If you are intentionally watching the rape (assuming you're not a member of an investigative team), then you are a willing participant in an illegal and immoral act. Therefore, your actions are also illegal and immoral.
I'm not contesting that the actions in question are immoral. Clearly, watching videos of a woman getting raped, or watching babies getting tortured and run over by steam rollers is
immoral. Of course you'll go to
Hell for it. That said, I want to remind you what it means for something to be illegal. It means you go to jail. It means that you lose your right to liberty. It means that, to a very real extent, you lose your right to property. It may mean that you lose your right to life. To be commit a crime is to forfeit your rights.
What can justify forfeiting your rights? The only thing that can justify such a forfeit is an infringement against someone else's rights. That is, the only thing that can justify the State imprisoning me is if I infringe against the life, liberty, or property of another person. That is, the only thing that can possibly justify the State imprisoning me is if I maim, kill, abduct, or steal from someone (or otherwise threaten to do so, perhaps)
Well, the crime of rape is not primarily a physical crime. In most cases, rape causes far more psychological harm than physical.
Rape is an infringement against liberty. That is, the rapist takes away the woman's right to go where she wants, and he takes away her right to refuse the sexual act. That is to say, she has a negative right to non-intervention with respect to her own body, and it is this right that the rapists are infringing.
Were it solely a "psychological" act with no physical aspect, we wouldn't say that it deserves imprisonment, and rightly so. In the U.S., for example, harrassment cases are civil matters, not criminal matters. No person has a genuine right not to be offended, spoken against, etc.
If the woman found out you'd intentionally watched her being raped, how do you think that would affect her?
Who cares? I admit that there is a matter of morality here. Yes, it is contrary to morality to watch such a video. We really should be concerned about the woman's feelings in this case. In not being concerned about the woman's feelings, emotional state, etc., we are failing to respond to the woman in a way in which the Moral Law commands.
However, I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking criminal law. Criminal law ought only to concern itself with rights. The woman does not, strictly speaking, have a right for me not to view videos of her getting raped. My watching videos (hypothetically) of her getting raped doesn't directly interfere with her life. I'm not taking away her life, liberty, or property. I'm not infringing a right. Therefore, if I were to watch such a video, the State would
never be justified in taking away mine. I have not (again, hypothetically) infringed a right. Therefore, my rights have not been forfeited.
Granted, I have a moral
obligation to the woman. However, it is not the case that to every moral obligation that there is a corresponding right. That is, I have an obligation. The woman does not have a right. Therefore, whereas I would be failing in my moral duty, nonetheless, the woman has no claim against me.
In some situations this could be more damaging for her than the initial rape. Now, if the action could cause harm if revealed, then why wouldn't it be illegal regardless of whether it came to be known by the woman or not? Legality has to be based on actions- not consequences.
I agree with you completely, IH. I've never suggested otherwise. I am a deontologist, not a consequentialist. That's why I'm not really concerning myself with consequences. I'm asking a very simple question: "Does this action constitute a direct infringement against a general right? It doesn't? Then it ought not to be illegal."
Is it the case that the woman might be distressed that I would in such a case enjoy watching her get raped on video? Sure. But legally, that ought to be no concern to the State.
Now, I'm all for the government staying out of *personal* matters between consenting adults. However, when a child or non-consenting person comes into the picture, all bets are off.
But children and non-consenting persons
aren't in the picture. We're talking about someone sitting in his room alone in front of a computer screen. Let's not lose sight of this. There was a child and/or non-consenting person in the case of the rape. But we're not talking about rape. There was such a person in the case of the recording. But we're not talking about the act of recording. There would be such a case in purchasing/selling the recording. But we're not talking about that either. There may be such a thing in the case of the dissemination. But we're not talking about that.
We're talking solely about the act of viewing. There's no infringement of rights. There's only one person involved.
Question: Should it be legal for me to watch a copyrighted movie online---assuming I would never have spent money to watch/rent/buy it anyway?
Two points:
1. Copyright infringement is treated in the US as a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
2. I don't think that it should be illegal, no, given what "illegal" means. Even in the case of copyright infringement, the ones who should be held liable at all are:
a. The person(s) who illegally obtained or uploaded the copyrighted materials.
b. The person(s) who disseminate the copyrighted materials.
c. The person(s) who purchase the copyrighted materials.
--If people have a right to determine how materials they've created are used and distributed, then how much more right should a person have over the use of their own body?
The person's body isn't in question in this kind of case. The interaction is solely between the person and his computer screen. There's no interaction between the person and the person depicted on the computer screen.
Should it be illegal for me to purchase stolen items?
Yes. I've come close to outright saying this. The person who's stolen the items has infringed against someone's right to property. In paying for the items, you've acted as an accomplice to the person who stole them.
In the original (set of) case(s), though, we're specifically talking about
not paying for it. In the above case, the person isn't acting as an accomplice. He's not contributing to the original criminal('s) crimes.
