On July 26, 1991, Paul Reubens, better known as the affably paedomorphic Pee-Wee Herman, was arrested for indecency in the South Trail Cinema, an X-rated theater in Sarasota, Florida. It seems that the actor, then star of his own syndicated children's television series that followed his wildly popular film Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, was enjoying Nancy Nurse a bit too carnally for a public venue.
The event quickly turned into a media feeding frenzy and exploitative fodder for stand up comics, including Reubens himself who, as subsequent host of a television award's show, quipped "anyone seen any good movies lately?" The Pee-Wee porn affair was much ado about nothing. Most wondered why he did not simply indulge his passions in the privacy of a hotel room or his own home, where such materials are readily available and confidentially enjoyed. Unfortunately, the image of some guy masturbating to an erotic film in a public theater is what far too many people conjure up in their imagination when they hear the word pornography.
Pornography Defined
Words matter and language counts. "Feminist" is a fine word that describes someone who believes in the need to secure both the rights and opportunities for women equivalent to those provided for men. Unfortunately, thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh, it has also come to be associated with sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, postmodern, deconstructionist, left-leaning liberals best scorned as "Femi-Nazis." Likewise, "atheist" is a descriptive term that simply means "without theism," and describes someone who does not believe in God(s). Unfortunately, thanks to religious fundamentalists, it has also come to be associated with godless, immoral, pinko communists hell bent on corrupting the morals of America's youth with such heathen and heretical nonsense as evolutionary theory and scientific naturalism. Speak the scorn into existence.
Simply defined, pornography constitutes images in the form of films, videos, photographs, literature, and other materials that enhance sexual arousal. What images, specifically, constitute pornography is so fraught with moral and legal complications that it led D. H. Lawrence to comment "what is pornography to one man is the laughter of genius to another," and to Justice Stewart's famous pronouncement that although he could not define pornography "I know it when I see it."1 Unlike all the other primates (with the exception of Bonobo chimpanzees), whose sex lives are largely governed by seasonal periods of receptivity (primarily when the female is "in heat"), humans evolved as a social hierarchical primate species with the desire and capability of engaging in sexual behavior any time of the year. Thus, who would object to enhancing the arousal of a perfectly natural and exceptionally pleasurable activity designed to propagate the species and bring new life into the world?
Plenty of people, as a matter of fact, do object to such supplemental activities, and as such they have been largely successful in transmogrifying the word pornography into a lewd and smutty activity conducted by sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, left-leaning, liberal, pinko, godless, communists, homosexuals, and perverts of all stripes for the purpose of preventing this great nation from returning to its roots as a Christian country and to subvert its foundation in the puritanical ethic whose greatest fear is that somewhere someone out there is enjoying carnal pleasure. Pornography, we are told, is immoral- a sin of the mind only slightly less violative than such sins of the body as adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex. Even President Jimmy Carter shamefully confessed that he "lusted in his heart."
Provisional Ethics
I am a scientist and a historian (and a historian of science), not a moral philosopher or political activist. I am more interested in how the world really works, not on how it should work according to some set of philosophical or political beliefs. In science, we deal in facts and theories- that is, the data of the world and how those data confirm or disconfirm theories that attempt to explain the world. We also deal in "facts," as in how certain we are about our data and theories. The late Harvard evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould put it well: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"2 That is, scientific facts are conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer our conditional agreement. Heliocentrism- the theory that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa- is as factual as it gets in science. The theory of gravity shares an equal status in the annals of science, and the theory of evolution is not far behind in its factual firmness. Other scientific theories, such as superstring theory, inflationary cosmology, and multiple universes, are less factual in this sense, for more research is needed to confirm or disconfirm their veracity.
In my forthcoming book Why We Are Moral (the third volume in my belief trilogy that includes Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe), I present a theory of Provisional Ethics in which moral choices might be considered analogous to scientific facts, in being provisionally right or provisionally wrong, provisionally moral or provisionally immoral: In Provisional Ethics, "moral" or "immoral" means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent.
Provisional is an appropriate word here, meaning conditional, pending confirmation or validation. In provisional ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our conditional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change. And, obviously, some moral principles have less evidence and justification for them than others, and therefore they are more provisional and more personal.
Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and relative moral systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable for most people in most circumstances most of the time, yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior, culture, and circumstances. What I am getting at is that there are moral principles by which we can construct an ethical theory. These principles are not absolute (no exceptions), nor are they relative (anything goes). They are provisional- true for most people in most circumstances most of the time. And they are objective, in the sense of moral objectivism that holds that morality is independent of the individual. The moral sentiments evolved as part of our species, so moral principles can be seen as transcendent of the individual, making them morally objective. Whenever possible moral questions should be subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny, much as nature's questions are subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny.
Provisional Pornography
Let's see how provisional ethics applies to pornography, examining three types: mental pornography, positive pornography, and negative pornography. In essence, I shall argue that mental pornography and positive pornography are not immoral because most people in most circumstances most of the time are not harmed by them and, in fact, may find much pleasure in them, both individually and in their relationships. There is, however, some evidence that negative pornography (pornography that depicts harm or violence against women such as pleasure in being raped) is harmful to at least some people in some circumstances some of the time, and may therefore be considered provisionally immoral. Let's examine what science can tell us about the effects of pornography of these three types.
Mental pornography. Stripped of its pejorative connotations and seen for what it really is- images that enhance sexual arousal- then the simplest form of pornography is the sexual images in our imaginations. Mental pornography, or what Havelock Ellis called "autoeroticism," is one of the most ubiquitous of all sexual activities. I do not know if sexual fantasy itself evolved, providing some selective advantage to individuals who had them versus those who did not, or if autoeroticism is just a spandrel- a byproduct of some other evolutionary adaptation. But certainly the ability to fantasize in general did evolve as a useful byproduct of a large cerebral cortex, and no doubt this ability did provide a selective advantage (imagining the positive outcome of a hunt, or the negative consequences of a fight). Sexual fantasies are probably a contingent free ride that goes with having a large brain capable of fantasizing about other scenarios in life. But since social relations between humans are so important, and because sex is so intimately interdigitated with how we feel about and interact with other members of our group, then it would not surprise me if it turned out that fantasizing about sexual relations with others did serve some functional purpose in our evolutionary history.
