Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Playboy Philosophy

e firing line with William F Buckley Jr and Hugh Hefner tonight the Playboy philosophy Hugh Hefner is widely known as the founder editor and publisher of Playboy magazine uh and the entrepreneur of related Enterprises among them the Playboy clubs which are designed simultaneously to stimulate all the senses uh Mr Hefner's magazine is most widely known for its total exposure of the human female though of course other things happen in its pages but Mr Hefner insists that it is a great deal more there is such a thing as a Playboy philosophy of which he is the prophet and that that philosophy is destined to liberate us all from what he variously calls superstition pury tyranny moral absolutism that kind of thing uh the philosophy made its debut approximately four years ago under the surprise of everyone in the horror of Psalm still continues chapter after chapter issue after or issue aboutou safing to the world the philosophy of Mr Hugh Hefner although Mr Hefner deals with a number of subjects once again it is his views on sex that are especially controversial and especially observed I should like to ask him just to begin with whether he rejects conventional judeo-christian codes of sexual behavior Mr hath uh yes uh at the essence of them I think I do uh uh the philosophy really I think uh is an anti- puritanism uh a response really to the Puritan part of our of our culture So to that extent uh sex I think is part of uh of uh the judeo-christian ethic that kind of uh got lost uh and is is the part that is restrictive and and not truly I think naturalistic well the the judeo Christian code obviously um as we know anti puritanism didn't it yes it covers a lot of I'm talking about whether or not you reject cotton Ma's accretions uh on the Mosaic law but whether you uh reject the mosaic well uh Mr Hafner if if you do in fact uh reject what is commonly known as the uh Christian code or the religious code uh why why why do you take the position that uh the Playboy philosophy is really in a sense non-controversial that it is sort of congruent with the new reality if in fact you have Rewritten the ancient theological tablets uh ORD you to claim some kind of a moral authority to do so and if so what is that moral Authority is it only your own Intuition or or what is it well first of all I don't think that uh uh just related to sex uh just that part of the philosophy this is not really a rejection in any in any real sense of the total uh uh Christian ethic related to sex uh it's an attempt to re-evaluate uh some of the social sexual ills of our time and and um I think that what's going on in society at this particular time this quest for uh uh an num morality is something that we're only you know One Small Voice in uh and it's a it's really an attempt to supply u a 20th century code although I dislike the word code because I think the the old legalism is part of the the the problem I think that hopefully we're going to uh evolve a more um what's been called Situation ethics uh an approach to ethical problems where sex is concerned not unlike the approach that we use where other problems are concerned in no other area of morality uh I don't think is it is it as cut and dried that uh you follow a certain law simply to follow that law even if it sometimes takes you out the window uh in the case of uh uh premarital sex I think you've got the prime example of this how's so well uh We've uh taken the attitude traditionally and this certainly didn't begin uh uh it's not Christian in the sense that it came from Christ per se but uh it's something that grew through the organization and historical uh uh the anti-sexual aspect of the of the Christian ethic uh grew through the centuries and and became especially extreme in the Puritan and Victorian thing that we suffer from here in America and it's uh a rejection of the notion that sex can be can have any real place any moral place prior to marriage and I don't think this is really um I don't think it's logical I think we know a great deal more about the psychosexual nature of man now that indicates that it's not logical I don't think it's uh truly to the best interest of people and I don't think it's truly moral in the sense that we would apply the word moral or ethical in any other area of activ well I I know that that is your your view but I think what is interesting is your authority of stating it I I I'm not suggesting that you don't have the right to prolate your own point of view uh I am simply suggesting that it is rather unusual to see uh you as you describe your philosophy uh Express a a sense of shock uh that uh moral exet during the preceding 2,000 years should have had the the nerve to disagree with you uh and uh uh uh it is I I think uh important for the record to establish that you are are seeking in effect to anull the traditional code about what is proper sexual behavior but let me ask you this I'm suggesting that be reexamined you suggested that two or three times or stated to it's not true that I'm by any sense because the end that I'm seeking is really very similar uh I think that we are more apt to have a truly monogamous Society if we do more realistically uh come to grips with some of these problems I think that we've avoided the problems with some of these old rules that have simply been there and uh and ignored much of the time well but but do do you as as uh as a matter of fact tend to take uh the position uh in which you would not be unique uh that any moral laws that don't in fact reflect human behavior or them themselves uh philosophic Al suspect that is to say I know that for instance you site Kinsey with extraordinary enthusiasm as though he had in fact liberated your thinking on the matter uh and you say well look here here Kinsey observes uh that the the typical human male the typical human female are sexually