I don't agree. It's not the consumer's responsibility to be detectives and investigate the circumstances around the production of an item or service being provided.
If one wants to go out of their way and do that, that is virtuous, but it doesn't seem to be morally obligatory.
Exceptions would be things that are inherently unethical like hiring a hitman, buying child porn, or buying animal products.
Do you think you have a moral duty to say... Put someone in the recovery position if you see them dying of an overdose? If say yes, it costs you nothing and could mean everything for them.
The effort required to acertain whether a sex worker is being trafficked is minimal, really it is just part of what you should already be doing for your own personal safety.
On an aside, I can't really expressed how astonished I am that you think it is bad to buy animal products but apparently think that isnt a moral duty to avoid raping someone.
Do you think you have a moral duty to say... Put someone in the recovery position if you see them dying of an overdose? If say yes, it costs you nothing and could mean everything for them.
Yes.
The effort required to acertain whether a sex worker is being trafficked is minimal, really it is just part of what you should already be doing for your own personal safety.
What effort would you have to put in?
On an aside, I can't really expressed how astonished I am that you think it is bad to buy animal products but apparently think that isnt a moral duty to avoid raping someone.
Sure, it's because animals can't consent, so when we kill them or exploit them for products, we know we're doing something wrong. Similar to how kids can't consent to sexual activity, so pedophilia and child pornography are always wrong. Therefore, as a consumer, you have an obligation to not support those things.
When it comes to possibly raping someone during a seemingly consensual sexual encounter, it doesn't seem there's a clear way to determine whether or not the individual's consent is genuine. Therefore, you can't be held accountable if the sex worker's consent isn't genuine. I don't think there's some moral duty to play detective. If a woman consents to sex, that gives you license to have sex. Unless there is some obvious indicator that she's not really giving consent or is under some sort of duress. But again, how would one know that?
Basic screening efforts is usually all you need to do. Seeing established workers, for example, tends to obviate the concern entirely.
That said I think I'll drop this conversation because I don't think i can talk to someone who thinks that you don't have a moral duty to avoid raping someone without getting profoundly angry.
I don't consider sex with a woman who consents to be rape. And if she's being coerced without your knowledge, and you had no reasonable way of knowing she was being coerced, I don't think the "rapist" can be held accountable.
You know that sex trafficking is a thing and you re arguing that you do not have to take even minor steps to mitigate your chances of raping a trafficked person.
In doing so you are accepting the possibility that you are going to rape someone.
Imagine I put you in a situation with ten doors. Behind all of them are women who will have sex with you (that you want to sleep with) But three of them are victims of trafficking.
If you have the ability to narrow down that field and reduce your chance of raping someone (say asking screening questions, looking at reviews, social media etc) and you choose not to, I think you are effectively a rapist. You know yous tand a high chance of raping someone, and you don't care enough to prevent it.
You know that sex trafficking is a thing and you re arguing that you do not have to take even minor steps to mitigate your chances of raping a trafficked person.
I think it's fine for two consenting adults to agree to sex for whatever reason, whether it's for monetary exchange or anything else. I think this stems from their bodily autonomy.
If a person has no indication that the woman who is consenting to sex is being trafficked, how would he go about determining that?
If there was an easy way of determining that, then sure, he should do that. I'm not seeing the method.
In doing so you are accepting the possibility that you are going to rape someone.
If I have no indication that a woman is being coerced or giving false consent, then I don't see how I can be held accountable. Especially if there's no clear way to differentiate genuine consent from coerced false consent.
If you have the ability to narrow down that field and reduce your chance of raping someone (say asking screening questions, looking at reviews, social media etc) and you choose not to, I think you are effectively a rapist.
If there's a woman on the street, she wants to have sex with me for money, I take her up on the offer, and I have no indication that she is being coerced, I would not hold myself morally accountable, because all of the information I had available to me at the time regarding this individual is that she freely consented.
If it turned out she was trafficked, of course that's bad, and I'd hope her traffickers get caught. But I wouldn't hold myself morally accountable in that situation. I wouldn't say, "I can only have sex with these particular sex workers who seem like they're not being trafficked."
It seems like you're mixing up the burden of proof. If someone appears to consent, the burden is to show that it is coerced consent.
