Lecture Notes, J.C.

Robinson

Unit Eight
War, Terrorism, Torture
Pornography
Table of Contents
Section One.................................................................................................................................................2
Part I War....................................................................................................................................................2
Two Extremes..........................................................................................................................................2
Realism................................................................................................................................................3
Summary.............................................................................................................................................3
Pacificism.............................................................................................................................................3
Consequentialist..................................................................................................................................3
Deontologist........................................................................................................................................3
Vice for Consequentialist.....................................................................................................................4
Vice for Deontology.............................................................................................................................4
Just War Theory.......................................................................................................................................4
Discussion:...........................................................................................................................................5
Part II Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................6
Is Terrorism Ever Morally Permissible?................................................................................................6
Part III Torture.........................................................................................................................................7
The Ticking Bomb Argument for Torture.............................................................................................7
Pro Torture..........................................................................................................................................7
Con Torture.........................................................................................................................................8
Part IV Reading Summaries (Vaughn, CMA)............................................................................................8
Section Two Pornography............................................................................................................................9
Outline.....................................................................................................................................................9
Readings..............................................................................................................................................9
Part I An Introduction to the Ethics of Pornography....................................................................................9
The Main Ethical Questions About Pornography...................................................................................10
Anti-Pornography Arguments................................................................................................................10
Pro-Porn Arguments..............................................................................................................................11
The Main Anti-Censorship Argument....................................................................................................11

1
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

The Liberty Argument Against Censorship.............................................................................................12

Part II What About Prostitution?...........................................................................................................12
Against:..............................................................................................................................................13
For Prostitution:.................................................................................................................................13
Are we all prostitutes?.......................................................................................................................13
Part III Summary of Readings (Vaughn, CMA)........................................................................................14

Readings:
CMA Chapter 8
Douglas P. Lackey: Pacifism
Jan Narveson: Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis
John Howard Yoder: When War Is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking
Michael Walzer: Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses
Andrew Valls: Can Terrorism Be Justified?
Alan M. Dershowitz: The Case for Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist

CMA Chapter 9
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
Helen E. Longino: Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom
Catharine MacKinnon: Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech
Ronald Dworkin: Women and Pornography
Wendy Kaminer: Feminists Against the First Amendment

Section One
Part I War
• Realism, or moral nihilism, regarding war:
the view that morality does not apply to warfare, that the categories of right and wrong are
irrelevant to actions occurring in war.

• Antiwar pacifism: war is never morally justified; all wars are wrong.

Two Extremes
Realism Pacifism
 Morality doesn’t cut it.  There are never reasons to fight.
 If everyone were pacifist, then the world
 Security and self-defence will save us. would be at peace, and that would be
nice.

2
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Realism
Descriptive (call it as I see it)
Prisoner’s Dilemma—This idea is of trust.
Descriptive strong—
the world is in anarchy; national security is top Prisoner’s Dilemma (2:58)
priority; no one can ensure security; this is fact; http://youtu.be/jUTWcYXVR5w
morals are void.
How do you decide whether or not to trust?

Descriptive weak—states may perhaps be Can you trust rational (self-interested) people
motivated by morals. (countries)?

Trust the other or rat him/her out. Is everyone to

Question: be an egoist—no trust—merely self-interested?

Is this strong realism necessary? If each state acted on prudence in this manner it
would create havoc. Each egoist attacking the
Rarely do states have to worry about survival. other rat.

Descriptive strong is exaggerating a finite set of

historical cases which lurk in every corner,
scaring us by exaggeration.

Realism boils down to egoism.

 A set of reasons to save self.

 But also, a set of reasons to exalt oneself—to take advantage of the
weaker.

So what?

 If all of us acted for ourselves, all would be lost.

 Realism is also based in favor of the more powerful states (those with the power to control the
weaker).
 The powerful use it as an excuse—we must dominate because everyone wants
to dominate.
 “If we don’t control you, harm you, take from you, then
someone else will …”
 Really?!?!
 But is that true?

3
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Pacificism
 We ought never to fight.
 There are no circumstances in which fighting is moral.
 There is a moral calling in all life—war is not a special a-moral sphere.
 We all have a right to life. War violates that right to life.
 One cannot simply say war is except from treating humans with dignity and respect.

 Do you buy that?

 Does that make sense?