promiscuous and under the circumstances we ought to reverse our laws and our public attitudes in order to make permissible and perhaps even admirable that which in fact Happ happens are you a a a positivist in this sense I think that only becomes part of it I don't think that it follows per se that simply because a thing is done even done by a majority of people that is necessarily the best and moral thing but I think that when you are involved with are concerned with a a a natural physical drive and something as basic to the nature of man as sex is that when you do get scientific evidence as Kinsey has supplied that uh uh indicates the great disparity this to me is the value of Kinsey indicated for the first time statistically the great disparity that existed between our professed beliefs and the uh the actual actions of society I don't think it follows therefore per se that what has been uh uh revealed as as what is occurring is necessarily moral but as one good reason for questioning some of the old morality I think that the reasons are we run a good deal different deeper than that the real reasons are that many of these moral views are not good for people that that good just Humane ends do not come from these uh these old uh traditions and I think that I think the premarital sex since that's what we're talking about here at the moment premarital sex can be moral or immoral just as marital sex canh well now but but what what qualifies you to um Advance this this position uh it is of course a position uh which which happens to be um uh again highly congruent with a highly salable philosophy uh your your magazine has a lot of readers uh and is considered sort of uh uh exciting uh in virtue of its sexual iconic clasm but uh it it does seem to me that the the background of people who have uh taken it on themselves to reverse ancient uh attitudes about very sacred matters has been one of a a lifetime of of study uh and a certain amount of uh moral Agony given over to these questions but playbo all of a sudden simply announces uh that thanks in part to it we simply have to repeal these the these ancient attitudes and I have seen uh in your own Playboy philosophy no other justification for it than that uh people ought not to be afflicted with a tormented conscience simply because they give way to their sexual sexual uh liberos uh irrespective of of the consequences now that that is really an effect your opposition I.E isn't it it's sort of hedonistic UT utilitarianism UNC the ma the uh philosophy this editorial series that we've been involved in uh has been if it's been criticized for one single thing uh uh it has been its verbosity and and uh much of that has been due to the fact that uh We've quoted at Great length uh a great many sources I think that uh uh scientific uh uh religious uh you know practical and and philosophical related to these questions I I it seems to me that what you're really saying is um what right have I to express what are admittedly only my own particular uh evaluations of the situation and it seems to me that that's what um that's what a free Society is all about no I I recognize you're right and I specifically uh conceited it a moment ago under the Constitution of the United States say any anything you want at all what I'm what I'm here to question is your credentials uh as a serious moral teacher uh and it seems to me though that the uh the flavor of your protracted ger in Playboy uh is simply to speak uh about those who disagree with you uh as old crotchy uh uh Puritans who unfortunately don't share your sense of Enlightenment in connection with what you said and I think it Bears very very directly on your point you say that the Kinsey Report revealed a considerable disparity between what actually goes on and what people suppose goes goes on why why do you say that that is to say what to whom do you suppose that this the Kinsey Report came as a great surprise can you imagine a uh for instance a Catholic Confessor who would have been surprised by the Kinsey Report why why why did why did christ refer to his disposition to forgive a sinner 70 times 7 times unless he anticipate the possibility of 490 sins I think it came great surprise to the general public no I don't think it came as a surprise to people who are deeply involved in this kind of problem uh uh you know whether on the religious side or uh you know on the social or psychological side but for the general public the revelations in the report I think uh were very much a uh an eye opener but more than that they brought them out into the public print and this again I think is where Playboy and the philosophy are are really important it is not uh I don't think that any particular although I agree that many aspects of of the philosophy are in one sense controversial in that these are the things that uh these social questions are the things that are being debated in society today the philosophy is not really putting forth a um a unique or original point of view the major thing I think that we're in a position to do and and uh happily so from from my uh own point of view is is to um permit the exchange of views on these things and uh to probe into some of the questions that do not find uh a general um airing in in the popular press and I think this is one of the problems that we've suffered from in the past related to sex and some other questions too well I I I don't deny that you occasionally Ambush a denter into writing uh in your columns so as to be slapped down by your very skillful editors but but there is a Playboy line very much so very much that Playboy line is a line that for instance refers to uh uh the quotes Bugaboo of sin refers to quotes a sacred cows and as I understand it uh the Bugaboo of sin uh is your reference to those theological sanctions uh that uh attempt to restrain certain people from giving way to lustful uh uh anxiety is on the