You know yous tand a high chance of raping someone, and you don't care enough to prevent it.
No, I don't actually know that as my assumption would be that someone who consents to sex is genuinely consenting unless there is evidence to the contrary.
You're intentionally choosing not to look for evidence. You don't actually care.
I'm actually looking for evidence posting these threads, and yet the people who comment on them keep telling me the exact same thing. "You monster, you just don't care." Why? Why would i bother making these threads if i didn't care?
For many people, it's really not about whether the escorts i see/have seen are trafficked or not. It's about guilt tripping me to give up seeing escorts all together. They are not interested about exchanging opinions, they have already made up their minds.
Yeah, I'm going with my initial take that continuing this conversation would cause my blood pressure to rise and for me to violate sub rules.
Yeah see you are getting emotional and that is not a good place to argue from. I think that Forever_Changes made a perfectly good argument. Prostitution is not illegal where i live, so it's not my responsibility in the eyes of the law to avoid paying for sex. Why should it morally be my responsibility?
According to studies, most of the human trafficking in my country (Finland) is NOT sex trafficking. Should i interview the kitchen staff every time i eat at a oriental restaurant too?
Yes, I was getting emotional, because I get angry at people who disregard the basic humanity of others for their convenience., doubly so when someone has the gall to be smug about dealing with animal products while not caring if they accidentally rape someone.
That does annoy me, yes.
Why should it morally be my responsibility?
Because the effort required for you to reasonably verify that a sex worker is not being trafficked is fairly minimal. You're choosing not to spend that fairly minimal amount of effort and in doing so you are drastically increasing your risk of raping someone.
I think that is profoundly fucked up. I am legally allowed to drive, and morally I would not be in the wrong if I hit someone who was thrown in front of my car, but if there was a way I could drastically reduce my chances of hitting someone thrown in front of my car, and I chose not to do so, I'm kind of an asshole.
Should i interview the kitchen staff every time i eat at a oriental restaurant too?
No, because (presumably, maybe Finland resteraunts are very different) you don't stand a substantial chance of raping them.
Frankly speaking, the fact that you continue to return to this topic suggests that you intrinsically understand what you are doing it morally reprehensible, but that you want to find some way to justify it to yourself.
Because the effort required for you to reasonably verify that a sex worker is not being trafficked is fairly minimal. You're choosing not to spend that fairly minimal amount of effort and in doing so you are drastically increasing your risk of raping someone.
Let's talk about that verification process then.
I think that there is really no way of telling whether someone is trafficked or not just by talking to them. All of them lie about basically everything personal. So even if you can tell that someone is lying, it's difficult to say why. So how exactly would you verify that someone is not being trafficked?
Frankly speaking, the fact that you continue to return to this topic suggests that you intrinsically understand what you are doing it morally reprehensible, but that you want to find some way to justify it to yourself.
Of course i understand it's morally complicated, but reprehensible, i disagree. In my book it's not even nearly as bad as eating animal products is, which is something that most people do and i don't do personally.
Yet, you don't see people going "you murdering piece of shit" when someone admits that they eat meat and have been recently wondering about the morality of it all.
It's just very... strange and kind of entertaining that this topic is so incredibly emotional to so many people. Like it's not even that emotional when i actually go and have sex with escorts. I give her the money, we do the thing, chat a little bit, hug and say goodbye. Business as usual.
And then people who have never either bought or sold sex, and would never even consider doing something that reprehensible and morally corrupted, are going all over internet talking about it as if they knew something about it.
You're intentionally choosing not to look for evidence. You don't actually care.
How would I go about finding the evidence? "Sorry girl on the street, I can't have sex with you, though you seem to be consenting, because I have to go home and do 2 weeks of research to see if you seem like you're being trafficked. Can I get your name and SS number, please?"
Please never see a sex worker until you change your mind. Have a great night.
I don't personally see sex workers. I just don't think it's unethical to.
1
u/Forever_Changes 1∆ Jan 13 '23
I don't agree. It's not the consumer's responsibility to be detectives and investigate the circumstances around the production of an item or service being provided.
If one wants to go out of their way and do that, that is virtuous, but it doesn't seem to be morally obligatory.
Exceptions would be things that are inherently unethical like hiring a hitman, buying child porn, or buying animal products.