1. Why does Arkes reject the plea that prostitution is a "victimless crime"? (Page 231.) Is his argument that there are victims -- the hooker, the pimp, the john, a 'love child'? Or does he have other reasons?
2. Arkes suggests, "The argument over prostitution canot be settled . . . by charting material injuries and pointing to harmful, ancillary effects." (Page 232.) Why not?
3. According to Ericsson, "To say that prostitution is intrinsically immoral is in a way to refuse to give any arguments. The moralist simply 'senses' or 'sees' its immorality. And this terminates rational discussion at the point where it should begin." (Page 241.) Do you agree? Doesn't Ericsson see or sense that prostitution is not immoral?
4. In rejecting the claim that prostitution is inherently wrong, is Ericsson a relativist?