grounds that to do so uh is wrong what I don't understand is what I what what what what I wish you would explain to me is why you simply uh brush aside the very concept of wrong uh and right why you feel that there is that they are highly irrelevant provided you have as you are so frequently put to consenting adults what I attack is the notion that right and wrong should be related simply to the notion of sin simply to a notion of Thou shalt not rather than related to the real Ultimate interests of the human beings involved that's what the philosophy is all about but do you do you suppose that the people who wrote the Bible some some people even alleged that they were divinely inspired or against the ultimate interests of people are you going to die a happier man than St Francis of AI as a result of youris basic sexual ethic is really based upon the Bible per se it's much more complex than that and became you know Much More Much More restricted than that well I would find it a much easier geographical act to trace a line between puritanism and the Bible than between the Playboy philosophy and the Bible yes I think that's although I I agree with you there are certain accretions uh which have never been acknowledged by all theological thinkers but all theological Christians theologically trained thinkers take take the position that simply because somebody desires to do something doesn't necessarily make it right but I don't understand you to be taking this position I've seen a very well I think we're overlooking a very important uh key in this thing one of the basic things that we have argued against is the notion that in our particular concept of a free Society with the emphasis that is placed in America on separation of church and state that the notion of sin or predicating these social sexual taboos on any kind of religious concept uh that this is not a proper approach in a society in which uh that is supposed to be pluralistic and supposed to be secular it doesn't mean that each particular religious denomination can't come up with their own particular evaluation of of sin as they see it but I don't think that sin should have any particular place in uh secular society as such because it's a religious concept and should remain there gentlemen will pursue this point further after this brief Interruption uh it seems me Mr hner that that your position begs a a couple of Facts of Life I know you're interested in Facts of Life one of them is that is that that man being uh religiously oriented uh a society tends to have certain uh religious commitments which may be uh extremely necessary in fact indispensable to the ethos of that Society whatever the particular arrangements are as regards the actual division of the authority between church and state so that uh I think it is possible to say that there never was a completely atheistic uh State at least not one this this side of of tyranny but the second even accepting your premise uh is is is surely this that in your emphasis on the private moral authority of the individual you cease to to take into account do you not uh that man's uh sexual activity if it is uh normal uh is is is not a masturbatory matter is something uh that involves other individuals and that in the course of that relationship all of society has a certain vested interest in the nature of that relationship that under the circumstances it is not as you as as as you put it somewhere here uh when you said a man's morality like his religion is a personal Affair best left to his own conscience uh surely it isn't personal if it involves somebody else if it involves children uh if involves his neighbors uh if it involves his whole relationship to the community you've raised two kinds of questions there are two separate questions I think that um obviously you do need in any society and and there has always been an underlying ethical or moral uh set of values that is is society-wide but I think that uh it would be dismissing too lightly the thing that uh is distinctly unique to or was in the beginning to the American concept of democracy this uh this notion of separating church and state was a rather um you know radical kind of concept when it was conceived and a great many people didn't think it was going to work as a matter of fact it was never conceived in America no it N Out of 15 states had established religions so the the the the idea of the kind of division you're talking about was a discovery of er war of about 78 years ago no the kind of concept I'm talking about is something that you'll find in the Constitution and it wasn't in the thir first 13 colonies but it was indeed incorporated into the basic concept of America and this uh this wall of separation that they talk about uh uh you know not not excluding uh religion per se or religious morality is what we're really talking about here but recognizing that uh you know traditionally historically uh in the old world this was the key to much of the chaos and the and the that's let's not talk about the tability of Separation I I agree with you what I am challenging is a a notion that religion ought not to inform the values of a citizen that after all is a completely different thing than what we're talking about uh well but not not different from what Playboy Playboy philosophy is engaged in making fun of every religious notion however it is translated whether through the laws or through the teachings of uh of of our venerable ancestors that anybody who disagrees with you is is just plain wrong he's superstitious he's Pur tyrannical uh one of your U terms uh and and I I I'm asking you whether or not you agree with the proposition that whatever the Agreements are between church and state in point of fact uh the so-called freedom of the church uh as outlined and explained and offended even by people who desire to keep the church and state separate father Murray for instance quoted