Regarding Daniel’s recent post describing the U.S. as a "pornocracy" : it’s frequently noted that although majorities can usual be found to support measures against pornography, it nevertheless sells like cocaine. And the most lewd tv shows, not perhaps accurately described as pornography but going as far as they can in that direction, are often very popular. This is useful to those who like to tweak Christians and other moral conservatives, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone. The lure of erotic art is very powerful, and it’s not necessarily even deliberate hypocrisy for a person to say "they oughta get rid of this stuff" while watching it avidly. He may genuinely think it ought to be gotten rid of, and yet not have the will to turn away if it’s presented to him.
I am certain that in many parts of the country at least (mine, for instance–the Deep South), hard-core pornography would not be tolerated if it could be outlawed democratically. Part of what’s happened in the past 30-40 years is that the courts have made it harder and harder to do this.
These thoughts were brought on by this column by Mona Charen, in which she describes the ruling of a Pennsylvania court that a particularly sick, violent form of pornography is nevertheless protected by the first amendment.
One can readily imagine the sophistical arguments lawyers and all too many "civil libertarians" would raise against this: "Where do you draw the line? Is it ok for a serious artist to depict violence? Then why not these admittedly perverted and mercenary people? Who are you to decide what’s art and what’s pornography?" Etc. etc.
It seems to me that this abandonment of what might be called the moral common sense–the willingness to make judgments informed by morality above and beyond explicitly formulated objective law, even the willingness to consult what is generally accepted as common decency–is at the root of a lot of our problems, including that of pornography. Several hundred years from now historians may be noting it as the fatal weakness of prosperous democratic societies.
To answer my initial question: in many cases the pornocrats are the judges and other rulers and leaders who make the world safe for the sort of people described in Charen’s column.
–Maclin Horton
you’re right, of course. it would appear like “the men in black” are becoming gods…but maybe that’s just my imagination.
and i was wondering, if “these admittedly perverted and mercenary people” have the right to express such violence in “art”, why don’t they have the right to express them in actual, physical reality? wouldn’t that be more effective, in proving their “point”, in “sharing their ideas”? isn’t that part of the freedom they are entitled to?
Well, drawing a line at actual violence, committed against the will of the victim, while allowing its simulation, is pretty easy and clear, so I don’t think it’s odd that no one is (seriously) trying to erase it. But if the criterion is whether anyone is injured, and we’ve declared moral injury inadmissible (or non-existent), then it becomes a real question (to judges and lawyers) whether violence committed with the consent of the victim should be illegal. We saw this seriously debated within the past year or so with regard to the case in Germany where…
WARNING: READ NO FURTHER IF YOU’RE VERY SQUEAMISH
…two men agreed that one of them would kill and eat the other. And carried it out. In due course the…er…survivor? predator? was arrested, and if I remember correctly he was sentenced to jail. Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong. It sounds crazy to call that a slightly encouraging sign, but I guess it is–if I’m correct.
i’m a bit suprised the defense didn’t make the claim that the act was–well, “consensual”; that the…uh…prey…agreed to the whole thing anyways, and make a big production out of it.
or did they? and the court still ruled against them?
hmmm.
glimmers of hope…
i’m a bit suprised that the defense didn’t make a big production about the act having been–well, “consensual”; that the…uh…prey…agreed to the whole thing anyways.
or did they? and the court still ruled against…?
hmmm.
glimmers of hope indeed.
so my first post did get through!
sorry for the mess…
I assume the eater will, rather unappealingly, appeal the decision…
Maclin Horton writes: “It seems to me that this abandonment of what might be called the moral common sense–the willingness to make judgments informed by morality above and beyond explicitly formulated objective law, even the willingness to consult what is generally accepted as common decency–is at the root of a lot of our problems, including that of pornography. Several hundred years from now historians may be noting it as the fatal weakness of prosperous democratic societies.”
It’s not abandonment, but denial. A man cannot abandon that which is intrinsic to him, but he can deny it. And what its called is the natural law. Rm.2:15 The Calvinists who read this will find it referenced in book 4 chpt. 20 of the Institutes. Read it in conjunction with chpt. 10 on the conscience.
And I’m have a bit of difficulty understanding your paragraph. Are you implying that ‘abandonment’ is in some manner intrinsic or specific, i.e. a weakness, to ‘prosperous democratic societies’?
If we take into account Daniel Nichols’ previous reference to the American mass murder of civilians, wouldn’t it be ‘exceptionalism’ as practiced by the US that has an intrinsic fatal weakness of ‘abandonment’ and not that of ‘prosperous democracies’ per se.
This is an interesting discussion on the nature of democracy. Daniel Larison is one very smart kid. He’s still in grad school, but writes well beyond his age.
http://larison.org/archives/000073.php
Warning to Daniel Nichols: Jim Newland is a TACer. : – )
Franklin, I’m not sure I understand you, either, so let me just rephrase what I meant to say: nothing very knotty and not at all abstruse, just the observation that the retreat from moral judgment on the part of prosperous democracies may prove their undoing. I consider the term “prosperous democracies” to be applicable to other countries besides the U.S.
Maclin Horton,
Fair enough, now I understand. But why use ‘may’ as a qualifier since the retreat from moral judgement will with certainty prove the undoing of any society? How could it be otherwise?
I use “may” in the sense that we do not know the future and undoing can come about in many different ways. The movie Independence Day comes to mind as a portrayal of one of the perils we may some day face.
Maclin Horton writes: “I use “may” in the sense that we do not know the future and undoing can come about in many different ways. The movie Independence Day comes to mind as a portrayal of one of the perils we may some day face.”
Well yes, the future is contingent, but in so far as corruption of morals are concerned, Casti Connubii 91, 92 is rather clear as to what results can be expected.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11CASTI.HTM
I must add though, I’m highly skeptical, to say the least, that aggression by aliens of the outer-worldly sort is one “ of the perils we may some day face”. Although no doubt my reading of the national enquirer and others equal character while waiting in line at the checkout counter has taken on a whole new light since watching the movie “Men in Black”. And now that I think about it, those who work in to post office are rather suspect, . . . aren’t they? Hmmm, I wonder???