Making murder illegal should be mainly about preventing people from being the victim of murder. Whether or not murder is moral or not shouldn't really be relevant. We've decided that people have a right to not be murdered for whatever reason. The only thing the law should then be concerned about is how to prevent murder.

Using the same reasoning to outlaw prostitution is harder. Sure you could argue people have a right to not be a prostitute -- and I heartily agree with that -- but then the job of the law is to prevent people from being prostitutes against their will. All outlawing prostitution outright does is hide it from view. It doesn't help people get the rights they deserve. In fact it takes away the right to be a prostitute if you want to. The only line of arguing that prostitution should be illegal is either because we should outlaw anything we deem immoral, or because somehow concocted a right that prevents people from doing what they want to do.

In my opinion the basis for any system of law ought to be that people can do what they want to. The only exceptions being when doing so infringes on the right of others. I should be free to be a prostitute. I should not be free to force other people to be prostitutes against their will. I should be free to wildly swing my arms. I should not be free to punch someone in the face.

Of course everyone has their own opinion of what the law should be and so we end up with a patchwork of intentions -- let alone how the law actually gets applied. That's fine. People are free to have opinions.

Either laws are written based on morality, or laws are written based on rights. You can't have both without being inconsistent.

> prevent people from being prostitutes against their will

The important part here is if you include economic factors into "against their will" or not.

Do those factors have the same meaning when someone would rather not be e.g. a cleaner or an orderly at a nursing home? Those jobs are physical and not so pleasant. They pay much less than prostitution. Yet, many people are so employed.

Prostitution is still about selling what is most intimate, not really the same.

Also, how are we supposed to reach gender equality if one gender's body is for sale as a matter of routine ?

Note that I still agree with your point on being a cleaner, that's why I think universal income is a good idea.

Coal miners sell their body for their job too. There are plenty of jobs that will destroy your body but pay better than average for your skill level.

At the end of the day when an adult makes the decision to do a particular job because it pays better than the alternative we can't automatically count them as a "victim". It robs people of their agency and infantilizes them.

As a fully empowered adult I feel comfortable telling you to fuck off.

Oh definitely. Any form of coercion counts as against your will in my book.

Let's not forget the idea that it could be possible for a female sex worker to consensually engage in her job.

Not in the sense of "They'll murder my family if I don't" but just choosing to do it out of her own free will.

I chatted to a prostitute in Thailand, she came from the poor North to work as a sex worker in Bangkok and she was fairly proud of the fact she was sending so much money home to her parents, living in a village where pretty much the only thing you can do is farm.

She showed me a picture of the car her dad was able to buy and kept stressing "it's a 4 door!". She was a genuinely happy and fun loving girl.

To me the shocking thing in this story is a man driving around in a car paid for by his daughter by fellating 300+ men per year, but not the fact this girl decided to do this for a living.

> Do you think murder is immoral?

The story of Armin Meiwes comes to mind, who killed and ate a man who volunteered to have done that to him. There's also the concept of consensual homicide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide

My guess is "legislating morality" refers to pushing legislation based solely on moral concerns. There are other reasons to outlaw murder than just morality.

All those other concerns bear out as moral concerns.

Much legislation is technocratic and hides its moralism, but it’s all questions of right and wrong, good and bad, at the end of the day.

Not so. There are considerations of tangible consequences for some unconsenting third party. That's the difference. Outlawing something "because it's wrong" is different than outlawing something because it wrongs someone.

There is no definition of "because it's wrong" where no one is wronged, unless you bring in religion.

Still, someone can be wronged with their consent. Consent is not binary. That's why there are minimum salary laws for instance : so that there's not a competition to the bottom.

When it comes to prostitution, the fact that huge numbers of prostitutes are former victims of abuse, for instance, should tell you that something is wrong. And even then, I would say that the minority who could be unambiguously considered to be doing it voluntarily is doing a disservice to women and society in general, by promoting the idea that bodies and what is most intimate can be for sale.

We're off on a tangent now, but you don't need religion to believe a victimless act to be immoral. All I was getting at is laws are not made strictly on moral grounds (rightfully so) and perhaps that's what "legislating morality" was referring to.

And it's mostly wrong.

A lot of people argue that "consensual murder" (a.k.a. euthanasia) should be legal (with the appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse).

Edit: Actually I retract this comment. You bring an interesting point, and shouldn't be downvoted. I guess the argument "to prevent abuse" includes "to prevent people from exchanging their lives for money". And you could say the same for sex - people should be able to choose to have sex / be murdered / donate their organs, but shouldn't be able to exchange that for money.

I guess the counterargument would be, that the exact definition of "exchange" depends on whether you're actually giving something - arguably, you're giving up your life / kidney (and most people aren't willing to give that up, regardless of whether they're being paid or not), but not necessarily giving up sex (and many people are giving it up pretty often... the only difference is, are they also getting paid for it, or not).

Euthanasia doesn't fit the description of consensual murder. I'm not sure how ... I guess euthanasia is more of a medical procedure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide

Freezing of patient for far future is medical procedure (with very little chance of success). Euthanasia is suicide done because of necessity. Result is same in both cases — patient is dead and suffering no pain, but they are very different procedures because freezing leaves room for hope, while euthanasia doesn't.

It is exactly how opponents of euthanasia frame the debate, so it is not surprising that the GP was confused.

I think they mean: Laws codify common morals. They are not themselves morals.

Pushing this underground will hurt nothing but victims in the long run. Is that moral? Of course not.

Well it depends if you like it's moral for people to use social media for prostitution. If your code of morals thinks that shouldn't be allowed, then these laws make sense. If you disagree - and that's fine - you can't blame "legislating morality".

Assisted suicide would be a better comparison. Both parties consent to the murder, should it be illegal?

Call me sociopath but murder is impractical in a functioning society. Outside of society, such as wars, it’s totally morally acceptable.