Philosophy Now Forum

Phil Badger explores controversial issues at the heart of liberalism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Defe ... defensible

That Mr Freeman is a repellent individual is quite beyond question.

Very philosophical, deeming an individual repellent without argumentation.

I agree with most conclusions of the article, but I couldn't understand why Badger raised the issue of Mr Freeman's prison sentence while he avoided judging this sentence. He seems to agree with it, though according to his liberal conclusions in the end Mr Freeman has done nothing wrong: he was exercising his liberty without harming other individuals. (In fact, it has been argued by psychologists that virtual child porn actually prevents crimes against real children, and should be legalized.)

Imagine for a moment that we have a cast-iron guarantee that a particular kind of behaviour – let’s say the production of pornography, or even prostitution – is consensual in nature. This would have to involve much more than the people involved not simply being physically coerced. Let’s say, for example, that the state involves itself in the regulation of these ‘industries’ in order to ensure that such consent is prevalent, and that even the health and safety of those involved is attended to. Under these circumstances, as a liberal, I’d have little choice I think but to accept that, even though I didn’t like it, these were things that some people wanted to do with their bodies, and so I should tolerate them.

A more interesting question (for us liberals) is whether we should ban all pornography and prostitution, when only a part of it is not consensual. That is precisely what liberalism is against, isn't it? The good individuals in the sex industry should not be opposed when they have nothing to do with the bad part.