“The Ethicist,” Kwame Anthony Appiah, was oh so sensitive answering this query from a concerned parent:
….I have just found out that my [college age] son is a “model” on a pornographic streaming service. My initial reaction was shock, revulsion and shame. But the longer I think about it, the more I wonder, is there really anything immoral or otherwise wrong about what he is doing? He does it from the privacy of his home, alone, and seems to earn a substantial amount of money. If he likes what he does, is there any reason on my part to feel alarmed, ashamed, guilty or worried?
The NYU philosophy prof essentially says that nobody is being hurt by the son’s activities, so they cannot be called “wrong.” He then explains, as I cut through the verbiage…
“If we agree that your son’s camming isn’t wrong, what explains your initial sense of revulsion? Part of your response might arise from the familiar intrafamilial squeamishness about sexual disclosures. That response, then, may have been connected not with what he was doing but with you, as his parent, knowing about it….you can also have prudential concerns. How would his prospects be affected if word got out about his webcam gig? Livestreams can be recorded and uploaded. Even if you think that erotic livestreaming is neither wrong nor shameful, it’s natural, as a parent, to worry about how others might react…There’s nothing hypocritical about compartmentalizing a cam gig. Pretty much all cultures — and subcultures — have ideas about modesty, privacy and discretion, and so understandings about the contexts where erotic display or simply nudity is appropriate.”
My focus is a bit different. The activity isn’t wrong,as in “unethical,” and neither would be sitting in a chair all day twiddling one’s thumbs while being paid by a thumb-twiddling fetishist who wants to watch. But is that why this parent is sending her son to college and paying for it? No. That her son is using his education, skills and talents to make money doing what any illiterate drunk could do shouldn’t cause a parent guilt, but shame, worry or alarm? I think shame, worry and alarm are quite reasonable under the circumstances.
Appiah at one point evokes a staging of “Romeo and Juliet” in reaching the verdict that the webcam gig is just another kind of performance art. That’s a telling comparison: I saw Romeo and Juliet again recently on stage, and it made me think, as Shakespeare usually does. The participating artists helped me gain some additional perspective on life, love and existence that might make me better, and in so doing might assist my efforts to go through this life productively and successfully. I don’t believe a webcam model creates anything, produces anything, or accomplishes anything of value or significance. Not doing wrong is the bare minimum of ethical conduct, I suppose; but is that what you’re alive for?
Looking at the vocation from a Kantian lens: what would society be like if that’s how everyone occupied their time? My bias against this pursuit is similar to my problem with those who spend significant amounts of time stoned, drunk, gambling, or encouraging others to get stones, drunk, or to gamble. Such individuals make the human society nastier, grubbier, and gross.
If engaging in sex for cash is the only way an individual can make sufficient money to pay for his or her children, keep a roof over his head or avoid starvation, I don’t begrudge him that, but he’s not earning my respect that way either. My assumption is that such a person is likely to be an extreme narcissist, and lacks creativity, ambition, or depth. If my son, like this one, were spending time making money on the side with such a stunted activity, I would inform him that he could pay his tuition that way, because I wasn’t interested in sponsoring an aspiring porn star.
I suspect that The Ethicist would not be pleased.
***
AI report: WordPress’s bot suggests that I might want to tag this post “Jesus.”
Ethics Alarms 
“AI report: WordPress’s bot suggests that I might want to tag this post “Jesus.””
Suggesting that ya’ll that need it. (sorry, had to)
I think this is wrong, for what it’s worth:
“I don’t believe a webcam model creates anything, produces anything, or accomplishes anything of value or significance. Not doing wrong is the bare minimum of ethical conduct, I suppose; but is that what you’re alive for?
Looking at the vocation from a Kantian lens: what would society be like if that’s how everyone occupied their time?”
I don’t know that Kant is supposed to be applied to specific vocations… Because there’s no job that would allow society to function *at all* if everyone performed the same job, except maybe a role where everyone did everything… Which is still societally crippling.
The step back from there is that it’s not that you would apply universality to the specific type of job performed, you would look at the measurable utility of the outcomes of the work. Which…. Basically negates art. Which is interesting. Would Kant deem art unethical? And while art is the easy example, there are entire segments of the economy we could apply this to.
If you aren’t prepared to write off art as unethical, the next step from there would be to defend the value of art. Which would be fair, in the eyes of the beholder, people value art. But then… Circling back to creating porn… If nothing of value is created, why would people pay for it? The obvious answer is that the people paying see value that you don’t, in the same way that most people don’t appreciate art.
I think I’ve talked myself into the position that this is artistic get-off-my-lawnery.
I doubt that even webcam pornsters regard what they are doing as art. Is a flasher a performance artist? Brecht memorably said “Art isn’t nice,” but I wonder if he’d go that far.
If Kant is to be applied, it has to be to the broader category of useless, narcissistic, corrupting and base occupations. I agree that no universes where everybody is a webcam model can exist or are worth speculating on.
If a flasher get paid for flashing, does that make him an artist?
“If a flasher get paid for flashing, does that make him an artist?”
Was Jeffrey Toobin being compensated were he…um…on the clock during the infamous Zoom Episode
PWS
“If Kant is to be applied, it has to be to the broader category of useless, narcissistic, corrupting and base occupations.”
I believe that most of that has been said about the theatre at one point or another, but let’s take a step back and take the porn out of it.
I know of a person who closed his lawn care business to chase the dream of being a YouTube content creator playing video games, and he’s good enough at it that he’s making more than he ever did cutting lawns. (The Kill Pete Strategy, who would probably love this conversation.)
From a Kantian perspective, if everyone quit their productive job to attempt a career in entertainment, society would end. So from a Kantian perspective, is entertainment unethical?
I think that there’s two ways to look at it:
One is that entertainment, from that perspective, is unethical.
Which would make this analysis short, but I don’t think that’s where we’re going to go. Which means that Kant probably doesn’t drill into the objective value of the contribution of work.
Which means that we’re probably looking at the subjective value of work.
What, specifically, differentiates one form of entertainment from another from a Kantian perspective? And because I think that it’s going to be hard to make that argument, what differentiates them more broadly?
The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Modern society functions best when the average man and woman get together and raise children under an institution of fidelity. It not only keeps the population going but also ensures that children grow up with the best foundation for good values and a sense of identity. This doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be pleasurable, or that couples should never use birth control, but we are not bonobo apes
and shouldn’t act like bonobo apes.
The problem with porn is that it reduces sex to a drug, and becomes a cheap, easy substitute for true romantic intimacy. It brings us down to the bonobo level, and we’ve seen the results of increased sexual “liberation”. More single parent families, more crime, more children growing up with weak social and identity foundations.
Provided one’s actions do not cause direct harm to others I am tolerant of how they wish to pursue life. However, tolerance does not equate to respect, admiration, or approval. Furthermore, just because I would not choose the same path myself does not grant me the right to condemn their actions. I am not them. I have not trod their path.
When I read this post a few thoughts came to mind.
1) Choosing to be a porn performer can have a significant negative impact on your future employment depending on what profession you wish to pursue. Choose wisely.
2) When making potentially life-impacting decisions say choosing a profession, or committing illegal or questionable acts ask yourself if you would be proud to have that label on your tombstone.
3) I have more respect for prostitutes than most politicians. Prostitutes are at least honest about what they are.