Religion has always struggled with sex, including the mere fantasy of it. Consider this medieval church punishment in the form of penances for erotic fantasies among church leaders of ascending stripes: 25 days for a deacon, 30 days for a monk, 40 days for a priest, and 50 days for a bishop. (I guess the Pope is not only infallible, but also unimaginative.) How can something so harmless to others (this assumes negative sexual fantasies are not expressed behaviorally- more on this below in the discussion of negative pornography) and yet so fun and fulfilling to the individual be immoral? Science sees it rather differently. Erotic fantasies may serve a variety of personal functions, including the fact that sometimes it is a lot easier to just fantasize about a sexual encounter than it is to actually invest the time, energy, money, and risk of rejection, failure, disease, personal rejection, social ostracization, or an unsatisfactory experience in an actual sexual encounter. Some of the best sex any of us have ever experienced is the sex in our minds. That mental sex may be informed by actual sexual experiences- usually the most enjoyable ones we have had with a partner who is especially important to us- but it remains safely ensconced in the private domain within our skulls.
Therefore, from a provisional ethics perspective, it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional assent that mental pornography in the form of positive sexual fantasies are not immoral because the evidence confirms that almost everyone has them, they provide numerous benefits, they harm no one else, and thus they are justified if so desired by the individual or couple (sharing your sexual fantasies with your partner, particularly if they are positive and about that partner, can be very sensual).
Positive Pornography. I define positive pornography as images that enhance sexual arousal by depicting individuals or couples in non-harmful and non-exploitative sexual situations. (I do not consider S&M harmful as long as the partners involved in an S&M encounter are willing participants.) Films, videos, photographs, and literature that depict individuals masturbating or couples engaging in consensual sex, and viewed by either individuals alone or couples together for personal enjoyment, is pornography in a positive mode. So-called soft-porn films that leave something to the imagination and that depict sex as a romantic and loving expression of affection between two people is a fine example of positive pornography. So too is the body of erotica literature in its higher form through authors such as the French diarist and novelist Anas Nin. In fact, as I shall suggest at the end of this article, erotica is a synonym for positive pornography.
By contrast, pulp fiction romance novels that portray love making in crass terms, such as describing a man's "throbbing pole of love," and so-called hardcore porn films that leave nothing to the imagination in graphically revealing cunnilingus and fellatio, vaginal and anal penetration, ejaculation, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex with strangers in unlikely venues tend to be preferred much more by men than by women. Although most of these are still in the realm of positive pornography in that the women are not shown in exploitative scenarios, they tend to hover near the borderlands between positive and negative pornography. Contrast these images with the following passage from Anas Nin's book of erotica, Little Birds, in a short story about a young woman married to an older man who delayed ultimate intimacy several nights to "woo her slowly and lingeringly, until she was prepared and in the mood." After several nights of teasing kisses and caresses,"He discovered the trembling sensibility under the arm, at the nascence of the breasts, the vibrations that ran between the nipples and the sex, and between the sex mouth and the lips, all the mysterious links that roused and stirred places other than the one being kissed, currents running from the roots of the hair to the roots of the spine. Each place he kissed he worshiped with adoring words, observing the dimples at the end of her back, the firmness of her buttocks, the extreme arch of her back, which threw her buttocks outwards. He encircled her ankles with his fingers, lingered over her feet, which were perfect like her hands, stroked over and over again the smooth statuesque lines of her neck, lost himself in her long heavy hair"3
Pages later the lovers finally embrace in full intimacy. This is positive pornography at its finest and research shows that it is very effective in sexually arousing both men and women. Physiological research, for example, shows that penile erection, vaginal vasocongestion, blood pressure, and genital temperature all increase in response to exposure to positive pornographic material, and that such arousal effects can be also be generated through the imagination alone.4
There are cases, of course, when positive pornography can become negative (in a manner different from negative pornography to be discussed below), and that is when pornography becomes an alternative rather than a supplement to a satisfying sexual relationship with your partner. Here we are well advised to follow Aristotle's golden mean rule of all things in moderation. If the viewing of pornography becomes so addictive and compelling that it replaces sex with your partner, and your partner then becomes dissatisfied with this arrangement, then such pornography is no longer positive. We should always remember that, by definition, pornography is supposed to enhance sexual arousal, not replace it. When in doubt, ask your partner. (More on this as an ethical principle below.)
On the flip side, positive pornography may be a useful substitute for sex when you are in between relationships or, for whatever reason, you do not desire a sexual relationship with your partner (and your partner is not frustrated by this substitution). Sex with yourself is safe, and pornography can be a positive enhancement of the self-sexual experience.
Negative Pornography. I define negative pornography as images that enhance sexual arousal by depicting sex as violent, abusive, or exploitative, and especially those that imply or show women being seduced and raped against their will and then enjoying the experience as it unfolds. Here we enter the darker realm of rape and the relationship of pornography to this especially malevolent act.
One of the harshest arguments made against pornography is that it leads men to rape women. Indeed, attacks on pornography often begin here and come not just from the conservative right but from the liberal left as well, mainly from extreme feminists. Catherine Mackinnon, for example, described pornography as "the celebration, the promotion, the authorization and the legitimization of rape, sexual harassment, battery and the abuse of children." Andrea Dworkin defined pornography as "the material means of sexualizing inequality."5 As a blanket causal variable in the study of why men rape, however, there is no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, if only it were as simple as eliminating pornography in order to eliminate rape, but it is not so, as evidenced by the fact that rape has been a tragic part of human history millennia before pornography of any sort made its appearance on the cultural landscape.
