As Long As There Is Money Or Sex In It

AnythingGoes AsLongAsThereIsMoneyOrSexInIt.

The first item provides the means for people to have a life, the second for society to have future life.

So do not complain about lack of decency, common sense, etc., etc. It is a fact of nature and people cannot and should not fight things that are only natural.

Or Should we?

There is another factor that is also TheEvilThatLurksInTheHeartsOfMen; it is the pursuit of Power. It is, however, not relevant to people whose basic needs have not been met.

Of course, money and sex ARE power...

It seems that this subscribes to "the right to do something means doing it is right," which is clearly a fallacy.

This is along the lines of the difference between "legal/lawfull" and "right/proper" as applied in contract law.

It may be legal to charge "whatever the market will bear" for a product or service, and it may be legal to charge so little you're practically giving it away, even though either one of these can be performed so as to cause significant harm.

It may also be legal to proactively degrade/demoralize/distract a population, but calling it right would be invoking a contrivedly narrow definition of "right" that assumes that the welfare of an individual is at least as important as the welfare of a population. And I actually know people who will argue in favor of this interpretation.

And they would be wrong.

Really? What's their justification? We're not interchanging "rights" and "welfare" here are we?

It's a popular swap. One's "rights" and "welfare" are somehow bound.

The mistake is in equating "right/freedom" with "right/proper" or, similarly, "legal/lawful" with "right/proper" with reasoning like, "well, there's no law that says I mustn't hypnotize you via the TV, so it's okay for me to do that."

You can degrade someone without "hurting" them (for narrow interpretations of "hurt"), so "no one's being harmed" and "it's their choice" and "it's just business."

So it must be right/proper to do, right?