Index IntroductionAnalysis of the topicConclusionBibliography IntroductionProstitution is known as the oldest profession in the world. It generally involves performing sexual acts for a fee. Debates about its morality are heated, and the extent to which the law is justified in impeding individual autonomy is often unclear. I will then put into context several moral views, their criticisms, and the contributions of some prominent moral philosophers. Furthermore, how the legal framework in Britain is disjointed and has paradoxically served to exacerbate the harms resulting from the objectification of women's bodies in prostitution. I will therefore support legislative reform by illustrating the Nordic model which has proven effective in containing the associated harms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Topic Analysis Different opinions vie for moral authority in an attempt to shape legislation on the morally controversial issue of prostitution. It is crucial to appreciate what they stand for, how they influence the law and the mindset of society at large. A conservative view is that one's body is special, and to that end, its commodification is inherently morally wrong. Therefore, legislation is rightly put in place to curb this for the greater good of society as the rules are meant to improve morals and prohibit such degrading activities. However, some criticisms of this position have been made to counter this. With reference to the teachings of Immanuel Kant, treating someone as a mere means is a problem since people should be treated as an end in themselves, so in case there is consent between the prostitute and the client, this is morally justifiable. Furthermore, legislation should not be enacted on the basis that prostitution makes people uncomfortable, but is not inherently harmful or illegal in itself. This is in accordance with John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" which states that "the only purpose for which power can be legitimately exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" . , radical feminists view prostitution as an aspect of the sexual slavery of women, therefore harmful "in and of itself" and therefore morally bad. They perceive it as a form of violence against women in a paternalistic society that degrades and objectifies the female body, thus undermining female sexuality. In one article, MacKinnon argues that: “At the same time, freedom for men is often interpreted in sexual terms and includes liberal access to women, including those in prostitution. So, while for men freedom implies that women are prostituted, for women prostitution implies the loss of everything that freedom means." to a sexual act is questionable, or whether harms from the sex industry are prudent due to the social constructionism of the sexual objectification of women and gender inequality. However, what some feminists fail to take into account is the fact that for some women in this controversial industry, it is a legitimate lifestyle choice and they find it rewarding and rewarding. In an interview with the popular magazine Marie Claire, a sex worker said: "Prostitution has given me a growing awareness of my sexuality and a lot of personal strength." Furthermore, it becomes problematic when some of these feminists' advocacy for legislation prohibiting prostitution focuses primarily on the fact that it increases tolerance forthe paternalistic attitude deeply rooted in society. It diverts attention from the fight for gender equality by implying that the female body is inherently problematic and therefore, contradictorily, ends up ruining female sexuality. In this male dominated society, paternalism has always existed since time immemorial and to address this problem, prostitution should not be criminalized. Furthermore, generalizing all acts of prostitution as payment for sexual services is misinformed, as some clients pay only for the companionship. It could be argued that in light of autonomy, which is a prevailing moral and political value advocated by both Kant and Mill, individuals should govern themselves without being imposed by external characteristics, leaving them to be able to distinguish their own characteristics. moral obligations and principles. Therefore, women should be left free to make their own choices. Even so, these feminist views are not representative of all feminists. The liberal position on prostitution, in relation to Mill's principles, is that people are free to do what they want with their bodies as long as they do not harm anyone. Because it is not inherently problematic, and therefore not morally wrong, the law should focus on the harms that result from it, such as violence or sexual exploitation. Libertarians gravitate to the fact that the law criminalizing prostitution as a whole only makes the situation worse by increasing stigma and making the “profession clandestine,” which further compounds the harm. However, as with any approach, there are setbacks. It generally does not take the issue of consent seriously, even ignoring the fact that many women in prostitution do not do so out of free will. Some are forced into the industry due to financial desperation, coercion and abuse. In addition, the mere fact that it regards all forms of commerce as entirely morally acceptable on the basis of individual autonomy is dubious. This harm principle, along with autonomy, which is a prevalent feature in the arguments of libertarians in their attempt to rationalize their views on prostitution and the law, did not emerge unscathed. A famous legal philosopher, the late Joel Feinberg, wrote a four-volume book criticizing Mill's principle; labeling him “extremely liberal.” According to him, Mill extended the scope of individual autonomy too much. Feinberg, with his elaborate offense principle, opposed the harm principle which justifies intervening on one's freedom only if it causes harm to others. The first attempts to orient to what extent criminal law is morally justified in interfering with individual liberties. But he has not entirely neglected the latter. According to him, harm focuses more on the physical appearance, so his principle takes into account the mental state, such as anger, resentment and disgust at offensive acts. He evidently advocated a kind of paternalistic legislation that aims to "draw boundaries between people's various private spheres and between a person's private spheres and the public world." 