Debate Guide: If we could only save one child
Negative utilitarianism:
- "If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile"
- "The best assumption is that minors are often hurt by sexual situations. We must apply the "precautionary principle"".
This argument fails, as it dismisses out of hand the many documented adverse effects of the moral/policy scheme surrounding "sexual" offenses.
While the evidentiary basis for an assumption of harm is also lacking, we should first address the poor philosophical foundations of this argument. Ask your opponent how "harm" (however small) overrides all possible benefit? What is this "essence" of harm, wherein even the slightest risk is enough to consider the topic off-limits, and why does this principle only seemingly apply to sex your opponent disapproves of? Could your opponent not construct a sophisticated argument against virtually anything, using "negative utilitarianism"? Cycling on a highway might then be deemed grossly immoral, as would be travelling for holidays or even contact sports, when more sedate alternatives might instead be pursued.
Let's for the benefit of argument, apply a more realistic principle, while not discounting the utilitarian approach. A missed benefit, we might then argue, is just as negative as a burden of harm when one assumes they are of equal and opposing magnitudes and permanence.
Utilitarianism is short-sighted
Even before considering the merit of libertarian alternatives, one inherent flaw of many "utilitarian arguments", is their failure to see beyond a singular snapshot in time.
The benefits described above include not only missed positive sexual experiences but missed learning opportunities which may or may not have been perceived as positive at the time. With application to sex, learning opportunities might help prevent negative experiences in the future, be they related to lack of experience, shame or other factors. With reference to most aspects of our lives, we already accept that avoiding all possible harms at the expense of any likely rewards, is not only unrealistic, but a sign of mental ill-health.