“All this is to say that I place greater value on people exercising their second-order preferences than their first-order ones, and that this good life is preferable to the pleasant life. This is not because second-order preferences are intrinsically more virtuous – unless the exercise of rationality is itself considered a virtue, a position taken by the Kantians but not by me…The danger for people who are unable to control their immediate urges is that they become subject to manipulation and exploitation, and it is this that confers greater value of the good life.”

If you are claiming that Hamilton is unlike the Kantians, I’m right there with you.

But if you are claiming that Kantian ethics does not hold rational thought to be basis of moral agency, then I’m very confused.

Kantian ethics is not based on the notion of virtue, but it is WHOLLY GROUNDED in individuals using rational thought in order to produce the moral principles by which they should live. Thus being rational is the cornerstone of the whole Kantian enterprise.

Furthermore, Kant argues that in order to be be ethical, we cannot allow institutions such as the church or the state to do our thinking for us. If we simply accept what we are told, and value what we we are told to value, we are not acting as moral agents at all.

Finally, Kant argued quite specifically for the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish. It is only through free debate that we as a society can develop and that we as individuals can become autonomous, which for Kant always means thinking for ourselves.

This places Kantian ethics at the opposite end of the spectrum from those who seek to censor or control what we can publish and what we can read.

“But they don’t understand the deep politics of censorship that survives untouched by time: being effective is never crucial. Governments only have to show they’re doing all they can”

Indeed.

from http://www.thepornreportbook.com/index.php?pageID=7#q2

@Hammy: in my country majority of households have access to at least 6 hardcore pornography channels 24/7. Teenage pregnancies are practicaly non-existent, rapes are extremely rare, people have positive attitude to nudity and are open to talk about sex and problems with it. So I do not see porn is doing any damage to our society. Not to mention some of European countries have set legal age to watch porn at 15. I would say prudish societies have higher social costs and more problems with accepting sex, to talk about sexual abuse, STDs etc.

I should point out that Micheal Flood is the guy who worked with Clive Hamilton on that 2003 report. Micheal Flood is also a radical feminist.

He’s pretty much on par with Robert Jensen… I wouldn’t say they’re very objective.

I’ve calmed down, and can agree, here the issue is the technology and the technolgy doesn’t work.