Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
And you were telling my method was wrong ???

Actually I'm still waiting to see your "Method", if it echidna for Emporer then yes it is wrong, democratically arrived at ethical systems must be more fair than any monarchy, no?

OK, some common ground at last. Personally I feel that I differ with many of the subjectivists here (although maybe I don’t), that I believe in the universal existence of human virtues of integrity, altruism and compassion.

What you really mean is that you see these as virtues (and I agree with you that the vast majority also do) but trying to translate them into an ethical system is where the difficulty begins, i.e just because altruism is a virtue does that mean that if I don't throw myself into the lake to save the drowning child that I am immoral?

I reckon you’d be fairly safe to say that any human ethical system should place these as high priorities.

Agreed, so the aim should be Buddhism.

But lack of knowledge, lack of universally objective cause and effect, and lack of common valuing of these virtues, will permanently prevent the agreement of a single ethical system for everyone.

Correct, but surely we aren't trying to please everyone, only the majority.

Guess what ? I’m not convinced. The world I see around me still requires violence to maintain the morality which I pragmatically support.

Is that because too many others do not support your morality? Why is that?

Do you agree that until you actually understand where your morality comes from you have no chance of changing someone elses?

(btw I'm still waiting to find out what gives you the right to enforce your morals on others using violence and whether you agree that they have the same right to enforce theirs over you by violence. IOW does it all come down to might makes right?)

Amen-Moses

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

echidna

Now it would seem clear that you’re not reading my posts. I rejected this earlier and gave reasoning. Please address my earlier post (not the “utterly reject” paragraph BTW).

You can address the age-of-consent paragraph which I just posted to Intensity. Obviously I'm not going to imprison 10 year-olds who want to experiement, but what you are promoting is adult encouragement, quite different. I trust you're smart enough to recognise the difference.

Pardon me … crap. You made no response to Keith. I saw no response to my comments on cultural sexual initiations. Instead you preferred to change the subject, just when you caught sight of the thimble.

Let’s start again.
Q1. Do you acknowledge the psychological studies showing harm done to those subjected to paedophilia in western countries ?
Q2. Do you acknowledge that many paedophiles inflict their urges at great physical trauma to the child ?
Q3. Do you acknowledge that causing physical or psychological harm for self-gratification is wrong ?
Q4. Do you acknowledge that children are less informed than adults when giving consent ?
Q5. Do you acknowledge that psychological trauma on a child has more long-lasting consequences on a child that an adult ?

Reading rather than skimming would help. I suggest you also try starting to read my replies to Intensity and AntiChris as well. There seems little point in posting all this twice.

Buddhists aren’t objectively moral. What on earth makes you say that ? I think I need to recheck instances where you've used "objective" ...

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:

Now it would seem clear that you’re not reading my posts. I rejected this earlier and gave reasoning. Please address my earlier post (not the “utterly reject” paragraph BTW).

So why use a line of argument that you have already rejected? Now you are just confusing me.

You can address the age-of-consent paragraph which I just posted to Intensity.

We've already extablished that children can't consent so this is just a red herring.

Obviously I'm not going to imprison 10 year-olds who want to experiement, but what you are promoting is adult encouragement, quite different.

I'm not promoting anything, I'm asking why it is wrong to sexually exploit children, or rather the thread is asking that and I am trying to drive the thread in the general direction of an answer.

I trust you're smart enough to recognise the difference.

Obviously not, are you saying that parents who post pictures of their children on the web are being immoral just because there might be a "pervert" out their jacking off to those pictures? Or is it only wrong if someone posts them with the specific aim of getting "perverts" to jack off? i.e is it the intention or the act which is wrong?

Pardon me … crap. You made no response to Keith.

Who only repeated what had already been said and nothing about the WHY. I'm not interested in everyone's definitions of what is right or wrong but the reasons WHY it is wrong.

I saw no response to my comments on cultural sexual initiations. Instead you preferred to change the subject, just when you caught sight of the thimble.

But all you did was say "they are wrong and I am right" without saying WHY!

Let’s start again.
Q1. Do you acknowledge the psychological studies showing harm done to those subjected to paedophilia in western countries ?

I have seen studies both ways but the problem is in the "western countries" part, in the examples I gave earlier one is indeed from a "western country" (or at least some of the cultures are in western countries) and there is no indication of harm in those cultures. Moreover the big problem with the studies is that they start from the presupposition that it is harmful and then try to find evidence to support that position, usually by using subjects who themselves are considered by society to have harmed others. This leads to a position where someone is told "you've done wrong" then led in a direction in which they can purge that "wrong" by blaming it on some "wrong" done to them as a child. Take away the "wrong" and then magically the "harm" vanishes so it is a self sustaining argument. In a way this is the same problem that we have with genital mutilation, in countries where it is performed many studies show how beneficial it is, in countries in which it is abhored there are counter studies, this is just human nature!

