Just My Imagination Running Away With Me

I would like to be a superhero. It would be really cool if I had superpowers. Reading people’s mind like Dr. Xavier would be nice, or maybe flying like Superman, so I could see the world instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a plane ticket. But like Spider-Man, we should know that with great power comes great responsibility, and we can abuse that power. In a way, we already do have these powers, and it is in our mind. I like to clock out of the world and stare off into space, imagine I’m saving orphans from burning buildings, or when I’m not in a good mood, setting fire to people’s property with my laser beam eyes. Most of the time, I’m the good guy. Sometimes, I’m the villain. Is there anything unethical about this?

Probably. I was mad once, and took a picture of an ex girlfriend and I destroyed a picture of her. Did I do her any harm? Not physically, but I did destroy something that represents her. And by destroying that I am, indirectly, harming her. This is why we generally frown upon flag burning and voodoo dolls because they represent real harm to an individual. We are somehow not respecting that person. This is immoral. 

Take an example from the other end of the spectrum. When we imagine that a person is a knight in shining armor, and think of him as noble and chivalrous, my attitude towards that person is positive, and so my thoughts are complimentary and virtuous. If that is the case, then the first example I gave would be derogatory and immoral as my attitude towards that person is negative. The attitudes are present are real, even if the object of that attitude are not present and ontologically real, and so still carry the same moral weight in both cases. 

Perhaps this is why Jesus says that to imagine killing a person is to be morally guilty of actually killing that person. There is a sense in which it is not as bad as actually carrying it out the murder, but Jesus sets up a moral floor, not a moral cap, and killing in your heart is to hit that moral floor. 

The imagination goes further than this. In respecting a person, we acknowledge limits. For example, if I imagined myself, as is, knocking out Mike Tyson, this wouldn’t be fair to Tyson because I should recognize his abilities, and I’m not doing that. If instead I imagined myself to be super buff and ripped, where I punch a guy so hard the seasons change, then Okay, taking on Tyson is fair as I am still respecting his abilities, and hence, the person. We can see that a person still has autonomy even in our imagination. 

We try our best to respect other people’s autonomy. For example, we sometimes think, “What would Jesus do?” or “What would Reagan say?” or “What would Paula Deen add? (Butter. Paula Deen would add a stick of butter). But to treat Tyson as if he were weak is to not respect his autonomy. But then, we can completely overrun his autonomy. For example, I could have Tyson run away in fright from me. He would never do that freely in real life, yet, in my imagination, I can do what even God cannot do, and that is make someone do something freely. God cannot make us do anything freely, for that is a contradiction in terms, yet in my mind, I can make Tyson freely give me all his money. I am completely overriding Tyson’s autonomy and overlooking that he is a person worthy of respect, and not a mere puppet (how Kantian, I know). 

There are three common applicable scenarios that come to mind for these lessons. First is Lolicon. Lolicon is basically animated child porn. Child porn is illegal, but upon the basis that it harms the child. However, cartoons and drawings don’t involve real children, hence no real child is harmed, and so it is legal. But we now see that this is incorrect. When depicting children in Lolicon drawings, they represent the genus of prepubescent girls, even if a particular drawing does not correspond with any particular real child. In Lolicon, these prepubescent girls consent to sex with an older man, which is also not respecting the autonomy, particularly the sexual autonomy, of that child, or the genus of prepubescent girls. Then there is little moral difference from Lolicon, which is legal, and child pornography, which is illegal. 

Then there is video games, which is in a pretty sizable debate when it comes to its alleged effects upon children, and the links between these games and a child’s behavior. Grand Theft Auto V just came out, and apparently, in order to progress through the game, one needs to perform sodomy. The same criticisms apply, however, we become more involved. We must choose ourselves to perform these acts. In reading Lolicon, we can be distant and removed reading about other people. Video games hit the individual harder because the individual is more involved. Do I, the character in the game, perform sodomy or not? There is little moral difference between real life and video game life. 

The most common objection to all this, which has been made in the courts, is that there is a difference between fantasy and reality, and a person can differentiate between the two. This objection ignores the purpose of fantasy, which is to blur that line between the two. That is why fantasy can be so entertaining, because we pretend for a moment that it is real. We pretend for a moment that we can be real villains. Psychologically, there may be some things to be said, but not to the exclusion of morality, and moral acts do change a person, so that must be taken into consideration. 

Thirdly, and finally, there is sexual fantasy. Which is, like, obvious, so I’ll keep it at that. 

Now, with these ideas in mind, what do we do about it? Do we regulate it? Is that even possible? Some people fight against this sort of stuff, labeling it “Thought Control” to invoke the Orwellian warnings of totalitarianism. Fair enough. Policy should deal in generalities and blankets, not individuals or particulars. I would support a policy that might ban something like GTAV on the grounds that it turns people into bad people, and society is not looking to create a bad person. To involve yourself in heinous acts is to make you a bad person which is its own harm and punishment. Banning Lolicon upon the grounds that it truly does violate and harm little children can be carried out. There is an indirect harm there (you wouldn’t want a known pedophile at your parks, even if he were never to act upon it, though constantly entertained it). 

Now, here’s an interesting question: can you fantasize sexually about your wife/husband without it being immoral? I’m not sure. Comments welcome. 

Credit goes to Alexander Pruss for thoughts and "Just My Imgination" by the Temptations for inspiration.