Paper Example on Virtual Child Pornography: Why It Is Entirely Unethical

Introduction

Virtual child pornography (VCP) is a unique form of pornography since it does not involve real children. In VCP, sexual acts are performed by computer-generated images in which the 'children' engage in sex with other 'children' or adults. Although actors are not real humans, moral questions arise since the computer-generated characters in VCP glorify sex among children. Based on societal norms, children are not supposed to engage in sex because a majority are classified as non-consenting minors by the law and norms and have fully not developed biologically to derive pleasure from sex. Given the intentions of its creation, the production and distribution of VCP are not ethically permissible and, thus, should be highly restricted.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

VCP is not ethical as it violates the provisions of the utility tenets of ethics. Ethics guide human actions and behaviors. The utility foundation of ethics holds that a moral action is that which results in the achievement of the greatest good/ happiness to the greatest number of people (Playford, Roberts, & Playford, 2014). As such, the theory disproves actions that benefit a few people as unethical and morally impermissible regardless of the benefits such persons obtain. Despite little evidence available on the adverse effects of VCP on children, it is indisputable that VCP impacts on the social behaviors of individuals who watch them and the consequence of watching are potentially harmful to children (Fleming, 2012). Thus, VCP benefits pedophiles and companies creating such images- benefits which accrue to a minority.

VCP is unethical as it violates the principles of common good. The common good approach suggests that ethical reasoning should be based on the interactions with one's community. Individuals exist within the context of a larger community. Therefore, their decisions and actions should be in the best interest of the community. Respect and compassion for vulnerable groups such as children are requirements for such reasoning (Zhang, 2010). Children are an integral part of any community because they perpetuate the existence of the community thereby sustaining the principle of common good. In this case, VCP benefits individuals who do not value the long-term benefits children confer to communities. Such attitudes may be detrimental to the long-term common interests of communities. Moreover, society needs to appreciate that children are a vulnerable group and depend on adults for survival (NAEYC, 2011). Consequently, adults have the duty to protect the interests of children for the common good of that society. VCP promotes the exploitation of children. Whether actual exploitation takes place as a result of watching this literature or not, it represents an adult abrogation of the duty to protect children for the benefit of the wider community in which they live.

Consumption of VCP is ethically impermissible because it contravenes virtues which are cardinal elements of moral behavior. A virtue is a trait considered to be morally acceptable in society (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2003). According to Hursthouse and Pettigrove (2003), virtue ethics underscores the significance of showing admirable traits both in the mind and character. For instance, an honest person is not the one who practices honesty not because of the fear of being caught out, or simply who understands that honesty is the best policy but one who understands the reason for making truthful statements. In context, the Supreme Court ruling in 2002 held that VCP is not harmful as it does not involve real children. While the court's finding is uncontestable, the decision does not absolve VCP consumers of any blame regarding their role in propagating attitudes that demean children. Consumption of VCP is a manifestation of the state of mind of the consumers. In other words, watching of the computer-generated images may not hurt children, but the state of the mind of those who watch is potentially harmful to the children.

VCP needs to be highly restricted since it is the right thing to do in so far as the rights of the children are concerned. Although the law requires that a pornography offense is only admissible when is found producing or distributing images depicting actual children, it is unethical to produce or distribute VCP in the sense that it portrays children as competent sexual actors. The consumers of VCP are not children but adults who seek to derive pleasure from imitations of exploitations of children. Additionally, research has shown that the increasing sophistication of technology has made it even possible for people to produce VCP images that can hardly be differentiated from real images (Holmes, Banks, & Farid, 2016). The desire to present computer images as real as possible is wrong as it aims at making child exploitation an accepted reality.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, virtual child pornography is entirely unethical. The production and distribution of such images should be highly restricted since it benefits a few individuals who cultivate attitudes that are potentially harmful to children.VCP also violates the common interests of communities. Further, VCP goes against standards of human virtues. Moreover, VCP depicts children as competent sexual actors which is wrong and immoral. Although the constitution protects producers and consumers of VCP, its negative impact on social behaviors creates a potential danger for children, making it ethically impermissible.

References

Flemming, T. (2012). Freedom versus child protection: The moral debate about child porn. the Daily Mail [London].

Holmes, O., Banks, M. S., & Farid, H. (2016). Assessing and improving the identification of computer-generated portraits. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 13(2), 1-12. doi:10.1145/2871714

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2003). Virtue ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. doi:10.1093/0199247994.001.0001https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

NAEYC. (2011). Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Ethics%20Position%20Statement2011_09202013update.pdf

Playford, R. C., Roberts, T., & Playford, E. D. (2014). Deontological and utilitarian ethics: a brief introduction in the context of disorders of consciousness. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(21), 2006-2011. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.989337

Zhang, E. (2010). Community, the common good, and public healthcare--confucianism and its relevance to contemporary China. Public Health Ethics, 3(3), 259-266. doi:10.1093/phe/phq030