With pornography and rape we need to make an important causal distinction: although some rapists have watched and enjoyed pornography (as noted by critics in citing serial rapist and killer Ted Bundy's remark just before his execution, "You are going to kill me, but out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that"), by far the vast majority of men who have watched and enjoyed pornography have never raped. In a review of seven studies on the relationship of pornography to sex offenders of all types, Berl Kutchinsky concluded: "Sex offenders are, as a rule, not more acquainted with pornography or more sexually aroused by such material than are other males- in fact, such differences tend to be in the opposite direction."6 Indeed, an extensive study of rapists and their backgrounds revealed that instead of being driven to rape by the hypersexuality allegedly produced by pornography, rapists tend to come from sexually repressed environments in which sex was rarely or never discussed, nudity was forbidden, and sexuality was portrayed as sinful. By contrast, nonrapists (as a control group of sorts) were more likely than rapists to have experienced pornography while growing up and to have been raised in a family environment in which sex was openly discussed and not shamed into quiescence.7
Several correlational studies were equivocal on the relationship between pornography and rape. A 1986 study investigated the relationship between exposure to sexually explicit material and attitudes toward rape in 115 men, finding that only exposure to coercive or violent sexual themes was related to more traditional attitudes about women as submissive and inferior; but contrary to predictions, subjects with greater exposure to general and nonviolent sexual materials held more liberal and egalitarian attitudes toward women. A 1991 study based on data from the Uniform Crime Reports, circulation data from three sexually oriented magazines, and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas found no relationship between pornography and rape, but that population size, proportion of young adults, percentage divorced, and population change were all significant predictors of rape. Finally, in an extensive cross-cultural study of rape in four countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the U.S.), there was no correlation between the availability of pornography (type not specified) and increased sexual violence.8
Interestingly, a number of studies point to a possible catharsis effect for pornography, with most citing Denmark and Japan as examples. In the 1960s Denmark experienced a surge in pornography but instead of taking draconian measures to stop it, the government lifted all bans and subsequently there was a dramatic drop in sex crimes. In Japan, levels of pornography are as high or higher than in America, while rates of sex crimes are 14 times lower than in the U.S. (34.5 rapes per 100,000 in the U.S. v. 2.4 in Japan). "Japanese view the availability of such stimuli as a cathartic valve," wrote the researchers Abramson and Hayashi. "It is presumed to provide vicarious satisfaction of a socially unacceptable behavior. In a culture that endorses strict codes of behavior and highly defined roles, the depiction off rape also provides a context in which Japanese men can vicariously abandon all off the explicit signposts of good behavior."9 Of course, this is not a recipe for subjecting potential rapists to pornography, but at the very least this evidence shows that whatever the cause of rape it is clearly not pornography by itself.
On the other hand, negative pornography as I have defined it, particularly pornography that depicts a reluctant women who subsequently succumbs to the pressures of her would-be lover and in the end enjoys the experience, may elicit in male viewers inappropriate sexual behavior toward unwilling females. A number of studies show a strong positive correlation between such pornographic scenarios and their self-reported probability of raping a woman.10 A corroborative study on non-pornographic but aggressive material found an equally positive correlation between portrayed aggression toward women and actual aggression toward women.11 According to Indiana University psychologist Dolf Zillmann, what generates or increases aggression toward women are not specific sexual or aggressive acts toward women per se, but the overall degree of excitation within the film itself. But this varies considerably among individuals; pornographic and aggressive films appear to have the greatest effect on individuals with limited social and sexual experience. "Persons with limited sexual socialization experience in particular have been found to respond negatively to erotica. Such persons"appears to be especially vulnerable to behaving aggressively after exposure to erotica, even to comparatively mild erotica- innocuous as their stimuli may seem to others." Similarly, W. A. Fisher and D. Byrne found that pornography had a greater effect on people whose attitudes toward sex were negative.12
A particularly important finding made by Neil Malamuth and J.V.P. Check was that rapists who report that they are more likely to rape if they think they would not get caught show greater excitatory response to pornography than do non-rapists and men who report that they would not rape even if they would not get caught.13 Here again we see the reverse causal relationship between pornography and rape. Rapists may be stimulated by pornography, but people who are stimulated by pornography do not become rapists. Interestingly, pornography that shows a woman being sexually seduced against her will and showing disgust in response decreased the arousal rating among rapists and potential rapists, in contrast to pornography that supports the myth that women like to be raped.14
Fuzzy Pornography
Within most ethical issues and moral dilemmas rarely are matters black and white. Instead there are almost always shades of gray, or degrees of scale to what constitutes right and wrong, moral and immoral. I call this fuzzy morality, following the principle of fuzzy logic that rejects the binary logic of black and white and replaces it with fuzzy fractions that shade the world in degrees (for example, .9 black and .1 white, or .5 black and .5 white, which would be gray). Little white lies, for example, are commonplace, mostly harmless, and often positive in sparing people's feelings, so we might rank them a .1 lie. Lies in the range from .5 to .9 are getting much more serious (the scale goes from .1 to .9) and thus can be seen as more immoral than little white lies. Correspondingly, watching a stimulating erotica video once or twice a year is surely no big deal, especially if it is not meant as a replacement for intimacy with one's partner, so for this we might assign it a .1. When the experience of pornography gets to the point of being a daily ritual, is done for masturbation purposes only, and replaces intimacy with one's partner who finds this substitution violative of the relationship, then it might be appropriate to rank that form of pornography as a .9 act of immorality.
The Ask First Principle
The application of science and reason to ethical issues still mostly leaves the moral calculation in the mind of the decision making moral agent. What about the potentially affected party- the recipient of the moral agent's decision? I call this person the moral recipient. All the scientific studies and reasoned arguments about positive pornography's harmlessness (or even benefits) do not amount to a hill of viagra beans if your partner finds it offensive or feels repulsed or replaced instead of aroused.
