The Assiter piece greatly confused me this week. I know I missed class on Wed because of my torn back muscle, and so if we went over this in class, I apologize.
Assiter contends that all pornography is a violation of autonomy even if the participants are willing. This is enough confusion right there. How would it violate my ability to self-legislate if I do it willingly?
Her explanation is indebted to Kant who claims that all violations of autonomy consist of, at least in part, treating another person as means to an end. Pornography does just that, uses at least one person as means to the end of an other. This is an invalid form though:
If V then M
M
----
V
Where V: One person violates the autonomy of another. M: One person treats another person as means to an end.
The form is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. I wonder, though, if her conclusion is true regardless of the logical form.