by you frequently as a case in point that precisely that feedom with the church is to inform the people about the necessity to maintain certain values that lead that conduce to a viable existence and that you are engaged in breaking those values at least as far as to say I have no reservation to the free exchange of various points of view relative to this or any other question coming from religious quarters or any other and it would be very easy for uh uh the viewers here perhaps to get the mistaken notion also that the basic things that Playboy uh puts forth are per se on one side of the of the uh U disagreement here and that the religious community is on the other side this true is not is not true this this thing called a sexual Revolution which is really uh what we're talking about here is is something that is going on in both secular and religious uh uh religious community and is something in which uh a great many uh more liberal members of the clergy are very deeply involved and and concerned about I think this search for a new ethical you know set of moral values based on something other than simply rigid rules set set forth many many centuries ago is uh is something from which only good can come I have no doubt that you are simultaneously in pursuit of good and a high circulation for Playboy magazine and that you consider the two to be common goals and I have no doubt either that today as a thousand years ago uh you're going to find divines who are perfectly prepared to agree with you that we ought to have a completely quote sex liberated Society uh I myself tend to be a little bit Orthodox at least as regards this I understand the the the the Christian tradition to be one that says merely because you have an appetite is not an excuse for uh giving into it and I understand the Playboy philosophy to saying to be saying it is uh to lead to a kind of a neurotic repression to ask somebody to give it incidentally said that Freud said that well no he didn't say quite exactly that well see see one of the things I think that's very important in the first place he was a very Orthodox monogamist one of the well I think that we're more to get what Freud said was understand what it is that you're doing to yourself we are more to get he was not a latitudinarian as regards personal Behavior we are more AP to get true monogamy happy monogamy uh something other than the than the uh quential polygamy that we really have in society today if uh I think if we take a more realistic say the hell do you know how do you know well all you can do is based upon it seems to me uh uh the facts that exist as we know them today which are considerably different than those that existed many centuries ago we do have Freud we do have some as in many other areas of of man's uh advancement there have been significant technological advances just within the last few years the pill uh the scientific though not the actual uh solution to the problem of veneral disease these two great bugaboos in the past that lent some seeming logic to the simple vow shal knots now technologically have been solved we haven't been able to apply them socially yet but it seems to me that it does begin to to permit the opportunity of of examin sex in in A New Concept that is not totally related to procreation and is not uh but is is is isn't this analogous to saying that uh since the discovery of insurance policies is perfectly all right to Rob no I think it's the principal uh uh the principal fact of robbery is the deprivation which deprivation no longer is Meaningful if you have an insurance policy do I understand you to say that you're relating sex to robbery is that what you're saying I I am suggesting that there is a sanction both against uh qus elicit sex and incidentally elicit sex after all is only what we call elicit sex is all premarital sex elicit sex and I suppose the question before the house is whether God also calls it elicit sex assuming that you acknowledge his existence but uh here here is something that has always rather struck me as paradoxical in your behavior uh here is your magazine in effect in effect encouraging uh prual premarital Lous and as a matter of fact postmarital Lous and uh uh but uh but you give very very strict orders to your bunnies in the Playboy clubs that they must under no circumstances consort sexually with their patrons now why do you do this why might this stfy them might this inconvenience the patrons aren't you being a little bit inconsistent and being so consistent rigid no it's kind of a notion you see you suggest that what I really have is a kind of a a view of society in which there are no rules uh personal or otherwise and of course this is not the kind of thing that I have in mind at all any kind of Freedom requires greater personal responsibility but where the clubs are concerned this is simply a matter of not feeling that uh it's necessary to mix uh sex and the commercial why not in other words the clubs are there for a specific purpose and that's the specific purpose assuming it were legal to do so would you set up a series of brothel around the country why not because I think that u in what way would this be inconsistent with the Playboy philosophy it wouldn't be inconsistent it's just not my cup of tea why not profitable enough no I just am motivated by other things that's all no but I I I really mentioned this because uh uh I take seriously and my uh the attempt to understand the Playboy philosophy and I I don't understand why on the one hand you should urge uh this kind of uh uh latitudinarianism and on the other hand in certain other aspects of your commercial life uh be rather uh a martinet on the subject I don't understand why you give one series of instructions to your readers and another to your bunnies in New York City and Chicago well we don't give any instructions to the bunnies in terms of their personal life that's the