What is ethically the difference between a prostitute and a model? They both make a living by selling their body, and the fact that there is sex in one activity seems to me not enough to morally judge a prostitute.

Comments

There are at least two different sorts of moral questions one might ask about prostitution and modeling. On one hand one might ask about the moral status of a particular agent's engaging in modeling or prostitution, and whether one action is morally worse than the other. On the other hand, one might ask about the moral status of the general practice of modeling and the general practice of prostitution, i.e., is it worse for the society to tolerate prostitution than modeling? (I'm assuming you don't have in mind by modeling the sexual display of one's body, but the modeling of clothes for the LLBean catalog and such.)

Regarding both sorts of questions it seems to me that much more should be considered beyond whether the practice or the act is an instance of "selling one's body". In the case of an agent, the moral evaluation of the choice would plausibly depend on the circumstances, the beliefs, desires and intentions of the agent and others involved, the consequences of the choice, etc. And in the case of the broader practice, modeling and prostitution potentially have quite different effects on a society (I'm assuming that modeling need not be sexualized).

As a result, I don't think it can be assumed that it is right to judge an individual prostitute to be doing something wrong, or a model to be doing something harmless. It depends on the circumstances. What you seem to be after, however, is whether there is a moral difference between selling visual access to one's body and selling sexual access to one's body. And if there is a moral difference, what is it?

One strategy for establishing a moral difference would be to argue that in the case of modeling, one isn't really selling one's body at all. One is displaying one's body for others to look at, but there is no sense in which the veiwer "possesses" or controls the body of the model. In the case of prostitution, the implicit contract seems to involve a giving of one's body for another's use. In order to develop this argument, one would need to be clearer about what sense of "possession" is at issue in "selling one's body" as a model or prostitute, and who the buyer is. (Maybe the buyer of the model's time does take possession of the model's body, but then the question is whether this is also true of all employers -- if I am a construction worker, have I sold my body to my employer? If so, then it doesn't seem that selling one's body is, in itself, morally wrong.)

Another strategy would be to argue that there is an important moral difference between selling visual access and selling sexual access, because looking at someone or being looked at is profoundly different than having sex with someone. Sex involves vulnerability of various sorts (vulnerability to disease, pregnancy, emotional pleasure and also emotional scarring); sex is something that is considered by many to be an expression of a deep emotional connection; and sex is often considered central to one's personhood. On this approach, it isn't just that selling one's body is a problem, the problem is that one is selling something central to one's personhood, in a way that makes one especially vulnerable, and trivializes something that carries deep significance. Since visual access to one's appearance isn't meaningful in these ways, there is nothing morally wrong with selling it, even if prostitution is morally problematic. This argument too needs some work, however, since more would need to be said about the significance attributed to sex.

Finally, it isn't clear to me why the question frames the question of the morality of prostitution in terms of the morality of the prostitute rather than the morality of the individual who buys the prostitute's services.

Read another response by Sally Haslanger

Read another response about Ethics, Sex