99Percent

Would you call that morality?

tronvillain

99Percent:
Yes. It would not, of course, be a morality a would agree with. Again, what is your point?

99Percent

That your idea of "morality" is not really morality at all, but a blatant cop-out.

echidna

JO:
<strong>As LadyShea says, it's pretty obvious that luvluv was trying to bait us in to an argument over atheist morality. Christians are brain-washed with a mindset that makes them believe that all atheists operate with animal instincts...either eating or humping their young.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Not all, but some atheists seem to ...

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

You don’t accept that empathy for children is an adequate justification ?

Ted Hoffman

JerryM,
I largely agree with your reasoning.
That is, our actions should be guided by rules, and those rules should, as much as possible, should promote the greatest good and happiness for everyone
Who will make these rules? A few leaders elected by the adult majority? what about the minority (those that like looking at photos of naked children) and the children?

What I can see you pushing is herd-mentality at the expense of everything else. Creating rules to strong-arm those who do not conform to the majority's utopia or idea of what constitutes a happy society. Which ultimately, is mob-rule or might-makes-right morality.

The principle of autonomy is fine but it gets undermined when some members of the society are denied the right to make independent decisions based on their chronological age - just to shortchange the minority (the would-be padeophiles) in the process. It is similar to curbing homosexuality by making it illegal for one to consent to having sex with another person of the same sex.

How are padeophiles supposed to operate if consent of the children is made illegal by this so-called "rule-utilitarian ethic"? Are children asked to consent before they get their sexual organs in the name of circumcision?

echidna
You don’t accept that empathy for children is an adequate justification ?
It is a ground for denouncing the sexual exploitation of children. But it is not adequate because "empathy" is very subjective and its essentially an appeal to personal feelings - not an appeal to reason. Will the US be justified in bombing Saddam Hussein (and by extension Iraqis) because we feel no empathy for Saddam?
Why dont you feel the same empathy towards animals that get exploited for sex(bestiality), food, and labour?
Isn't this empathy rife with double-standards?

And why dont you feel the same empathy when childrens sexual organs are mutilated in the name of circumcision? Or dont you think pain is inflicted in the process?

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

echidna

Of course, empathy is maybe the most subjective of all fields, and yet I sense a frustration in the objectivists who would like to remove this vagueness and replace it with objective rules. I haven’t seen it done in a way I consider moral yet.

Most important of all, empathy is definitely irrational. Why does a parent love their child unconditionally ? Maybe hormones & genetics, but does that make it morally wrong ? Illogical ? So what ?

Reason is every bit as misleading as empathy, and often more so. Reason is a secondary property of our nature, while empathy is close to being genetically ingrained. Whatever appeal to reason one makes, ultimately the base will be a form of subjective empathy.

On circumcision I’m agnostic since I have not researched the contentious issue enough to evaluate the pros and cons enough to form an opinion.

Vaccinations cause pain and yet empathy does not stop me advocating vaccination of children.

On child abuse though, the evidence is beyond dispute. I don’t see anonymous adults complaining of the lasting trauma they suffered from circumcision.

Ted Hoffman

ecidna
Most important of all, empathy is definitely irrational. Why does a parent love their child unconditionally ? Maybe hormones & genetics, but does that make it morally wrong ? Illogical ? So what ?
It doesn't make it morally wrong. Parental love is tenable because without it, our survival as a species would be threatened. Would our survival as a species be threatened if adults are allowed to stare lecherously at photos of naked children?

Reason is every bit as misleading as empathy, and often more so. Reason is a secondary property of our nature, while empathy is close to being genetically ingrained. Whatever appeal to reason one makes, ultimately the base will be a form of subjective empathy.
If you find reason every bit as misleading as empathy(emotion), then I think that is very unfortunate indeed.

Vaccinations cause pain and yet empathy does not stop me advocating vaccination of children.
Vaccinations increase the chances of survival of the members of our species. And the pain is so minimal compared to circumcision. We also have oral means of vaccination.

On child abuse though, the evidence is beyond dispute.
Child abuse? what are you talking about?

I don’t see anonymous adults complaining of the lasting trauma they suffered from circumcision.
Thats because society treats it like a good thing. So people accept it as a normal and acceptable thing.

99Percent

echidna: You don’t accept that empathy for children is an adequate justification?

No because empathy is a feeling. If you justify acting on feelings, then you can also justify acting toward children on other feelings such as lust or anger.

Of course, empathy is maybe the most subjective of all fields, and yet I sense a frustration in the objectivists who would like to remove this vagueness and replace it with objective rules. I haven’t seen it done in a way I consider moral yet.

Its simple to set an objective rule against sexual abuse of children - that of consent. Children don't have the ability to give consent. And that is only needed in the case of direct parental irresponsibility. Most parents protect their children so if you sexually abuse their children you are violating parental rights which is something even more objectively clear.

JerryM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Intensity:
[QB]JerryM,
I largely agree with your reasoning.
That is, our actions should be guided by rules, and those rules should, as much as possible, should promote the greatest good and happiness for everyone
Who will make these rules? A few leaders elected by the adult majority? what about the minority (those that like looking at photos of naked children) and the children?

What I can see you pushing is herd-mentality at the expense of everything else. Creating rules to strong-arm those who do not conform to the majority's utopia or idea of what constitutes a happy society. Which ultimately, is mob-rule or might-makes-right morality.
_______________________________________________
Thanks for your response. Of course, every society's ethical rules are conventional--established by long standing custom and consensus among the population. Isn't that essentially what our ethical system is now? My point is that the basis for these rules should be a rational and objective study of history, science, sociology, and human behavior. Let's see what has worked well for societies past and present, and what ethical standards lead to happy and productive people. In a democratic republic, of course, laws are made by elected representatives. They may be based, to some degree, on prevailing ethical customs, but ethics themselves are always put in place by social convention. You can call it mob rule, or herd mentality, but I think that's the fundamental nature of human society. And like I stated in the earlier post, I believe it can be objectively demonstrated that the best societies do not allow the strong to oppress the weak, or the majority to totally control the minority. No ethical system is perfect--but we don't live in a perfect world, and we can only try to do our best.
________________________________________________--
The principle of autonomy is fine but it gets undermined when some members of the society are denied the right to make independent decisions based on their chronological age - just to shortchange the minority (the would-be padeophiles) in the process. It is similar to curbing homosexuality by making it illegal for one to consent to having sex with another person of the same sex.

How are padeophiles supposed to operate if consent of the children is made illegal by this so-called "rule-utilitarian ethic"? Are children asked to consent before they get their sexual organs in the name of circumcision?
________________________________________________
Autonomy is not absolute. One does not have an ethical right to harm an innocent person. Or to control someone else, except in some specific circumstances. I agree that laws criminalizing consensual sex among adults are largely unethical. This violates their autonomy. I think that a pedophile just looking at pornographic images of children is a private act and also within his sphere of autonomy. How the images are produced though is another issue. If a child is forced to pose in sexual positions or perform sex acts, then that is an unethical violation of his or her autonomy. By this same logic, I accept that computer generated pornography, while not particularly virtuous, is not unethical. And I agree that circumcising newborns, which likely has little, if any health benefit also violates autonomy.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: JerryM ]</p>