There is one sure-fired test to find out whether this- or any other ethical issue- is moral or immoral: ask first. The moral agent should ask the moral recipient whether the behavior in question is moral or immoral. I call this the Ask First Principle. At its core it is the first step in applying the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you aren't sure that the potential recipient of your action will react in the same manner you would react to the moral behavior in question, then ask. Consider an easy test of the Ask First Principle- adultery. If you want to know if having an extra-marital affair is moral or immoral, ask first the moral recipient. "Honey, is it okay if I sleep with someone else?" You'll likely receive your moral answer swiftly and without equivocation. In this example, as with so many others, you do not actually have to ask the question to know the answer. The thought experiment alone should give you a strong sense of what is right and wrong. You can monitor your own sense of guilt as well. Here the golden rule kicks in: simply imagine how you would feel if your partner had sex with someone else. For most moral agents imagining their partners having sexual relations with others results in extreme emotional disruption.15 Apply those feelings to the moral recipient and you have your answer. As for pornography, because sex is such a personal matter, and because there is so much variation in what individuals find sexually stimulating, the Ask First Principle is the simplest and surest way to find out what constitutes acceptable pornography.
The Erotica Meme
Given the realities of the power that labels carry in our culture, those who enjoy mental and positive pornography, as well as those who work in the industry, would be well advised to adapt a name change, much along the lines of how homosexuals and blacks effected positive social change by suggesting and implementing the more positive descriptive terms gays and African-Americans. Similarly, for pornography, in it's stead I suggest we use erotica, a term already in the memetic lexicon that carries positive connotations. Let pornography describe negative pornography. Let erotica describe mental and positive pornography. Erotica is literary, highbrow, graceful, elegant, and, most of all, sensual- the very essence of a positive sexual experience.
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society (Skeptic.com), the host of the Skeptics Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and a monthly columnist and contributing editor for Scientific American. He is the author of Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Believe, The Borderlands of Science, Denying History, In Darwin's Shadow, and General Editor of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. His next book is Why We Are Moral: The Origins of Morality and a Science of Provisional Ethics.
1 Lawrence, D. H. 1936. Pornography and So On. London: Faber and Faber. Stewart statement rendered in case judgment Jacobellis v. Ohio. 1964. 378 U.S. 184.
2 Gould, S. J. 1983. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: W. W. Norton, 25.
3 Nin, A. 1963. Little Birds. New York: Harcourt, 123.
4 Zuckerman, M. 1971. "Physiological Measures of Sexual Arousal in the Human." In Technical Reports on the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kelley, K. and D. Byrne. 1983. "Assessment of Sexual Responding: Arousal, Affect, and Behavior." In J. Cacioppo and R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford.
Przbyla, D. and D. Byrne. 1984. "The Mediating Role of Cognitive Process in Self Reported Sexual Arousal." Journal of Research in Personality, 18: 54-63.
Henson, D. and H. Rubin. 1971. Voluntary Control of Eroticism." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis., 4: 37-44.
5 Mackinnon, C. 1983. Pornography: A Feminist Perspective. Position paper presented to the Minneapolis City Council.
Dworkin, A. 1988. Letters From a War Zone. New York: Dutton.
6 Kutchinsky, B. 1983. "The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience." In Coop, D. and S. Wendell (Eds.). Pornography and Censorship. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 307.
7 Berger, F. R. 1973. "Pornography, Sex, and Censorship." In Goldstein, M. J. and H. S. Kant (Eds.) Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8 Garcia, L. T. 1986. "Exposure to Pornography and Attitudes About Women and Rape; A Correlational Study." Journal of Sex Research, 22: 378-385.
Gentry, C. S. 1991. "Pornography and Rape: An Empirical Analysis." Deviant Behavior, 12: 277-288.
Kutchinsky, B. 1991. "Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice?" International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14: 47-64.
9 Kutchinsky, B. 1985. "Pornography and its Effects in Denmark and the United States: A Rejoinder and Beyond." Comparative Social Research: An Annual, 8: 301-330.
Abramson, P. and Hayashi, H. 1984. "Pornography in Japan: Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Considerations." In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10 Donnerstein, E. and L. Berkowitz. 1984. "Victims' Reactions in Aggressive Erotic Films as a Factor in Violence Against Women." In Malamuth, N. M. and E. Donnerstein (Eds.). Pornography and Sexual Aggression. New York: Academic press.
11 Donnerstein, E. 1983. "Erotica and Human Aggression." In Geen, R. and E. Donnerstein (Eds.). Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Review (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
12 Fisher, W. A. and D. Byrne. 1978. "Individual Differences in Affective, Evaluative and Behavioral Responses to an Erotic Film." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. August: 355-365.
13 Malamuth, N. and J. Check. 1985. "The Effects of Aggressive Pornography on Beliefs of Rape Myths: Individual Differences." Journal of Research in Personality, 19: 299-320.
14 Goldstein, M. and H. Kant. 1973.
Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15 Buss, D. 2002. The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love and Sex. New York: Free Press.
The event quickly turned into a media feeding frenzy and exploitative fodder for stand up comics, including Reubens himself who, as subsequent host of a television award's show, quipped "anyone seen any good movies lately?" The Pee-Wee porn affair was much ado about nothing. Most wondered why he did not simply indulge his passions in the privacy of a hotel room or his own home, where such materials are readily available and confidentially enjoyed. Unfortunately, the image of some guy masturbating to an erotic film in a public theater is what far too many people conjure up in their imagination when they hear the word pornography.
Pornography Defined
Words matter and language counts. "Feminist" is a fine word that describes someone who believes in the need to secure both the rights and opportunities for women equivalent to those provided for men. Unfortunately, thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh, it has also come to be associated with sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, postmodern, deconstructionist, left-leaning liberals best scorned as "Femi-Nazis." Likewise, "atheist" is a descriptive term that simply means "without theism," and describes someone who does not believe in God(s). Unfortunately, thanks to religious fundamentalists, it has also come to be associated with godless, immoral, pinko communists hell bent on corrupting the morals of America's youth with such heathen and heretical nonsense as evolutionary theory and scientific naturalism. Speak the scorn into existence.
