Arguments that makes a point

1. For if sexual activity is unobjectionable when it is without romantic significance,

then what is the harm in the commodification of such activity? What can money
add to the transaction that transforms it into something worthy of moral
censure?

”Consensual sex is legal. But as soon as one party offers cash to another in exchange
for sex and that money is voluntarily accepted, it's considered prostitution, and that is
illegal. This is hypocritical, illogical, and wasteful - and it needs to stop.
Perhaps you think sex work is an immoral lifestyle. However, it is arguably no less moral
than a lifestyle of random 'hooking up,' or the stereotypical lifestyle of the
professional athlete or rock star who brags about how many women he has had
sex with.

2. “On objectification of women”

-Perhaps, the Kantian party could object to prostitution based upon the Principle of
Humanity; which states that you must never degrade a human to such a level that you
use them as merely a means to a certain end. In this situation the prostitute is using a
client for cash, and the client is using the prostitute for sexual gratification. This is
however a debatable objection because to a certain extent we always use people
to get what we need. For example you use your boss in order to get a paycheck, you
use a spouse as to not be lonely and share your life with love. It is here that the method
of using someone can be challenged. Perhaps a stricter Kantian would believe support
my prior rebuttal however he would add that the person being used will reap no benefits,
and is strictly a tool to commute between points A and B. In this case the proper
response to the counterargument would be that since a prostitute is using the
person and in return giving them pleasure, then it is in fact, not a violation of the
principle of humanity. No matter what we do in life, we are using someone in a way
that could potentially violate the principle of humanity. However there is a line, if
you are to use someone as a means to achieve a goal, then you must give
something back to them. If I buy a candy bar at a store, I am simply using the clerk as
a way to get my candy bar. In turn I give him the money, which funds the company, which
in turns writes his paychecks. The same goes for prostitution, the client has sex with
a prostitute, the client pays the prostitute for received pleasure, and then she pays
her bills. It is not a violation because it is a trade that occurs between two
consenting individuals for mutual benefit

-If the objection is that it’s wrong to pay a person for sexual gratification because
it treats them as an object to serve our needs, I answer that many other kinds of
economic transactions do the same thing. We pay others to cook for us, to clean for
us, to oversee our health, to give us vicarious thrills and excitement, and no one seems
to find anything at all unsavory or disturbing about any of these. Sex is a basic human
drive the same as all the others. Why should sex be the only one it’s forbidden to sell?
… On the objection “that prostitution would raise the idea
that the human body can be bought and sold”. This would destroy the integrity of an
individual,
treating them like stock or animals. Many people would be inclined to believe that this
would
destroy everything that we fought to abolish during the civil war. It is, at first glance, valid
argument, however it is unfortunately something that already occurs. You can sell sperm,
which
is a body part and also equally degrading, in the same respect you can also sell your
eggs.
Strippers will undress and expose their bodies for cash, and you can pay for your body to
be
modified in many ways with plastic surgery. It is even possible to pay someone to carry
your
fetus as a surrogate; you can purchase blood, participate in medical trials, sell hair, and
sell your plasma. All of these things involve selling and buying parts of the body, which is
perhaps
immoral in itself one may say. However it is an action that is carried out willingly and with
full
knowledge and consent of the party. I do not believe that making money in these ways is
immoral, so why would prostitution be?

3. Utilitarianism- benefits for the country

“Because it will exist anyway, it is almost neglectful of the government to leave it

as is.”

a. Criminalizing prostitution makes sex trafficking more likely. One widely

recognized consequence of prohibition is the formation of cartels, which in a black market
are more likely to use violence. This violence drives some producers out of the market,
leading to higher prices and large criminal enterprises with monopoly power. Instead of
breaking apart sex-trafficking rings, prohibition increases their profitability, making
trafficking more appealing to criminal enterprises...
After legalizing prostitution in 2003, New Zealand found 'no incidence of human
trafficking.' Moreover, legalization made it easier for sex workers to report abuse and for
police to prosecute sex crimes."

b. Reduces sexual abuse and rape ”The Netherlands holds a long tradition of regulated
tolerance toward prostitution. Besides the well-known window prostitution in red-light
districts, the Dutch government also regulates other parts of the sex industry...
Our empirical results show that opening a tippelzone [designated legal street prostitution
zone in the Netherlands] reduces sexual abuse and rape. These results are mainly driven
by a 30–40 percent reduction in the first two years after opening the tippelzone. For
tippelzones with a licensing system, we additionally find long-term decreases in sexual
assault and a 25 percent decrease in drug-related crime, which persists in the medium to
long run."
Research evidence supports this argument. An analysis of data from 27 European
countries found that in countries that have legalised some aspects of sex work there is a
significantly lower HIV prevalence among sex workers compared to those countries
where all aspects of sex work are criminalised."

c. Economical Benefits ”[Prostitution is] a multimillion-dollar-a-year business in Las

Vegas, and nobody gets any taxes off of it... The city and the county could probably make
about $25 million a year in taxes off of legalized prostitution...
Right now they spend a lot of money policing vice. Why not eliminate that and turn it into
a revenue maker, instead of having to pay to police it? Once you legalize it, you're going
to take out most of the illegal prostitution...

