The Other Michael

Hello Intensity,

We're thinking of this as a way to facilitate the discussion, odd as that may sound.

This thread is now kind of wandering around and possibly in its finally stages, and if there are one or more new topics that have arisen that people want to discuss it seems better to "force" them into new, dedicated threads rather than continuing to muddy the waters here.

But if people want to keep this going for discussion of the original topic that doesn't take the form of rehashing the last 225+ posts worth of stuff that's fine too.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

lunachick

Interesting, because despite the counter-arguments, I've yet to read a "rational reason" why it's okay to "use" children for one's own sexual gratification.
As for reasons why it is wrong, I'm working with 23 of them at the moment - and that's just in one smallish NZ town.
I'll put the question to them...

Amen-Moses

So would you also like to put a case for heterosexual sex being intrinsically wrong due to the probably far larger number of rape victims? Or maybe that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong due to the vast number of men raped in prison (by heterosexuals just to confuse matters more!)?

Amen-Moses

Mad Kally

Amen-Moses,
She was talking about children.

Amen-Moses

So? The whole point of this discussion is about why children should be treated differently to adults in this one case, just saying "it's wrong because they are children" sort of short cuts the entire discussion don't you think?

Amen-Moses

southernhybrid

I did a search and found the above definition as well as the harm that results from sexual exploitation of childen pretty much the accepted one throughout the Western world. Why is the sexual exploitation of children morally wrong?

1. There is an abundance of research that supports the findings that the sexual exploitation of children results in short and long term damage to the child that may last into and perhaps throughout adult life.

2. There is a huge difference between the power that an adult has and the power that a child has. This is even more true when the age of the parties involved is a difference of more than a couple of years. As stated above, informed consent is not possible.

While there may be cultures that currently do not have a taboo on the sexual exploitation of children, that doesn't make the act morally right. It may be that those cultures are too concerned with basic survival to place much emphasis on the welfare of children. There are cultures that practice the castration of female children but that doesn't make that practice morally sound either.

To compare our human culture with the Bonobos is absurd. While I respect and admire the culture of the pigmy chimps, we have an entirely different culture. Our sexuality is used in an entirely different way than that of the little chimps. We have entirely different lifestyles than those sexy chimps. Sex in that culture is all about resolving issues of conflict. It is often used to display power and aggression in our culture so there is hardly an analogy to be made between their sexuality and ours.


If the fact that the sexual exploitation of children has been shown to be harmful by a large body of evidence of research by psychology academics as well as by anecdotal evidence by the victims of childhood sexual exploitation is not enough to make a case for it's immorality, I'm afraid that we will never convince the likes of Amen-Moses. Do your own research and you'll find the evidence is there.

It's true that other factors may be involved in determining the degree of harm a child has after the result of being exploited sexually, but in most cases there is some residual harm, regardless of other circumstances. Most societies like to protect the well being of their children. In our Western society, it's not just an assumption that the sexual exploitation of children is harmful to their well-being. We have evidence to back it up.

Pomp

Intensity,

Your argument against sexual exploitation of children assumes any child, anywhere irrespective of genetic make-up, psychological make-up and surrounding culture, will get psychological and emotional problems from being used sexually.

Well, no, that's just the point he was arguing against. His point (I believe) was that, just as the rare case of a person who can smoke like a chimney yet not develop lung problems does not show that smoking is not harmful in general, the rare case of a child who is capable of engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult while suffering no emotional consequences does not show that child-adult sex is harmless.

Amos

Thanks and I will do that later when I have more free time.

Amos

Please give your definition of "intrinsic wrong" because what is intrinsically wrong in one culture can be normal in the next.

I am thinking here of certain Eskimo culture where it is the duty of the eldest son to kill his own father in the prime of his life. Based on this, is killing your own father in the prime of his life an intrinsic wrong?

Of course I did not give you the whole story but maybe you did not either.

Ted Hoffman

I think I have this shit figured out.

I was reading some essay on Kant "purifying morality" and I gleaned some info that we can apply here.

I think one thing that even most padeophiles will admit to is that they do not want their own children to be used sexually by adults. Kant says that knowledge is not a world as it exists by itself: it is a world as experienced by humans. So what humans experience in general can be used to establish a moral ground (of course he gave up on us being able to access noumenal knowledge - so largely we are talking of phenomenal knowledge here).

In spite of the different cultures, most people ("most people" here represents as close as we can get to objectivity) wouldnt want their children to be used sexually [most allow it (early marriages) out of poverty or harsh cultures and environment] and even then, much as most padeophiles experience pleasure during their acts, they often do not get to experience happiness because of the reaction of the children themselves and the society in general (that is, because the padeophiles are violating the norms of the surrounding society). They are hunted and haunted men and women with the burden of guilty conscience on their shoulders.

Kant says pleasure "produces too much obscurity and contingency to be considered the ground of happiness, so all that is left is the will and our motivations and intentions"

the main argument

Kant says that all principles of conduct produced by the will must be to everyones advantage and he says that the first way to consider the first formulation is to see what kind of logical contradiction might result from universalising an action.
If those who are predisposed to using children for sex were told to allow their own children to be used by other adults, they would certainly not allow it or be happy about it, thus the act of sexual exploitation of children, if universalised, would run contraru to their own happiness. So its essentially an act that thwarts its own purpose. ie the padeophile seeking happiness will not even get it if sexual use of children us universalised. Instead, the very act through which he seeks pleasure will make him unhappy.

I think this is a very strong argument that can be used to rationally argue against the sexual use of children. I also do not think it has comitted any slippery slope fallacy because its a question of being impartial. One thing that makes injustice survive is its being partially applied - if injustice were to be turned on the perpetrators, then they would indeed fight it and disapprove of it.

Note that this is different from Jerry M's "happy society" appeal. Because as opposed to having competing utopias (where might will have to make right), this is a case of the individual tasting his own "morality".

A similar argument can used very effectively againg those justifying lying (this is situational ethics) when asked by an axe murderer where their loved one has hid. Because the axe murderer, if consistently lied to, will know not to ask for directions from a loved one. So under practical application, that lie would work against the one lying.

There is a second argument about people considering that persons better interests when we act (similar to what Amos argued earlier) about which Kant says "act so as to treat humanity (including yourself) not only as a mere means but as an end in itself". But I think it can be refuted since one can choose to reward children who they use sexually by giving them a roof over their heads, good education, and the other comforts of life.

What do you guys think (about the first argument I mean)?

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>