Simply defined, pornography constitutes images in the form of films, videos, photographs, literature, and other materials that enhance sexual arousal. What images, specifically, constitute pornography is so fraught with moral and legal complications that it led D. H. Lawrence to comment "what is pornography to one man is the laughter of genius to another," and to Justice Stewart's famous pronouncement that although he could not define pornography "I know it when I see it."1 Unlike all the other primates (with the exception of Bonobo chimpanzees), whose sex lives are largely governed by seasonal periods of receptivity (primarily when the female is "in heat"), humans evolved as a social hierarchical primate species with the desire and capability of engaging in sexual behavior any time of the year. Thus, who would object to enhancing the arousal of a perfectly natural and exceptionally pleasurable activity designed to propagate the species and bring new life into the world?
Plenty of people, as a matter of fact, do object to such supplemental activities, and as such they have been largely successful in transmogrifying the word pornography into a lewd and smutty activity conducted by sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, left-leaning, liberal, pinko, godless, communists, homosexuals, and perverts of all stripes for the purpose of preventing this great nation from returning to its roots as a Christian country and to subvert its foundation in the puritanical ethic whose greatest fear is that somewhere someone out there is enjoying carnal pleasure. Pornography, we are told, is immoral- a sin of the mind only slightly less violative than such sins of the body as adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex. Even President Jimmy Carter shamefully confessed that he "lusted in his heart."
Provisional Ethics
I am a scientist and a historian (and a historian of science), not a moral philosopher or political activist. I am more interested in how the world really works, not on how it should work according to some set of philosophical or political beliefs. In science, we deal in facts and theories- that is, the data of the world and how those data confirm or disconfirm theories that attempt to explain the world. We also deal in "facts," as in how certain we are about our data and theories. The late Harvard evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould put it well: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"2 That is, scientific facts are conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer our conditional agreement. Heliocentrism- the theory that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa- is as factual as it gets in science. The theory of gravity shares an equal status in the annals of science, and the theory of evolution is not far behind in its factual firmness. Other scientific theories, such as superstring theory, inflationary cosmology, and multiple universes, are less factual in this sense, for more research is needed to confirm or disconfirm their veracity.
In my forthcoming book Why We Are Moral (the third volume in my belief trilogy that includes Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe), I present a theory of Provisional Ethics in which moral choices might be considered analogous to scientific facts, in being provisionally right or provisionally wrong, provisionally moral or provisionally immoral: In Provisional Ethics, "moral" or "immoral" means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent.
Provisional is an appropriate word here, meaning conditional, pending confirmation or validation. In provisional ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our conditional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change. And, obviously, some moral principles have less evidence and justification for them than others, and therefore they are more provisional and more personal.
Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and relative moral systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable for most people in most circumstances most of the time, yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior, culture, and circumstances. What I am getting at is that there are moral principles by which we can construct an ethical theory. These principles are not absolute (no exceptions), nor are they relative (anything goes). They are provisional- true for most people in most circumstances most of the time. And they are objective, in the sense of moral objectivism that holds that morality is independent of the individual. The moral sentiments evolved as part of our species, so moral principles can be seen as transcendent of the individual, making them morally objective. Whenever possible moral questions should be subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny, much as nature's questions are subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny.
Provisional Pornography
Let's see how provisional ethics applies to pornography, examining three types: mental pornography, positive pornography, and negative pornography. In essence, I shall argue that mental pornography and positive pornography are not immoral because most people in most circumstances most of the time are not harmed by them and, in fact, may find much pleasure in them, both individually and in their relationships. There is, however, some evidence that negative pornography (pornography that depicts harm or violence against women such as pleasure in being raped) is harmful to at least some people in some circumstances some of the time, and may therefore be considered provisionally immoral. Let's examine what science can tell us about the effects of pornography of these three types.
Mental pornography. Stripped of its pejorative connotations and seen for what it really is- images that enhance sexual arousal- then the simplest form of pornography is the sexual images in our imaginations. Mental pornography, or what Havelock Ellis called "autoeroticism," is one of the most ubiquitous of all sexual activities. I do not know if sexual fantasy itself evolved, providing some selective advantage to individuals who had them versus those who did not, or if autoeroticism is just a spandrel- a byproduct of some other evolutionary adaptation. But certainly the ability to fantasize in general did evolve as a useful byproduct of a large cerebral cortex, and no doubt this ability did provide a selective advantage (imagining the positive outcome of a hunt, or the negative consequences of a fight). Sexual fantasies are probably a contingent free ride that goes with having a large brain capable of fantasizing about other scenarios in life. But since social relations between humans are so important, and because sex is so intimately interdigitated with how we feel about and interact with other members of our group, then it would not surprise me if it turned out that fantasizing about sexual relations with others did serve some functional purpose in our evolutionary history.
Religion has always struggled with sex, including the mere fantasy of it. Consider this medieval church punishment in the form of penances for erotic fantasies among church leaders of ascending stripes: 25 days for a deacon, 30 days for a monk, 40 days for a priest, and 50 days for a bishop. (I guess the Pope is not only infallible, but also unimaginative.) How can something so harmless to others (this assumes negative sexual fantasies are not expressed behaviorally- more on this below in the discussion of negative pornography) and yet so fun and fulfilling to the individual be immoral? Science sees it rather differently. Erotic fantasies may serve a variety of personal functions, including the fact that sometimes it is a lot easier to just fantasize about a sexual encounter than it is to actually invest the time, energy, money, and risk of rejection, failure, disease, personal rejection, social ostracization, or an unsatisfactory experience in an actual sexual encounter. Some of the best sex any of us have ever experienced is the sex in our minds. That mental sex may be informed by actual sexual experiences- usually the most enjoyable ones we have had with a partner who is especially important to us- but it remains safely ensconced in the private domain within our skulls.
Therefore, from a provisional ethics perspective, it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional assent that mental pornography in the form of positive sexual fantasies are not immoral because the evidence confirms that almost everyone has them, they provide numerous benefits, they harm no one else, and thus they are justified if so desired by the individual or couple (sharing your sexual fantasies with your partner, particularly if they are positive and about that partner, can be very sensual).
