution should be legal.”
If nothing else, it is my hope that a rational debate about this matter would aid in Christians in the pursuit of moral legislation on non-moral grounds. If we could be convinced, and then convince the secular world, that there are good reasons other than divine writ to ban (or maintain bans) on practices like prostitution, we’d be well on our way to formulating and executing more effective plans for getting wholesome legislation passed. Learning how to argue better on secular terms would be an invaluable asset in our efforts to abolish abortion, for instance.
“I was just aghast that so much ink (or pixels, as the case may be) would be spilled on a Christian website arguing that prostitution should be legal.”
If nothing else, it is my hope that a rational debate about this matter would aid in Christians in the pursuit of moral legislation on non-moral grounds. If we could be convinced, and then convince the secular world, that there are good reasons other than divine writ to ban (or maintain bans) on practices like prostitution, we’d be well on our way to formulating and executing more effective plans for getting wholesome legislation passed. Learning how to argue better on secular terms would be an invaluable asset in our efforts to abolish abortion.
Hmm…perhaps I should have made some of these points in the epilogue to the post. I may do that. Thank you for proding me into explaining myself better and, in fact, discovering benefits to this discussion that I had not previosly considered.
“Don’t apologize, Adrian. It is far from clear whether you’ve hit hard enough…”
Gee, thanks. With friends like you… 😉
“Funky occasionally drinks too much from the libertarian (enlightenment rationalist) bottle and needs a swift kick in the ass to sober up.”
I won’t deny needed an occasional boot up the rear (who doesn’t?), but *libertarian*? It never ceases to amaze me how when one’s beliefs are neither hard left or hard right, they equally reviled by both. I’ve had conservatives call me a liberal (and spit on the ground as they say so) and liberals call me a conservative (and spit on the ground as they say), but I must say that “libertarian” not a label I’ve heard applied to me before.
“The reason prostitution (and pornography and adultery and fornication and exhorbitant interest rates and unbridled suburban sprawl and excessive fuel consumption and dangerous drugs &c. &c.) should be illegal is that we live in society.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re just opened a new can of worms. You can’t just lump all those societal ills together without justification, especially when 1) they were not previously part of the discussion and 2) they are currently legal and in little danger of becoming illegal.
“The idea that the economic arrangement between the prostitute and the patron is ONLY between them and ONLY affects them is a pure fiction. The transaction affects the families of those contracting for such services. It affects the quality of life in the area where the transaction occurs. Ultimately it affects people completely unknown and unrelated to the participants, since the unhindered provision of such services promises future demand on the part of new consumers and ostensible careers for new service providers.”
Let us then discuss the effects on society that legalized prostitution would have rather than waving our hands about them. Then, and only then, can we have a meaningful discussion about why those ill effects warrant criminal legislation.
“Society therefore has a stake (a say) in whether prostitution (or any other societal ‘ill’) ought be legal.”
But should civil government be concerned with actively supporting contested societal constructs? I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but others might (and not just libertarians, unless the ACLU counts), so I think it’s worth discussing.
“Reducing the question to a private economic arrangement between consenting participants (which is a rule that Libertarianism applies to everything) makes it SEEM logical to suggest that there is no natural law against prostitution.”
I do not see how libertarians’ proclivity for resorting to that hackneyed argument makes natural law arguments seem illogical. I was unaware that liberatarians considered themselves immune to natural law arguments. Please explain.
“But the fiction of Libertarianism is that ANY such question can be so reduced. They cannot. The view fails to take seriously the way people actually live, i.e., interdependent, in community, in society.”
This is true, but one could argue that civil government is not the appropriate arbiter and protector of social constructs and relationships and that other aspects of societal leadership, religion for instance, should bear that responsibility. No society is entirely homogenous and the larger it is, the less likely is to be even close to homogenous. I think here the notion of subsidiarity might come into play. The lowest level (that is, the one that manages the fewest number of people) that can effectively maintain and protect societal interests should be the one that is employed. IOW, civil government, at least at the federal level, should not be busied with enforcing norms and mores that could be more effectively and uniformly enforced by leadership at a lower level. I’m not saying I agree with that argument entirely, but I think it’s worth discussing.
Not necessarily a logical or rational argument, but how about:
Because we don’t want our daughters to feel like selling their bodies for sex is merely another ‘enlightened career choice’?
Because in places where prostitution is legal in Europe, a woman can be kicked off unemployment for refusing to take an available job in the ‘sex-industry’ no matter how personally repugnant or morally distasteful she considers that job to be? Given the US government’s predilection for removing everyone possible from public assistance, I don’t think it would be any different here.
Dear Funky Dung,
From your comments, I understand better now your intent, which is cause for some relief on my part. Nevertheless, I have attempted to summarize what I believe to be the error of your argument.
I find the argument you have laid out to be very inhuman, removing the human from the reality of their identity, and then asking why something is contrary to this commercialized identity.