point in other words this is not their personal life this is a specific operation set there for a specific purpose and uh to wait a minute as I understand it because I've read your your quote of behavior for the bunnies and as I understand it are they not permitted to go home with patrons even after they are off duty isn't that correct all of this requires and and really the the motivation behind it is really a protection for the girls themselves it it permits us to protection against what against uh against uh uh the infinite variety of ways that they would have to find to decline pleasantly if they wanted to decline pleasantly that's the point other words it uh it simply separates the one from the other I see no inconsistency of any kind to me uh to be consistent the other way uh it would mean that uh uh an analogy that I've used before uh that zigf Feld because he put beautiful girls on a stage that were uh inviting and delightful as a part of his show would be obliged to supply them with the orange drink during the intermission I think that the two are you know the one does not follow logically from the other gentlemen may we continue in just a moment we would like to interrupt briefly uh Mr H it seems to me uh that precisely what quotes follows is is directly in point that is to say if a careful reader of the Playboy philosophy emerges uh as for instance I myself did on on reading it with the notion uh that there ought not be any restraint uh on uh on one's quot normal appetites then then then then precisely what follows our our ears uh at at at what point does it all of a sudden become pertinent to suggest certain restraints uh and it seems to me that you run into this difficulty with this paradoxical advice as I said a moment ago that you give on the one hand to your readers and on the other hand to to your bunnies who are in the position to gratify those uh those restraints now we see as recently as a couple of weeks ago uh a position that might be uh a a part of your hundredth installment your Playboy philosophy here's an ad in the the most distinguished literary uh weekly or rather fortnightly published in New York City for a book called A a Bill of Rights for erotic liberation of the sexually different and their point really being I suppose that there is no reason at all for you arbitrarily to decide what's normal and what's abnormal in point of fact you have gone rather far yourself in suggesting that that which uh has uh from time to time being considered abnormal in sexual life it really oughtn't be so it to be completely normal so Swedish doctor publishes a book uh in which He suggests that uh convenient Provisions ought to be made for the sexually quotes different or even quotes The necrophiles Who require a corpse as the object of their passion the idea being that presumably it's a social responsibility to U uh to accommodate uh their tastes now who says a as somebody says must say B and what I don't find anywhere in your sexual of philosophy uh is the point at which you say look even though this is what you would like to do don't uh and the reason you oughtn't uh is is is is uh something that doesn't attach merely or doesn't consult merely Your Personal Pleasures of the moment uh but certain strategic ethical Notions where is this in the play Playboy philosophy why doesn't B follow from a well I think that uh B does follow a uh but it follows I think it seems to be in this way one we've emphasized very much relative to sex and everything else uh in the philosophy that uh man is and should be responsible for his actions the freedom is not something that uh uh removes restraints per se but the the you know the very implications of a free Society uh and this is so obvious to us in every other way it's just that sex has gotten lost in it does require personal responsibilities and does man is and should be accountable for his acts now where sexual deviation is concerned I think that a very important valid point can be made sexual deviation as such is perpetuated by the kind of suppressive attitude on sex that we've traditionally had in society one of the things that we're strongly opposed to Dr gibart recently at the the sex Institute at Indiana University uh was asked uh uh whether he felt that there would ever be a a significant decline in homosexuality in America and he said Not until we're willing to put far more emphasis on the heterosexual than we are today uh Society itself and the kind of conditions that it places around sex very much determines the direction that the normal or that the that the innate Sex Drive is going to take in people you can either have a a a society that emphasizes uh that has a more permissive uh emphasis on the heterosexual and the healthy or you can have one that is essentially uh restrictive essentially suppressive and and uh uh leads to oppression and results in uh a maximum amount of uh perversion a maximum amount of frigidity and impotence and all the other problems that go with it well no I I I know that you have acknowledged get back to the first point you made are the quotes responsibilities and people must take responsibilties with their action what I've never seen you do is enumerate those responsibilities God knows it has been because of a lack of space no but one of the major reasons for it I think what are the responsibil suppose the woman feels that her life has been shattered as a result of the man's decision that he's had enough of and wants to go on to the next uh uh uh uh interest uh to to what what are those responsibilities you talk about so often but don't enumerate uh the responsibility always to uh take precautions against the birth of a child always take precautions against Nal disease what what are the responsibilities to people to to women you know you've been accused by for instance Professor dead of of reducing quotes the whole man to his private poets yes uh and