Positive Pornography. I define positive pornography as images that enhance sexual arousal by depicting individuals or couples in non-harmful and non-exploitative sexual situations. (I do not consider S&M harmful as long as the partners involved in an S&M encounter are willing participants.) Films, videos, photographs, and literature that depict individuals masturbating or couples engaging in consensual sex, and viewed by either individuals alone or couples together for personal enjoyment, is pornography in a positive mode. So-called soft-porn films that leave something to the imagination and that depict sex as a romantic and loving expression of affection between two people is a fine example of positive pornography. So too is the body of erotica literature in its higher form through authors such as the French diarist and novelist Anas Nin. In fact, as I shall suggest at the end of this article, erotica is a synonym for positive pornography.
By contrast, pulp fiction romance novels that portray love making in crass terms, such as describing a man's "throbbing pole of love," and so-called hardcore porn films that leave nothing to the imagination in graphically revealing cunnilingus and fellatio, vaginal and anal penetration, ejaculation, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex with strangers in unlikely venues tend to be preferred much more by men than by women. Although most of these are still in the realm of positive pornography in that the women are not shown in exploitative scenarios, they tend to hover near the borderlands between positive and negative pornography. Contrast these images with the following passage from Anas Nin's book of erotica, Little Birds, in a short story about a young woman married to an older man who delayed ultimate intimacy several nights to "woo her slowly and lingeringly, until she was prepared and in the mood." After several nights of teasing kisses and caresses,"He discovered the trembling sensibility under the arm, at the nascence of the breasts, the vibrations that ran between the nipples and the sex, and between the sex mouth and the lips, all the mysterious links that roused and stirred places other than the one being kissed, currents running from the roots of the hair to the roots of the spine. Each place he kissed he worshiped with adoring words, observing the dimples at the end of her back, the firmness of her buttocks, the extreme arch of her back, which threw her buttocks outwards. He encircled her ankles with his fingers, lingered over her feet, which were perfect like her hands, stroked over and over again the smooth statuesque lines of her neck, lost himself in her long heavy hair"3
Pages later the lovers finally embrace in full intimacy. This is positive pornography at its finest and research shows that it is very effective in sexually arousing both men and women. Physiological research, for example, shows that penile erection, vaginal vasocongestion, blood pressure, and genital temperature all increase in response to exposure to positive pornographic material, and that such arousal effects can be also be generated through the imagination alone.4
There are cases, of course, when positive pornography can become negative (in a manner different from negative pornography to be discussed below), and that is when pornography becomes an alternative rather than a supplement to a satisfying sexual relationship with your partner. Here we are well advised to follow Aristotle's golden mean rule of all things in moderation. If the viewing of pornography becomes so addictive and compelling that it replaces sex with your partner, and your partner then becomes dissatisfied with this arrangement, then such pornography is no longer positive. We should always remember that, by definition, pornography is supposed to enhance sexual arousal, not replace it. When in doubt, ask your partner. (More on this as an ethical principle below.)
On the flip side, positive pornography may be a useful substitute for sex when you are in between relationships or, for whatever reason, you do not desire a sexual relationship with your partner (and your partner is not frustrated by this substitution). Sex with yourself is safe, and pornography can be a positive enhancement of the self-sexual experience.
Negative Pornography. I define negative pornography as images that enhance sexual arousal by depicting sex as violent, abusive, or exploitative, and especially those that imply or show women being seduced and raped against their will and then enjoying the experience as it unfolds. Here we enter the darker realm of rape and the relationship of pornography to this especially malevolent act.
One of the harshest arguments made against pornography is that it leads men to rape women. Indeed, attacks on pornography often begin here and come not just from the conservative right but from the liberal left as well, mainly from extreme feminists. Catherine Mackinnon, for example, described pornography as "the celebration, the promotion, the authorization and the legitimization of rape, sexual harassment, battery and the abuse of children." Andrea Dworkin defined pornography as "the material means of sexualizing inequality."5 As a blanket causal variable in the study of why men rape, however, there is no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, if only it were as simple as eliminating pornography in order to eliminate rape, but it is not so, as evidenced by the fact that rape has been a tragic part of human history millennia before pornography of any sort made its appearance on the cultural landscape.
With pornography and rape we need to make an important causal distinction: although some rapists have watched and enjoyed pornography (as noted by critics in citing serial rapist and killer Ted Bundy's remark just before his execution, "You are going to kill me, but out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that"), by far the vast majority of men who have watched and enjoyed pornography have never raped. In a review of seven studies on the relationship of pornography to sex offenders of all types, Berl Kutchinsky concluded: "Sex offenders are, as a rule, not more acquainted with pornography or more sexually aroused by such material than are other males- in fact, such differences tend to be in the opposite direction."6 Indeed, an extensive study of rapists and their backgrounds revealed that instead of being driven to rape by the hypersexuality allegedly produced by pornography, rapists tend to come from sexually repressed environments in which sex was rarely or never discussed, nudity was forbidden, and sexuality was portrayed as sinful. By contrast, nonrapists (as a control group of sorts) were more likely than rapists to have experienced pornography while growing up and to have been raised in a family environment in which sex was openly discussed and not shamed into quiescence.7
Several correlational studies were equivocal on the relationship between pornography and rape. A 1986 study investigated the relationship between exposure to sexually explicit material and attitudes toward rape in 115 men, finding that only exposure to coercive or violent sexual themes was related to more traditional attitudes about women as submissive and inferior; but contrary to predictions, subjects with greater exposure to general and nonviolent sexual materials held more liberal and egalitarian attitudes toward women. A 1991 study based on data from the Uniform Crime Reports, circulation data from three sexually oriented magazines, and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas found no relationship between pornography and rape, but that population size, proportion of young adults, percentage divorced, and population change were all significant predictors of rape. Finally, in an extensive cross-cultural study of rape in four countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the U.S.), there was no correlation between the availability of pornography (type not specified) and increased sexual violence.8
Interestingly, a number of studies point to a possible catharsis effect for pornography, with most citing Denmark and Japan as examples. In the 1960s Denmark experienced a surge in pornography but instead of taking draconian measures to stop it, the government lifted all bans and subsequently there was a dramatic drop in sex crimes. In Japan, levels of pornography are as high or higher than in America, while rates of sex crimes are 14 times lower than in the U.S. (34.5 rapes per 100,000 in the U.S. v. 2.4 in Japan). "Japanese view the availability of such stimuli as a cathartic valve," wrote the researchers Abramson and Hayashi. "It is presumed to provide vicarious satisfaction of a socially unacceptable behavior. In a culture that endorses strict codes of behavior and highly defined roles, the depiction off rape also provides a context in which Japanese men can vicariously abandon all off the explicit signposts of good behavior."9 Of course, this is not a recipe for subjecting potential rapists to pornography, but at the very least this evidence shows that whatever the cause of rape it is clearly not pornography by itself.
