[A.J.Armitage]

OK A.J. Maybe I was working too hard to avoid using a religious faith argument to make my point.

You could see the point, which makes you smarter than most folks out there.

Those of us who believe in God and the Bible recognize that morality is passed down from God but I often find that atheists, agnostics and libertarians refuse to recognize that fact, so I point out that even if you don't accept religious justification for morality, it still exists in a humanist form.

1) "Libertarian" is not a synonym for unbeliever.

2) In a sense, morality still exists whether a person chooses to accept it or not, since God still exists. But all the stuff I said still stands: you can't justify an "ought" within an atheist worldview. They rarely accept this in theory, and never in practice, because otherwise life is unlivable. For an atheist, a human as distinct from animal life is dependent on illusion. Only some of them really understand this.

I have to confess, I am confused now as to what your problem is with my original post. Was it the willingness to use a humanist argument? If so, that was because I detected (perhaps incorrectly) a lack of acceptance that morality comes from a higher authority.

Partly that.

You also seem to suppose that proving pornography is immoral means it should be prohibited. But this presupposes a great deal, that should be argued for rather than assumed, about the proper function of the government.

[Paloma_55]

1) "Libertarian" is not a synonym for unbeliever

OK.. that was a very subtle attempt at humor.. While not all libertarians are unbelievers, I find quite a few are. I think it has to do with many libertarians' rejection of an authority above their own. Many libertarians believe that what they do is their own business and nobody else's. I agree with this basic point, but also believe that God has a say in what I do, and my neighbor has a say when my actions negatively impact his (or society's) ability to peacefully coexist.

You also seem to suppose that proving pornography is immoral means it should be prohibited. But this presupposes a great deal, that should be argued for rather than assumed, about the proper function of the government.

My argument shall be extended from "It is immoral because God says it is " to "It is immoral because it infringes upon the well being of society" and that is where government should step in.

Like I said earlier, what someone chooses to read, draw, photograph in their own bedroom, etc... Is none of my/our business. When they offer it for sale, they are now impacting others in our society and I believe government has just as much right/responsibility to limit that behavior as it does to stop you from pouring motor oil in a creek.

Pornography is pollution to the mind. If someone wants to pour motor oil in their drinking water, fine.. but not in everyone else's.

And while some people like the taste of motor oil in their drinking water, society as a whole has a responsibility to prevent general distribution of such into the supply. Let them taint their own supply.. boy that analogy is getting stinky.. but it is valid.