First off, to divorce laws from morals is a false starting point. Laws are by nature about what a society considers right and wrong, just and unjust. Laws are about the relations between humans, and humans are moral actors. As such, trying to reason why a law exists while not relying on morals, is like asking a man to stand up without using his legs. So the question is not so much whether you can legislate morality, but what morality can be legislated.
Nor do i think morality is the sole domain of the Christian. Human experience and reason illuminate for us certain truths. We may not always agree on all of them, but there are certain ones we hold in common that form a basis for our society. These laws are observable from nature (‘we hold these truths to be self-evident’).
Political laws form the outer boundaries within which civil society can exist. They’re not so much prescriptive as punitive; the presumption being that if you break a law, you are sufficiently outside the bounds of what is considered the common good as to place yourself and/or others in a grave jeopardy (such as speeding on a highway).
Why is it that, in the name of reason, we often fail to see what is openly in front of us? Is it that much in question whether prostitution is bad? Do not the motivations that lead to prostitution, the clandestine nature in which the act is committed, and the observable effects of the practice on people and society, sufficiently mark it as destructive? Sorta like controlled substances. There’s a point after which it is clearly evident that a thing is gravely destructive to the human, and a society which promotes the common good ordered to the elevation of the human, free though it may be, should not permit it, and indeed punish it (the appropriate punishment being an altogether different topic).
To summarize, prostitution should be illegal because it is objectively destructive on the order of severe. Said differently, it is in no way good, and the degree of its bad is grave.
I know I have argued strenously here, but my intent is not to be overbearing, but rather as succint as I can without sacrificing clarity for couched phraseology. Please pardon any inadequacies.
Your servant,
Adrian
“Because in places where prostitution is legal in Europe, a woman can be kicked off unemployment for refusing to take an available job in the ‘sex-industry’ no matter how personally repugnant or morally distasteful she considers that job to be? Given the US government’s predilection for removing everyone possible from public assistance, I don’t think it would be any different here.”
That’s an excellent point. Thanks. 🙂 Now, does can anyone foresee how someone might argue around this point? If there is ever a movement in the U.S. to legalize prostitution, you can be sure someone in favor of that legislation will seek to bypass or disarm it, so we might as well have an answer ready.
At some points you seem to be saying “we can’t prevent all degradation, so let’s legalize all degradation!” That’s a foolish consistency.
“From your comments, I understand better now your intent, which is cause for some relief on my part.”
Good. 🙂
“First off, to divorce laws from morals is a false starting point. Laws are by nature about what a society considers right and wrong, just and unjust. Laws are about the relations between humans, and humans are moral actors. As such, trying to reason why a law exists while not relying on morals, is like asking a man to stand up without using his legs. So the question is not so much whether you can legislate morality, but what morality can be legislated.”
I agree, and I have argued similarly against “don’t impose your morals on my uterus” types. There is a fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning, though. Who defines morality? Should laws only pertain to those rights and wrongs that are nearly universally agreed to or should a mere plurality or majority of the electorate be allowed determine right and wrong for the remainder?
“Nor do i think morality is the sole domain of the Christian. Human experience and reason illuminate for us certain truths. We may not always agree on all of them, but there are certain ones we hold in common that form a basis for our society.”
Those would presumably fall into the category of natural law. So, I ask again, what are the natural law arguments against prostitution?
“These laws are observable from nature (‘we hold these truths to be self-evident’).”
How would legalized prostitution be contrary to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness?
“Political laws form the outer boundaries within which civil society can exist. They’re not so much prescriptive as punitive; the presumption being that if you break a law, you are sufficiently outside the bounds of what is considered the common good as to place yourself and/or others in a grave jeopardy (such as speeding on a highway).”
While there are notable exceptions, I agree with the broad strokes of this argument. However, you have not explained why prostitution should be considered to be “out of bounds”.
“Why is it that, in the name of reason, we often fail to see what is openly in front of us? Is it that much in question whether prostitution is bad?”
I could say the same for a great many things, including sex outside of marriage, but the laws against that are either gone or not enforced. To be bad is insufficient for a ban. An action must be very bad, and you have not explained why it is very bad.
“Do not the motivations that lead to prostitution, the clandestine nature in which the act is committed, and the observable effects of the practice on people and society, sufficiently mark it as destructive?”
No. I could say the same things about pornography and casual sex, which remain legal.
“To summarize, prostitution should be illegal because it is objectively destructive on the order of severe. Said differently, it is in no way good, and the degree of its bad is grave.”
Saying so does not make it so. Please humor me and logically demonstrate why it is objectively bad. Imagine you’re arguing your point in Congress.
“Please pardon any inadequacies.”
Only if you pardon mine. 😉
“At some points you seem to be saying ‘we can’t prevent all degradation, so let’s legalize all degradation!’ That’s a foolish consistency.”