'mental antipathy'. His problem with the harm principle was that it has no limits regarding individual autonomy. Therefore, Feinberg's principle could be used to counter the libertarians' specific approach to prostitution which is not as inclined to pay attention to the need for regulation of prostitution in the interest of preventing the harms that result from it. some libertarians choose from Mill's teachings what is appropriate to satisfytheir argument as best as they can, ignoring the rest. Mill did not always share libertarian views, which was evident when he explicitly touched on prostitution. His pleasure principle sought to define true human happiness as the pursuit of character development, calling him an "ethical liberalist" and a "moral perfectionist". He categorically made a distinction between "higher pleasures" and "lower pleasures". The pursuit of "higher pleasures" are those that led to true happiness as they led to the development of moral virtue and intellect, while "lower pleasures" such as sex were an "immediate desire" that was in no way fulfilling and it didn't help to achieve true happiness. According to Mill, individual freedom should be based on the pursuit of personal development. Regarding prostitution, Mill's views echoed those of modern radical feminists in perceiving it as a form of violence against women. He considered it a "social evil" describing: "there is no greater evil that this propensity [male sexuality] can produce than prostitution... not only because of the unfortunate women whose sole existence it sacrifices, but because as no one else is anything like that is so corrupting to men.' It targeted women suspected of being "common prostitutes" and forced them to undergo fortnightly medical examinations and, if they were ill, they were jailed for nine months. However, Mill claimed the legislation "encouraged" them. prostitution, which he considered immoral, and that if the legislation was really about the prevention of diseases, the police should also have investigated the men who procured female services as well as examining them as the disease can only be transmitted by those who "seek" it, adding harsher consequences for those who transmitted the disease to a “modest woman.” In summary, he was troubled by the solicitation, exploitation and other harms resulting from prostitution and was in favor of paternalistic legislative intervention in this case who was not specific about the type of regulation, was probably conflicted about the extent to which prostitution as a whole should fall under “individual choice.” In the UK, prostitution itself is not illegal, however its related activities are. . Following the 1957 Wolfenden Report on public morality, the Street Offenses Act 1959 was enacted to address growing street prostitution. The law provided for imprisonment for loitering or incitement to prostitution. In 2008 it was reviewed by the Home Office on tackling demand for prostitution: a review and was amended by sections 16 and 17 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 which reduced custodial sanctions to summary offenses or an alternative commitment order and support. Furthermore, sections 52 and 53 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 criminalize the solicitation, incitement and control of prostitution for profit, with imprisonment. The intent is to protect sex workers from being subjected to force and exploitation by pimps. Section 59A of the same Act provides protection against trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, while section 53A, which is an insertion of section 14 of the Policing And Crime Act 2009, imposes a "strict liability offence" on those obtaining sexual services by a person subjected to coercion. . To add, anti-social behavior orders (ASBOs), which are not necessarily limited to prostitution activities, work to ban entry into certain areas or cause 'harassment' and 'distress'. The legal framework in England and Wales is more theoretical than practical. ANDcontradictory in itself as it allows the buying and selling of sex but criminalizes the activities associated with it; a completely impractical approach. Therefore, the lack of a clear position leads to inconsistencies in the law, to the detriment of vulnerable sex workers. As a result, the harms resulting from prostitution due to gender imbalance are exacerbated as the legal system fails to adequately address the issue. however, it is their responsibility to offer protection to all without discrimination. The imposition of criminal sanctions against sex workers increases social stigma against them, which in itself constitutes harm which in turn gives rise to psychological harm. Law enforcement is biased as they prefer to target sex workers, because they are more visible when they solicit. By criminalizing the prostitute and not those who provide sexual services, the law only serves to promote gender inequality by describing it as aberrant, but in most cases it is the woman who is vulnerable in need of protection. The social stigma combined with the discriminatory application of the law only aggravates the violence that these women suffer and what is worse is that they fear reporting to the police because it turns into a criminal investigation against them. Cases like rape are then ignored and the vicious cycle continues. The people who objectify these women and subject them to violence know that most of the time the law will not work against them in practice due to the stigma surrounding prostitutes, so there is no legislative action that actually deters them, so they take advantage of it . For example, the practicality of section 14 of the Police and Crime Act 2009 is questionable as it does not reflect the different circumstances and complexities in which coercion occurs, therefore it fails to target perpetrators, resulting in an increase in human trafficking humans in the UK and a low number of prosecutions assess. Furthermore, police departments do not have centralized strategic operations regarding prostitution and prefer to enforce legislation against sex workers because doing so requires less intensive resources. ASBOs serve to further accelerate the marginalization of vulnerable people. The prostitution inquiry suggested that the use of these orders against sex workers should be stopped due to the risks that come with displacement. To avoid detection by law enforcement, some sex workers do not take precautions before accepting offers from clients. Since they are bound to have the upper hand, ASBOs would diminish their negotiating power and, to add, jeopardize their security. The orders also serve to classify prostitutes as not part of the "respectable community", giving a sense of non-belonging and worthlessness unless someone stops working in the sex industry; the discriminatory nature of the orders is intrinsic in itself. Furthermore, commitment and support orders which serve to "rehabilitate", require the offender to attend three meetings to discuss ways of exiting street prostitution, the violation of which constitutes a crime leading to criminalisation, and the cycle continues. The ordinance does not conform to common sense as the legislature clearly fails to provide, if the actual intention is rehabilitation, that a sex worker cannot simply leave that life behind after a three-part discussion. Many of them are in the industry for deeply rooted reasons such as economic desperation or coercion. Tell them to get off the street without any concrete help to them. (2011)