Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
Are you seriously advocating cultural relativism ? (ie. those people think X is OK & who am I to say they are wrong ?)

I am not advocating it, I am saying that it is the true way the world works, whether we like it or not.

By the reasoning of cultural relativism, slavery is OK, human sacrifice is OK, hell you’re hard-pressed to find anything which isn’t OK.

Precisely! It sort of abolishes objective morality doesn't it.

Cultural relativism isn’t immoral, it’s maybe the closest thing to amoral which you can find. Try again.

By the opposite view I (along with most of the population of my culture) would have to be classed as a paedophile! Where is the sense in that?

Amen-Moses

echidna

That everyone has their own version of morality is beyond debate. But what is crucial, is to decide for yourself what you feel is moral. If you’re purely going to base your decision on “ well X thought that Y was OK in year ZZZZ”, then I’d chalk that right up with the 10 Commandments in the list of Incredibly Naive Moral Systems.

And yet you’ll find very very few subjectivists who (agree with you ?) that paedophilia is OK in any sense at all. Moral subjectivity does not mean cultural relativism. Entirely different concepts, in fact cultural relativism is the most common strawman used by theists to falsely discredit moral subjectivity.

The sense is, to recognise that there are objective psychological social problems created by treating immature children as sexual objects, and that it is wrong to exacerbate these problems.

The sense is in admitting that many of our past practices have been socially wrong for these reasons.

The sense is in admitting that maybe there are other things today which we should be improving for the future.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
That everyone has their own version of morality is beyond debate. But what is crucial, is to decide for yourself what you feel is moral.

Agree and disagree, what I feel is moral changes as I learn, it is not an objective standard. As a child I accepted that an eye for an eye was moral, as a teenager I felt that it was moral only in certain circumstances, then as a young man even those circumstances came into question. Now I feel it is downright immoral.

If you’re purely going to base your decision on “ well X thought that Y was OK in year ZZZZ”, then I’d chalk that right up with the 10 Commandments in the list of Incredibly Naive Moral Systems.

Yes but I'm not saying that something is OK NOW just because it was OK THEN, I'm accepting that times change and cultures change. Is something objectively immoral just because I think it is? I can legally go out and get totally pissed on Bacardi 151 if I want, is that immoral? It is in Saudi Arabia! (In Jamaica it is compulsory )

And yet you’ll find very very few subjectivists who (agree with you ?) that paedophilia is OK in any sense at all.

"Define paedophilia" is the response I would expect to hear. Were you here for the discussion about the Pacific islanders who pass on "maleness" through oral sex with their sons? It is a part of their culture and until westerners arrived was not an immoral act, what gives us the right to tell them otherwise?

Moral subjectivity does not mean cultural relativism. Entirely different concepts, in fact cultural relativism is the most common strawman used by theists to falsely discredit moral subjectivity.

They are both true states in the world, different cultures have different ethical systems (cultural relativism) and different people within those cultures rationalise those ethics differently (moral subjectivity). Cultural relativism does not discredit moral subjectivity but it does go a long way to explaining it.

The sense is, to recognise that there are objective psychological social problems created by treating immature children as sexual objects, and that it is wrong to exacerbate these problems.

What social problems? If the society demands as part of it's culture that certain ethics be maintained then there are far more problems inherent in trying to force them to change, remember that cultures have gone to war over silly ethical differences with both side willing to die for what they claim is right.

The sense is in admitting that many of our past practices have been socially wrong for these reasons.

Were they socially wrong at the time? Were all forms of slavery wrong in all places or was it the way in which those slaves were treated that was the problem? Is it more moral to enable someone in debt to work off that debt with a period of slavery or to let them beg in the streets?

The sense is in admitting that maybe there are other things today which we should be improving for the future.

The biggest problem is in working out what is an improvement!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

So we live in tyranny? Strange view.

What is the alternative? Should we just elect a single person to make those decisions like Germany did in the 30's?

Amen-Moses

The AntiChris

echidna

Surely the whole point of this thread is to examine this basic assumption?

However, as The Other Michael has already pointed out, before any sensible discussion can take place there needs to be some agreement on what it is we're really talking about (definition of terms).

Chris

Amen-Moses

Unfortunately this is one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" situations.

My own definition of exploitation is so damn wide that you can easily fit capitalism inside with room to spare.

My son say's I'm exploiting him if I even ask him to clean his room, bloody teenagers!

Then we get to the action packed word "sexually". In it's basic sense this means anything related to maleness and femaleness or more specifically the differences between them but in addition it has come to mean any sort of sexual act (or thought!) between humans for the purposes of pleasure. This then leads down an ever increasing slope of confusion when you try to define "sexual act" and "pleasure", then to make things worse you have to decide whether the "pleasure" is ancillary to the act or the sole intention for the act.

To give an example of what I mean:

It is culturally expected in certain parts of the world that a boy recieve his sexual education from an aunt (or if an aunt is not available his own mother). This occurs either when puberty starts or at the point which the aunt (or mother) notices the boy becoming "interested" in girls. This practice is not only logical but extremely practical and accepted by everyone.

Is this immoral?

Is it immoral only if the aunt (or mother) gains pleasure from the act?

Is it immoral if the boy does not gain pleasure from the act?

Is it immoral only if the woman involved is a fat ugly old woman? (this question is only for the men )

Does the morality of the act depend on the specifics of the act?

Amen-Moses

The AntiChris

Of course not. The boy's pleasure is irrelevant - this is education!

More seriously, I do wonder about the notion that consensual sexual activity at a young age inevitably leads to psychological damage. I can't help feeling that a society's attitude to sexuality plays a significant role in creating "victims" by engendering feelings of guilt and shame.