No. I’m merely saying that just because an activity is degrading doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be illegal. If all degrading activities were made illegal, there’d be no White House press secretaries or mimes. 😉
Dear Funky Dung,
Boy, you drive a hard line. 🙂 I had doubled-back to make sure the path of natural law was laid, and it seems we’re on the same page there. And when I got to the the meat, I basically said “it’s obvious that prostitution is a grave bad to society, and that’s why it should be illegal.” But it sounds like your intent is to focus on the obvious, and it’s articulating the obvious which is often the hardest thing to do. I will give it some more thought and see what comes up.
Tangentially, it seems odd to me that you did not comment on the part of my post where I think I came closest to answering your question. (middle of the sixth paragraph: “There’s a point after which…”)
Also, I don’t see a flaw in the “it’s not a question of whether to legislate morality, but rather what morality should be legislated” argument, as much as a struggle which is characteristic of the human experience every day and in every age. It would be folly to wait for one of these moral truths to be universal before legislating it (’cause we humans can never all seem to agree on one thing at the same time), thus the rule of the majority provides a remedy. But I see great wisdom in the balancing principle of our system of self-government which places emphasis on the respect of minority rights. This question interests me greatly, but we’ll need to set it aside for the time being.
An activity that is degrading to public morals should be illegal. There mere fact that pornography and adultery luxury SUVs are legal, doesn’t imply that some other vice should also be legal. There is no guarantee of equal rights for vices, either in natural or positive law AFAIK. If you wanna vice, go get yourself a nice legal one… like smoking!
You’re point about regulation at the appropriate governmental level is a good one. But when I advocate government action (prohibition), I am not (God forbid!) automatically advocating Federal action. In fact, this is where I usually agree with Libertarians, that regulation should be applied (when it is applied at all) at the lowest practical level of government.
To wit, prostitution is NOT illegal in America, i.e., there is no federal law banning it. It IS illegal in 49 states. If you want to make it illegal at the local government level, I’m fine with that…
But I’m not fine with making it legal… at any level. We live with a tense and uneasy and perhaps thin majority of people who are now opposed to it. Their will should trump, not merely because they are the ones who will inherit a society further degraded by such practices, but because the moral reasoning of the vast majority of people is so weak that legalization (or decriminalization) of prostitution will lead many of that thin majority to take up the yet more damnable Personally-Opposed-But… view.
And that is, I think, what you’re advocating here: I’m personally opposed but… You better get busy having some kids who will have to grow up in such a world. That’ll change your mind!
And Eric, you need to stop with this left, right, middle thing. They are meaningless terms. You ought to know that, and you ought resist thinking in such terms. The view you’re espousing here is CLASSIC libertarianism (except for the Hookers’ Union part). I’m not calling YOU a libertarian, but merely this particular argument. It is a natural outgrowth of social contract (rationalist enlightenment) theory. If you enshrine protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the sole purpose of government, then, yes, there is no argument to be made against legalized prostitution (as long as no one “gets hurt”). But if you enshrine such principles, then you are very American and very mainstream and very libertarian… AND you’re also not thinking straight at all, instead hoodwinked by America’s own set of noble lies.
So your error here is not in finding no argument in late liberal democratic (i.e., Locke & Jefferson, not Kerry and Hillary) thinking against legalized prostitution, but in accepting late liberal democratic thinking in the first place.
Someone might want to check on the “have to take a job as a hooker” bit. Originally, it got media play that way, but it turned out the original report was incorrect. Darned if I remember how it actually went, and I can’t find it on Google.
I say legalize prostitution, but let OSHA set the workplace rules.
Think about it….
Eric:
“non-religious natural law?”
WTF?
There is only Natural Law. . . it’s neither religious nor irreligious.
Perhaps my wording was poor, but I meant the same as you’ve said. I’m interested in natural law arguments because they are areligious. I’m interested in talking about social order issues, and ultimately morality, outside of a strict Judeo-Christian context. Since so many these days are keen on running our government in an entirely secular manner , I’d like to know how to discuss morality in law without resorting to religion. I’m thinking along the lines of the beginning of “Mere Christianity”. Know what I mean?
Well, after those several pages of comments, I have $0.02 to add as well. Some of my points were hinted at or even briefly noted, so forgive me for any repetition.
First, there’s been a lot of discussion on the topic of “natural law”. I had my own idea of what that
means, but it didn’t seem to make sense with the discussion, so I looked it up. I found about 30 definitions, many very different from the others. Some based on the concept of a God, others on nature, some on moral theory, and others still on rationality.
In my humble opinion, natural law is only the basic laws which must form for a society of any size to function. For example, random wanton murder is naturally outlawed, because one would expect that if it were commonplace, folks would begin to band together for protection in small groups, outlawing such a practice amongst themselves, then forming larger groups for protection against other small groups, and so-on, and so-forth.
Frankly, however, I think its easier to look at the basis of the law. In Pennsylvania (I know the discussion is broader than PA law, but I think you can extend my point), if I recall my history lessons, a lot of the laws are based on the Puritans who settled here. I don’t see anything immoral about selling liquor on Sunday, yet it is illegal. In fact, until the mid-70’s it was illegal for any business (with a few exceptions) to be open for business on a Sunday. If you ask me, the Jews got screwed on this one…no business Saturday or Sunday! That’s precisely the reason why I think its very dangerous to legislate morality based on a single religious value system.
