>>108936427>But they know its being watched, even if the likelyhood they'll ever meet someone that watched their content is slim.You're retreating to the previous argument:
The additional harm contributed by a functionally invisible consumer is too negligible to be morally significant.
For the moral calculus, this is also confounded by other factors,
In terms of individual agency, someone who is pathologically attracted to pre-pubescents has fewer choices to get off than people with normal attraction. When they offend, they are 'less guilty' than non-p-dophiles who do the same.
That's more philosophical than practical, though.
If you only care about utility, in terms of an overall risk-benefit analysis, one can easily make an argument for CSAM preventing more children from getting hurt, since it reduces the outlets (children) for sexual relief to a small selection of recorded children.
Were we to magically erase all CSAM, we would be looking at a world with more children getting hurt, since p-dophiles will shift their focus to real children.
>Deliberately intending an evil end (sharing revenge porn) or enjoying another’s suffering (consuming CSAM) is a moral wrong.We have to agree to disagree, then. You have a quasi-religious/ axiomatic moral framework where some actions have a static right or wrong function, while I have a more utilitarian-oriented framework.
Just be advised that your thinking will definitionally lead to more tangible harm than what would be found in a perfect utilitarian's world.
>>108936494Sure.
You can make the example as uncomfortable as you want, but I don't derive my morals from superficial comfort.