Q2. Do you acknowledge that many paedophiles inflict their urges at great physical trauma to the child ?

Nope, the ones that get into the news sure do, in fact it is usually a mentally imbalanced child murderer that is held up and vilified as "paedophile" when in fact they were (until the offence) a "normal healthy heterosexual father of 2". In my experience paedophiles go out of their way to be as gentle as possible although it depends on which category of paedophile we are talking about, just as you can't categorise all heterosexual men by the actions of a few rapists.

Q3. Do you acknowledge that causing physical or psychological harm for self-gratification is wrong?

Sure, why do you think that people immediately respond with "it wasn't for self-gratification" as a defence? I think anyone who is not mentally ill thinks this way but very few people practice what they preach.

Q4. Do you acknowledge that children are less informed than adults when giving consent ?

Not as a generality, it depends on the person. I was far more informed at 10 than many people my age and older but there were others even more informed than me, it depends on a lot of factors of which age is one of the least. I know many adults with huge sexual hang-ups purely because of the trouble they have with the whole "consent" business, especially women it seems.

Q5. Do you acknowledge that psychological trauma on a child has more long-lasting consequences on a child that an adult ?

Nope, children get over psychological trauma very quickly compared to adults, in fact the older you become to less the number of things cause you trauma but the more they affect you, i.e a young man losing his job or dumped by his partner may suffer intensely for a short while whereas a middle aged man may leap off a building (unless of course he has "seen it all before"). Far more damaging in a psychological sense are the feelings of guilt and/or need for secrecy on a child, I know from my own experience and from others I have spoken too that this is the case, and this comes solely from the societal definition of wrongness rather than the act itself (which in many cases will be purely remembered as a pleasurable or exciting experience), it is these feelings which psychiatrists play on years later.

Buddhists aren’t objectively moral. What on earth makes you say that ? I think I need to recheck instances where you've used "objective" ...

Oh sorry, I was just going by what my Buddhist friends have to say, they definitely call it objective!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

It's actually anywhere from 12 to 21 in curent cultures and in the west has been as low as 9 in the past.

Personally I would go with any definition in which each case is taken as unique and as long as the person is able to say for themselves that they were not forced then it should not be illegal. Having a set age certainly make law enforcement easier but you then get daft situations where an advanced 12 year old tells someone they are older in order to get sexual satisfaction and then cries "rape".

IOW I think statutory rape is a stupid idea and the only factor should be whether someone is forced against their will or not.

Anyway when are we gonna get back on topic?

Amen-Moses

The AntiChris

You seem to be under the misapprehension that anyone who questions the reasoning that underpins your wiews must necessarily be "promoting" the very things you abhor?

Or is it your belief that anyone who dares to challenge your views is by definition iliterate, a sociopath or a dickhead?

Chris

Amen-Moses

That was my understanding, but there again "sticks and stones ...".

Amen-Moses

Ted Hoffman

echidna
And yet there are a shitload of activities which parents regulate, exactly for these reasons. We look after them by protecting them from issues and activities which they are not prepared for. How much they should eat, what they should eat, when they should sleep, etc etc.

In a similar manner, we can also tell them who they can have sex with, how to use condoms, STDs, AIDs etc. To equip them with knowledge they will need when they face "sexual" situations.

By your reasoning, parenting would end after the birth canal.

By your reasoning, parenting is teaching children on things that are totally unrelated to sex.

Parenting clearly requires a balance as the child grows up and matures by learning how to live responsibly. Parental responsibility and control gives way to the child’s gradually as they learn.

True, but a description of what parenting entails surely is unnecessary?

As I stated much earlier, you can debate age-of-consent in another topic if you want. It’s generally around 17 give or take a few years & given the lack of exactness, I tend to agree with this region. If you’d like to lower that to 5, I’d want to see your reasons first.

This is irrelevant we know who children are.

And who understands the hurt better ?

What does understanding the hurt have anything to do with the hurt? Adults (eg raped adults) go to counsellors all the time.
If you are hurt, you are hurt, whether you are an adult or a baby. Understanding the hurt serves no useful purpose as far as getting hurt is concerned.

Who can deal with it better ?

You mean who will need therapy and counselling?
Both adults and kids. Maybe a kid would even handle it better because they are less self-conscious and dont dwell on things.

Who understands the responsibilities and the consequences of their actions better ?

I would say adults, because they keep the kids ignorant. Adults get STDs and unwanted pregnancies all the time - it must be because they understand the responsibilities and the consequences of their actions better right?

Hell, I know we adults can live a lifetime trying to learn this stuff, but who understands better ? The child or the adult ?

Understanding an act does not grant one the monopoly of being the only one who can perform the said act and deny others any right to participate in a similar act. Should mathematicians be the only ones who should do maths because they understand it better?

I can even grant that those who are introduced to sex early in childhood end up being more mature about sex and with more balanced sexuality.

