There is a sweeping claim that pornography is improper. Neither to produce nor to consume. On the other hand, there is great demand for this product, and presumably porn producers and consumers, who are aware of the criticism against them, choose pornography in practice.
The dilemma is which position is more morally correct: the one that endorses pornography or the one that rejects it. Or would you say that “each case should be judged on its own merits”?

I still didn’t understand the question. I asked what the sides are, and I of course mean: what is the side in favor?

Michi, this is a very simple question that doesn’t leave much room for hairsplitting. Also, you’ve encountered it many times in your adult life.
People like porn: you, me, my grandmother, etc. Therefore they consume it (and a small portion of them also produce it). That is the side in favor.
On the other hand, others come along and tell them that pornography is yucky. That is the side against.

So now the dilemma: consume/produce or not?

I see that we’re speaking different languages, so I’ll stop here.

Your responses sometimes deserve special investigation. An entire scientific field could be created just around them. And that’s only with respect to your “object aspect.” We’ll leave the “subject aspect” aside. Science won’t be able to handle that.

I’m deviating from my original question and directing a new one to the readers:

Is there anyone besides Michi who truly doesn’t understand what my original question was (regarding pornography)?

I’m genuinely curious to know, and willing to examine myself on this point.

I’ll help our friends formulate a position, with a concise and schematic wording of the question:
There are many people who feel like doing X.
There is a moral problem with doing X.
What is your opinion on the moral dilemma of whether to do X?
Explain, clarify, elaborate, and prove.
Good luck.

So I’ll help you help them:

There is a dispute whether X (pornography in this case) is beneficial or harmful—in other words, whether it is morally objectionable.
Those against it will say it is objectionable, and therefore even if a person has an inclination/desire/wish to consume or produce pornography, he should overcome it.
Those in favor will say that even if pornography has a moral cost, the moral right of the consumer (and perhaps also the producer) outweighs the relative harm to values such as the image of women and the like.

Obviously, if you create for yourself a straw man who thinks that the conflict is between a moral position and base desire, and nothing more, then there really is no moral dilemma here. I assume your “lack of understanding” here was based on that bit of hairsplitting. Apparently you’re arguing against me that I didn’t present a genuine moral dilemma (between two different and opposing values).

If that is indeed the root of your complication, then maybe you didn’t read well what I wrote:

“The dilemma is which position is more morally correct: the one that endorses pornography or the one that rejects it.”

Michi, I’ll tell you honestly, and precisely out of the respect I have for you and for most of what you say: sometimes you’re petty. Very much so, personally.

Doron, are you sure you’re serious? Even after I tried with all my strength to help, it’s still not working. It’s clear that you understood what I meant, and for some reason you’re repeating the same nonsense again. How exactly do you think there is a moral dilemma between desire and value? Unless you think there is value in consuming pornography—but you didn’t write that. I asked you again and again what the other side of the dilemma is (since a dilemma is supposed to have two sides).
It is obvious that a person has the right to consume pornography. Who here was talking about rights? You were and are talking about a moral dilemma. And I ask again: what are the two sides of the dilemma? Simply bizarre.

I have another dilemma: Reuven really loves money. But stealing involves moral problems. What is your opinion regarding the moral dilemma of whether stealing is permitted or forbidden? Explain, detail, elaborate, and prove.

Doron — in the way you formulated things, Rabbi Michi is absolutely right. “It’s my right” is not an argument in favor of saying that it is morally proper or improper to actively do a certain action. At most it is an argument for why it cannot be prohibited by law (though even that is doubtful), because there is a clash between morality and freedom of occupation. But the dilemma you raised is whether it is proper to consume or film, not whether it should be forbidden by law. And in that context, the argument “it’s my right” is meaningless (there are those who bring other arguments, but that doesn’t matter right now).

By the same logic as yours, I could say there is a moral dilemma about whether it is *proper* to peek at women in the shower. Because there is a conflict between the value of my desire to peek at whoever I want, and the value of the woman’s rights. And my desire to peek gives positive points to explain why it is morally *proper*. In neither your case nor this one is there any moral conflict or dilemma. There is only someone’s desire versus a moral consideration, and Rabbi Michi is right that you didn’t provide any argument for why consuming is positively moral, other than that someone feels like doing it. And the fact that you want something does not give it positive moral weight. Similarly, even when there is no harm to another person, the argument “it’s my right” is not relevant in contexts of propriety. For example, the fact that you like eating pizza does not make it morally proper; eating pizza is morally neutral (leaving health considerations aside for the moment). Therefore, someone’s desire does not make something morally proper. What we have here is a conflict between your desire and morality. That’s all. Decide what you do with it.

To justify why there is a moral dilemma, you would have to provide positive arguments as to why one *should* watch pornography. Once you bring those, it would be possible to discuss the pros and cons. There are such arguments, by the way (for instance: that it reduces the desire of sex offenders to rape in the street), but it seems to me that they are not relevant in the case of an ordinary sane person.

Rabbi, from a purely moral standpoint,
can one say that given a very great desire and a very small prohibition, there is justification for violating the prohibition?
For example, you consume milk products, I believe, at a time when in your view this is a moral problem.

