SRB

SRB: Now suppose moral realism is in fact false. What reasons do anti-realists have not to abuse children, if they wanted to do so? One reason relates to prudence....

Intensity : I think its misleading to make morality seem as a matter of survival. Our survival as individuals should not be the basis of our morality.

SRB
Why be moral? Some people have very little concern for others and little concern for what is moral. Concern for one's own welfare, however, is more common. So to show such people it is rational for them not to commit an immoral action, such an argument could be a very good one.

----------------

SRB: Another reason is that even if a person initially wants to abuse children, the person knows that deep down he will probably feel miserable and guilty afterwards. That is a good reason for him not to act.

Intensity : This is totally subjective and it would make it moral for someone to rape a child if they dont experience guilt afterwards.

SRB
As a matter of logic, that does not follow. In other words, it does not follow that if some reason R is a good reason to carry out a certain course of action A, then if R did not obtain then there would be no reason to carry out A. Furthermore, whether someone is miserable and feeling guilt is an objective matter of fact about their psychological state, not a subjective opinion.

I don't see that you have anywhere challenged my main theses, namely that that theists have no more reason than atheists to think that abusing children is objectively wrong, and can offer no good reasons not to abuse children that atheists cannot just as well offer. Furthermore, theists have the severe skeptical problem arising from certain beliefs they hold.

SRB

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: SRB ]</p>

Jagged

I'm really offended that this conversation is being allowed here.

If the question posted had been "Why shouldn't women be raped" would it be allowed? What about "why shouldn't pets be tortured?" My guess is no, since you are well aware it would produce a great deal of hurt for the women and pet owners on this board. The only difference here is that since there are no children in your direct environment, you've allowed yourselves to think of them as objects rather than humans. Temporary suspension of the knowledge that you are discussing an act of devastating psychological violence against a fellow being, for the sake of pleasure, because of a *superior position of power*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem with power plays is a pretty innate moral "knowledge." You knew it wasn't right to take your sister's toys because you were stronger. What the hell is there to discuss about it? And why are you not discussing what kind of damage happens to real humans as a result of these kind of acts? I find your discussion in extremely bad taste.

As a new "deconvert" to atheism, you guys are really scaring me. If I'm missing some point here as to why you find this an interesting question, could you please explain it to me?

I'm not saying you are all child molesters, but the fact that you're getting away with this discussion at all has a lot to do with the fact that you are [I admit editing this from *men*] *adults* and hold an larger proportion of the power in society than children. Suddenly your indiscretions are not destructive, they are open to debate. (You have a cookie, I want it, I'm bigger than you, I take the cookie, I eat the cookie, I start to delude myself that you didn't want the cookie after all and I was justified because I was hungry, nobody questions me because I'm bigger, I get together with the other big kids and we have a philosophical discussion of why we shouldn't grab everybody's cookies and try to pin down exactly if and why it is really WRONG, not taking into consideration the crying little kid whose cookie got stolen). Or are you just discussing this question from a "big kids" persepective? If so your answer will only hold water as long as you only interested in the welfare of the "big kids." Woe be to the rest of us.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

HelenM

Hi Becca,

I'm sorry this thread has bothered you. I think there's a difference between saying "I approve of certain behavior!", as compared with asking "Can anyone give me a logical basis for not engaging in certain behavior?" and then responding to the replies with (in effect) "But I can argue against what you said". The latter does not imply the former necessarily, although it's easy to assume it does.

In fact if you read the whole thread - although I don't recommend it if it bothers you! - you'd find that many people have responded with your outrage. And I don't think anyone claimed that sexual exploitation of children is morally justified.

This forum gets into some rather weird discussions at times, imo. If it's too weird for you then you're probably best off sticking to the others. But either way, please don't let this one thread convince you that the posters here are in favor of child exploitation. I think this thread has almost been closed a couple of times because some people find the topic so upsetting - some people here were abused as children (or as younger adults) - but I guess the thread survived, just.

take care
Helen

Jagged

(I'm gonna remove most of this... But I'd sure encourage anyone who holds a primary interest in the welfare of children to check out the following if you are not already aware of the effects of this kind of behavior. *And I completely stand by what I said in my first post.*)

<a href="http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Survivors-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.html" target="_blank">http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Survivors-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.html</a>

<a href="http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol5_no2/effects_of_sexual_abuse.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

PS Helen I do really appreciate your concern for me, thank you.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

The Other Michael

Hello Jagged Little Pill:

<strong>I'm really offended that this conversation is being allowed here. </strong>

There are sections of the SecWeb that are probably best avoided by the easily offended.

Here's the description of this forum:

Notice the "discuss all aspects" (emphasis added) phrase. Also notice that nothing is said about "only inoffensive topics will be discussed".

Sure thing - and if you look through the older threads you may find something similar to that has already been discussed.

Sure, we've discussed things like that, whether we get to eat animals, what defines a "person", should families be allowed to kill their brain-dead or disabled members, etc etc etc.

Most any topic, if it has a moral aspect, is fair game here.