Consequentialist
Con War: The costs always exceed the benefits.

 So the ends do not justify the means.

Deontologist
Con War: The very act of war violates morality.

 We have a duty to morality.

 War violates morality so it is wrong.

Vice for Consequentialists Against War

 What are the costs of going to war?
 Going to war may be a limited cost that brings reward.
 Is there a chance the costs may be worth it? E.g., gaining vast oil reserves?

Vice for Deontologists Against War

 The state may crumble.
 If we do not engage in war, we may allow greater moral needs to be violated, e.g., society.
 We have a duty to society to preserve it.

Just War Theory

Just War reply to passivism:
 If we all use force to defend ourselves and only against aggression,
the world would be as peaceful as the Pacifist world.

So, if you want peace, prepare for war, not peace!

 Prepare to defend yourself (and others).

Would this world be “just as peaceful” as the one imagined by pacificists?

A “Mixed Worlds” scenario creates a difficult situation for pacifists:

4
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

In a mixed world of pacifists and aggressors, aggressors win.

(No one stands up to aggressors, so they run free over everyone.)

In a mixed world of defenders and aggressors, aggressors will often lose.

(There are people willing to fight against aggressors. If you have enough defenders the
aggressors will lose.)

Thus, if the pacifist attitude were widely adopted, aggressors would have a free ride - their
action would be unopposed.
(This gives aggressors the incentive to aggress. I.e., pacifism encourages aggressors by default
((if you want it, go and take it … no one will stop you)).

Therefore, defence (justified war) wins out over pacifism.

What do you think of this argument?

 The typical response is that war is never justified because the costs are always too high (in
terms of life, property, etc.).
 However, for some, war may be justified provided certain conditions are met.

• The dominant approach to the ethics of war was first explored by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and
elaborated in later centuries by many other thinkers.

Just war theory tries to answer two separate questions:

 When is resorting to war morally permissible

(issues known formally as jus ad bellum, or “the justice of war”)?

*the latin terms are famous it is probably a good idea to memorize them.

 And what actions are morally permissible in the conduct of war

(issues of jus in bello, or “justice in war”)?

Going to war can be justified only if:

1. The conflict is endorsed by legitimate authority.

Not just “any joe smith or jane smith” may start a war.

2. The cause is just.

If the war is for sheer conquest it is not legitimate.
It must right a wrong.
War for the sake of war is not justified.

3. There is a reasonable possibility of success.

There is no morally justified reason to needless kill people. Success must be possible.

5
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

4. The war is a last resort.

If all other options have not been exhausted the war is not justified.

5. The war is waged with rightful intentions.

Use the least amount of force necessary.
Do not aim to hurt non-combatants.

6. The good accomplished by going to war is proportional to the evil that the conflict causes.

1-4 are often grouped as reasons for “getting into war” (“jus ad bellum”).

5-6 are often grouped as reasons regarding fighting “in” war (“jus in bello”).

See link for more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml

Discussion:
What is your inclination toward war?

In our time there are several wars (small scale and relatively large scale, e.g., 10,000 of thousands
fighting).

Are some of the justified and other not? Why?

Our political leaders are making decisions regarding “just” and “unjust” war each day.

Trudeau, for example, argued for his election campaign, that he would immediately withdraw Canadian
forces from its support of US forces in the Middle East. Specifically, that Canada would no longer offer
air support against ISIL.

Is that a justified position?

6
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Part II Terrorism

Is Terrorism Ever Morally Permissible?

1. Terrorists make war on peoples, not on their armies.

So why, specifically, is that a problem?

It may seem “obvious” to us why this is a problem, but it is not at all obvious to terrorists.

Spelling out why targeting innocent civilians is bad is paramount.

2. After all, what if it works?

• On consequentialist grounds, some argue that the good to be achieved through terrorist acts often
outweighs the evil that the acts entail.

• On deontological grounds, some argue that terrorism may sometimes be justified in the name of
justice or rights for an aggrieved group.

• Some argue that terrorist violence can be justified because it passes the ethical tests laid down by
just war theory.

Huh?

Targeting innocent people outweighs another evil, brings about justice, and passes our just war theory?

Not likely … but some still try to argue that it does.

3. If we know that it “can” work, how should we react to it?

Note: “forbidding” terrorism probably won’t help. Going to war has not stopped terrorism. So … ?