This is where pluralism comes in pretty handy, rather than majority rule. Think of it this way, if some religious moral systems had the majority in PA, it would be illegal to kill a cow. I don’t think that’s right either. I mean, tacos made with ground turkey are okay, but they just don’t taste as good as beef. 😉
Its not enough to say, think of the effect of prostitution on families either. By that argument, a number of other things that are perfectly legal are not, including adultery, poor spending habits, and general disrespect. The last of which is actually protected in one form in the US constitution as freedom of speech!
Frankly, our laws are quite inconsistent when it comes to legislating morality with regard to vices. Leisure drugs are outlawed…except for alcohol and caffeine. Sex for money is illegal, but not sex for fun, or sex for non-monetary favors.
I guess the reality of the situation is status-quo and politics. No lawmaker who wants to get votes is going to recommend legalizing prostitution. Similarly, none would outlaw alchohol (especially after what happened last time!). Right now, it might be very popular for some politicians to outlaw gay marriage, so the laws may go on the books. Over the next few decades, sentiment may shift, such that it would not be popular to create the same laws, yet it would take an incredibly compelling reason to attempt to remove them.
In my estimation, that status quo reasoning is why we see so many “moral” laws that don’t seem to fit today (I’m not arguing that prostitution doesn’t fit). This is part of the reason why it is so dangerous to create such laws.
I like that this law exists. It works for me. That doesn’t make it right. My moral compass tells me prostitution is bad. It also tells me missing church on Sunday is bad. If I legislate one, should I not legislate the other?
Thank you x 1000, Lightwave. In essense, you’ve restated most of my points in clear and concise language. That status quo thing is a nice addition, too. It’s something that was kind of implicit in my original thoughts on this matter. I (for reasons unknown to me) suddenly found myself questioning a law that had been unquestioned (at least in the public forums I encounter) for a very long time. When I tried to understand why the law existed, the answer wasn’t so clear.
There is a natural law argument against prostitution, but the idea that “natural law” is amoral or irreligious is crazy. The entire idea of “law” (whether natural OR positive) can never but be an expression of morality. Take the “morality” or “religious aspects” out of natural law, you excise any and all notion of “law”, and you’re left with only a flaccid strip of “natural” in your hand.
Now Christian thinkers have long held that the “social” portions of the decalogue are natural. By way of proof, what society in the history of the world has even held societal norms that flatly contradict it? No society, save late (and increasingly doomed) liberal democracies, has ever held that anyone, anywhere can do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt. What could be more unnatural than that?
Natural law arguments can also be applied against contraception, abortion, usury, &c. Corruption of public morals (i.e., most people don’t want themselves or others to behave a certain way) is a perfectly valid natural law argument. QED.
The problem here, Eric, is that our nation does not accept, nor has it ever really accepted natural law as a basis for its positive law. America is founded on Locke’s social contract theory, which suggests (stupidly) that in a state of nature all men are free and equal, and may therefore be expected to rationally bargain with each other in a mutually advantageous way. Paine said it best:
Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
These are key formative principles of the American republic. (And I don’t think I need to point out that they are thoroughly pagan. This is not to say that paganism is necessarily bad. Christianity owes an enormous debt to quite a few pagans, reformed and otherwise.) And as formative principles, “noble lies” I called them above, they are accepted uncritically by the vast, vast majority of Americans as being not merely true, but self-evident. Of course they are neither, but that doesn’t stop them from being remarkably successful in governing a pluralistic society. But most importantly, Locke and Paine, and by extension, most truly American political thought, makes no room for natural law, the idea that positive laws are founded on some great unchanging principles built into the cosmos. Instead, positive law as an end in itself is founded merely upon rational, presumed egalitarian, contractarian behaviors of free people.
With this presupposition THERE IS NO rational argument against prostitution in principle. If it can be guaranteed that no one gets “hurt” or “exploited” or it presents no hazard to “public health”, you cannot appeal to anything above the contract between “consenting adults”. I.e., no one can rationally interfere with the social bargainers’ “pursuit of happiness”.
So Eric, this is your acheivement in this post: You have proved that given sufficient safeguards, and founded on the sole principle of contractarian (economic) social relationships, there is no argument against legalized prostitution. Two words: No duh! One more word: Nevada!!
So the problem here is that we, as Christians, as believers in transcendant goods that may (or may NOT) be rationally negotiated via social contract, cannot accept social contract as the basis (or at least not the primary basis) for positive law. If you do, you have already capitulated, the fight is over… let’s go crawl into our catacombs.
“So Eric, this is your acheivement in this post: You have proved that given sufficient safeguards, and founded on the sole principle of contractarian (economic) social relationships, there is no argument against legalized prostitution. Two words: No duh! One more word: Nevada!!”
