zlacker

I'll preface this by saying I am in favor of making AI child porn illegal. There are probably some details there that will need to be ironed out, but as a baseline it is a good idea.

In your text, however, there is something I find far more interesting for discussion:

> enforce a certain level of morality in their societies

I, personally, like this. I think a society should have a level of enforced moral behavior. But by going down this road, you can reach some undesirable conclusions super fast.

>>surgic+(OP)
> I think a society should have a level of enforced moral behavior.

I, as a person with superior moral principles, completely agree. Following an old tradition, we should also put some psychopaths in charge of enforcement.

>>surgic+(OP)
Society already has a certain level of enforced moral behavior. Making murder or torture illegal is based in morality. Problems arise if we get to less universal. That some things are illegal in one society, but legal in another is also often a consequence of a certain morality in that society. How much morality is "universally accepted" in a society to make violating it something which should also be against the law is a contentious issue. Personally, I think it's good to err on the side of "let people decide for themselves" and only make it into laws in exceptional cases.

>>surgic+(OP)
I'm not sure if you're being downvoted by people who disagree that we should enforce a level of moral behavior or by people who disagree that we reach some undesirable conclusions. I however think both points you make are correct. The truth is we always enforce some behavior which is (almost) the definition of society. Usually we can frame these enforcements as giving or protecting someones rights. But the rights themselves only exists as a result of our moral conclusion. There is no physical substance called human rights that can be seen or observed. I think we can frame this as human rights as well although it becomes more difficult. The current mainstream is that whoever is most directly affected has the right. For example healthcare has been able to become defined as a human right because it affects those who can't afford it most directly and those who lose out are are generally seen by proponents of this right of already having enough or not being affected as much. But in this case we are taking away a right from someone – which, by the way, can almost always be described as giving a right to someone else – who is more immediately affected in order to give a right of some other group. And I think that is where human rights activists get upset with this legislation (ignoring privacy concerns). To them, the one who loses out because of a new human right must deserve to lose it or must be taken away to serve a more immediate right. And they will generally not accept that the way one is born – taking that as true for the moment – can be considered as deserving of losing a right. And that's why I said we don't know how to phrase or justify this law properly.