Does a child give consent in the same way that an adult does ?

When a child consents to play, does he/she give consent in the same way an adult would? The answer is yes.

That is, do they understand complex issues as well as an adult ?

What is the complex issue here? The act of sex?

Or you mean the society's view on the matter they are consenting to? I doubt that they would hold the view adults hold towards sex - which is what makes it look complex.
Remember, its the adults who know everything?

Do you acknowledge that paedophilia, even consensual, often has lasting emotional problems (based on current clinical research) ? If you reject such research, on what basis ?

I reject such research. What you call "lasting emotional problems" are caused by the view society has towards "victims" of padeophilia.
In Africa (the Turkana community for example), 12 year old girls are married to adults and they end up being very strong mothers running stable households.

Given the data supporting the international consensus, what data do you have which negates case studies claiming that paedophilia caused them psychological harm ?

There is no international consensus.
What we have is western "consensus" based on "western" societies and western studies which are based on "western" education, and western perspective being peddled as international consensus.

No, thank you.

As Amen Moses said the studies start with the premise "People who were "abused" sexually during childhood lead miserable lives". Once the "victim" status has been foisted upon subjects, they then proceed to play the roles they have been assigned. Simple emotions are ripped out and overblown to portray disturbed, helpless and sexually dysfictional, emotionally unstable individuals.

And the idea gets reinforced.

I asked: What code of ethics are you referring to?

echidna responded: Yours.

Huh,huh I have none.

We live in a society where sex is an important factor in some of our most important relationships.

Yeah, the western society. Poor you.

Granted that’s not moral justification, but the choice needs to be made when one understands the consequences of that choice. Is a child able to make an informed choice ?

Not if they are not informed.
So inform the children people. Or are you afraid of losing control of them (the children)?

Amen Moses - I compliment you for having answered echidnas questions so competently.

abe smith

Thanks for your interception, Jerry M. Sorry it's taken me so long to catch-up w/ what's'sname qy to me, several days ago. I'll reply briefly that Rabbi Hillel (whose religion is irrelevant to me)'s answer fills the bill for me; and also, briefly, that my PERSONAL perception of myself & of other um, intelligent entities (This cateory can include "non-human" entities, even tho I am always a Nominalist!.) is that USING OTHER CONSCIOUS BEINGS AS IMPLEMENTS , whatever "my" reasons might be , violates NOT ONLY THEM; it violates *me* also. If you don't care anything about other "peoples's" autonomy = you don't PERCEIVE their autonomy, get yerself a high-tech full-sized rubber dolly & fuck that.

HelenM

That may be true but kids have the big problem that they tend to think authority figures are right and so they blame themselves if something seems wrong, rather than blame the adult.

And this is compounded when the adult says things that make them feel it's their fault.

And if the adult threatens them with severe punishment if they tell anyone, they don't generally have enough power, autonomy or understanding of the world to do anything except keep it a secret because they believe the adult can and will carry out the threatened punishment if they tell.

Did I get off the topic? I suppose I'm talking about abuse rather than exploitation, perhaps...

Helen

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

JerryM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Piper:

But, suppose, following your rationale, I reason in the following way: Should I or should I not use this child as an object for my sexual gratification? It is wrong only if it will lead to an unhappy (dysfunctional?) society. My using this child will not have such an impact, especially if no one knows about it. So there is nothing wrong with it.

???

You also say that you have provided 'an argument for why sexual exploitation of children is wrong and not use purely subjective moral reasons'. An essential part of your argument is an appeal to a view of 'a happy society'. Can you fill this in non-subjective terms for us!

I see your point, and you are posing a somewhat different question. I posited an ethical rule (don't violate a person's autonomy) and a reason to justify it (it harms us all as a society). You're asking why you should follow or obey this rule. Because it's in your long term best interest. You have to live in some kind of society, and one that's dysfunctional can hurt you. Like Abe said above, violating another person also violates you. I understand that reasoning may not be immediate enough for you. In the specific case of molesting children, what is unethical is also illegal, and you risk the wrath of law enforcement. And victims of abuse (of any kind) have also been known to visit their own vengeance upon their abusers. But the larger issue is how we convince anyone to follow any ethical rules. Why should we not lie, or cheat, or break promises? Is any ethical standard self-enforcing? Short of living in a total police state, we have to educate and enlighten people that observing rationally based ethical rules promote their long-term well-being. Impossible and utopian? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we can't try. What's your suggestion?

Briefly, re. a "happy society." I use this as an umbrella phrase for a well-functioning society. Human beings, for the most part, can only survive in a social structure. That's due to natural selection. We can identify objective characteristics of a society in which human beings thrive: good health, safety and protection from harm, companionship, family, love (that's kinda subjective, but I'll list it anyway), productive work, mental stimulation. You can come up with others. A society that provides this will be a happy society. So I use that term to identify a society where human beings achieve their greatest survival success. In what kind of society would you want to live?