1) Who pissed in your Cheerios, dude? There’s no reason to be a jerk about this.
2) I think I’ve achieved a whole lot more. I’ve learned more about subject, like natural law, that I didn’t understand. I hope to continue learning. I also hope others have learned something. I’m sorry this is all so bloody boring and of common sense to you, but it isn’t for everyone.
3) I greatly appreciate your contributions regarding Locke, et al., because I no nothign of that stuff, not being a student of political science, philosophy, or American history. I would be very interested if you composed a post about how Christians go about working effectively within the confines of a government founded on social contract principles.
BTW, if someone could clear up what natural law really is, I’d be thrilled. As Lightwave pointed out, there are a ton of definitions and we don’t seem to be agreeing on one in this forum.
Funky, I hope you know me well enough to know that I dole out slaps in the face with the deepest charity… 😉
It is not that I think this is boring, nor that it is obvious, but that it is a very old, classical argument between classical conservatism and libertarianism, the latter being the overwhelming reigning political philosophy in America (think lotto). My alarm is from observing that you seem to assume the presuppositions of the “wrong” (the Whig) side. If I didn’t think you were redeemable, I wouldn’t waste ASCII chars. See Michael Brendan’s excellent posts on Markets and Morality here, and then here to followup. He’s got a few good references, too.
Cheers!
I’m not going to tackle every one of your points, Steve, for fear of getting too far off track. I will, however, highlight this:
“An activity that is degrading to public morals should be illegal. There mere fact that pornography and adultery luxury SUVs are legal, doesn’t imply that some other vice should also be legal. There is no guarantee of equal rights for vices, either in natural or positive law AFAIK. If you wanna vice, go get yourself a nice legal one… like smoking!”
and
“Natural law arguments can also be applied against contraception, abortion, usury, &c.”
You’ve repeatedly referenced activities that are in no danger of becoming illegal. If you’ve going to lump prostitution, an activity illegal in 49 of 50 states, in with legal activities, the burden is on you to 1) explain what makes them similar and 2) why they should all be illegal.
More critique of late liberal democratic capitalism from Houellebecq (not exactly your Sunday School teacher)…
Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system, certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment in misery. In a totally liberal sexual system, certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.
The review goes on to note that from Houellebecq’s (deformed yet remarkably lucid) perspective,
Actionists, beatniks, hippies and serial killers were all pure libertarians who advanced the rights of the individual against social norms and against what they believed to be the hypocrisy of morality, sentiment, justice and pity. From this point of view, Charles Manson was not some monstrous aberration in the hippy movement, but its logical conclusion.Â’
Mmmmm…. good stuff!
You’ve repeatedly referenced activities that are in no danger of becoming illegal. If you’ve going to lump prostitution, an activity illegal in 49 of 50 states, in with legal activities, the burden is on you to 1) explain what makes them similar and 2) why they should all be illegal.
1) they corrupt public morals;
2) things that corrupt public morals should be illegal.
I don’t mean to be snarky. It really is that simple in my mind (Romans 13). I realize it’s an uphill battle, that is to say, where it’s a battle at all. Look, I’m not a short-term optimist. The Western World really is going to hell in a hand-basket, and there’s really not much (at this late date, roughly a 1/4 of a millenium after the fact) that we can do about it. Of course, we should do what we can… bravely living contrarian (i.e., godly) lives, bravely holding our pinkies in the dike-n-all, but I think things’ll get a whole lot worse before they get better, in the post-oil, post-choice, post-autonomous, post-therapeutic, post-apocalyptic renaissance. (the POPCPAPTPAR for short! ;-))
I think a feminist argument would say that to make prostitution gives women more bargaining power in their relationships with me since they ultimately control when a man can have sex(this is a fair amount of power given that men want to have sex much more frequently than women do.).
I’d argue for prostitution remaining legal on the grounds of promoting greater equality between the sexes. If poor women turn to prostitution out of desperation, there are better ways to help them out than making prostitution legal. I agree about focusing on johns for the purpose of prevention of prostitution.
One can argue also that even though it is impossible to end prostitution that having it be illegal sends an important signal socially that sex is not a commodity. In this world of ours where regions that have lax views on sex are suffering greatly from the AIDS virus, this is an important message to have. I know that in Thailand, paying to have sex with a prostitute is viewed at the same level as buying a coke and a father would take his son to visit a prostitute to teach him about sex.
Lastly, sexual intercourse tends to cause an obsession that is not healthy, consider the film “The Story of Adele H”, which is based on the true story of how Victor Hugo’s daughter went against her family’s wishes to chase after the British soldier that had seduced her and ends up frittering away her sanity trying to make him love her. It’s extreme, but the danger of sexual intercourse leading to obsession, crimes of passion, or even just addiction are good reasons to set the cultural rules of the game to discourage males from being able to have sex whenever they feel like it and can afford it.
