lovek323

If Iceland's parliament were in fact "forcing someone's personal value upon a whole country", then I would also consider it to be morally wrong. However, the democratic process is there to guard against this sort of behaviour. It doesn't always work, but you haven't shown that it is not working in this case.

I believe you are referring to the reference (haha) to the article in /Slate/. I read that article and didn't find it hugely compelling. Some good points were made in the article, but they weren't even close to a complete argument.

Again, I agree that 'it's not a government's job to force their subjective moral values upon people'. Firstly, when it comes to morality, it's pretty much all subjective. (I actually believe that there is an objective morality; it's just really hard to convince anyone else that my morality is it.) It is, however, a government's job to enforce the morality of the people.

Just because bad things happen in countries where pornography is banned doesn't mean they happen because pornography is banned.

I believe you are saying that banning pornography is an indicator of a bad government and the other governments that have made the same decision are a pretty bad lot. This may be true.

But my point remains: it is a government's job to enforce the values of society. It just depends what we see as our most important values (is it free speech or moral decency, in this case?).

Of course not. That's why societies have things like police and prisons. Making it illegal is, of course, about reducing its prevalence, but it's also about society saying, 'these are our standards'. One will never stop all men from beating their wives, but I would not care to live in a society where it became legal.

I really like social experimentation (to a sane degree, of course). Why shouldn't Iceland ban pornography (if it does so through a democratic process)? I'd quite like to see what happens.

Seems to me that this is the whole correlation and causation thing (a 'questionable cause' logical fallacy). There are probably great benefits that come from having access to the Internet. The question that needs to be answered here is whether or not having access to porn is a requirement. This has not been shown by /Slate/ in their article.

The article goes on to say that, because access to the Internet does not reduce the prevalence of homicide but does lower the prevalence of rape, having access to the Internet reduces rape.

Here are some other reasons rape might be down (just off the top of my head):

* As a society, we're getting better at catching rapists before they rape again (and before they rape the first time)

* Sex crimes are less acceptable than they were some years ago

* There is more help available for those who are prone to this type of crime

I am not dismissing Sam Harris' book out of hand (as I haven't read it), but I would be surprised to find his argument that "a scientific approach to morality would make us more moral" convincing. In order for Harris to show that his approach is more moral and to avoid a circular argument, he must have a definition of "moral" that can be proven without science.

You make a great point. The purpose of law is not to uphold scientific principles, but to reflect and enforce the standards of society.

Awesome. I spend a lot of time camping and the books I use to discover new places are often out of date with directions that only the seasoned explorer could follow.

This is what happens when we try to simplify the language. It should be paedophile not pedophile and thus #opPaedoChat :)