Accused by uh Professor Harvey Cox of really being antis seexual in the sense that a woman is simply an accessory and my reaction to that is yeah your reaction's been I don't get to express my re go ahead my reaction is of course that uh uh female emancipation is very much related to sexual emancipation that the two cannot be separated from one another and that it is our traditional attitude on sex that has placed woman very much in this second class non-human role in which Chastity has been more important than human welfare so it is only out of this uh but truly the question is whether Chastity is related to human welfare isn't it for instance your Notions of privacy you rush off to say well look after all God invented the human body and under the circumstan you find it grotesque to assume the total exposure is obscene but what what role does does does privacy play in your life is it or is it not true that your photographers ran pictures of Jane Fonda naked without her her permission to do so or do you simply consider that her permission was absolutely irrelevant since after all God made her the whole of and therefore she belongs to your readers no quite the contrary if uh if we'd known all the circumstances involved in the U first of all uh Playboy very much is involved in where nudity is concerned um uh you know a professional uh agreement between model and magazine and uhu uh this was the the we're not uh uh a confidential of the uh of the uh photographic World in other words we don't go into people's private homes Etc in the Fonda case uh this was something where she was involved in something that was directly related to her career care but indeed in addition to that if I had known all of the facts as they later came out uh we would not have printed the pictures well do you have a contempt for Jane Fonda because of her refusal to exhibit her body on your pages is she a victim of one of these bugaboos one of these old the implication that in other words it'll be a very sad thing indeed if what we get out of this transitional period because we are going through a period of moral transition related to sex and we will not be going back to will not be going back to the old Concepts now if all we wind up with out of this is a new legalism in which Thou shalt or thou must replaces Thou shalt not I agree with you we'll be no better off the attempt in in uh uh establishing something that will be more related truly to what I consider to be really ethical or really moral will be a situation in which people are able to make these decisions situationally related to the real circumstances and related to people's real interest don't you miss this point that individuals have got to make these decisions with reference to certain norms and you're there trying to subvert those Norms I.E you are taking the position that those people who disagree with you are irrational oldfashioned activistic while simultaneously you say well under the in a free Society they ought to be privileged in effect you say this in parenthesis to act like queers to act like oldfashioned uh I forget some of those colorful phrases that you use this to describe your adversaries well I don't think all my adversaries are irrational by any means well particularly if they start from a premise that is basically religious right therefore if they if they are not irrational ought you to concede that there exists uh a rational defense of uh certain theories having to do with social behavior which however you keep dismissing with the sacred uh the bugaboos the oldfashioned concepts of sin and so on so forth because again we're talking about him placing on secular society what is essentially a religious moral ethic and that I very much oppose I'm not opposed to the moral to the religious moral ethic but I'm very much opposed to applying it to that part of society that no I'm opposed only to to applying it to the part of society that may happen to have different views a couple seconds L but I do beg you to knowledge is distinction that number one you you concede everyone's right to his religion this this I take for granted that's right but you are actively engaged in trying to persuade people stop applying their moral that their religion uh is not equipped uh to to to uh uh equip them with the eony to disagree with you about what are the proper modes of sexual behavior these particular religious moral views have found their way into our laws have found our way into our sexual social code it is that that I'm opposed to you you write thousands of words every month in your magazine that have nothing to do with the laws in which you give your avuncular advice to Miss Jones and Mr Smith who write to you about their sexual difficulties and the course of meeting out advice you never once ask them that I have seen to consult their religion or to consult uh what I might call Expert or teachers of of Ethics you simply take over and doing so uh you are you are not merely using your own freedom to govern your own personal life but you are urging uh it to undermine uh the precepts which an awful lot of people hold are indispensable to the survival of community life what we're doing is supplying an alternate point of view to the ones that are all too prevalent in an Landers and in much of the rest of secular society in those special departments like the advisor and the Forum where readers specifically ask us questions this is very different than indicating that this is the only way one of the the real key to the philosophy is not offering an alternate moral code to the traditional one but a suggestion that uh there may be some better answers than that we're apt to find some better answers if we reexamine many of these old traditional ideas gentlemen we continue in just a moment if we may we'd like to interrupt briefly gentlemen we have some questions who have been which have been submitted by our viewers