4. May we respond to terrorism with terrorism?

Two wrongs argument: where we have two wrongs it is plausible that they do not make a
right, e.g., a second terrorist action does not make something right.

Do you agree?

Many philosophers contend that terrorism conflicts with just war requirements.

Michael Walzer argues that terrorism, by deliberately attacking the innocent, violates the principle of
discrimination and that the terrorists’ common excuses for their actions are groundless.

7
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Terrorism not only tramples on the just war principles of discrimination and proportionality, but also
violates its victims’ right to life.

The Just War Argument Against Terrorism

Terrorism is immoral for the same reason that some wars are immoral: it violates principles of just war
theory.

Part III Torture

Torture: an act of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person for purposes of coercion,
punishment, intimidation, or extraction of information.

• Torture is condemned throughout the world—but still used by many regimes, including those that
disavow it.

• Torture is contrary to international law.

What are you instincts on the merits or non-merits of torture?

From Wiki:
It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by
Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 officially agree
not to torture captured persons in armed conflicts, whether international or internal.
Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has
been ratified by 158 countries. Although torture is universally condemned by all
democratic nations, there have been many suspected or known instances of its
sanctioned use - regardless of its legality. An example of this is the use of
euphemistically-named enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding,
known to have been used by the United States after the September 11 attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

The Ticking Bomb Argument for Torture

Pro Torture
 It could happen that the only way to prevent a thousand innocent people from being killed by a
nuclear bomb planted by a terrorist is to torture the terrorist until he reveals the location of the
bomb. Considering the many innocent lives that could be saved, it would be morally permissible—
even morally obligatory—to torture the terrorist.

 Add a few more details to the scenario:

Imagine the bomber admitting to the planting of bombs in schools around the city. He shows
evidence of being able to make a bomb but refused to give you the location. You have only a few
hours before the bombs go off. Do you torture him for the information?

8
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

 Why, why not?

 Given this situation it seems that torture “may” sometimes be morally justified. And if that’s so,
legalizing or institutionalizing torture is also morally justified.

What do you think?

Problems?

Con Torture
 The information received may be illegitimate (people say whatever it takes to get the torture to
stop).
 It doesn’t work (at least not perfectly).
 The morality of the torturer is called into question.
 What if you torture innocent people?
 That is eventually going to happen given enough time.
 Whether it works or not, are you willing to become immoral?

Part IV Reading Summaries (Vaughn, CMA)

Douglas P. Lackey: Pacifism

Lackey exams four types of pacifism—universal anti-killing pacifism, universal anti-violence pacifism,
personal pacifism (personal violence is wrong but political violence is sometimes permissible), and anti-
war pacifism (personal violence is sometimes permissible but war is always wrong). He finds the first
three problematic but defends anti-war pacifism against common objections.

Jan Narveson: Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis

Narveson analyzes a common version of pacifism that says violence is evil and that it is wrong to use
force to "resist, punish, or prevent violence." He argues that those who hold this view are confused
because it involves a contradiction: "Violence is wrong, and it is wrong to resist it. But the right to resist
is precisely what having a right of safety of person is, if it is anything at all."

Michael Walzer: Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses

Walzer argues that terrorism, by deliberately attacking the innocent, violates just war theory's principle
of discrimination. Moreover, he says, the terrorists' common excuses for their actions—that terrorism is
a last resort and that it achieves its goals—are groundless. The upshot is that "every act of terrorism is a
wrongful act."

Andrew Valls: Can Terrorism Be Justified?

Valls argues, contrary to Khatchadourian, that jus ad bellum andjus in bello principles can actually justify
some terrorist acts. Some stateless groups, he says, can "have a just cause when their right of self-
determination is frustrated."

Alan M. Dershowitz: The Case for Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist
Dershowitz argues for a kind of legalization of torture in which agents of the state may torture someone
if they first obtain judicial permission in the form of "torture warrants" similar to the judicial warrants

9
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

required for the police to legally tap someone's phone. Such a warrant system, he says, would "decrease
the amount of physical violence directed against suspects," and "he rights of the suspect would be
better protected with a warrant requirement."

