Amen-Moses

Not really, can I use physical means to discipline my children without invading their autonomy?

Let me try another tact, I have noticed (on this and other threads like it) that as soon as I give examples which I concider as a "close call" ethically speaking I get back extreme examples in return. I think this is counter productive to discussion so let's try a thought experiment:

Culture A (imaginary or not, you decide) allows human sacrifice of all kinds in order to placate some higher power, in this culture anything goes as long as it appears to work.

Culture B (ditto) abhors even the death of a single insect, like an ant or flea.

Now I think we can agree that all human cultures both past and present (and probably future) fall somewhere between these two extremes, is it more fruitful to discuss only those cultures at these extremes or to discuss cultures that border each other between them?

Or to put it another way if culture C abhors killing humans regardless of whether they are criminals or not and culture D abhors killing except in the case of specific types of criminal how do we decide which culture is correct?

Amen-Moses

JerryM

For Tom:

The original question to which I was addressing my post was to present an argument for why sexual exploitation of children is wrong and not use purely subjective moral reasons. I believe my argument does that. It states a rationale for why using another person as a means is not conducive to a happy society. It is an objective reason in support of a moral position. You seem to be asking how we get people to act on it, or how to actually prevent people from abusing children, or committing other immoral actions. That's certainly important, but that's a different question than the one that Intensity asked. I do have some thoughts, but that really should be a separate thread.

For Amen-Moses:

Of course you can physically discipline a child. If your two year old is about to grab a hot pan on the stove, you can swat his bottom to stop him. Can you take a belt to a twelve year old because she skipped school? Maybe that's abusive. I guess what you're asking is how we decide what are the limits of autonomy. And how can we judge differing cultures' ethical standards. How else? We objectively study the results. Isn't that's why we study history, and anthropology, and human psychology. So we can learn what kind of society results from different moral choices, and whether we want to emulate it. I agree there is much subjectivity here, but, this is our best approach--to use science, and reason as much as possible as our moral base. As I said before, human beings are not perfect, our knowledge isn't perfect, and we should not expect perfect answers to all problems. But do you have a better idea?

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

Tom Piper

Jerry M,

You said, But, suppose, following your rationale, I reason in the following way: Should I or should I not use this child as an object for my sexual gratification? It is wrong only if it will lead to an unhappy (dysfunctional?) society. My using this child will not have such an impact, especially if no one knows about it. So there is nothing wrong with it.

???

You also say that you have provided 'an argument for why sexual exploitation of children is wrong and not use purely subjective moral reasons'. An essential part of your argument is an appeal to a view of 'a happy society'. Can you fill this in non-subjective terms for us!

Tom Piper

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

echidna

By rationalising ethical systems, do you mean on an objective basis ? Are you certain that’s possible ? I’m not, in fact I’m certain it’s not. If you disagree, please demonstrate how it's possible.

Why not recourse to violence ? Your own personal subjective morality ? And how do you intend to justify that to me ?

echidna

Last I checked motivations for the death penalty (which personally I don’t support) were not primarily self-gratification. Surely you’re smart enough to know that when you typed this ?

By and large, mainstream sex education is taught at the adolescent age. I have no problem with this.

Because I feel like I’m trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Until now I have focussed on addressing individual issues which you personally have raised, photos of children, tribal sex practices, and so forth. You seem keener on raising new specific instances rather than acknowledging the answers which I have given you so far to the ones already raised.

I’m curious as to whether any of my longer posts were actually read. The answers to your new examples should be readily deduced from my previous posts.

Or maybe, trying to catch a flea with a thimble …

echidna

(heh) You’re right. Whenever one begins a conversation one needs to establish common understanding & more often than not, one makes assumptions. So when the question is not clearly defined (as clearly the case in this thread), I generally start off with some basic assumptions :
a) The person understands English
b) The person is not a sociopath
c) The person is not a dickhead

Naturally on occasion I make an error in any of these assumptions which I then need to trace as best I can.

Of course when the definition of sociopath is cryptically the original contention, b) gets shaky very quickly as I’m discovering.

Judging by my building frustration, I also sense a deliberate evasiveness from some posters.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
Last I checked motivations for the death penalty (which personally I don’t support) were not primarily self-gratification. Surely you’re smart enough to know that when you typed this ?

