Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 09-02-2002, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:
Emotional damage to state the bloody obvious.

Perhaps it would be better to ask how it could possibly NOT be wrong to sexually exploit children.

When it doesn't lead to emotional damage?

Amen-Moses

The Other Michael · 09-02-2002, 02:52 PM

Amen-Moses may be thinking somewhat along the same lines I am.

If I can presume that "exploitation" has a negative connotion and implies some disadvantage/damage to the child, then it seems to me that in general exploitation of children is a bad idea because you may wind up with a damaged child that grows up into a damaged adult.

And a damaged adult will be less able (it seems to me) to make a positive (or as much of a positive) contribution to the common weal.

So if there is a general desire to improve the common weal then you'd want to maximize the ability and inclination of members of the society towards making positive contributions.

I hope that isn't too tortured on the syntax.

I do see that as possibly being a different question from the personal negative effect on the child.

cheers,
Michael

Viti · 09-02-2002, 03:37 PM

I may be wrong...but I thought luvluv's question was an attempt to debate the basis for atheist morality.

Infinity Lover · 09-02-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:


When it doesn't lead to emotional damage?

Amen-Moses

If you put it like that, I guess it's also perfectly cool to decapitate you, if it doesn't mortally wound you. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Amen-Moses · 09-02-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by The Other Michael:
Amen-Moses may be thinking somewhat along the same lines I am.

Damn, was I that obvious.

I do see that as possibly being a different question from the personal negative effect on the child.

BIG point, does anyone take into account the many people who were sexually exploited as children who have no "personal negative effect"?

Oh and just to make things even clearer, what consititutes "sexual exploitation"?

Do beauty pagents qualify? Or the use of children in advertising? (I'm thinking here of the young girl & mommy ads for washing up liquid)

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 09-02-2002, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:
If you put it like that, I guess it's also perfectly cool to decapitate you, if it doesn't mortally wound you.

Only if you have a problem thinking in logical terms!

Are you claiming that "sexual exploitation" = "emotional harm"?

Because "decapitate" definitely = "physical harm".

How about the situation where the child isn't ever aware that they have been exploited? How can they possibly be emotionally harmed by something they are completely unaware of?

Amen-Moses

Infinity Lover · 09-02-2002, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:


Only if you have a problem thinking in logical terms!

Amen-Moses

Okay; see your point. Sorry for the misinterpretation there.

Guess I'm not Vulcan after all.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

But let's say the child is later on in life confronted with the material, or people who've been confronted with the material. Inherent risk. We're still dealing with an action that has possible consequences.
(Back on track now A.M.?)

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]

Amen-Moses · 09-02-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infinity Lover:
But let's say the child is later on in life confronted with the material, or people who've been confronted with the material. Inherent risk. We're still dealing with an action that has possible consequences.
(Back on track now A.M.?)

Yes, back on track.

Hmm, possible future emotional harm? Is there any human activity that could possibly be said to avoid this?

The scenario that I was thinking of was the taking of pictures (either photographs, sketches or paintings) of a child enjoying life to the full, by for example running along the beach wearing nothing more than underwear, which are then transmitted (by whatever means) into the private collection of someone who "gets off" on that sort of image.

Even if the subject later finds out that they were being "oggled" by a "pervert" does that automatically result in "emional harm"? How in fact can we even measure "emotional harm" in such a scenario?

How about the adult that suddenly finds that they were as a child taken by their parents to a political rally, at which they were photographed, and which was diametrically opposed to their polical views as an adult. Would the "emotional harm" that they experienced be similar? If not, why not?

Amen-Moses

Tom Piper · 09-02-2002, 05:31 PM

Even if there is emotional damage to the child, this is not all there is to the evaluation, is it? If the benefit to the adult involved in the sexual activity outweighs the damage to the child, doesn't that justify it? Once one starts talking about the impact on/consequences for the people involved one must take into consideration all of the impacts, all of the consequences, on all involved, or say why some need not be considered.

Beyond the above question, I am curious about what moral presuppositions (if any) are at work in this thread?

Is the answer to the question that starts this thread supposed to be one that should convince a couple who sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with having a child for the precise purpose of providing a sexual outlet for one or both of the parents? If not, what values are taken to be operative, and why?

I guess, as I hope this post shows, I am not sure what this thread is about.

Tom

tronvillain · 09-02-2002, 06:07 PM

As I already said, children should not be exploited because it bothers me. To me more specifc, children should not be exploited because it bothers me enough to want to actively prevent it. It is as simple as that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2002, 02:52 PM	#12
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Amen-Moses may be thinking somewhat along the same lines I am. If I can presume that "exploitation" has a negative connotion and implies some disadvantage/damage to the child, then it seems to me that in general exploitation of children is a bad idea because you may wind up with a damaged child that grows up into a damaged adult. And a damaged adult will be less able (it seems to me) to make a positive (or as much of a positive) contribution to the common weal. So if there is a general desire to improve the common weal then you'd want to maximize the ability and inclination of members of the society towards making positive contributions. I hope that isn't too tortured on the syntax. I do see that as possibly being a different question from the personal negative effect on the child. cheers, Michael

09-02-2002, 03:37 PM	#13
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I may be wrong...but I thought luvluv's question was an attempt to debate the basis for atheist morality.

09-02-2002, 04:18 PM	#15
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by The Other Michael: Amen-Moses may be thinking somewhat along the same lines I am. Damn, was I that obvious. I do see that as possibly being a different question from the personal negative effect on the child. BIG point, does anyone take into account the many people who were sexually exploited as children who have no "personal negative effect"? Oh and just to make things even clearer, what consititutes "sexual exploitation"? Do beauty pagents qualify? Or the use of children in advertising? (I'm thinking here of the young girl & mommy ads for washing up liquid) Amen-Moses

09-02-2002, 05:31 PM	#19
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	Even if there is emotional damage to the child, this is not all there is to the evaluation, is it? If the benefit to the adult involved in the sexual activity outweighs the damage to the child, doesn't that justify it? Once one starts talking about the impact on/consequences for the people involved one must take into consideration all of the impacts, all of the consequences, on all involved, or say why some need not be considered. Beyond the above question, I am curious about what moral presuppositions (if any) are at work in this thread? Is the answer to the question that starts this thread supposed to be one that should convince a couple who sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with having a child for the precise purpose of providing a sexual outlet for one or both of the parents? If not, what values are taken to be operative, and why? I guess, as I hope this post shows, I am not sure what this thread is about. Tom

09-02-2002, 06:07 PM	#20
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	As I already said, children should not be exploited because it bothers me. To me more specifc, children should not be exploited because it bothers me enough to want to actively prevent it. It is as simple as that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.