Another good movie on this theme is “The Decline of the American Empire”. It’s a French Quebec film and explores thoroughly how the secular permissive approach to sex is unfulfilling, with many being hurt as sex no longer serves as the bond of marriage in a family.
dlw
Natural law is traditionally thought of as more than simply an ethical or legal explanatory device; it is a thing which exists absolutely. Voltaire defines natural law as “the instinct which makes us feel justice.” He defines as “just and unjust” that which “appears such (just and unjust) to the entire universe.” The problem I see with this Enlightenment formulation of natural law is that, because one is made to “feel justice” in a particular situation doesn’t mean that justice objectively exists in that context.
A less “enlightened” concept of natural law should, I think, capture better the absolute immanence of natural law, not only an immanence within man, but within all things. The correct way to think of the beneficial impact of natural law in its application to ethics, I believe (though I invite correction), is in an appeal to metaphysics.
Aristotle explains that one achieves eudaimonia (something between “happiness” and “fulfillment”) through an actuation of one’s form. One actuates one’s form through perfect obedience to natural law.
This is why we say that all things are ordered toward a certain end; natural law is written on the essence (or form) of every substance. (Ordered = obedient to natural law; disordered = disobedient to natural law.)
“1) they corrupt public morals;”
How so? Don’t beg the question. Humor us poor simpletons. 😉 Seriously, though, if Christians are to ever have productive dialog with the secular world, we can’t just go around saying thing corrupt public morals without 1) explaining how and 2) explaining why they’re bad enough that they must be legislated against.
Tom, thanks for the info. For some time I’ve thought that natural law was something Thomistic, and therefore not distinct for religious moral arguments.
Just to be thoroughly pedantic, prostitution corrupts public morals because:
1) no one would be happy if their daughter (or wife) provided this service;
2) few consumers would be happy for everyone they know to know they procured such a service (sure, there might be a few that “didn’t care” but they would just be exceptions proving the rule);
3) (WORSE) toleration of the institution militates against the natural purposes of marriage, i.e., to define boundaries for “licit” sex; AND
4) (WORST) toleration of the institution militates against divine purposes of marriage
BUT…
Who is to say the “dialog with the secular world” (I assume you mean “politics) ought necessarily be “productive” (I assume you mean “favorable”)? Politics is the art of the possible. If you wish to convince someone who doesn’t believe that the corruption of public morals is anything to legislate against, then good luck! What is necessary is nothing short of religious conversion, and the prostitution question is merely a red herring. If, on the other hand, you wish to convince someone who already believes that the corruption of public ought be legislated against to take the next step and simply vote that way, then fine, I suppose a rationalist approach might work. BUT… if our hypothetical ally is not already voting the way they ought, then I suspect propaganda (vis-a-vis reason) is much better, much surer way to control… err… “reach out to” them. You see, men in a state of nature are NOT free and equal… in fact they are anything but!
(Here’s another go–some of it synthesis, other parts further explanation.)
A society is a group of persons organically (not contractually) bound by a principle of unity which goes beyond each of them (i.e. we’re not just in it for ourselves, we recognize there’s a bigger purpose which can only be worked towards as a group). Society is ordered to the service of the human person, and is formed for the promotion and protection of their common good. As a result, a proper understanding of the human person is critical to the proper functioning of a society. Through right reason applied to human experience, we can understand certain truths about the human person observable from his nature. These are expressed in the natural law.
Gravely destructive–Regarding prostitution, we can observe that it is gravely destructive. Right reason and human experience show us that the two ends of sex are: the expression of the union between a man and a woman, and the transmission of human life. Both of these ends are contradicted in the act of prostitution: the union recognized in nature as marriage is absent, and the intent and environment for the transmission of human life recognized in nature as family is also absent. It is no wonder, then, that individuals who participate in such acts become seriously wounded. This can easily be observed from the destructive effects on the human physche, emotions, biology, relational, and soul, to name a few. We can also see this by realizing that in the act of prostitution the proper order of things is inverted: greater value is given to the physical over the soul, and the human is reduced to a means to sexual pleasure, rather than as an end in him or her self.
Pervasive–By itself, sexual acts which are not ordered to their proper end would not be just cause for legal restriction (thus masturbation, fornication, and adultery are not illegal). However, prostitution takes illicit sexual acts further by widening the scope to society as a whole. As a result, the common good is adversely and significantly affected by this gravely destructive act, and there arises a societal interest in the protection of its members. To those who would argue otherwise, I would challenge to explain how a society with only prostitution and no marriage and family, is better than one with only marriage and family and no prostitution.
Commerce–Although not strictly a criteria in itself, I think the fact that prostitution comprises commerce further establishes a societal interest.
Given the above factors, I think it is clearly demonstrable that prostitution is severely contrary to the human person, and significantly detrimental to the common good. Making it illegal is therefore justifiable.
(I cannot claim credit for the originality of any of these arguments, but I hope that they may be found at least partially helpful to someone.)