If a consumer has a choice between a legal place of business and an illegal criminal
operation, he's going to go to the legal place. That's because he knows there's no
problems waiting to happen there."

Prostitution is legal in 49 countries, illegal in 39 nations and has limited legality in

12 others as of 2016

Utilitarians also argue that the general wellbeing of the population may be against
prostitution as an employment outlet because it may lead to the outbreak of a Sexually
Transmitted Disease. This is a possible outcome; however in 11 counties of Nevada,
prostitution is legal and taxable. This comes with of course certain restrictions, there is
usually a set fee for the brothel, they earn a normal paycheck with tax deductions,
and they must go for routine Sexually Transmitted Disease scans and tests if they
want to continue as part of the brothel

In fact, it may be argued that sex is a natural instinct, thus it is not even up for moral
debate. This would be as if we called into question the morality of urinating. Is it immoral
to hold your urine if you really need to go? How ridiculous of an argument that would be,
making an individual conform to these restrictions that limit natural callings. No one would
judge the morality of an individual’s bathroom usage, so why is it so easy for sexuality to
be judged? Of course there are limits imposed to regulate natural occurrences

d. It would be regulated- In the sex industry it goes without saying that many minors
take part in this lifestyle. It is a common concern that the legalization of prostitution
would encourage minors to sell their bodies for cash, drugs, and other
miscellaneous items. Of course this is a possible outcome, but the wonderful thing
about prostitution being legal is that it could be regulated.

An age restriction would of course be placed on this profession due to legal

implications and other damaging results. Perhaps it would even be required that
prostitutes looking to gain employment with brothel would be required to complete a
certificate program. Here they would study anatomy, health, business, and other areas to
become educated in their line of work. With legality and education, the world of prostitution
would become far more safe, regulated, and of course taxable.

The legalization of prostitution, however, would most likely be regarded as a moral action.
If the government decides to legalize prostitution as a means to enhance the economy
and provide jobs, one could say that this would be perfectly acceptable and societally
beneficial. If health and safety standards are vastly improved, and both parties are
guaranteed to be treated with respect during the process, then it would be considered
ethically sound to legitimize a profession that would undoubtedly remain to take place
without legalization.

The mere fact that prostitution is correlated with psychological problems is not enough to
show that prostitution causes those problems. It could be that current social attitudes drive
the problems, not the activity itself.
The problem, once again, is that it could be the social (and oftentimes legal) prohibition
of prostitution that gives rise to the increased risks, not the prostitution itself.

If prostitution is illegal, prostitutes who are cheated or suffer abuse at the hands of pimps
or customers can’t bring their complaints to the police, and there’s little incentive for them
to submit to testing for drugs or disease. Similarly, the lack of oversight makes possible
the kidnapping and sexual slavery of women. In fact, there’s a strong case that many of
the social ills surrounding prostitution arise not despite but because of its illegality. If this
is true, it would do more good to bring it into the light, where it can be overseen and
regulated.

Most theories of consentuality have three conditions or norms that distinguish valid and
invalid consent: mental competence, informed decisions, and voluntariness. If any of the
three components are missing, the consent is invalid, even if a person says ‗yes‘ to a
sexual act.191 The first criterion, mental competence, amounts to ―both an ability to
understand the nature of that to which she [or he] is consenting and an ability to make a
decision in respect of the matter.‖192 There are several reasons why a person would lack
the necessary capacity to make a decision. A person who is mentally ill or disabled is
considered incompetent to consent, as is often determined by law, for instance, when a
person is deemed unfit to care for his/her estate or welfare and this would also apply to
sexual consent. However, while this is a permanent incapacity, some incapacities are not
permanent. A prime example of a lack of mental competence that is temporary is
embodied in a minor. Someone who is under the proper ‗age of consent‘ as dictated by
the law is, by definition, unable to give consent to an act because they are unable to fully
comprehend the nature of the situation or to make a decision about it. There are different
ages set by law for different situations depending on the impact the decision could have
on a minor‘s life (such as sexual intercourse) or even society at large (as is the case with
setting a voting age).