Imagining sexual fantasies in one’s own mind is fine.
Any action which affects no-one but the actor, such as manifesting those fantasies, is also fine.
Distributing non-consensual pornography publicly is not fine.
Distributing tools for the purpose of non-consensual pornography is a grey area (enables (2), which is permissible, and (3), which is not).
From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as “few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem”. I guess I am one of the few.
Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn’t make it immoral).
In the author’s example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn’t amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn’t amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.
The author’s conclusion is also odd:
Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) […] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered […]
Could you not also equally claim that women are being worshipped instead of degraded? Only by knowing the mind of both the consumer and the model can you determine which is happening. And of course each could have different perspectives.
If there were equal amounts of deep fakes of men as women, the conclusion implies that deep fakes would be fine (as that is the only distinction drawn), which is probably not the author’s intention.
I take issue with the use of systemic. The purpose of deep fakes is for sexual gratification of the user, not degradation. Only if you consider being the object of focus for sexual gratification to be degradation could the claim that there is anything systemic. If it was about degradation, wouldn’t consumers be trying to notify targeted people of their deep fake videos and make them as public as possible?
Singling out “women” as a group is somewhat disingenuous. Women are over-represented in all pornography because the majority of consumers are men and the majority of men are only attracted to women. This is quite clear as ugly women aren’t likely to be targeted. It’s not about “being a woman”, it’s about “being attractive to pornography consumers”. I think to claim “degradation of women” with the caveat that “half of women won’t be affected, and also a bunch of attractive males will be” makes the claim vacuous.
If something is amoral then it has no moral implications and is neither good or bad to do. If something is morally bad to do then it is immortal. It’s a common misuse and pointing it out may be a bit pedantic because choices with no moral implications are rarely considered or meaningful but I have to use my degree in applied ethics somehow.
I don’t agree that both parties have to agree that something is degrading for something to be considered degrading. When someone considers it to be degrading that their likelihood, voice, way to talk etc. is used to produce porn, I would say it is degrading to them regardless of whether or not that porn is sent around.
I also think it has an effect on how you treat other people. Especially those you use to produce porn. There will probably never be a study about this, though. Because I guess it would be seen as unethical to test. Which already speaks for itself…
According to consequentialism:
From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as “few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem”. I guess I am one of the few.
Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn’t make it immoral).
In the author’s example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn’t amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn’t amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.
The author’s conclusion is also odd:
If something is amoral then it has no moral implications and is neither good or bad to do. If something is morally bad to do then it is immortal. It’s a common misuse and pointing it out may be a bit pedantic because choices with no moral implications are rarely considered or meaningful but I have to use my degree in applied ethics somehow.
Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?
I don’t agree that both parties have to agree that something is degrading for something to be considered degrading. When someone considers it to be degrading that their likelihood, voice, way to talk etc. is used to produce porn, I would say it is degrading to them regardless of whether or not that porn is sent around.
I also think it has an effect on how you treat other people. Especially those you use to produce porn. There will probably never be a study about this, though. Because I guess it would be seen as unethical to test. Which already speaks for itself…