we'll direct specific questions to each of you but if you have a rejoiner or a comment or rebuttal please feel free to offer it Mr Buckley will direct the first question to you what is your first reaction to Mr Hefner's comment that the only solution to the nuclear problem and we quote is to turn over all our nuclear weapons to the UN close quote well I think it's a uh it's a uh program for disaster and I think that um I I wasn't aware that Mr Hefner had made that particular statement I did but maybe he would want to modify it if he did yes yes uh the quote uh that particular quote uh came from I think the piece that was done on me by the Saturday evening post and what I did say however was was not unrelated to that it was not the un uh per se but what I I said was that the only eventual possible uh solution to the problem of uh nuclear Armament it seemed to me clearly was in some kind of government World governmental control of same uh now obviously simply turning them over to the UN at this particular point would be impractical because the safeguards aren't there but that there is no possible solution in the two Alternatives that are offered most often in the popular Press today neither disarmament nor a number of different countries and increasingly a greater number arming for the war that everyone is aware can't be fought uh is any solution and that if we are ever going to reach a point this is one far more dramatic example than uh than sex where technology has outrun the social uh problems uh we've got to find a way in which we can uh live together in a world other than by War and by force in the light of the explanation Mr Buckley do you have any comment Go sir we'll direct a question to you Mr Hefner wouldn't you agree that there is a direct relationship between between the decline of absolute moral standards and the consequent rise of crime and depravity Etc no not at all I think that uh sex crimes U uh come from from just the opposite I think there were more acts of we're very aware right now of uh in this last year or so a number of acts of violence which at their heart are basically sexual but this kind of thing comes not from uh uh a more what I would call a more realistic uh uh evaluation of uh sexual morality but uh from basically suppressive attitudes it's it's out of sex suppression that this kind of uh violence comes I'm assuming Mr Buckley you would care to comment yes I I I I I know and everybody knows that it is extremely hard for criminologists to uh come up with any conclusive tables on the relationship between violence uh passively enjoyed and violence explicitly committed uh however uh I think that uh it is a matter of common sense if that word hasn't also been un arroniz uh to to recognize that to the extent that a society is deprived of a sense of reality having to do with what is right and what is wrong and what is permissible and what is impermissible uh a certain kind kind of self-indulgence is is encouraged that is to say if you have a society in which it's in which it is universally agreed that certain kinds of activity are wrong that in itself acts as a social and psychological deterrent and there is no question that during the 20th century the the roots of knowledge about ethics uh have been considerably uh uprooted and that for that reason uh even though such such tables as I speak of haven't been developed uh there is no doubt in my mind that there is some relationship between man's exclusive pursuit of his own desires and his willingness to frustrate popular conventions about violence and sex Mr Buckley we'll direct this next question to you sir hasn't the new morality so-called already displaced the old morality isn't in effect uh Mr Hefner's new morality now the established morality well it's uh uh it's certainly more established than it was before uh in this respect uh I agree with uh with Mr Hefner that uh it is part of what they call the Zeitgeist uh it is part of the uh General solipsism of our time part of what Dean Fitch refers to as the Odyssey of the self-center itself I.E I count and nobody else counts under the circumstances that which gives me a pleasure is in and of itself a venerable objective so I do agree the new moral the new morality is on the March what I disagree about is that it's welcome mrft you choose to reply I think my feeling is that we are very much involved at this particular point in in a period of transition and that uh the new morality may seem to apply where sex is concerned up to a certain point where because it is far and away from having been firmly established on all levels of society where both social and legal considerations are concerned uh a young person may find himself caught up in some of the very real problems related to the traditional morality and because he's come in conflict with them well gentlemen we have just about run out of time for our questions from our viewers thank you very kindly well we have only a few seconds Mr Hefner but I I I would like to to say that I detect a contrast between uh your your tone in explaining the Playboy philosophy here today and your tone of the magazine here it seems to me your advant ing it as an alternative view of Human Experience whereas in magazine in your magazine I understand you to advancing it as as the only modern uh intellectually responsible way of looking at things no not at all in other words uh the philosophy really uh is just our own particular mine essentially and the Magazine's uh evaluation of the social sexual ills and um an attempt to reexamine and suggesting some Alternatives well thank you very much very nicely and thank you for coming thank you thank you [Music]

Channel: Hoover Institution Library & Archives

Views: 80,837

Keywords: Firing Line, William F. Buckley Jr, Hugh Hefner, Playboy

Id: 71B6hqEbbYQ

Length: 48min 30sec (2910 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 25 2017