echidna

Keith's post is definitely worth posting again.

Which parts are we still having trouble with ?

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
And I will support changes which will seek to remove these unnecessary atrocities. Would I advocate the use of violence to effectively stop this ? Yes.

Then you must also support their right to do the same to you?

You are suggesting that I should not ? You are suggesting that I should mind my own business & allow nature to take its course ? Moral nihilism and apathy ?

What gives you the right to do so? Why are you better than them at deciding what is or is not "morally correct"?

I sense that the recognised tragedies of moral objectivism have now swung the pendulum to the other extreme, that morality is now a dirty word, that we should now just shrug our shoulders and say “well my opinion is worthless”. Where we’re tipping our bathwater is marked by a pile of babies.

No, but we should accept that our opinions are just that, opinions, they are worth no more and no less than that of others and unless we can come up with a sytem whereby all ethical systems can be rationalised (which may involve changes to YOUR ethics btw) without recourse to violence then what else can we do but try to understand WHY we have tthese opinions in the first place!

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
Is it ethical to harm people (physically or emotionally) for self-gratification ?

Nope, the death penalty is definitely (IMO) immoral.

Are children as mentally equipped as adults to deal with issues of family, relationships and sexuality ?

Possibly, possibly not. OTOH how will they learn the skills needed to deal with these issues? Why is is that so many adults cannot deal with these issues? Could it be lack of education and experience?

And wtf has all this got to do with sexual exploitation? We started off discussing the sexual exploitation of children, in this I would place beauty pageants, advertising, movies, literature and even simulated web porn. Can we get back to why these things are wrong please!

Amen-Moses

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Keith Russel,
Sexual behaviour can have tremendous physical, emotional, and mental consequences. Pregnancy, STDs, birth defects and/or physical damage (or death) to the mother and/or child, etc., can all result from sex.
So you want to take a negative approach to the matter.
Food poisoning, choking, overeating, get overweight, stomach upset, food allergy etc can result from eating. Going by this reasoning, we should not even have children in the first place because living in this world can result in being raped, shot at, get burnt, get punished by a sadistic teacher, get bitten by a dog or a snake, die in an earthquake, drown in floods, get killed by a plane being driven by a building, get infected by an incurable disease etc.

You can do better than this.

Sex can harm adults for the same reason it can harm kids. And adults DO GET hurt through sex.

Any activity that a kid gets involved in is potentially harmful.

echidna
Is it wrong to inflict pain (either mental or physical) for pleasure ?
I think it is wrong. However, sex does not have to involve physical pain if that is your concern.

Should children be guided towards healthy maturity ?

Yes they should, I am yet to see evidence that sex with adults alienates this so called "healthy maturity" (what does that mean by the way?)

Should children’s freedom be curtailed on occasion by a loving parent in their best longterm interests ?

You mean as per the parents' perception of what constitutes the children's "best longterm interests"? I think parents have that have that right. Methinks however, that there is no proper rational basis for this phobia of padeophiles.

echidna,

Is it ethical to harm people (physically or emotionally) for self-gratification ?

What code of ethics are you referring to?

Are children as mentally equipped as adults to deal with issues of family, relationships and sexuality ?

What has sex got to do with family and relationships and dealing with sexuality?

Why are you conflating issues here?

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The AntiChris

Well, this hasn't stopped you from making some pretty big assumptions.

To be fair, it's not surprising bearing in mind the negative connotations of "exploitation" and the fact that the original question was generated from the "child pornography" thread.

If Intensity genuinely wants a rational debate, he's going to have to narrow down the scope of the original question.

Chris

JerryM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Intensity:
[QB]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).


See my original post of Sept. 4. Using a person as a means for another's benefit without consent violates that person's autonomy. This is harmful to all of us collectively. Societies where there is widespread control of some members by others--without consent, and not for their own benefit--are oppressive, brutish, reactionary, and tend to stifle innovation and progress. And I think this can be shown objectively from studying such societies. Violating autonomy (without very specific and well-defined exceptions) is wrong because it can lead to objective social damage.

Amen-Moses

This is the sort of post that looks really good, lots of big words and very technical sounding.

The only problem is that it doesn't actually say anything!

Let me illustrate:

First you give a seemingly wide (but actually very narrow) definition of exploitation, then just state that it is harmful. Then you go off on a tangent about controlling people without consent and not for their benefit (which is actually the mainstay of every society!). Finally "you think" this can be shown objectively and use that as justification for saying it is wrong!

When you also take into account that several posters have already pointed out that "children" by definition do not have any autonomy to violate your entire post just becomes an off topic ramble. (all IMHO of course )

Amen-Moses

MadKally

<a href="http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/issues/pedophil.html" target="_blank"> Some information on pedophilia. </a>

JerryM

For Amen-Moses[B]

I'm not sure I totally understand your remarks.
Let me clarify that when I say "autonomy," I mean more than just the right to decide one's actions--I also mean that one's body and personal "boundaries," so to speak, should be respected. Violating a person's autonomy is wrong, just as lying is wrong. If everyone told falsehoods, there would be no reliable information exchange among people, and society could not function. A society wherein there are wholesale violations of automony--which would include people using others, or controlling others--is demonstrably dysfunctional. (Afghanistan under the Taliban comes to mind.)But, as I stated, autonomy is not absolute. Just as there may be circumstances where lying is necessary, there are situations where autonomy must be restricted. The obvious: if someone's autonomous act may harm someone else. Children do have autonomy, though not to the same degree as adults. Not in the sense that they make all their own decisions, but in the sense that their bodily integrity should be respected. Again, this isn't absolute. We can ethically allow a child's autonomy to be violated if needed for his benefit--immunizations, life saving medical therapy, etc. But violations of autonomy are only ethical for specific, compelling reasons, and must generally confer some benefit. Yes, there is a lot of room for subjective judgement here about what are legitimate compelling reasons, but the broad ethical principle is sound. Well-adjusted societies are not excessively authoritarian. Their ethics promote personal freedom, but not to the extent that people can control or use others without consent. I don't know if this answers your comments, but I hope this is understandable.

Tom Piper

Jerry M,

If I understand you, at most, your argument shows that

IF one wants to promote a society without the sort of dysfunction that you say will result from using them as sexual objects, then one ought to talk as though such uses are wrong.

As long as most people, or enough people, are moved by your argument, one can go on and use children for whatever purpose one wants without having to worry to much about society. Moreover, if you don't care about such a society, then by your analysis, there is nothing wrong with it.

Additionally, your approach looks as though it makes the problem not the act itself, but getting caught. One can talk about how bad a society would be if everyone tells lies all of the time, and one can offer that as an account (?) of what is wrong with lying. But one can then go on and lie at will, as long as one is good at it, because problems arise only if one gets caught.

Tom Piper