Section Two Pornography

Outline
Part I An Introduction to the Ethics of Pornography
Part II What About Prostitution?
Part III Summary of Readings

Readings
CMA Chapter 9
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
Helen E. Longino: Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom
Catharine MacKinnon: Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech
Ronald Dworkin: Women and Pornography
Wendy Kaminer: Feminists Against the First Amendment

Part I An Introduction to the Ethics of Pornography

 What is pornography?
 Answering this question has proven to be very difficult.

 Are there good forms and bad forms? Like good art and bad art? (some art costs millions while
other art is free)
E.g., softcore pornography might be good while hardcore might be bad.

 How do you know if something is pornographic?

A working definition:
Sexually explicit words or images intended to provoke sexual arousal.

• Obscenity: a property thought to render sexually explicit words or images morally or legally
illicit.

• Erotica: sexually explicit material that does not demean women but depicts them as consenting,
equal partners in sexual activity.

Cash
Revenues for pornographic materials, as of 2001, in the US, are estimated to be (including video, pay-
per-view, Internet and magazines) between $2.6 billion and $3.9 billion.

10
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Ackman, Dan (2001-05-25). "How Big Is Porn?". Forbes.com. Forbes.com. Archived from the original on 2001-06-09. Retrieved
2007-11-08. "$2.6 billion to $3.9 billion. Sources: Adams Media Research, Forrester Research, Veronis Suhler Communications
Industry Report, IVD"

The Main Ethical Questions About Pornography

1) Is producing, publishing, or using it morally permissible?
What is (if any) the problem with pornography?
Legal, moral, ethical, spiritual, what?

2) Should any “porn” activity be legally prohibited, or just some?

3) How do you define it?

4) What should we do about it?

Question:
 Even if certain sexual acts are wrong, e.g., bestiality or necrophilia, is the depiction of what is
wrong, itself wrong?

 Should pictures and movies of those acts be illegal?

 What is wrong with possessing child pornography so long as you are never directly hurting a
child?

If not, if the depiction is not itself wrong, how can there be a problem with pornography?

What about children?

 To what degree should we (the public) do parents’ monitoring of their childrens’ viewing habits?

 And, why children would find pornography interesting?

What would it do to them if they did?

Parents make presumptions about how to answer these question.

 Should they/we presume to know how to answer how pornography will impact children?

Anti-Pornography Arguments
A) Pornography should be banned because it is an affront (offense) to traditional morality:

1) Creating and using pornography is inherently immoral.

2) Pornography is offensive to many who hold traditional or religious beliefs.

3) It promotes immoral acts (adultery, premarital intercourse, and deviant sex, for example).

4) It undermines morality generally.

11
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

5) It corrupts and subverts

(a) character,
how? This is an important question. Is pornography encouraging a generation of perverts?

(b) traditional family values,

how? Are families (or family values) at increased risk because of widespread pornography
consumption?

(c) religious life,

how?

(d) and communities.

how?

B) Using pornography causes harm:

1) Pornography leads to rape or other sexual violence against women.
• This argument is not hard to defeat “in general” (most pornography consumers are not
rapists, although it might be argued that most rapists are pornography consumers) but
what about those marginal cases of perpetrators pushed over the edge by pornography
consumption?

Is that a practical problem society should be concerned with?

2) Pornography degrades or subordinates women while sanctioning pernicious (malicious)

attitudes towards them.
• This is a potentially huge problem, if true.
• Are women routinely pictured as the objects of male satisfaction, to be used for sexual
purposes but never cared for or loved except as an instrument of male pleasure?
• Why are common images of love and romance so often missing from pornography, e.g.,
e.g., simple kissing and affection?
• What might a generation growing up on images devoid of affection (traditionally
conceived) look like?

Pro-Porn Arguments
 Pornography should not be illegal or stigmatized for such things serve as forms of censorship.
 All voices should be hears.
 Pornography is an art form.
Explain what is bad about pornography that is not bad about bad literature.
Perhaps pornography is just low-brow artistic expression.

The Main Anti-Censorship Argument

 As autonomous persons, we are entitled to freedom of speech or expression, freedom
of conscience, a right to privacy, and the right to choose our own life plans as we see fit.
 As long as we do no harm to others, we are entitled to exercise our liberty—to create or use
pornography if we choose to—without interference from the broader community.

12
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

 Only for very weighty reasons may the state restrict our freedom to partake of pornography,
and preventing offense to the community is not one of them.

