英语论文网

ps, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA?' In a statement issued by American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania legal director Witold Walczak, 'This is an age where kids explore their sexuality, so there's a lot of that going on in the room. This is fodder for child porn.'

结论-Conclusion

Generally, pornography, while perhaps more graphic or prevalent than the stories, plays and artwork which are its ancestry, still faces the same two-faced attitude that it always has. On one side of the coin, it is a plaything; a toy of entertainment and sexual gratification with which we explore ourselves. On the other, it is a great and terrible social evil, debasing and reducing our humanity, while also forcing us to face openly and view blatantly many of our deepest social taboos with regard to sex and sexuality. It is the former which those who defend pornography truly stand in defense of, while those who stand opposed do so with the religious fervor of a medieval crusade or puritan inquisition, so embraced by their hatred of the evil they see in the latter that hurl about accusations of social and psychological harm which are at least unsupported, if not outright debunked and refuted, by the scientific community. It is due to the natures of both sides that full, legal definitions of obscenity and pornography have never been settled on, which has become the bane of those attempting to legislate on materials viewed as such. After all, if you can't define something, how can you make it illegal?

Child pornography, however, shares no such ambiguity. The term 'Sexual Exploitation of Children' illustrates an exacting definition with more in common with child abuse than with those vague attempts to define pornography, and is opposed just as absolutely. However, due to its connection to both child abuse and pornography, child pornography is opposed and fought with greater passion and zealotry than the two put together. Unfortunately, this eagerness leads those manning the fight to do so without any regard to whose rights they may violate, even those of the people they seek to protect.

Whether debating the questionable morality of Pornography or fighting the 'absolute evil' of child pornography, child abuse, and the sexual exploitation of children, there is a further moral issue which is not as easily observed. In our studies of ethical theories which are or are not workable, the one thing that defines a theory as workable is objectivity. However, when one side of an issue is labeled as 'evil', objectivity is lost, sometimes completely, and the morality of the issue is forced into subjectivity, tainting any moral debate with unworkable theory. By applying such a label, by tainting this debate, the true analysis of the ethics and morality of any issue become inaccessible. The truth of who could be harmed and who needs to be protected is lost, replaced by dogma and rhetoric, clouded and obfuscated. Rights are ignored, people are worked around, any potential greatest outcome is lost. This, in other words, is the very definition of 'amoral'.