Consequentialism and Pornography
Consequentialism: The Basics


Consequentialism is the name given to a family of
more specific normative ethical positions all of
which share the conviction that it is the
consequences of actions which determine their
moral worth.
As Timmons expresses it, all of these positions are
committed to the following claim.
 Right action is to be understood entirely in terms of the overall
intrinsic value of the consequences of the action compared with
the overall intrinsic value of the consequences associated with
alternative actions an agent might perform instead.

Thus, an action is right iff its consequences would
be at least as good as the consequences of any
alternative action that the agent might instead
perform.
Implications

There are a number of important implications of
this statement of these claims.
1. Consequentialist theories are value-based.
2. They are comparative theories. They make specific
reference to alternative actions and the rightness or
wrongness of any action is dependent on the value of the
consequences of those actions.
3. The consequentialist account of right action is a
maximizing conception.
4. Consequentialism is an impartialist moral theory. We
have to consider the consequences for everyone and
everyone counts equally.
It’s All in the Family
The various specific forms of
consequentialism share a commitment to
these basic claims.
 They differ in their theory of value.

 The TV of Utilitarianism identifies intrinsic value
with human welfare or happiness (it’s expression).
 The TV of Perfectionist Utilitarianism identifies
intrinsic value with human perfection.
 The TV of Rule Consequentialism identifies
intrinsic value with the acceptance value* of rules.
*The value of the consequences of the rule were it generally
accepted
Utilitarianism

The basic idea of U is that the rightness or
wrongness of actions is determined by their
effect on human welfare or happiness, with
maximization and impartiality assumed.
 Measure of this effect is called Utility: the net
value of the consequences of actions.

Result is the Principle of Utility.
 An action is right iff its performance would likely
produce at least as high utility as would any
other alternative action.
What makes you fare well?
An important issue that all utilitarians must
address is how to understand human
welfare.
 Classical utilitarians (J. S. Mill, J. Bentham)
identify happiness (and thus human
welfare) with pleasure and pain.

 For this reason they are labeled Hedonistic
Utilitarians.

As such, it is important to consider various
senses of pleasure and pain.
 Bodily Pleasure vs. Intellectual Pleasures
Perfectionist Consequentialism

PC adopts a different TV than utilitarianism.
 Value Perfectionism: states of human perfection
(knowledge, excellence) that have intrinsic
value.

Thus, the TRC of PC says
 An action is right iff its performance would likely
bring about a greater net balance of
perfectionist goods than would any other
alternative action.

What is a perfectionist good?
Rule Consequentialism

Both U and PC focus on actions.
 They are both forms of Act Utilitarianism.
There are a number of well recognized
challenges to act utilitarianism.
 As a result, some utilitarians have shifted
their focus to the capacity of rules to guide
our action.
 When we shift with them it becomes
possible to consider the consequences of
the acceptance of various possible rules.

Playing by the Rules

On the assumption that some rules produce more
valuable consequences than others we can
specify a TV for RC.
 An action is right iff it is permitted by a rule whose
associated acceptance value is at least as high as the
acceptance value of any other rule applying to the
situation.

In the face of more than one possible action, RC
directs you to identify the rules governing the
possible actions and then compare the rules’
acceptance values to determine which action is
right.
Consequentialism in Action
Applying consequentialism requires
calculation and comparison.
 Calculation can refer to an overt calculus or
a more informal estimation. The explicit
goal of the calculation is to identify the
action/rule that maximizes the specified
value(s).
 Comparison must include all parties
affected (in a relevant or significant way) by
the proposed action.

Consequences of Pornography
The popularity of consequentialist
thinking is demonstrated by the reliance
of the Meese commission on broadly
consequentialist reasoning to determine
if pornography should be censored.
 When evaluating their reasoning, we
need to consider carefully the
relationship between the activities or
behaviors and the claimed
consequences.

In Their Sights

Charged by then president Reagan, the
Meese commission identified and
evaluated the possible consequences
of the availability and use of 4 different
forms of pornography.
1. Violent
2. Non-violent, but degrading
3. Non-violent and non-degrading
4. Child pornography
The Problem of Causation
Specifying a causal link is a very
complicated process.
 There are a number of forms of causal
connection to consider.
 There is also the problem of correlation.
 Multiple causation is another
complicating factor.

Conclusions?
Violent Pornography: studies suggest a causal link between
exposure and aggressive behavior towards women but, “a link
between aggressive behavior toward women and sexual
violence…requires assumptions not found in the experimental
evidence. We see no reason…not to make these assumptions”
(94c1).
 Non-Violent but Degrading: “The evidence…is more tentative,
but supports the conclusion that the material we describe as
degrading bears some causal relationship to the attitudinal
changes we have previously identified” (95c2).
 Non-Violent and Non-Degrading: though there is no evidence
of a causal link with sexual violence, “does not answer the
question of whether such materials might not themselves simply
for some other reason constitute a harm” (96c2). For example,
displaying offensive behavior or encouraging promiscuity.

Does it Add Up?
Nadine Strossen, among many others, has
serious reservations about the reasoning
and conclusions of the Meese commission.
 Strossen goes further to argue that even if
the Meese commission is right about the
consequences of the broad social
availability of pornographic materials,
censorship would not solve the problems
identified.

What’s Being Assumed?

According to Strossen, reasoning like that
of the Meese Commission makes three
dubious assumptions.
1. Exposure to sexist, violent imagery leads to
sexist, violent behavior.
2. Suppression of pornography would significantly
reduce exposure to sexist, violent imagery.
3. Censorship could significantly reduce exposure
to pornography.
Monkey See, Monkey Do?


There are four types of evidence
supporting the link relied upon by the
Meese Commission.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Research Data on attitudinal effects (100c2).
Correlational Data on availability of materials.
Anecdotal Data from sex offenders (102c1).
Research Data on sex offenders (104c1).
Strossen notes in addition that not even
the advocates of censorship think that
these sources of evidence prove the point.
Is Porn the Problem?
Strossen goes then questions the
supposition that pornography is the most
source of the questionable imagery.
 As we’ve already noted, our popular culture
is full of sexually explicit imagery.
 Evidence suggests that accepting the rape
myth is just as likely to result from watching
soap operas as it is from pornography
(105c1).

Is Censorship Effective?
Strossen’s final point is that there is
good historical reason to doubt that
censorship would serve as an effective
limit to exposure to pornography.
 Data suggests to the contrary that
censorship would have the effect of
increasing receptiveness to the imagery
being censored (105c2).