The Liberty Argument Against Censorship

 Persons possess a right of autonomy, which includes freedom of speech or expression.
 Since pornography is a form of speech or expression, people have a right to create or publish
it, however detested or unsavory the material is to many.
 It can be legitimately constrained or controlled by the state only if it causes significant harm to
others and if there is very strong evidence of such harm.

John Stuart Mill

“[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

What would strong evidence of harm look like?

MacKinnon’s Harm-to-Women Argument for Censorship

• Pornography should be censored because it does women great harm—it literally violates their civil
rights.
• It does so by degrading and subordinating women through sexually explicit portrayal and
simultaneously endorsing this demeaning view.
• Thus pornography defines women as inferior, and pornography’s audience is conditioned to view
and treat women accordingly.

Responses to MacKinnon’s View

 Pornography does not cause the harm she alleges.
 Banning offensive viewpoints violates bedrock principles of free speech.
 Anti-pornography censorship itself causes harm to women.

 What about the psychological harm to men who purchase/view such materials?

 Do people talk much about that? Why not?

Part II What About Prostitution?

Prostitution
Is prostitution wrong?

Old Law
 In Canada, prostitution itself is not illegal, but solicitation is. This has created some confusion.
 You may buy sex services but not sell them.
 No business offering services for sale to the public can be carried on without communication so
this is equivalent to making prostitution itself illegal.

New Law (2014)

 Now one may sell sex service but not buy them.

13
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

What the Media Won't Tell You About Bill C-36 (Prostitution in Canada)
This is a helpful commentary on Canada’s new law.
https://youtu.be/SL7VCSaCxII
(11 minutes)
Do you agree with her?

She presents some challenging questions. Is the legalization issue largely about men wanting to have
control over women’s bodies, i.e., make prostitution legal so men may “do whatever they want to
women’s bodies without consequences”?

She also raises questions about the “media conversation” and how it might be biased.

What are your impressions?

Against:
 Prostitution makes sex into a service that is for sale
Why is that bad?

 Some regard this as a misuse of sexual organs etc

For Prostitution:
(1) Cheaper than marriage.
(2) Fewer emotional needs to be met.
(3) ….
(4) ….

Are we all prostitutes?

 Is offering any sort of personal service for money “prostitution”?

If so, literally everyone is a prostitute.

The argument misuses the term ‘prostitution’

Is marriage a form of prostitution?

Doc Zone: Sext Up Kids (45 minutes)

This a difficult, if also disturbing, documentary well worth considering.

Part III Summary of Readings (Vaughn, CMA)

14
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

John Stuart Mill: On Liberty

In this selection, Mill makes a case for individual liberty and against restraints on it such as censorship.
The only justification for state interference in the lives of citizens, he says, is prevention of harm to
others. Restraining someone merely for his own good is forbidden: "He cannot rightfully be compelled
to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in
the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right." As long as he harms no one else, his
independence and freedom are absolute.

Nadine Strossen: Hate Speech and Pornography: Do We Have to Choose Between Freedom and
Equality?
Strossen argues that censorship of pornography runs counter to, among other things, the fundamental
"viewpoint neutrality" principle of free speech, the principle that "government may never limit speech
just because any listener—or even the majority of the community—disagrees with or is offended by its
content or the viewpoint it conveys." In line with this principle, she asserts that "the appropriate
response to speech with which one disagrees is not censorship but counterspeech—more speech, not
less."

Catharine MacKinnon: Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech

MacKinnon argues that pornography should be censored because it does women great harm—it literally
violates their civil rights. It does so by degrading and subordinating women through sexually explicit
portrayal and simultaneously endorsing this demeaning view. Thus pornography defines women as
inferior, and pornography's audience is conditioned to view and treat women accordingly.

Ronald Dworkin: Women and Pornography

Dworkin finds pornography repellent but still opposes its censorship. Like John Stuart Mill, he thinks that
revulsion is no grounds for overriding the principle of individual liberty. "The essence of negative
liberty," he says, "is freedom to offend, and that applies to the tawdry as well as the heroic."

Wendy Kaminer: Feminists Against the First Amendment

Kaminer strongly defends free speech, maintaining that censorship would likely have little effect on the
prevalence of pornography and sexual violence but could end up hurting women and feminist causes
instead. "The history of antiporn campaigns in this country," she says, "is partly a history of campaigns
against reproductive choice and changing roles for men and women." 

15