\documentstyle[12pt,doublespace,newcen]{report}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.3 in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{5.6 in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.45 in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.45 in}
\setlength{\textheight}{8.5 in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{0.0 in}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\vspace*{1 in}
{\center \Huge Why a Conservative can Believe in the Harm Condition \\}
\vspace*{1.5 in}
{\center \large Marc Horowitz \\
November 30, 1988 \\}
\vspace*{1 in}
{\center \normalsize Professor Michael Hardimon \\
Recitation Section 4, TA Larry Kaye \\}
\end{titlepage}

{
\noindent
\large
{\bf Thesis:} Morality and legality are two separate concepts.  A
person is free to decide for himself what is moral, but something
objective such as the harm condition which is detached from moral
views should be used to decide on the legality of an issue.
Pornography, then, should not be legally censored, even if a person
believes it is immoral.
}

\vspace*{0.3 in}
The standard conservative belief that pornography is inherently
immoral is a valid belief, but it does not necessarily have to lead to
the belief that it should be censored.  If a person accepts the harm
condition, he can and must believe that pornography must not be
censored.

A standard conservative's view of pornography is that pornography
represents sexual pleasure as good and removes it from its purpose,
procreation.  Because of this, pornography is immoral.  This is an
acceptable view which can be supported.  Many conservatives take this
view and extend it to say that pornography should be censored, but
this is not a necessary extension.  If a conservative accepts the harm
condition, then he must believe that pornography should not be
censored.  The harm condition states that something can only be
rightfully controlled by legislation if it causes harm.  Obviously,
this definition of the harm condition depends on the definiton of
harm.  Although this can vary, a constraint intrinsic to the harm
condition is that harm caused to a person by his own actions cannot be
included in the harm caused except in extreme cases.  In other words,
the harm caused is defined as the harm caused to other people.  Now, a
person who voluntarily reads pornographic material cannot be stopped,
because he is not causing harm to anyone but himself.  What he is
doing may be immoral, but the government has no right to control it on
these grounds.  Therefore, even if pornography is immoral, it must not
be censored, because this would constitute an extension of the
government into places it does not belong.

This argument against censorship of pornography, although it comes to
the same conclusions, is fundamentally different from the
laissez-faire liberal argument.  The laissez-faire argument has the
same problem as the conservative argument: it relates immorality to
the right to legislate, but since it assumes pornography is immoral,
it arrives at the same conclusion as the harm condition.  The
laissez-faire argument, then, is also dependent on a specific moral
view.  To accept the view of the laissez-faire liberal, one also must
accept his system of morals.  The harm condition, however, is not
dependent on any moral view.  It can be applied to many situations
where people could have different moral opinions.  One can accept the
harm condition without sacrificing his or her own moral views.

For similar reasons, the conservative can legitimately reject the the
liberal's argument.  The argument depends on a premise which is
largely a matter of opinion.  By basing a proof on a moral view, the
liberal ignores the independence and intelligence of those who hold a
different moral view.

Once it is shown that the harm condition leads to non-censorship of
pornography, it becomes unclear if a person can still believe that
pornography is immoral.  Because the proof does not depend on a moral
view, no moral view is implied by it.  If a person believes that
pornography is immoral, he can and should express his opinion.
Although pornographic materials are available, he does not have to buy
them and can still uphold his own moral view.  One of the benefits of
the harm condition argument is that it leaves everyone with the
freedom of choice to do what they feel is right in private.

Without distinguishing the moral views on pornography and the state's
right to censor it, it is impossible to respect a persons
individuality.  To fail to make such a distinction would be denying a
person freedom of moral choice.  The consequences of this would be to
cloud the distinction between morality and legality, two related, but
seperate ideas.  By making this distinction, one is able to give
other people freedom of choice without denying his own opinion on the
morality of pornography or any other issue.

\end{document}

