Doubting Didymus

Well, no. A moments reflection would tell you that, if humans have the right to obtain pleasure even where it infringes on the rights of others, then all rights become self - contradictory. How can someone have the 'right' to take away someone elses 'rights'? Wouldn't the person having their rights removed then also have the right to respond in kind? All you are left with is the right to fight.

No, I stand by my original statement. All things that are pleasureable and do not infringe on the rights of others are okay.

Amos:

What happens if there is a tie?

Totalitarianist

You mean that blockhead John Mill? The idiot confused the words "desire" and "desirable", and his entire philosophy is refuted by that alone. Funny. I just thought I should mention that because it is...funny.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lady Anoteros ]</p>

Totalitarianist

All good points here. But I would say that that right is not justified.

Doubting Didymus

Which right are you referring to?

winstonjen

Do you mean we should have laws against 'victimless crimes' because you think they are immoral? They don't hurt anyone! It's not your business if they do that in their private lives!

Ms. Siv

Wrong and right are not absolute terms ... but I do agree with you that paedophilia is an unacceptable practise. The question is .... why so ? Not because of sex, but because of exploitation.
Minors are too young to be able to decide for themselves. Which is why all major decisions are made by their parents. Thats why paedophilia is wrong.

- S.

Amos

Maybe it was John Stuart Mill. What I remember most is that he was the reason for Dostoevski to write that pleasure cannot be conceived to exist without pain except in the eyes of an Englishman.
I thought that was funny and really is not againts the Englishman but more against British Analytic philosophy.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Silent Acorns

The fact of the matter is that paedophilia does cause the child pain, both emotional and physical, both long-term and short-term. As a result, the above axiom would suggest that paedophilia is unacceptable.

Vesica

Intresting you should put it this way...What of the girl? Does she have no rights over her own body or once again is this an arguement that at heart says 'Parents own the bodies of thier children - within limits.'

Not only can parents not use the bodies of their own children for sexual purposes, they can deny those same children the right to do what they wish with thier bodies....

It seems to me that the case of a young girl wanting to have relations with an older (and I assume illegal) man is one quite different from an older man forcing his attentions on a younger girl.

Amen-Moses

A distinction that is so often overlooked apparently.

Of course this situation is rarely factored in because most people are loath to even admit the possibility. Maybe putting it the other way around, i.e a 12 or 13 year old boy wanting a relationship with an adult woman, is more palatable? (certainly was in my case, unfortunately for me she was unattainable )

Amen-Moses