As known, morality is one of the central concepts in ethics. This concept is a massive cluster that includes numerous discussions from various perspectives. From an opposing viewpoint, immorality is just as important as morality. These two positions can be viewed as a byproduct of society. People with similar values form an abstract circle and try to protect it over time.
However, their moral circle wishes to expand to include the immoral. The process of expanding is nourished by the products of the outside circle. Books are one of the most important carriers of those outside the circle. Elements are labeled "immoral" to create a barrier between the shameful payoffs of books and the moral circle. This source of immorality is the zone where individuals and embarrassed to leave. In this case, the transfer occurs by shaming the other with the label of immorality. The ashamed society sees immorality as a source of embarrassment for itself.
In light of this brainstorm, I will attempt to justify the argument "The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its shame." It should be reminded that what I call "immoral" and "other" in here are not the sides I have positioned. It has been put in the conceptual dimension as a position called immoral against the moral. The "other" is the one driven to this position by the enforcer of moral norms. In addition, the "immoral" actions in the examples are not beyond the position in that assumption.
So, let's get started!
Is there any state in the entire universe that accepts immorality without exception? What is the position of the minority if we believe that the universal means majority? In societies, majority acceptance refers to moral acceptance. I contend that moral acceptance in societies is an abstract consensus area. Being a part of this group means that "we are correct." This is the moral standard for this society, and it guides their actions. The localization of morality affects all societal products. In this case, the other person's values pose a risk to them as an immoral act.
Books play an important role in this context because they are the product of various types of values. Books are strangers who introduce new myths into societies. The phrase "This book is immoral" means that it violates our history, norms, and values.
Please assume that X is the name of a society. X society accepts marriage as a symbol of pure love and is proud of it; however, same-gender marriage is a source of shame for them. First and foremost, society attempts to discriminate against others. This is an attrition mechanism designed to keep the morality circle safe. When they notice that discrimination continues to threaten their norms, they begin to impose their history and norms as a prerequisite for accepting others. In other words, X wishes for others to abandon their shameful values in favor of X's proud values. X believes that same-gender marriage is immoral because they are embarrassed by it. When a member of X reads a book about homosexuality, she or he believes that the authors and readers of the book should be ashamed of themselves because my history told me I should be. I am on the right, proud side, and this value has no place in my moral cluster.
As previously stated, societies regard books as a threat to their moral standards. At this point, it may seem logical to emphasize the power of the written word. In my opinion, written work is more powerful than narrative work because it refers to time and distribution to others. They allow us to deliberate on the same word over and over again. Narratives can be applied to other values in appropriate ways, but the written word opens up new avenues. Books are not different versions of other people's values. They represent others' immorality in itself. Narratives, in general, teach moral lessons through the use of immoral elements. When listening to these stories, one notices the same elements and people in the same positions. Books can provide a space for these positions and interchangeable worlds.
What if books are more effective despite society's powerful attrition mechanism? Exclusion, even by shaming immoral books, is intended to shape the narrative to eliminate the power of the written word. Censoring indecent books is one solution. So, how far does inappropriateness go? What constitutes indecent or less?
Assume the grounds for a restriction to intervene in the domain of the other. Make the assumption, for example, that a book advocating abortion is published in a Christian country. Is it possible for someone connected to this case based on the bible and religious values to launch a legitimate campaign to have this book removed? I am opposed to censorship because of the risk of censorship regulations limiting the monopoly of subjectivity. Through subjective meaning, censorship limits can cover a wide range of limited areas. Understanding immorality may have an impact on science. Assume there is a tribe that believes God blessed rats and that its members allow rats to live with them. On the contrary, scientists claim that rats can transmit diseases to humans, and they publish an article about it. This tribe may regard this article as disrespectful and immoral in this case. Should scientific information be censored in such cases? It appears to be extremely dangerous. As a result, censorship is not a viable option.
Some critics may argue that reading immoral books is not solely an individual choice in the context of censorship. This interpretation implies that immoral books would encourage such behavior. Please assume that a parent does not want his child to learn profanity. The child, however, sells "A Clockwork Orange" and learns some immoral behaviors. When this father believes that censorship is justified, another reader of this book may respond, "Your child cannot read, but censorship restricts my right to read." The father's position may be justified because the pleasures of others affect his child and society.
Consequently, he may believe that they shared the same society's values and that it is his responsibility to correct others' immorality. Although I agree that the concept of immortality in books would have some negative consequences, I disagree with the overall conclusion that books should be censored. Children will only see the positive side of the world if all products are censored. This results in horror and major traumas when they encounter immoralities in their daily lives. Censorship also reduces the normal flow of books because books appear to be a utopia free of immoralities. It is contrary to human nature. Immortality does not vanish with censorship.
The majority's moral standards are not directly related to moral accuracy. To maintain their moral standards, society excludes others. If exclusion does not work, society will try to shame and put the immoral to shame. Immoral and indecent, which attacks the ego to demand that its history be abandoned. This is ideal for censorship through instrumentalization. It is used to censor controversial content because it raises a criterion problem that limits the scope of the starting point. Immoral things in which books are symbols embarrass societies in their myth and as a result of this historical imposition of the transmission path they choose. As a result, the books that the world considers immoral represent society's shame.