On the other hand, negative pornography as I have defined it, particularly pornography that depicts a reluctant women who subsequently succumbs to the pressures of her would-be lover and in the end enjoys the experience, may elicit in male viewers inappropriate sexual behavior toward unwilling females. A number of studies show a strong positive correlation between such pornographic scenarios and their self-reported probability of raping a woman.10 A corroborative study on non-pornographic but aggressive material found an equally positive correlation between portrayed aggression toward women and actual aggression toward women.11 According to Indiana University psychologist Dolf Zillmann, what generates or increases aggression toward women are not specific sexual or aggressive acts toward women per se, but the overall degree of excitation within the film itself. But this varies considerably among individuals; pornographic and aggressive films appear to have the greatest effect on individuals with limited social and sexual experience. "Persons with limited sexual socialization experience in particular have been found to respond negatively to erotica. Such persons"appears to be especially vulnerable to behaving aggressively after exposure to erotica, even to comparatively mild erotica- innocuous as their stimuli may seem to others." Similarly, W. A. Fisher and D. Byrne found that pornography had a greater effect on people whose attitudes toward sex were negative.12
A particularly important finding made by Neil Malamuth and J.V.P. Check was that rapists who report that they are more likely to rape if they think they would not get caught show greater excitatory response to pornography than do non-rapists and men who report that they would not rape even if they would not get caught.13 Here again we see the reverse causal relationship between pornography and rape. Rapists may be stimulated by pornography, but people who are stimulated by pornography do not become rapists. Interestingly, pornography that shows a woman being sexually seduced against her will and showing disgust in response decreased the arousal rating among rapists and potential rapists, in contrast to pornography that supports the myth that women like to be raped.14
Fuzzy Pornography
Within most ethical issues and moral dilemmas rarely are matters black and white. Instead there are almost always shades of gray, or degrees of scale to what constitutes right and wrong, moral and immoral. I call this fuzzy morality, following the principle of fuzzy logic that rejects the binary logic of black and white and replaces it with fuzzy fractions that shade the world in degrees (for example, .9 black and .1 white, or .5 black and .5 white, which would be gray). Little white lies, for example, are commonplace, mostly harmless, and often positive in sparing people's feelings, so we might rank them a .1 lie. Lies in the range from .5 to .9 are getting much more serious (the scale goes from .1 to .9) and thus can be seen as more immoral than little white lies. Correspondingly, watching a stimulating erotica video once or twice a year is surely no big deal, especially if it is not meant as a replacement for intimacy with one's partner, so for this we might assign it a .1. When the experience of pornography gets to the point of being a daily ritual, is done for masturbation purposes only, and replaces intimacy with one's partner who finds this substitution violative of the relationship, then it might be appropriate to rank that form of pornography as a .9 act of immorality.
The Ask First Principle
The application of science and reason to ethical issues still mostly leaves the moral calculation in the mind of the decision making moral agent. What about the potentially affected party- the recipient of the moral agent's decision? I call this person the moral recipient. All the scientific studies and reasoned arguments about positive pornography's harmlessness (or even benefits) do not amount to a hill of viagra beans if your partner finds it offensive or feels repulsed or replaced instead of aroused.
There is one sure-fired test to find out whether this- or any other ethical issue- is moral or immoral: ask first. The moral agent should ask the moral recipient whether the behavior in question is moral or immoral. I call this the Ask First Principle. At its core it is the first step in applying the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you aren't sure that the potential recipient of your action will react in the same manner you would react to the moral behavior in question, then ask. Consider an easy test of the Ask First Principle- adultery. If you want to know if having an extra-marital affair is moral or immoral, ask first the moral recipient. "Honey, is it okay if I sleep with someone else?" You'll likely receive your moral answer swiftly and without equivocation. In this example, as with so many others, you do not actually have to ask the question to know the answer. The thought experiment alone should give you a strong sense of what is right and wrong. You can monitor your own sense of guilt as well. Here the golden rule kicks in: simply imagine how you would feel if your partner had sex with someone else. For most moral agents imagining their partners having sexual relations with others results in extreme emotional disruption.15 Apply those feelings to the moral recipient and you have your answer. As for pornography, because sex is such a personal matter, and because there is so much variation in what individuals find sexually stimulating, the Ask First Principle is the simplest and surest way to find out what constitutes acceptable pornography.
The Erotica Meme
Given the realities of the power that labels carry in our culture, those who enjoy mental and positive pornography, as well as those who work in the industry, would be well advised to adapt a name change, much along the lines of how homosexuals and blacks effected positive social change by suggesting and implementing the more positive descriptive terms gays and African-Americans. Similarly, for pornography, in it's stead I suggest we use erotica, a term already in the memetic lexicon that carries positive connotations. Let pornography describe negative pornography. Let erotica describe mental and positive pornography. Erotica is literary, highbrow, graceful, elegant, and, most of all, sensual- the very essence of a positive sexual experience.
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society (Skeptic.com), the host of the Skeptics Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and a monthly columnist and contributing editor for Scientific American. He is the author of Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Believe, The Borderlands of Science, Denying History, In Darwin's Shadow, and General Editor of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. His next book is Why We Are Moral: The Origins of Morality and a Science of Provisional Ethics.
1 Lawrence, D. H. 1936. Pornography and So On. London: Faber and Faber. Stewart statement rendered in case judgment Jacobellis v. Ohio. 1964. 378 U.S. 184.
2 Gould, S. J. 1983. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: W. W. Norton, 25.
3 Nin, A. 1963. Little Birds. New York: Harcourt, 123.
4 Zuckerman, M. 1971. "Physiological Measures of Sexual Arousal in the Human." In Technical Reports on the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kelley, K. and D. Byrne. 1983. "Assessment of Sexual Responding: Arousal, Affect, and Behavior." In J. Cacioppo and R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford.
Przbyla, D. and D. Byrne. 1984. "The Mediating Role of Cognitive Process in Self Reported Sexual Arousal." Journal of Research in Personality, 18: 54-63.
Henson, D. and H. Rubin. 1971. Voluntary Control of Eroticism." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis., 4: 37-44.
5 Mackinnon, C. 1983. Pornography: A Feminist Perspective. Position paper presented to the Minneapolis City Council.
Dworkin, A. 1988. Letters From a War Zone. New York: Dutton.
6 Kutchinsky, B. 1983. "The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience." In Coop, D. and S. Wendell (Eds.). Pornography and Censorship. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 307.
7 Berger, F. R. 1973. "Pornography, Sex, and Censorship." In Goldstein, M. J. and H. S. Kant (Eds.) Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8 Garcia, L. T. 1986. "Exposure to Pornography and Attitudes About Women and Rape; A Correlational Study." Journal of Sex Research, 22: 378-385.
Gentry, C. S. 1991. "Pornography and Rape: An Empirical Analysis." Deviant Behavior, 12: 277-288.
Kutchinsky, B. 1991. "Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice?" International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14: 47-64.
9 Kutchinsky, B. 1985. "Pornography and its Effects in Denmark and the United States: A Rejoinder and Beyond." Comparative Social Research: An Annual, 8: 301-330.
Abramson, P. and Hayashi, H. 1984. "Pornography in Japan: Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Considerations." In N. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10 Donnerstein, E. and L. Berkowitz. 1984. "Victims' Reactions in Aggressive Erotic Films as a Factor in Violence Against Women." In Malamuth, N. M. and E. Donnerstein (Eds.). Pornography and Sexual Aggression. New York: Academic press.
11 Donnerstein, E. 1983. "Erotica and Human Aggression." In Geen, R. and E. Donnerstein (Eds.). Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Review (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
12 Fisher, W. A. and D. Byrne. 1978. "Individual Differences in Affective, Evaluative and Behavioral Responses to an Erotic Film." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. August: 355-365.
13 Malamuth, N. and J. Check. 1985. "The Effects of Aggressive Pornography on Beliefs of Rape Myths: Individual Differences." Journal of Research in Personality, 19: 299-320.
14 Goldstein, M. and H. Kant. 1973.
Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15 Buss, D. 2002. The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love and Sex. New York: Free Press.
VIEW 25 of 32 COMMENTS
Glaive said:
OK, I was going along for the ride on this one up until a certain point, at which time I believe Mr. Shermer veered a tad bit off course.
His writing is, on the whole, quite excellent, and his points are generally well-constructed and explained well. However, he commits the same mistake that virtually everyone does when they discuss morality: they assume it has some sort of universal validity or necessity.
He talks about how would could use a scientific approach to classify the moral status of things, or to "come up with an ethical theory." This is inherently preposterous because if one is approaching something from a purely scientific (and thus secular) standpoint then the basic concept of "morality" has not meaning. I
If you remove the idea of a god, divine wrath, and any other spiritual "supernatural" (a word that is arguably a contradiction in terms) forces from the universe, then what exactly is the significance of labeling something as immoral?
Mr. Shermer bases some of his classifications on ideas such as "does this thing harm anyone?" but does not seem to feel the need to justify why that is of any relevance. Virtually everything harms someone or something else in some capacity. If I open a hardware store down the street from your hardware store and put you out of business, that's "bad" for you but "good" for me. Am I immoral now? Of course not, that makes no sense.
Essentially, Mr. Shermer seems to be doing what a great many so-called atheists try to do, which is to try and shove the square peg of morality and ethics into the round hole of a godless, scientific, logic-centered universe. The end result is invariably the deformation of the idea of morality into essentially a synonym for "what I think is and isn't a positive influence on our society," which is little more than opinion and is inherently dependent on ones particular goals or desires.
In short, to try and "objectively" justify or reinvent morality does little more than fuel the confidence of theists that they are right and that morality is indeed a static component of the universe and that it is innate and essential to human life, all of which is false.
Pornography, rape, murder, and war aren't any more moral or immoral than Oreo cookies, country music, ice cream, tile floors, or tartar control toothpaste. It's all totally and complete relative to one's basic assumptions about existence. If you're truly a scientist than to the greatest extent that is possible you would have no assumptions, and therefore would have no justification for believing in the divine and, by consequence, no logical reason to attach any validity to the idea of morality, good, evil, or any similar notions.
You're admittedly taking a moral-relativist standpoint, but the subtext of this whole article was based around a rejection of moral relativity. He sited studies to provide a factual basis for some outlooks (not viewing violent pornography or raping women) being objectively better than others (viewing violent pornography and raping women). This isn't arbitrary; it is better for human beings not to rape people because if we did, eventually someone would come around and rape me. I'm simplifying, but my point comes across I hope.
The argument that we cannot be moral in a godless and uncaring universe without ultimate consequences is a bit of a straw-man. Wether the universe cares if we are moral is not the point - we have to live with eachother. Being moral for its own sake might be academic, but like it or not some form of moral ponderance has to be an essential feature of humanity for survival reasons alone.
Sam Harris takes a lot of heat because of his recent studies and stance on moral relativity. I find myself agreeing more and more with him though. There are certain truths to be known about what makes a human being healthiest and happiest, and from that factual basis we can draw real conclusions about what kind of behaviour promotes that.
IMO anyway.