One can say that. Though I prefer the claim that it is forgivable rather than that it is permitted.

I am ashamed and embarrassed. On further reflection, I see that my wording really did come out sloppy.

Though I suspect that Michi understood perfectly well from the outset that I was aiming at a clash between two different values (for example, the autonomy of the pornography consumer to choose for himself what to do within his own private space) and harm to the image of women and the like.

And now, after scrubbing away my sins (I already feel much better), I return to the question:
What, in your opinion, takes precedence in the case of pornography consumption (I’m leaving aside for the moment the question of its production): the autonomy of the pornography consumer to live according to his wishes in his own private domain, or the social and educational harm created by the degradation of women (and perhaps also men)? That is assuming the harm is real.

“In the place where penitents stand…”
But one of the stages of repentance is that he commit himself never to return to that sin again. Here you immediately return to your sin—that is, you again formulate the question sloppily. What does “what takes precedence” mean? From the standpoint of the pornography consumer himself, there is a moral prohibition on using it, but he has the legal right to violate that prohibition. So there is no moral dilemma here. It’s like the “dilemma” of whether to insult someone because I feel like it (and I have the legal right to do so). Or perhaps you mean to ask whether it should be prohibited by law? If the harm is clear, then yes. I say this in light of the data you presented (his rights versus harm to others). There are of course other considerations that did not arise here (like those M wrote).

Rabbi, how can one say that it is forgivable and not that it is permitted, if a value is something “infinite” and therefore would seemingly always prevail in an argument against desire?….

You answer the question yourself and end with a question mark. Strange. Forgivable means that it is indeed not okay, but one can understand why it happened. Mitigating circumstances.

Doron, it seems to me that one can add to the pro-pornography side that, after all, the figures acting there choose it, and some of them do so מתוך מחשבה that it is not a degrading profession (I know that’s basically nonsense, but I’ve already heard people defend it for that reason). Just as a carpenter sells his body for making wood products, there too their bodies are sold for certain kinds of filming.

Now, one could say that if the “actresses” there choose to participate in this madness of their own free will, I have no right to tell her that it isn’t proper. In any case, it thereby becomes proper for her, and perhaps also for everyone else. (It is enough that what comes from the law should be like the case itself.)

I think what I wrote is nonsense, but maybe it’s a positive angle for presenting the side that holds that pornography is not morally objectionable.

Forgive me, your very distinguished honor, have you perhaps considered that consuming that thing you’re talking about falls under an actual halakhic prohibition (indeed, even several prohibitions)??? Is the only consideration that moves us our own morality??? God Himself prohibited us from straying after our hearts and eyes, and Heaven forbid from wasting seed—is the commandment of the Creator of the world not an argument, or at least a consideration worth raising? Unless, of course, you dispute the claim that: A) there is a Creator of the world, and/or B) He commanded us that it is forbidden; if so, that is a different discussion. But if not, then this is only a theoretical discussion of whether, in a situation where… (there were no commandment, it were permitted, etc.) such-and-such would be the case—and I don’t see exactly who that matters to, except for someone who doesn’t believe in the things mentioned above, in which case there are much more important questions he should ask the Rabbi.

The questioner here (Doron) indeed does not believe in the things mentioned above, and he made it clear that his question is moral and not halakhic.

Yosef, if you look, I didn’t ask this question, and I joined in halfway through because the discussion here didn’t seem to me to be a halakhic discussion…
So what is the problem with clarifying it from the moral side (which, with respect to that too, I didn’t really speak about), and even if we assume it is permitted from that standpoint,
it would still be forbidden from the standpoint of Jewish law………..

The question was only in the moral aspect. The view of Jewish law is not relevant.
Basically, I think pornography is legitimate from the standpoint of consumers and probably also from the standpoint of producers. Clearly, based on that assumption, my conclusion is that it would be forbidden to prevent it through legislation. Not to mention the great joy that would disappear from our lives if laws against pornography were enacted…
Beyond that, I would not argue that one should be “forgiving” toward pornography consumers—many of them are reading these words right now—because forgiveness is shown toward someone who does something bad but has mitigating circumstances. In my view, the consumers (and in many cases also the producers) are not doing anything “bad” at all.
Although there is probably a kernel of truth in the claim (mainly feminist in origin) that pornography cheapens human beings, especially daughters of Eve, many other things do that too and yet we will not give them up. The value of human autonomy outweighs the diminished dignity of “the human being” (as this is presented by the opponents).

I hope I haven’t created expectations among those interested in the topic that I’m going to provide links or recommendations to the various sites.

Doron, it’s not a “kernel of truth”; pornography cheapens everything. There are many studies on this.
It distorts people’s sexual thinking because of this sexual consciousness-engineering.

There is a very serious side to saying that it is immoral; you’re really minimizing it, and I hope unintentionally.
It follows from your words that the lenient side is that people want to make money, and they are aware of the consequences, and nevertheless they don’t care. (By the same token, heads of criminal organizations are also aware of the consequences, and they don’t care.)

In my opinion, one really has to discuss the actual merits of the arguments for saying it is not morally objectionable, against the arguments that it is morally neutral, and decide.