Chris

Ted Hoffman

I think my biggest disapointment with this thread is that nobody (especially echidna, himynameisPwn, tronvillain and others who treat sexual exploitation as morally wrong) has come up with cogent reasons for regarding sexual exploitation as wrong, besides personal disposition and emotional appeals (and threats).

Like Moses posed, if an alien went through this thread, would he be able to understand the wrongness in sexual expoitation of children when all he reads are "it is wrong because I say it is wrong and I can react with violence when someone exploits children" (tronvillain) or "it is unethical because, by definition, exploitation is unethical" (himynameispawn).

It this question too difficult for you educated and articulate infidels?

himynameispwn If you call it exploitation, it is wrong period. If it wasn't wrong it wouldn't be exploitation. Im surprised you guys have a problem with this concept.

Intensity No one has any problem at all with any concept. "Sin is bad because sin is bad period. If it wasnt wrong it wouldnt be sin". Is that what you would tell a seven year old when they ask why it is wrong to sin?

These circular definitions are not any helpful.

himynameispawn Answer me this: why is being unethical wrong?

Intensity Being unethical is not, by definition, wrong. It means going contrary to the set rules (that one has agreed to adhere to) or ethical code.

Lets also be clear that ethics vary from society to society. So your question is similar to one asking "why is it wrong to kill terminally ill patients who are under great pain?"
Would you answer - "because its unethical?"

When one perhaps administers euthanasia to a terminally ill patient who has been under constant great pain in a country where euthanasia is banned, then they behave unethically and are liable to criminal charges.
But they can rationalize their acts, and will have a clear conscience, and thus, not wrong. A judge with their heart in the right place might even acquit them.

In another country, where euthanasia is allowed, there will be no case at all.

I view ethics as a dynamic concept that are promulgated to help people go about something, but can change as and when the need arises.

So, NO, being unethical is not necessarily wrong unless you are pushing for objective morality, which totally eliminates and discards the human element in judging what constitutes a proper ethical code in a particular place and time.

But since you said "Again, I never said anything is objectively wrong, because nothing can ever be objectively wrong unless you define it as wrong."

You defined exploitation as (objectively)wrong so you wanna retract that?

The other Michael Perhaps it might do the discussion some good to try and develop a mutually acceptable definition of exploitation, then decide when/if that definition might apply to children's sexuality.

Intensity I defined exploitation before. It has an element of being "unethical" and one of "selfishness". The "objectors" have narrowed in on "unethical". Which is also relative - worse still, unethical, does not necessarily translate to "morally wrong" but may translate to "wrong" (ie incorrect).

As the starter of the thread, I can redefine exploitation as
"to get the value or usefulness out of".
So the question remains "Why is it morally wrong to exploit children for sex?

Amos Exploitation is when your gain is not at the cost of my fame (ego) but is at the cost of my personal intergity as a solitary individual.

Intensity And why then is sexual exploitation of children wrong?
Who gets to define this personal integrity?
What constitutes personal integrity? does a five year old have personal integrity?

When one's spouse has suffered some accident and is brain-damaged, is it unethical to engage in sexual intercourse with such a partner while still married to them? Or does it involve damaging one's own (or their spouses') personal integrity?

Echidna I’ll continue to avoid even using the word “exploitation”, since ultimately it just mean “use”, except it is loaded in a very negative sense, making it completely misleading IMO.

Intensity I agree completely. But its how sexual use of kids is regarded, hence "exploitation".

Echidna I hope I can assume that we agree that child pornography is not a psychologically healthy occupation.

Intensity You cant assume and I dont agree. Could you please explain why it is not is not a psychologically healthy occupation?

Echidna Your contention is that if pictures can be used without hurting anyone, then it’s OK.

Intensity That is not my contention at all. I wanted to create a moral dilemma, only you had the courage to respond to my questions.

Echidna The slippery slope exists. Once you have given tacit approval for child pictures to be take for sexual titillation, how do you regulate these from becoming increasing pornographic ? (which I again trust we agree is wrong).

Intensity Each case must be examined on its own merit.

Echidna The moral responsibility is not on the village chief who is genuinely faced with a moral dilemma, it is entirely on the billionaire who has the simple power to ease the suffering of the village in an entirely moral way.

Intensity The billionaire has no obligation to "save the world". He worked hard to get what he has and those starving people have a government, which is responsible for them. Lets even say he has no interest at all in being moral. All he wants are photos of the naked little ones.

Echidna To choose to do it in an immoral way is a straightforward immoral action.

Intensity The question is echidna, "why is it immoral?"

Echidna Taking photos of kids on beaches ? Sure, I have them myself, but it should be entirely clear to the individual whether they find the picture sexually titillating or not. I trust you are aware of the difference.

Intensity If you have some, why would it be immoral for a padeophile to have some - just because we are jealous he derives more value from the photos than we do?

Echidna So when adult men begin exchanging these pictures anonymously, well surely you don’t need an explanation of why there’s a problem with this, and why it needs to be stamped on

Intensity I need an explanation on both counts. That is what this thread is all about.
And you may also need to explain why you keep trying to short-circuit the discussion by assuming a priori that sexual exploitation of children is wrong.

We are asking whether there is a problem and you are proposing the solution.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

abe smith

ummm.... A possibly-useful response to the initial qy at this thread may be Rabbi Hillel's all-purpose "Golden Rule" : "Do not do to another what you do not want done to yourself/(your own child)." Doesn't that help make it real? I am a Father & Grandfather. Abe

Ted Hoffman

Abe, so the question is, why dont we want it to be done to our children?