It appears that very many people go through life with little or no understanding of why they hold various "moral" principles, and this forum is here to let people explore those ideas and discuss them with others. Even if you can't come to a firm decision on if something is right, wrong or indifferent, you'll very likely at least be exposed to someone who holds an idea quite different from yours, and who may very well be able to offer some hard to refute reasons for disagreeing with you.

I guess you haven't made it to the Humor or Rants, Raves and Preaching fora yet.

Don't make the common error of presuming that atheists have some prevailing shared beliefs beyond "we don't believe in one or more gods". There is no atheist dogma, whether moral, economic or political.

You'll find people are willing to discuss just about anything - some people because they are interested in getting more information or refining their thoughts, others just because they like to argue.

And how is that different from real life for some people?

Are you starting to get the idea?

In re this thread, there are people all over the world who do sexually exploit children, and it would seem they don't find any moral problems with that activity. Some of us are interested in trying to figure out why they feel/think that way instead of the way that many others think.

People often end up at the SecWeb because they have started to question things in their lives. You may find that once you start to question things like religious beliefs, it isn't too hard to start looking at other things in the world and question them too.

BTW, not everyone participates in every thread. If you see something (or someone) that doesn't interest you, offends you, or otherwise distresses you, feel free to not participate. We don't keep score on who is in the most discussions. But if you want to expand your horizons a bit, consider looking through some of the discussions that you may find offensive. Give some thought to the arguments that are offered by the different sides, and ask yourself if you can honestly give a good refutation to them, and if not, ask your self why.

Welcome to the SecWeb,

Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

The Other Michael

Hello Helen,

My, you have such a way with understatement!

There were people who did complain quite stridently about this thread, but the only times we've come close to closing it were because of the deterioration of the level of discussion, not because the topic was found offensive.

Thanks for taking the time to give Jagged Little Pill (presumably Becca) a nice response to her post.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

Jagged

You forgot to add "to me" or "to us." It is not an established fact that the topic is not, in fact, offensive. It is a question of who is making the call.

I may be new to this board, new to atheism, but I am not new to thinking or philosophy and I would like to be treated as if my opinion is worth *something*.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

HelenM

Hi again

I think you might have misunderstood Michael, somewhat.

I don't think he was saying the topic was not offensive. I think he was simply clarifying that whether it is offensive or not was not the reason it was under threat of closure.

He also said that it's quite permissible to discuss 'offensive' topics here on this forum.

You're certainly welcome to read and participate here but if it bothers you a lot that 'offensive' topics are discussed here, maybe it might not be the best choice for you, right now.

By the way - this might be a little reassuring - note that the discussions here are abstract and theoretical in nature. My sense is that topics which are allowed here as an abstract discussion, would not be allowed elsewhere as a suggestion.

For example, if someone posted "Hey, let's go rape some women tonight! Who wants to join me?" that would be very much frowned upon on these boards, I think. Maybe someone else can comment on whether I'm right about that.

Also, if you do think that the topics which are permissible to discuss on this forum ought to be more limited, go ahead and say so on the Bugs, Complaints and Problems board. That's a good place to discuss the philosophy of these boards, in general. My perception is that the tendency is to allow more rather than less freedom, and that it's helpful to be able to ignore certain threads or people or forums, if they bother you. People who can do that generally find something helpful here, for them, because it's big enough and diverse enough. Well, maybe not most theists, but otherwise...

I guess this has got a little off-topic...

Helen

Jagged

Now I *know* I've offended the "big kids" - they are scrambling to reinterpret each other's words in a show of solidarity against the bad little newbie asking the bad questions... I *know* I'd better make like a tree or face the firing squad. I'll leave you to it.
"People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." --Rebecca West

The Other Michael

I'm not sure that I have even the faintest idea what you are talking about.

I certainly wasn't offended by your posts, I just saw that you didn't understand what was/was not allowed in this forum and gave you an explanation.

Helen seems to have accurately pointed out your misconception - you might want to reread her post (and mine) again.

To reiterate, we (I'm speaking here on the behalf of the moderating staff for MF&P, and if I get it wrong the others will chime in and correct me) don't care if a topic is offensive. It does have to be something that won't bring the minions of the law knocking on the SecWeb door - so as Helen correctly pointed out, we have no problem with discussing the morality of rape (or various aspects thereof) but will quickly move to quash the advocation of rape or other illegal act which might result in some liability for the SecWeb.

It doesn't matter if you find a topic offensive - in fact it doesn't matter if I as a moderator find a topic offensive. What does matter is that the discussion moves along in a reasonably civil manner (this doesn't always happen) and stays reasonably on topic (problematic at times) and related to "moral foundations and principles". Rational discussion is nice too, but at times seems to be difficult to come by, though we do try.

But, as Helen mentioned (Helen, thanks for watching the place while I was out today ) if you feel strongly about this or any other topic being inappropriate for discussion, Bugs, Complaints and Problems is the place to bring it up. By posting there you bring things directly to the attention of the Admins, hallowed be their names.

Speaking of solidarity, isn't it refreshing to see some between atheists and theists, if even on only a small point like understanding the forum rules? Maybe there is some hope for the world after all.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class
(edited for stupid homonym spelling mistake)

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>