PROSTITUTION, WHY IT IS MORAL AND
SHOULD BE LEGAL
By
Chris Cochran
In this critical essay I will discuss prostitution and why I believe it is moral and should be legalized. I will start out by defining exactly what prostitution is and then discuss several different ethical theories and how they can be applied to the morality of prostitution. I will show how Mill’s “Utilitarianism” can be applied to prostitution and why the greater good can benefit from it. Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” and his views on using people as a means to an end, and how Sartre’s “Existentialism and Humanism” can be used to demonstrate how prostitution is moral. Then I will follow up with some pros and cons of prostitution and the benefits of legalizing it. Finally, I will conclude with a summary of what I have talked about and give you some final thoughts on the subject.
Prostitution is, according to
Florida State Statute 796.07 Subsection 1-a, “Prostitution means the
giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes
sexual activity between spouses.”[1] The Statute goes on into more detail about
prostitution, but for our purposes here, this simple explanation will do fine. You would think that if prostitution was such
an immoral act, it would be outlawed by the federal government like murder
is. But the fact is there are no
federally mandated laws against prostitution; it is left up to the states to
decide. Since I live in
John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” can easily be applied to prostitution. Utilitarianism is about “freedom of the will,”[2] and the greater good for the greater number of people. It comes down to the law of supply and demand in this case. Prostitution has been claimed to be the oldest job in existence. Basically, this means there has been demand for prostitutes since man first learned how to barter for goods and services. Most people either wanted it or didn’t care that it existed. It was only viewed as immoral by a minority few religious types.
If prostitution were so immoral, then why has is existed for thousands of years and why does it still exist today? Because, prostitution wasn’t really seen as immoral until the temperance and abstinence movement in the early nineteenth century when religious groups spoke out and tried to get legislation passed preventing dinking and prostitution. They actually did manage to garner enough support in Congress to get legislation passed preventing the sale or use of alcohol by saying it was immoral and it leads to immoral acts. Thus began the prohibition.
Mill’s Utilitarianism doesn’t
specifically say that prostitution is moral one way or the other; that is left
up to the people to decide. Well, the people
spoke in the early 1900’s and convinced Congress to amend the Constitution of
the
Kant’s view on using people as a means to an end is a little trickier than Utilitarianism. Here Kant’s second moral command to his Categorical Imperative states:
“…rational beings are all subject to the law that each
one must treat himself and
every other being never merely as means, but always as
end in itself also,” and
“…a rational being belongs as member to this realm of
ends if he shares in
the making of the universal laws but also is himself subject to these laws.” [3]
What Kant is saying here is that we should never use other people as a means to an end. The same goes for other people; they should not use us as a means to an end either. Kant is not saying that it cannot be allowed at all; otherwise nothing would ever get done.
People can be used as a means to an end when it is consensual to both parties. An example would be a bank teller or a taxi cab driver. You would use a bank teller as a means to get your money out of the bank. A taxi cab driver would be used as a means of getting from one place to another. In both of these examples, the bank teller and the taxi cab driver were used as a means to and end and nothing more. But, in both cases, it was consensual. The bank teller gets paid from the bank; it’s her job to be a means to other people’s money. The taxi cab driver gets paid by his customers to drive them wherever they want to go. According to Kant this is moral and is how society works. However, when it comes to prostitution, Kant says prostitution is wrong. This is where he loses me.
On the one hand he says it is okay to use people as a means to an end as long as it is consensual. But yet, on the other hand, he hypocritically denies the same holds true for prostitution. I think Kant interjects his religious beliefs here into his second moral command of the Categorical Imperative. His mistake here is turning his Categorical Imperative into something that is subjective and not universally objective. He is making up his own laws as he sees fit which goes against everything the Categorical Imperative stands for. As far as I see it, the Categorical Imperative does allow prostitution and calls it moral so long as it is consensual between both parties involved. Kant is the one who is wrong in assuming that he can make changes to the Categorical Imperative purely on a subjective basis.
In Sartre’s book “Existentialism and Humanism,” I think he sums it all up in one sentence, “It is therefore senseless to think of complaining since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are.”[4] That is a true existential statement. From an existential viewpoint, there is no problem with prostitution at all. Not unless a person has a problem with it. Existentialists believe that in the grand scheme of things in the universe, we are all beings who happen to be sentient and aware of our place in the universe and that we are governed only by that which we impose on ourselves. Ethics are not grounded in Metaphysics and are purely subjective to each being. Sure, there are a few people out there, like Hegel, who believes ethics are grounded in metaphysics, but that too is their subjected belief. Existentialism, like Utilitarianism, does not state one way or the other if prostitution is legal; it is left entirely up to the people to decide.
In simpler terms, what would happen if there were no people? There would be no problem with prostitution, would there? The universe would still exist and carry on as it has for billions of years before humans ever existed. And, it will carry on just as good when we cease to exist. While we are here, now, we impose rules and laws to helps us maintain order and to make our lives a little easier to deal with. We want to enjoy the most out of life while we are here. There is nothing wrong with that, like the saying goes, “Someone’s pain is someone else’s pleasure.” The same holds true for prostitution, there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, just with certain people who dislike it and consider it immoral. They are the ones causing the problems by interjecting themselves and trying to bestow their subjective ethics onto others.
This brings us to the pros and cons of prostitution and the benefits of legalizing it. First of all, prostitution provides a very good service and has been used very positively for many different reasons over the past few thousand years. One point in case is how the term hooker came about. Back during the American Civil War, Major General Joseph Hooker would allow prostitutes to come into the headquarters and set up a temporary bordello as an incentive for his men. The prostitutes would follow Hooker’s Army when they would get deployed, thus the name “Hooker” became synonymous with prostitutes. Another good thing to come out of the American Civil War was the fact that for the first time, the American Government acknowledged legalized prostitution as a means to control the ever growing number of people/soldiers who had contracted sexually transmitted diseases. Before the U.S. Government got involved, STD’s were rampant. After they set up treatment facilities and taught safe sex, the numbers of STD’s dramatically fell. Of course, after the American Civil War was over, so were the health facilities and the teaching of safe sex. The numbers of STD’s has risen in this country and it is only getting worse.
Places like
In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated how prostitution is moral, or at least not immoral, through the use of three different ethical theories. Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” Kant’s “Categorical Imperative,” and Sartre’s “Existentialism.” Prostitution should be embraced by the government. The government could turn its attention to managing the problem. Making it safer, regulated, and cheaper for the government to control. Not to mention all the money it could generate through tax revenue. Who says prostitution is immoral? Not me, I can clearly see all the benefits we would gain if it were legal.
Works Cited
[1] The
[2] Mill,
John Stuart. The Logic of the Moral
Sciences.
[3] Kant,
Immanuel. The Fundamental Principles
of the Metaphysic of Ethics.
[5] Yeager,
Leland B. Ethics as Social Science.