Prostitutes encourage people in committed relationships to betray those who trust them. Simple proof here: If a john would have no trouble telling his wife, committed companion or lover that he was thinking about frequenting hookers and required her consent before indulging then I would concede that the prostitute’s profession could be ethically defensible. I’m sure that somewhere, at some time, there have been men who leave the house saying, “Bye, honey, I’m off to get a blow-job!” and hear, “OK, my love! Remember, we have that dinner at the Phipps’!” Not many, however. Resorting to a prostitute is a betrayal, and the existence of prostitutes encourage betrayal. Prostitution fails the test of utilitarianism and libertarianism. It has victims, including the institution of marriage, and civilization, which is built and strengthened by family units.
Furthermore, the payer is using money to persuade someone to do something they would not otherwise choose to so, and something that is degrading and submissive. Hinrichsen wants to eliminate disincentives for women (and some men) to persist in a destructive practice on many fronts. The john’s role in the transaction breaches Kant’s edict that one should never use another human being as a means to an end. The role of prostitute is dehumanizing.
It is also intrinsically dangerous. Frequenting prostitutes is signature significance: ethical people don’t do it. Unethical people do bad things to other people more often than ethical people do. Legalizing prostitution will make it more likely that “sex workers” will be in vulnerable situations with unethical people.
The movement to legalize prostitution has the same societal problem as the successful efforts to legalize other harmful, corrupting behavior, like using drugs and gambling. There is value in the State making a declaration that certain conduct is harmful and should be avoided by responsible citizens. Decriminalizing conduct that was once forbidden, whatever the motives or justifications, will always send the message that the conduct once condemned is now considered harmless, acceptable and benign. That delusion leads to ethical incoherence and confusion.
Oh, I have no doubt that this latest terrible, corrupting, culture-eroding crusade from the Mad Left will succeed eventually. After all, governments can make money by encouraging people to harm themselves and those who trust them, just as they make money from legalized pot and state lotteries. Anyone opposing these measures are branded as spoil-sports, fogeys, moralists, reactionaries or worse. Entropy is always working against ethics, civility, responsibility and common sense: stopping it requires vigilance and constant battle from the guardians of values, and they get tired, warn-down, co-opted, or just start shrugging.
Nevertheless, prostitution is harmful on many levels, and therefore unethical.
But by all means, make your case why it’s not. You may convince someone. Not me, but someone…
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day, is…
Ethics Alarms 
I have nothing else of substance to add beyond my contributions on the Open Forum regarding this subject. So I’ll just respond with a resounding, “No. No. No.”
”It is a provocative exercise, especially when one ponders why the addition of money should change the nature of the act from benign to objectionable in the view of culture, society, or government.”
I pondered this a great deal when I ended up using blackjack to help my children learn simple addition. Many would call it objectionable to teach young children a game of chance, and yet… you can not discount the educational assist you get from this simple card game.
This reminds me of philosophy class.
I don’t believe in legalized prostitution, and I think porn should be illegal by blocking all sites (addiction and the industry have hurt many). However, from a libertarian perspective, here’s what I may argue:
Consenting adults do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves and others. Promiscuity (non-paid, consensual) is bad for society and people. STDs run rampant when people have a high number of sexual partners. It’s also pretty bad for everyone to shovel down junk food all the time, but that’s also legal. Think “sin tax” type behavior.
The “harm” to someone else concept is limiting though. Adultery used to be illegal, but now its not, even if some laws exist on paper. The current political zeitgeist seems to have a really hard time defining harm. Human dignity is kind of there, but where’s the limit?
What about violating a dead body? Say the person could do it without being caught. Most people find it repugnant, but from a freedom/utilitarian calculus, what’s the real harm? Utilitarianism has a really hard time handling conduct that’s undignified but only harms the person doing it, which is why I cannot call myself a utilitarian, even if I do see value in utilitarian analysis.
So, a lot of “sins” are allowed, and promiscuity is one of those sins, even though promiscuity has produced a host of social problems, such as STDS, unwanted pregnancies (leading to an increase in abortion and absent parents), broken hearts, and just overall bad decisions. If people limited partners to those they were dating and trusted (at minimum), you wouldn’t have many drunken nights where memories get fuzzy. If a baby does come about, it’s not between two strangers.
It seems like the best argument for prosttiutiion is that we allow a lot of sexual vices already, so adding money into the mix really isnt’t that big of a deal. More like an arbitrary disctinction because it “feels” different without actually being so.
On my end, I ascribe to human dignity arguments, and that humans have ends that are good for us, such as sex being used to bond those together who love each other and trust each other. When those ends are misused, it’s bad for all parties. The more important the ends, the more likely the law should get involved (such as ruining the end of someone living by killing them). Sex creates life and bonds people together, so there is a state interest in regulating sex. Legalized prostitution should be a gross misuse of the end of human sexualty.
“Furthermore, the payer is using money to persuade someone to do something they would not otherwise choose to so, and something that is degrading and submissive.”
Man: Would you sleep with me?”
Woman: No.
Man: What if I offered you 1 million dollars?
Woman: (thinks about it), Okay.
Man: How about 10 dollars?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We’ve already established what kind of woman you are, now were just negotiating over price.
Joke aside, there is no value Prostitutions brings to the table, except maybe more taxes for the government to collect.