Change the wording slightly and that argument could have come straight from NAMBLA!

By and large, mainstream sex education is taught at the adolescent age. I have no problem with this.

"Adolescent age"? That's a bit vague, do you mean 12 to 13? Why so late when by that age many people have already been sexually active for some time? (I distinctly remember my first sexual explorations with my next door neighbor at 10 and I was a slow starter where I lived!)

Yesterday there was an item in the news about a Doctor being investigated for "Child Abuse", his crime was to give advice to a 15 year old girl who came to him for advice!

Because I feel like I’m trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Ditto!

Until now I have focussed on addressing individual issues which you personally have raised, photos of children, tribal sex practices, and so forth.

Well IMO you haven't addressed them at all, all you seem to have done, like everyone else, boils down to "I don't like it therefore it's wrong".

You seem keener on raising new specific instances rather than acknowledging the answers which I have given you so far to the ones already raised.

Which "answers" did you have in mind? I thought I acknowledged and answered all of them!

I’m curious as to whether any of my longer posts were actually read. The answers to your new examples should be readily deduced from my previous posts.

In your mind maybe they are deduceable, but I don't have ESP so you'll have to be a little clearer.

Or maybe, trying to catch a flea with a thimble …

I know the feeling well.

So should we all become Buddhist's so that we are really (obvjectively) moral?

[Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by echidna:
By rationalising ethical systems, do you mean on an objective basis ?

On a subjectively agreed basis, i.e "mob rule" as someone else called it.

Are you certain that’s possible ? I’m not, in fact I’m certain it’s not. If you disagree, please demonstrate how it's possible.

Actually I agree with you, that is why we are having this discussion. Unless we can actually work out WHY we make moral decisions there is no way we can come up with a rational method of persuading ourselves and others to take on some sort of universal ethical system and without that system warfare, ethnic cleansing etc will never be abolished.

Why not recourse to violence ? Your own personal subjective morality ? And how do you intend to justify that to me ?

Because violence is expensive and costs more lives than it saves. (of course as long as those lives aren't "ours" it is "justifiable" I suppose)

Not only that but history shows us that violence usually just begats more violence and leads to those committing the violence being demonised in the eyes of the receipient. IOW it doesn't solve anything.

Amen-Moses

echidna

And yet there are a shitload of activities which parents regulate, exactly for these reasons. We look after them by protecting them from issues and activities which they are not prepared for. How much they should eat, what they should eat, when they should sleep, etc etc.

By your reasoning, parenting would end after the birth canal. Parenting clearly requires a balance as the child grows up and matures by learning how to live responsibly. Parental responsibility and control gives way to the child’s gradually as they learn.

As I stated much earlier, you can debate age-of-consent in another topic if you want. It’s generally around 17 give or take a few years & given the lack of exactness, I tend to agree with this region. If you’d like to lower that to 5, I’d want to see your reasons first.

And who understands the hurt better ?
Who can deal with it better ?
Who understands the responsibilities and the consequences of their actions better ?

Hell, I know we adults can live a lifetime trying to learn this stuff, but who understands better ? The child or the adult ?

Does a child give consent in the same way that an adult does ? That is, do they understand complex issues as well as an adult ?

Do you acknowledge that paedophilia, even consensual, often has lasting emotional problems (based on current clinical research) ? If you reject such research, on what basis ? Given the data supporting the international consensus, what data do you have which negates case studies claiming that paedophilia caused them psychological harm ?

Yours.

We live in a society where sex is an important factor in some of our most important relationships. Granted that’s not moral justification, but the choice needs to be made when one understands the consequences of that choice. Is a child able to make an informed choice ?

I see no conflagration. Why are you ignoring relevant issues ?

echidna

And you were telling my method was wrong ???

OK, some common ground at last. Personally I feel that I differ with many of the subjectivists here (although maybe I don’t), that I believe in the universal existence of human virtues of integrity, altruism and compassion. I reckon you’d be fairly safe to say that any human ethical system should place these as high priorities.

But lack of knowledge, lack of universally objective cause and effect, and lack of common valuing of these virtues, will permanently prevent the agreement of a single ethical system for everyone.

Guess what ? I’m not convinced. The world I see around me still requires violence to maintain the morality which I pragmatically support.