Your servant,
Thank you for taking the time answer the questions I posed. 🙂
Allow me to respond as the Devil’s advocate to this:
“To those who would argue otherwise, I would challenge to explain how a society with only prostitution and no marriage and family, is better than one with only marriage and family and no prostitution.”
How would you respond to those who might say that a free society in which prostitution peacefully coexists with marriage and family would be better than either of the options you presented?
How would you respond to those who might say that a free society in which prostitution peacefully coexists with marriage and family would be better than either of the options you presented?
Define “better”. Tho’ in anticipation, I’d offer they cannot peacefully coexist. In a society that tolerates prostitution (legally or otherwise, like our own), the institution of marriage & family is doomed. Transcendant goods cannot compete with the atomized individual’s “pursuit of happiness” on a level playing field. Coercion is a necessary part of fulfilling righteousness, at least while the earth lasts. Paul VI’s predictions in his much maligned encyclical Humana Vitae have already largely come true.
Dear Funky,
Boy, it is hard to make you satisfied. 🙂 Responding to your question:
I would say they got distracted from the point. The point was that by considering the extremes, common sense blatantly tells us that marriage/family is significantly beneficial to the common good and is therefore worthy of promotion, while prostitution is signficantly detrimental to the common good is therefore worthy of outlawing.
Will we have either extreme? Not this side of eternity. Despite the fact that we live in an imperfect world, expending effort to get them to “peacefully” coexist is contradictory, bordering on schizophrenic. It would be incongruous for a society to promote/protect prostitution, since society is ordered to the service of the human person and the common good. For example, you can’t protect the right to private property and thieves at the same time.
I hope this has been helpful, but I don’t want to get caught in an endless loop of debating questions that are peripheral to our focus of answering why prostitution should be illegal. I think I may need a break.
BTW, Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice entry on Natural Law. Warning! It was written for 19th century attention spans.
In light of this discussion, I found the following reflection quite chastening.
Fred!! Wow, I didn’t know you ventured over here. Ales Rarus must be more popular than I ever imagined. Powerful story by the way…
I keep up with the st blogs blogdigger, but I met FD at the St. Blogs Parish Hall.
Hey Funk, I realize I messed up some in my post, but I think the reasoning comes through, though as always the language is a bit different from others at this blog as I am not an adherent to nat’l law/rights stuff.
I reposted it at my blog and still hope to hear back from you.
dlw
DLW, I hope to read your post soon, but I need to respond to a harsher criticism. Look for a new post soon.
For as long as I have followed the “public outrage” about prostitution, it has only been a case of “not wanting it in my neighborhood”. And the biggest reason that I can think of is to not want prostitution in your neighborhood is that then non-prostitute females would not be able to walk on the streets without being constantly accosted. Thus prostitution exists in practically every big city in the politically least powerful neighborhoods only.
You were not only right to set aside moral arguments about why prostitution is illegal, but the moral arguments have very little to do with the question. If the moral concerns really weighed in the consideration, either we would have no prosititution or it would be everywhere.
Jim,
I agree that from a practical standpoint, legal action against prostitution does tend to make it happen only in certain places and may only discourage it some, or force the payment of bribes to police.
I’d like to cut back on prostitution by 1.) Reducing poverty with a Basic Income Guarantee reform of the US income tax(see http://www.usbig.net/)(note:this would radically reduce the geographic variation in the value of housing/give workers with fewer skills more bargaining power/tend to reduce the number of hours supplied by sex-workers to the market), 2.) fining and humiliating johns(this would have more of a deterrence effect and get more community support if the fines stayed in the community. The mugs and names of the johns could be posted on the internet.) 3.) forcing caught prostitutes to do community service and get training or seek better employment.
Sometimes, it just takes some creativity and a willingness to learn from others/experience to deal with these sorts of things.
dlw
My cynical take on it (inspired in a large part to the History Channel which loves to run shows on the history of prostitution, not kidding they have show on all the time) is that prostitution is illegal so politicians can pretend to be outraged that prostitution exists (for the benefit of their wives and constituents wives). But most they donÂ’t really care if it exists or not as long as its not in their backyard. And some of them find it convenient that prostitution is pushed to neighborhoods where they can solicit sex without running in to their neighbors.
I’m with the cynicism bit on why practically it is illegal.
The issue is more, in my mind, one of where do we go from here. How do we interact with those who want to make it legal? How might we reform the system so it is more effective and fair?
And so on…
dlw
From a natural law perspective, you could make the following argument against the legalization of prostitution:
Prostitution is in and of itself a disordered practice – using the sexual act in a way it was never intended to be used and in a way that is foreign to the very nature of the act. The natural state of the sexual act is that it is intended to be practiced in a loving manner between one man and one woman who have committed themselves to one another for life in a covenant with legal status (marriage). This is the form in which sex best serves society, and all deviations from this form have shown (historically, legally, sociologically, psychologically) to cause problems – and indeed grave social evils.
Society is better off when the institution of marriage is protected by law and respected in society. Prostitution by its intrinsic nature attacks this monagomous and committed relationship between a man and a woman.
