[quote]UnstableMongoose wrote...
[quote]android654 wrote...
It comes down to what kind of society it's being applied to. In most Western countries we utilize the ethical theory of Act Utilitarianism meaning that acts (laws) are constructed with the intent of doing the most good for everyone involved. That's the position from which I view almost all issues like this. In this situation, since prostitution exists prior to it's legalization, regulating it
is the most humane route since it makes brothels, prostitutes and all employees of that brothel responsible for adhering to the laws. By regulating them, the opportunities for those institutions to engage in illegal activity is compromised since it is seen as highly regulated establishment and have to operate like other establishments have to. Human trafficking would exist with or without prostitution, so it isn't a by-product of prostitution, but a by-product of regulation in law enforcement and regulation of disreputable brothels that engage in the sex trade.
As for the education, this course was taught at the collegiate level, everyone there is an adult and this course was designed entirely around human sexual behavior, so any ethical discussion on what degree of sexuality could be taught is unnecessary. It was meant to supplement the transcripts of future psychologists and the only persons who have a say as to what is taught there is the professor and the heads of the psychology department. Outside opinions have no place there since it isn't a "public" institution in the sense that they are held to the whims of the citizens in the area.
[/quote]
Right, two issues with what you've said:
1. Act Utilitarianism only supports your position if the levels of human trafficking for purposes of prostitution are equal pre- and post-legalization. Statistics show us that significant upward swing is likely, meaning that legalization is no longer a utilitarian act, depending on how you value human trafficking as a negative against the positive of increased cashflow to the state and better working conditions.
2. I'm not clamoring for the punishment or condemnation of the NW Prof guy. I've stated earlier he was within his rights, and violated nothing that was explicitly verboten. My position is that what he did lacks educational value in terms of opportunity cost--much more educational and worthwhile displays could have been made with the resources alotted to him, and I would consider this to be an example of negligent stewardship of said resources.
"Northwestern is committed to excellent teaching, innovative research, and the personal and intellectual growth of its students in a diverse academic community," is the university's official standpoint regarding all of its operations.
The funding that he used for this display comes, necessarily, from a mixture of three sources: federal grants to Northwestern for research; student tuition and other fees; and private donations by individuals wishing to advance the academic mission of Northwestern University. I have the feeling that very few of these sources would consider a...demonstration of the type we're discussing to be a worthwhile endeavour, which means the professor in this case of guilty of negligence, short-term thinking, and perhaps megalomania in what he chose to show to his students.
An interview with a person who has an alternative lifestyle is very much a more academic display than what has grabbed the attention of the news here.
EDIT: Copy-n-paste formatting from NW's website didn't go over so well. Fixing. Also fixed some errors made while editing point 1 to coherence.
[/quote]
This is the last thing I'll say on the subject since it's off-topic
1) Act- Utilitarianism looks at each individual act, and can't foresee all problems that could hypothetically arise because of it. It tries to, but isn't possible of diagnosing every what-if. In this case, as with most illegal acts, if it can be regulated, then it's better to have the scrutiny of the government over such things rather than have them take place with the added criminal element.
2) He sought and was approved for all of his funding. He even was the head of his department until he willfully sought a position to teach again. It can't be negligent on his party if he was granted permission to carry it out, if there's any negligence to be found it lays with the department heads of the psychology department. Since they're all still there, it's safe to say the Dean found no error in their actions.
I doubt there were many dollars used, it took place on campus and was a simple demonstration. Either way most universities take their funding from their respective departments. Those are the people he needed to clear it with, and he obviously had to since he had to request the space on campus and get clearance for the speakers and the legal waivers he handed to each of his students, so the only people he had to answer to he had already answered to. How can you claim negligence when he made all those attending sign a legal waiver stating they knew they knew the content of the lecture and were not offended by viewing such material. If anything he was extremely responsible by making it entirely optional and making sure he was covered by making it known what would be taking place and that each attendee was comfortable with viewing such material.
There was a talk before and after the demonstration, as well as a lengthy Q&A from the students to both persons who demonstrated the sex toy.
You don't need to clarify what you needed to edit, you've made an attempt to make a good argument from a level headed position for the most part. I doubt anyone would accuse you of anything.
[quote]Mercannis wrote...
Wife has been trying to convince me to do Night school maybe i should show her this thread....SiGN ME UP HERE HONEY.
[/quote]
Continuing Education is important. But if you're just looking for a course in sexology they teach those in night school in many High Schools across America for a nominal fee and lots of colleges have counselors in that area that usually see walk-ins for next to nothing, so if that's your interest I'd check there first.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Big part of our society? Bollocks. Only for people who are so obsessed with it and over-inflate it's importance.
Ever since Freud, this whole sex obsession has become hillarious.
And yes, people cna be upset about learning practices and how colleges teach and spend their funds.
You have yet to justify the drilldo demonstration or explain what one could POSSIBLY learn from that.
[/quote]
Forgetting the fact that you admitted in your statement that sex is a big part of society, I'll explain it in numbers anyway. Let's see.
In the Uk people spend 1.9 Billion dollars a year on pornography. 50% of men and 50% of women admit to actively searching sexually related material on the internet on a regular basis. There are 420 million pornographic related web pages and it accounts for 12% of the entire internet. Pornography receives 4.9 Billion dollars in annual revenue and move about 957 Million units in sexually related material. The largest consumer group of pornography are adults from 35-49, and the average person is about 11 years old when they are first exposed to sexually explicit material. Even though this is the case 70% of women keep their sexually related internet searches secret, even though they account for 33% of all pornographic related searches.[/quote]
Shall I go on, or is it clear how ingrained sex is to just about every culture? I ask only because you seem to oblivious to the world you live in.
The only people who know just exactly what transpired in the lecture were people there, but if you've ever been in college then you know that demonstrations are not new. There are art courses that have nude models, and even nude models that engage in embraces for the class the sketch and paint. This course was designed entirely around sex, the woman in the demonstration was accompanied by someone else, they spoke, they gave their demonstration and then proceeded to take questions from the students.
Yeah, you can be upset all you want, but don't expect your discomfort to be respected when you can't make an argument against it without simply saying you don't like it.
Don't you think it's a little arrogant to say you know better than a Dr. who's been teaching for about thirty years at the collegiate level, has held office over the entire psychology department of this university and is respected as a scientist and researcher in his field? Don't you think you're over-reaching just a bit, random person on the internet?
Retour en haut
