99Percent

Pomp: I don't see why not. It boils down to saying that an act is "immoral" if and only if it bothers other moral agents to the degree that they are willing to take measures to prevent it from being done

This is what is so wrong with subjectivism. How can a person be moral if the only thing that prevents him from doing immoral acts is threat of force? There is no morality involved, no thinking, no reasoning. People are automatically punished or not depending on how they act or desire.

(or, in slightly different terms, if contracting agents would agree that an act is to be prohibited).

This is basically mob rule. If the majority decides that smoking pot is wrong because it "bothers" them then it becomes immoral so it must be illegal too?

To address the current question, then, child exploitation would be immoral simply because most people have a fairly large degree of empathy for children and are willing to take action to prevent their exploitation.

This is not morality at all. Its mob rule. There could be "empathy" for a number of other things, or people could be "bothered" for trivial things to the point that they take action. For example it "bothered" the white people in the south that a mix race couple got married, and took action to ban it and punish them. Should we allow that to happen?

tronvillain: If you are not sufficiently bothered by the exploitation of children to refrain from exploiting them, then I must resort to threats of force, and ultimately force itself. So what?

In the case of exploiting children this sounds ok. But how can you apply this same reasoning to any other act that I might commit, say smoking a cigarrete, or drinking tequila, or having sex with two women? If it bothered you that I was gay to the point that you must resort to threats of force and ultimately force itself, is that valid?

Tom Piper: What you said. I would seem that if people don't understand objective morality, there is no point in trying to convince them - they seem to lack enough reason.

JerryM

I think one can justify why sexually exploiting children is wrong without resorting to purely subjective moral reasons (such as: it's wrong because it's unethical, it's repellant, I think it's disgusting, etc.) I would pose a rule-utilitarian ethic. That is, our actions should be guided by rules, and those rules should, as much as possible, should promote the greatest good and happiness for everyone. An important rule is the principle of autonomy. This states that a person should generally have the right to decide what is done to his or her own body. It's not absolute, of course. There are exceptions (inability to make decisions, causing harm to other persons, etc.) And this rule is justified by the observation that the happiest and most harmonious societies are those where individuals are generally free of control by others. I think a study of history will show that strongly authoritarian societies, certainly where authority is imposed without overall consent, must spend valuable resources on maintaining control. Time and energy goes into police, miltary, surveillance, and penal functions. Such societies tend in the long run to be belligerent, unproductive, and ultimately unstable. In short, reasonable freedom from control by others, is an objective societal good. So if we accept the principle of autonomy, we recognize that, with certain compelling exceptions, people should not be forced to act against their will. We could also state that people should not be used as a means, for another person's benefit without their consent. Even if this may not actually cause them harm, it is still a wrongful act because it violates their autonomy. Using children, or anyone incapable of giving consent for another person's sexual gratification is thus wrong. It is treating another person as a means. It is a violation of autonomy without a justifiable exception, and that type of action is objectively detrimental to society.

Vesica

Ah, but this is where some of the problem lies....

Children= beings younger than 18?
Children=those incapable of giving consent?

If they can not give consent for themselves, who can?
And if these people are the ones 'exploiting' them, whose consent has been violated then if you have already denied the children that privledge?

tronvillain

99Percent:
Yes. What is your point?

tronvillain

Vesica:
No one can give constent for them.

JerryM

I was addressing the broader issue of how we can justify a moral position in non-moral terms. I think the details of the whys and wherefores of consent is a separate issue. Not that it's unimportant--the devil's in the details, as they say--but it's a different discussion. A good discussion of what constitutes proper consent can be found in the bioethics literature, particularly "Principles of Biomedical Ethics," by Beauchamp and Childress, Oxford Univ. Press. Aside from age (which, strictly speaking, is an arbitrary legal standard), proper consent requires a generally sound mind, the ability to understand the situation and the consequences of any choices, and freedom from improper outside influences. Yes, still a lot of room for subjectivity, but if an agent does not meet these criteria, then he cannot give truly voluntary consent. A surrogate who knows the agent's wishes may give consent, but the surrogate must meet these same standards, and the surrogate's consent is only considered ethical if it is given for an action which may benefit the agent.

MOJO-JOJO

Judas H. Priest! Is this an argument between pedophiles and normal people?? I can't believe we're even wasting our time arguing over whether its okay to sexually abuse children or not.

As LadyShea says, it's pretty obvious that luvluv was trying to bait us in to an argument over atheist morality. Christians are brain-washed with a mindset that makes them believe that all atheists operate with animal instincts...either eating or humping their young.

himynameisPwn

I was actually wondering something along these lines myself. Obviously, it is wrong to sexually exploit anybody, because, by definition, exploitation is unethical.

So, the real question, Why is it wrong to make child porn. The simple answer is because its unlawful. Because, in order to protect all those children who might be sexually exploited, one must ban child porn for the same reasons why prostitution is mostly banned. In this case, you've signed the social contract, and its one liberty you must give up in order to maintain order in society.

Amen-Moses

Nope, it is a discussion between "normal" people, although I must admit that I am unaware of any definition of "normal" that could be applied to enough people to make it useful!

Maybe we can just say it is a discussion between people and leave off the totally bigotted connotations of "normal", hmmm?

Amen-Moses

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by himynameisPwn:
I was actually wondering something along these lines myself. Obviously, it is wrong to sexually exploit anybody, because, by definition, exploitation is unethical.

So virtually all advertising is "wrong?"?

So, the real question, Why is it wrong to make child porn.

Is this porn aimed at children or porn involving children? Whose definition of "children" do we use? Whose definition of "porn"?

The simple answer is because its unlawful.

Porn involving consenting 16 year olds would indeed be illegal in countries where the age of consent is higher but not in the counrties where the age is lower.

Because, in order to protect all those children who might be sexually exploited, one must ban child porn for the same reasons why prostitution is mostly banned.

Where is prostitution banned? In most modern states it is regulated but not banned, in modern states where it is banned it is usually accepted to some degree, oldest profession and all that.

In this case, you've signed the social contract, and its one liberty you must give up in order to maintain order in society.

Whose "social contract"? Which society?

Amen-Moses