Since marriage is the appropriate and ordered expression of sexuality, prostitution can never be anything but a disordered expression of sexuality.
Legalizing a disorder does not and cannot make it more manageable or clear up the problems associated with the disorder. In fact, legalization may indeed cause more disorder by giving more people access to and giving more respectability to the disorder, including the young, ignorant, and vulnerable.
Legalizing divorce has not allayed any of the problems associated with divorce (ie: estrangement and separation) before it was legal. Abandonment of children, theft of property, spousal abuse, child abuse, and other evils associated with one partner leaving his or her marriage partner have not mitigated since the introduction of divorce laws – in fact, such problems have increased as divorce has become widespread and more accessible. Legalization of divorce has also not led to the reduction of the amount of estrangements and separations – in fact, it has only increased them.
>From a natural law perspective, divorce is intrinisically disordered, and we should not expect the problems associated with it to disappear merely because the problem is legalized and monitored.
The same could be said with slavery, which has much in common with prostitution.
It’s not necessary to enter the realm of faith to find a reason to outlaw prostitution.
Yea!! I’m so happy to see someone make a similar argument. Thank you Regina, I no longer feel alone! 🙂
The arguments that apply to the legalization of homosexual marriage, divorce, abortion, and many other things that Christians would traditionally be opposed to apply equally well to legalization of prostitution and recreational drugs.
That’s not to say that any of those things should be legal, however. There is no natural right to do wrong, and in my opinion, legal rights should be based on natural rights.
First, you must define wrong. You cannot define a right to perform a wrong action, or lack thereof, until there is agreement of what is wrong.
One approach that I deliberately avoided due to lack of education would be to to justify its illegality based on non-religious natural law. I’m totally unequipped to start that argument, though.
Boy, it’s a sad day when you have to explain to a fellow Christian why prostitution should be illegal.
When sex is seen as merely physical pleasure, it becomes commercial. But sex isn’t merely physical pleasure: it’s an act signifying indissoluble union, and it’s the means for transmitting human life. We seem to forget this fact when we treat sex like a chocolate shake to be shared with someone “close”, and when we throw up shields like condoms, birth control pills, and abortion. What we try to deny through these acts, though, merely makes more obvious (in a reverse way) what sex is really about.
Bottom line, prostitution is objectively destructive to the human person, period. Like homicide, in a less visible, but no less serious, way. Things which are that objectively and gravely destructive should not be legal.
Why is is that we have lost common sense in our age of enlightenment?
Adrian, that was a load of conceited crap. And what’s more, I think you know it.
You’re argument was moralistic, and funky had established a priori that he was disregarding moral arguments.
Furthermore, the Age of Enlightenment was an eighteenth century movement. Even the broadest conception of the term would put a cut off date of 1918.
Furthermore, historically prostitution laws began as nuissance laws. The goal was not to prevent women from selling themselves, but just to prevent them from doing it in places where “descent” people would have to see them.
Also, they’ve never been that successful. If you want to stop prostitution (on whatever grounds) you’ll be far more successful going after the Johns than the prostitutes. Ultimately there’s little threat you can hang over the head of someone already selling her body for money. Once case I know of working was that in the 80s Boston had a serious problem with prostitution, so they started giving the name of every single person arrested for soliciting a prostitute to the newspapers. These lists being printed every day put an end to the problem real quick.
So who said “If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts”?
Apparently, St. Augustine did. Interesting.
“Boy, it’s a sad day when you have to explain to a fellow Christian why prostitution should be illegal.”
Since I was, as John bluntly pointed out, ignoring moral, and by extension Christian, arguments for the sake of argument, perhaps it’s not such a sad day.
“When sex is seen as merely physical pleasure, it becomes commercial. But sex isn’t merely physical pleasure: it’s an act signifying indissoluble union, and it’s the means for transmitting human life. We seem to forget this fact when we treat sex like a chocolate shake to be shared with someone ‘close’, and when we throw up shields like condoms, birth control pills, and abortion. What we try to deny through these acts, though, merely makes more obvious (in a reverse way) what sex is really about.”
That sounds suspiciously like a natural law argument. Kudos for responding to the call. However, I don’t think you’ve made your case. Simply saying sex is more than pleasure and treating it as less than an indissoluble union is wrong (two separate though related, arguments, btw) does not make it so. Humor me, please, and connect the dots. There may be non-Christians reading who might well be educated by your arguments.
“Bottom line, prostitution is objectively destructive to the human person, period. Like homicide, in a less visible, but no less serious, way. Things which are that objectively and gravely destructive should not be legal.”
Again, you’ve begged the question. Please explain in logical terms why it is objectively destruction (without resporting to Scripture or Tradition).
“Why is is that we have lost common sense in our age of enlightenment?”
I assume you mean that I’ve either lost or always lacked common sense. Gee, that’s an awfully nice thing to say from the safety of an comment lacking both email and web address. Since when are drive-by insults part of proper Christian behavior?