Weird. There are two new studies that indicate pornography reduces rape and violent movies reduce violent crime. These conclusions seem as counter-intuitive and controversial as Steven Levitt's research indicating abortion reduces crime.
While I wouldn't reject any of these findings out of hand, I'd be very cautious before drawing too many conclusions from them, particularly with regard to public policy.
For example, in their book, Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner specifically say that a causal link between abortion and crime rates does not lend any moral support to abortion:
Note that support for this theory is logically separate from support for legal abortion. Indeed, Levitt and coauthor Stephen Dubner, in their popular book Freakonomics, argue at length that it is at best a weak argument in favor of legal abortion. They point out that the number of murders (allegedly) prevented is far less than the number of additional abortions. Thus they argue that if one assigns a moral weight to abortion at all analogous to the moral weight to murder one should logically oppose legal abortion.
Trying to justify abortion on the grounds of Levitt's theory is analogous to arguing that it would be great to have more storms like Katrina because it reduced crime in New Orleans.
Having said all this, I would be curious to see if any follow-up studies indicate that increases of pornography and violent movies lead to reductions in rapes and violent crimes. Is this a matter of individuals substituting smaller vices in lieu of larger ones? While the positive effects of these vices may end up proving to be significant, this in no way adds moral support to either of these activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment