[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 35 KB, 743x509, joyce.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3551481 No.3551481 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/, if morality is merely a social construct, can we then say that looking at child pornography is not at all deplorable as it harms no one?

>> No.3551511

>>3551481
>/lit/, if morality is merely a social construct, can we then say that looking at child pornography is not at all deplorable as it harms no one?

No. Morality is a social construct, but child porn will still be deplorable to people who have adopted most versions of that moral construct.

Being a 'social construct' has nothing to do with the act. It means there is a framework –for the most part with collective consensus – within which, that act is wrong.

If you want to look at CP then go ahead and do so, but it will still be wrong within the social view of moral actions.

>> No.3553895

>>3551511
I agree. The OP is suggesting that he does not believe/participate in the social construct, yet is asking for approval from that society for his actions.

>> No.3553906

i don't find children sexually attractive, but i think it's stupid to punish people for looking at child porn. i get going after the people who make it and are actually harming the kids, but watching it? eh not my thing but i don't give a fuck if someone else is into it.

>> No.3553910

>>3553906

New York state law agrees with you.

>> No.3553912

Social constructs control social rules. The FBI was created out of social needs. Laws are social constructs. This is silly.

>> No.3553922

>>3553910

no shit? didn't know that and i'm from brooklyn.

>> No.3553928

>>3553922

I read recently that NY has stopped going after consumers of the stuff.

>> No.3553933

>>3553928

well can't say i disagree with that, it seems pretty stupid to me to go after people who look at something that's available rather than people who make it. looking is harmless...and as long as it never goes past looking then i can't find the problem.

and it's not like looking means someone will cross the line into doing, seems like blaming violent video games for people killing other people or some shit.

>> No.3553940

Morality isn't a social construct if God exists.

>> No.3553942

>>3553940

Sure it is: if God exists, either God produces societies or societies produce gods. Either way the morality is inextricable from its social context.

>> No.3554015

> 2013
> God

>> No.3554134

It harms the child, you ignoramus.

>> No.3554169

>>3554134

Yes. Looking at images harms human beings.

>> No.3554198

>>3554169

>look at image
>producer of image gets rewarded
>producer of image makes more images to get rewarded more
>child gets abused more

i really shouldn't have to spell this out

>> No.3554224

>>3554198
The solution? Pirate CP. Apparently it does active harm to the producer even if you had no intention of ever paying for it, all the content producers agree on this.

So go fourth /lit/ and pirate all the CP you can find, upload it for others to pirate, share and be merry. Do it for the children.

>> No.3554304

>>3554198
guess we shouldnt hear about violent crimes in the news then.

>> No.3554307

>>3554224
or just become an fbi snitch
get a hardrive full of cp, frame your enemies, and have a get out of jail free card(maybe)