Nice response. I agree that we need to take a step back and examine the larger problems facing us today. But your response, as I see it, is a bit naive.

You are right to point out that a definition of good is subjective. Everything is always going to be subjective for the most past.
I agree that the topics are dead-on relevant. Well to people like you and me I suppose, but I suspect GOOD magazine is not the hottest topic among the people we claim we want to do GOOD for. Anyway,

You say things like benevolence, charity, universal health care, cost-free higher
education, reduction of pesticide use, improvement of highways are good things. Of course they are, no one would probably argue with most of this.
Still, ceasing to condone pornography should be on your list.

You evaded my entire question. These people you think need universal health care, for instance. Are they negatively affected by this industry? Yes or No? Pornography is evidence of a larger, systemic problem in our society you are ignoring. Yes, there are more pressing facts to shine the
spotlight of outrage upon, but once you shine the light you may find that this one not only contributes to those problems but is, in some cases, the direct cause of them.

How much interaction have you had with people who have been hurt by this industry? In my profession, I see it all the time. Coudl you for one moment suspend judgment on people who disagree with you and actually listen to those voices. And please, answer this, does pornography make our lives better? Regardless of what else you want to address (i.e. health care, et al), you could hardly answer this question in the affirmative.

The problem here for you is that you want ethics without morals. You want to have your idealogical cake and eat it to. Taking a stand on what is good means more than just espousing your own utopian vision of public policy. It means taking a moral position on very specific issues, especially as you weigh the consequences of those issues against the larger problems we are facing today as a society.

There is a classic dichotomy you hear debated in the academic world all the time, that between philosophy and anthropology. More specifically, between the big picture and the everyday details, between ideology and praxis. In your response, you seem to be great at flowing in the big picture and in espousing ideology. There are bigger fish to fry, of course, but once you start to fry those fish you are forced into the real lives of people, people who do not share your position in life, your beliefs, your convictions, your world view. People who probably do need universal health care but also people who need to be free from social ills like pornography.

Doing good is a great ideology, but at some point it requires you and me to come down off our ideological thrones and out of our liberal echo-chambers and actually engage this broken, hurting world. When we do, we will find that sexual oppression is a very real thing that requires we take a moral stand on what is, in fact, good.

But I suspect you don't want to do that because you live with the illusion that you can be liberal and libidinous, you can be socially progressive and morally evasive.

Being a do gooder is more than an idealogical endeavor. It is a moral endeavor that requires moral stances, a moral compass, and a willingness to address larger, systemic issues even when they challange our own lifestyles, interests, tendencies, and world views.

I think you are afraid to actually wrestle with just how subjective "good" really is.

Please respond. This is a fun and important dialog to have.

Posted on November 28, 2007 — by bnfleming

0 comments