I have not given this subject the thought it deserves, but Jonah’s post did catch my attention, wherein he writes: “Again, I can sympathize with a utilitarian argument for legalized prostitution — even if I don’t subscribe to that view. But I can’t subscribe to the view that just because prostitution should be legal that therefore society has to say not only is prostitution morally acceptable but that married men visiting hookers is just fine too.”

This strikes me as an argument for legal positivism. If something is legal or illegal, it is what it is because it is. But is not the better view that law is supposed to reflect the traditions of society, which have developed over time? Does our society not operate within a moral order? Isn’t it obvious that most in our society do not support legalizing prostitution? Therefore, how can one sympathize with a utilitarian argument for legalized prostitution if society rejects it on moral grounds?

And what is the utilitarian argument? It all depends on whom we are talking about. While the “John” may receive pleasure, and while the prostitute may or may not take benefit from it (depending on how much free will is actually involved her decision), how does society benefit? Do families benefit if a husband/father is paying for sex outside of marriage? Do neighborhoods benefit from brothels and street-walkers peddling sex? My point is that the utilitarian argument isn’t particular persuasive, either.

(Note: I am aware that utilitarianism has a variety of philosophical and ethical meanings.)