Read Porn - Philosophy for Everyone: How to Think With Kink for Free Online Page A

determine our quality of life? Perhaps there are, but we suspect that
any
putative objective factor offered as an answer will be susceptible to the “anomaly” seen above in the case of physical disability. Our lives may lack some, or many, of the putative objective “facts” about wellbeing, yet nevertheless our subjective reports of prudential value could be “normal” or better. We make psychological adjustments to the objective conditions of our lives, and those adjustments preserve the possibility of our maintaining a high degree of wellbeing.
     
    We are not convinced that the Happy Slave shows what it wants to show in the first place. Are we forced to conclude that there must be some objective factor to wellbeing on the basis of the fact that we make the third-person judgment that the slave is worse off? No.We believe that this example has force precisely because it confuses or conflates the distinction made above concerning moral and prudential value. It is clear that something is
wrong
in the slave case – something immoral occurs when people are forced into servitude against their will, oppressed, and so forth. The patent immorality of the situation confuses us into accepting that the slave’s life must be worse off; she is the non-consensual victim of a wicked institution, cruel treatment, and restrictions on her autonomy. Her life is
morally
worse off, that much is clear. Nevertheless, as we argued above, this does not determine anything with respect to her wellbeing. She may, without contradiction, genuinely judge that her quality of life is high, despite the fact that she suffers ill use at the hands of others. Again, changing what needs to be changed, the same applies to the case of a porn performer.
     
    One might point out that we have good reason to doubt the
sincerity
of a porn star’s subjective report about her wellbeing. How do we know that when a porn performer, like Dylan, tells us her life is great and that she enjoys porn she really
means
it? Is it not likely that her claims are coerced, either directly and indirectly, and if so, why should we believe what she says? The same may be true of the slave, women in oppressive cultures, and regular dudes who work for Budweiser. It is a common occurrence. Few of us are willing to risk getting in trouble by not “towing the party line,” as it were.The porn star risks her livelihood by being honest.Telling the truth about how much porn star lives suck would be a quick route to the industry blacklist.
     
    We concede that this is possible, in practice. Some porn employees may simply be towing the party line when they tell us how much they love their jobs, working in the industry, having hot nasty sex for money, and so on. But suppose we fixed the conditions under which they made assertions about their wellbeing. Suppose we could assure that no one in the industry would ever discover what they said, and do so in a way that promised no repercussions or loss of livelihood? Why then would we doubt what they told us? In principle, the interference or coercion would be obviated, so we would have no reason to doubt their sincerity. Besides, this is an empirical question we could resolve with the right kind of blind survey, and is somewhat beside the point of whether a porn star
could
enjoy a high quality of life despite her industry.
     
    The last objection we will consider might go as follows: “Suppose you are right that being exploited, coerced, and so on does not necessarily diminish one’s wellbeing. Doesn’t this seem to excuse the bad behavior of oppressive individuals and institutions? For example, one may argue that ‘since so-and-so (insert victim or victim group here) is not necessarily “worse off” for my oppression, there is little reason for me to stop doing what I am doing.’ After all, no one is necessarily ‘hurt’ by the oppressive activity – one can live a fulfilling life in spite of it all.”
     
    In response, we concede