Sex and Right, Part 3

There are two opposing and equally insufficient ways to get morality: one is egoism, the other altruism. Moral egoism is the view that what is right to do is whatever one thinks is best for oneself. The well-being of others is relevant only so long as it secures one's own well-being. I have a few things to say about this view, but you'll have to wait for my next Sex and Right post to read them. For now, let's look at moral altruism.

Moral altruism is the view that every individual has the inherrent (that is, you have it whether you want it or not), moral obligation to live for others. This isn't the negative obligation to refrain from hurting other people and damaging their property. It's the positive obligation to actively help people to live comfortably. Now, if you think you do have that obligation, I have no problem with you living completely for others. You even have my respect. But most altruists go further than living entirely for others.

To the most egalitarian altruists, the obligation to live for others is an enforceable obligation. Not only do you have to pay for the education of kids you've never seen before - if you don't, the amount of money you owe "society" gets taken away from you. And if you try to resist, you get treated as if you were the one stealing. This is the chic ideology preached from all our pulpits, from White House youtube ads to "Town Hall Meentings" and press conferences on C-SPAN to really bad t-shirts in the mall.

Let's look deeper at this kind of altruism, and see what its logical consequences are.

When they say we have to work for the benefit of others, what do they mean when they say "benefit"? Well, no one can ever talk about a benefit without talking about something that increases someone's happiness. When we talk about the benefits of contemporary life, we're really talking about the level of comfort we have - the amount of free time we have, the quantity, intensity, and accessibility of leisure, the spaciousness of our homes (and whether we have homes), cleanliness, the abundance and variety of food, and the absence of unpleasantries such as physical abuse, extreme social tension, and disease. So altruism is really the view that we all have the inherent, enforceable positive obligation to make other people happy. Since this obligation is enforceable, other people are entitled to force us to make them happy.

(Now, if the purpose of my life is the other guy's happiness, then I don't see what's so wrong with just working for my own happiness. But I digress...)

We're forced to provide housing for those who cannot afford it on their own. We're forced to buy food - through food stamps - for people who cannot feed their whole family. If a man can't afford to send his kid to school, we pay for the education for him. And when his kid is done with school, we send him to college. And we're forced to do it. (And we're forced to fund the rich man's war.) We're compelled to meet such a variety of physical and mental needs, I'm surprised sex isn't one of those needs.

Who's to say sex isn't one of those needs? Very few people live their entire lives celibate. Just look at how many people around you have sex or used to regularly have sex. It's something we're wired to want. And people live much more comfortably when they have a fulfilling sexual outlet. An imam in Iran was griping about women's clothing, and said that once he soiled himself in the car when he passed a woman on the street who wasn't properly covered. That's what happens when men neglect their physical needs.

Since sex is a need just like housing and food, why not mandate the provision of sex? Men have to register for compulsory military service - why not have women register for compulsory sexual service? It'll be all for the greater good. People who don't have access to basic services like food and housing go and steal to meet their needs. Men who don't have access to the baser services are going to rape or do some other ridiculous thing to meet that need.

Think compulsory sexual service is too extreme? Well then, instead of having a draft, we can change our sex reform to merely prohibit discrimination in sexual matters. No longer should people be free to discriminate by body type, facial structure, personality, or odor. You unjustly deny people's right to a full and happy life when you deny access according to physical traits.

This all sounds absurd, and rightly so. A woman's body is her temple, and trespassing on it is sacrilege. Her body is hers and only hers. No one else is entitled to it without her permission. (My views on abortion and a few other things can be found here.)

Now, if no one is entitled to a woman's body without her permission, why are other people entitled to the fruit of a woman's labor without her permission? By what authority can an agency (the government) dictate that such and such proportion of a woman's income is due to other people? Doesn't that sound like slavery?

The altruism that leftists preach amounts to institutionalized rape. It demands that we be forced to do things to make other people happy, as if other people are entitled to our bodies. If any one word can describe this, it's RAPE.

Here's an especially American kind of sex "reform". Instead of having a cumbersome sex draft, just have an adult entertainment licensing program that requires each adult film actress who wants a license to do a film every other year to be broadcast on a public tv channel, maybe C-SPAN X. And you can legalize prostitution and regulate it with a licensing program that has a pro bono quota. And the anti-discrimination law I mentioned above is an essential part of any American "reform"...