HelenM

tron, if I may ask...

What do you mean by 'matters'? Do you think it matters whether something is 'moral' or not?

Why do you think it's immoral to have sex with a child? Is it because you believe it's harmful to the child?

I'm just curious. I'm always more curious than is probably good for me

love
Helen

SingleDad

In our modern, freedom-oriented secular society, we have constructed a social ethical system based primarily on consent and reciprocity.

The ethical status of an action is evaluated in terms of its pragmatic effect on those who have not, cannot, or will not grant consent.

It is also presumed that for rational people to consent to an action, the action must have reciprocal benefits for the actors involved. If reciprocity cannot be rationally established, then it is inferred that the ability to give consent of the actor not receiving benefit has been impaired.

Additionally, the principle of reciprocity declares that a person who violates the consent of another has implicitly waived the protection of his own consent.

In cases where it is impossible or inefficient to obtain individual consent, we have implemented democratic processes to decisively evaluate issues of consent and benefit. Even when consent has been imposed democratically, the overall ethical obligation of reciprocity still obtains; the American commitment to individual liberties compels us to reject even democratic laws when some individuals would not receive sufficient benefit to rationally consent.

Naturally, no nation, the USA included, perfectly implements this ethical system either in its laws or in its customs. Still, Western Liberal Democratic commitment to individual liberty and democratic processes strongly entail this ethical system.

The strong paradigm running through Western Liberal Democratic tradition is that society is the instrument for the rational benefit of the individual. There are many altnernative social ethical systems that have been explicitly rejected by the West; we have rejected a view of society as the instrument of the will of an individual leader, the majority or a oligarchy (religious or secular).

This ethical view rationally compels a particular ethical view of sexuality.

We can see by this reasoning that in the intersubjective context of a Western Liberal Democratic society, we have established an objective criterion for separating beliefs into moral beliefs vs. tastes or preferences: A belief is a moral belief if it talks about the consent of the actors or anyone materially affected by the action. If it does not talk about consent, then it is a preference or taste.

The issues of homosexuality, anal sex, bestiality, coprophagy, and other forms of minority sexual activity do not touch upon the consent of the actors (we are presuming that we are talking about the activities of adults who are deriving mutual sexual benefit from these activities), objections to these activities cannot be deemed ethical considerations by the above definition.

These issues do not generally have any material effect on nonactors (again presuming that the actors maintain reasonable privacy), so again, objections cannot be deemed ethical considerations by the above definition.

Individuals in a society do have a general obligation to take reasonable precautions against the spread of diseases, to avoid inadvertently imposing a disease on a nonactor without his consent. As such, there is a general ethical obligation to use reasonable disease-prevention measures such as condoms when engaging in activities such as anal sex. However it should also be noted that we have determined that disease prevention and control is vastly more efficient when pursued non coercively, through education and universal treatment rather than by ex post facto punishment of those who have accidentally or negligently contracted a communicable disease.

Those who claim that such activities are immoral are usually invoking an ethical view that directly contradicts Western Liberal Democratic tradition.

The objection that a sexual activity is immoral because it is "unnatural" usually privileges an individual's own definition of "natural" or the definition of some oligarchy. Since the prohibition of another's sexual activity neither provides material benefit nor alleviates material to the individual, this cannot be seen as consistent with the ethical paradigm of the West. It is also patently ridiculous to suggest an ethical paradigm of naturalism in general in a modern technological society dominated by entirely unnatural artifacts and artifical processes.

The objection that some sexual activity is immoral because it is contrary to predominant tastes is also deficient. It is most explicitly not the case that Western ethics privileges the will of the majority in general; it privileges the will of the majority only in those cases where it is impossible or efficent to obtain individual consent for activities that materially affect large numbers of people. Since individual sexual activity does not generally affect nonactors in any material way, this consideration does not apply.

SingleDad

jaliet

This is fallacious reasoning. We are arguing that "unnaturality" (besides being completely undefinable) is irrelevant to the moral status of an action, not that it establishes the moral correctness of an action.

The immorality of pedophilia has nothing to do with its purported "naturality". Rather it has to do with the fact that children cannot give consent and in our society children cannot receive rational benefit (and indeed are generally materially harmed) by sexual activity.

Because evolution is nonteleological, there is no objective definition of "right use" of any organ. Is it the "right use" of a finger or retina to establish identification? Is is the "right use" of an external ear to hold up glasses? This criterion is not only inept, it is entirely irrational.

You sent this message on a computer while living in a house after eating manufactured food and drinking treated water paid for by driving your automobile to work at a job. All of these are manifestly artifical things and processes. It seems that your privilege of "naturality" is highly selective and entirely arbitrary.

Why not? This issue is not at all obvious as your comment polemically and nonrationally implies. Why shouldn't seek out and fulfill my desire for sexual pleasure, so long as I do not violate the consent of a human being?

tronvillain

<a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=matter" target="_blank">Matter</a> has many definitions, but in this context I think that "have importance" will suffice.

I consider it "immoral" to have sex with a child not only because it is harmful and a child is unable to constent to that harm, but also because it matters to me that a human child is harmed. I feel a lot of empathy for humans, children especially.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

HelenM

tron

I appreciate that you are empathetic. Me too, I hope. Thanks for answering

love
Helen

MadMordigan

I apologize last night! I drank some delicious vintage wine. It worked its way into my prose, spelling and thoughts! But my observations are generally sound.

I can certainly sympathise with the effects wine can have on one's judgement. Overreliance on this sympathy, however, has only the effect of convincing others that one is a drunkard instead of a moron.

Does the group wish to reduce moral customs of the tribe to relics of survival mechanisms?

Obviously mere survival is not the only criteria I would use to define morality. In fact, I would argue that many actions that threaten an individual's survival are not immoral at all.

If so, then any vile, repulsive sexual act can be condoned appealing to the consent and harm issue.

No morality can be expected to encompass all possible human action. The scope of what people are able to do is far too vast to catalogue, let alone descretely judge. The practical effect is that any morality that attempts to be universal MUST adopt a default position. Either activity should be prohibited, unless good reason is advanced to allow it, or activity should be allowed, unless good reason is advanced to prohibit it.

As SingleDad explained above, western liberal thought has adopted the latter position as a default. Freedom is considered an end unto itself. There are various historical, cultural and philosophical reasons for this, but the effect is the same. Those who wish to prohibit an activity are under a burden of proof to demonstrate good reason for that prohibition.

Modern medicine has advanced to protect us from deadly pathogens contained in feces. Many of these sexual codes are hygenic in nature and origin! We are beyond or outside of this loop now in civilization.

I am unclear on what you are saying. To me, these facts are evidence that moral taboos against fecal matter are an anachronism. That we would be better to adopt practical and pragmatic standards, rather than moral ones.

Is it relevant to introduce the notion of personality, identity and mental stability to justify or render illegitimate certain sexual acts? Some of you claim this is irrelevant.

See above. Within the context of modern western culture, it is the responsibility of those who wish to condemn and prohibit a behaviour to show justification for their stance. In short, it may be relevant, but it is up to you to show the relevance. Merely asking a question about its relevance is not an arguement.

I do not wish to impose wishful thinking on this matter. I have a very low level of interest in this topic; it developed gradually by my interaction with other interesting minds here on the Secular Web.

Personally, I find it odd that people can be motivated enough to suggest that a behaviour should be considered immoral, yet are too disinterested to convince others. Typically, this behaviour makes me suspect of the sincerity of the original condemnation.

I thought Single Dad gave the most lucid and penetrating insight of the three historical standards, or, was it Mad... used to judge these acts: survival, aesthetic and hygenic.

You have overlooked the category that I feel is most relevant to this discussion. Those moral and religious codes that were instituted for the control of a populance by an individual or group within the society. Tithing, fasting, and unquestioning obeydiance to temporal authority are all examples of moral codes that have nothing to do with survival, aesthetics or hygene. They do, however, have everything to do with the perpetuation of an arbitrary power dynamic within a society.

The Science of Beauty is not properly explored as it should be in philosophical discussions. I suspect if you are irresistibly drawn erotically to a beautiful body, any act can be transfigured from debasement into divine rapture! Even Marquis de Sade is called, "The Divine Sade!"

Perhaps your experience with sex differs from mine. But I would indeed categorize sucessful sexual engagements as 'divine rapture'. I'm not really sure what you are argueing here.

Hopefully, I have convinced the group that I am not insane, nor am I a troll. However, with Lord of the Rings out as a movie, and my deep understanding of pagan Germanic myhtology---trolls, drawfs and elves do possess the gift of immortality; they merely lack eternity/everlastingness! A subtle notion!

So subtle, in fact, as to be totally irrelevant. Literary criticism belongs in the <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=17" target="_blank">Media and Popular Culture</a> forum, not in the Moral Foundations and Principles.

P.S. I will continue writing to this group. I find your minds inviting and hungry for genuine learning, not its superficial displays.

It is hard for me to accept this statement as anything but condescention. Hardly an effective way to establish communication, or to persuade those who disagree with you. Perhaps this is old French manners?

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]</p>

Jane Bovary

Who is to say what is natural and not natural in this world? To say something is "unnatural" is often just a way to voice criticism.

However...I do consider bestiality immoral, not because it is "unnatural", but because it is an abuse of innocence.

Yes, we eat animals; we imprison them, shackle them and use them in hideous scientific experiments...but because we do other awful things to them, does this then justify screwing them at our whim? I can't imagine any reason to have sex with an animal, except to gratify one's own desires...and I think it is better for us, as humans, wherever possible, to give animals some respect.

Xayide

Whose innocence? The animal's? Please. Ever had your leg humped by a dog (or, as a far more disturbing experience, your hand humped by a budgie)? Animals are already well aware of what their genitals do, and they have far fewer qualms than humans about rubbing them against anything they can reach.

I agree that animals deserve respect, but you're unreasonably limiting here to think of all bestiality as abusive. I'm sure a good deal of it is, but that's no different than normal sexual relations. I'm sure there are also zoophiles or whatever who are not abusive and rapacious. These problems with respect and such aren't necessarily intrinsic to human/animal sex. You probably wouldn't condemn human/human sex just because some people only do it for self-gratification and don't care about their partners, so I don't see how this is different.

Christopher Lord

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

echidna

Oh dear, this is yet another thread that I really shouldn�t enter.

I think the nature of bestiality is such that it may be giving OR receiving. Is one more immoral than the other ?

I cannot find a logical reason why bestiality should be immoral, so I�ll be a bigoted speciesist and irrationally conclude that it�s wrong and socially unhealthy.