Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 09-17-2002, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
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)?

Yes, well worked out.

Of course your reasoning overlooks 3 groups of paedophiles :

a) Those who would be quite willing for other adults to have sex with their own children.
b) Those who are unwilling for other adults to have sex with their children, but are quite willing to have sex with them themselves.
c) Those who genuinely believe that paedophilia is in the best interests of the child�s happiness.

So, if one fell into these groups, by your reasoning their particular strain of paedophilia is still quite alright. I observe that networks of these people operate throughout the world, many using the internet, and presumably all using exactly your reasoning.

Your earlier rejection of paedophilia is hollow, and simply quoting Kant to earn sympathy, doesn't make your argument any more valid.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

echidna · 09-17-2002, 01:24 AM

Your earlier argument however, that consent isn�t really important because you don't think so, remains absolutely watertight.

I have nothing to counter this, other than my opinion that consent is important. It�s a good thing we�ll never meet.

Infinity Lover · 09-17-2002, 02:44 AM

If this has been said before... aw well.

Why shouldn't children be sexually exploited?
Because it's well known what the consequenses are.

Considering the nature of those consequences it's hardly something you'd make 'case sensitive'.
The exceptions to the rule, don't outweigh the rule here.

atrahasis · 09-17-2002, 02:55 AM

Quote:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
--Betrand Russel--[

Ted Hoffman · 09-17-2002, 04:10 AM

echidna

Yes, well worked out.

Oh, well, thank you echidna

Of course your reasoning overlooks 3 groups of paedophiles

You provide examples of sick people in need of help or extremely rare aberrations of the human nature. I don't think those are people you can consider normal.
Out of a million people, how many can you find who are willing to let other adults use their children sexually?

So, if one fell into these groups, by your reasoning their particular strain of paedophilia is still quite alright.

The above argument appliesto this example too.

It would not be quite alright because by applying this subjective morality the maxim "all principles of conduct produced by the will must be to everyones advantage" would be violated because other people would be very disturbed by his use of their own children, or even the use of his own children sexually. So this act would only be "pleasurable" to him and his pleasure would get replaced by unhappiness because the society would reject him (his acceptance needs and self-esteem needs would not be met) and probably put him in jail. So his quest for pleasure would still lead to his unhappiness. I have seen that here in Kenya where a man sexually abuses his daughters in secret - it gets discovered and the mob kills him before the police arrive. Those that are not discovered are very rare and not worthy of much consideration while reflecting on a form of objective standard morality.

And if such people exist (who abuse their own children in secret) such that it becomes a pervasive social problem, the society would devise a means of rooting them out, identifying them early etc even at the cost of personal privacy . They may exist at the moment only because they are very rare and do not pose such a huge threat to the society. So long as they are few and rare, they lurk fearfully in the shadows away from the societys eyes, afraid of being spotted, always guarded, not open and very secretive - the very opposite of a free life. A human being who is not free is not a happy human being.

Thus the act would result in consequences that are against its intended objective.

Your earlier rejection of paedophilia is hollow

Is that why you could not offer a trenchant rebuttal?

and simply quoting Kant to earn sympathy, doesn't make your argument any more valid.

I needed some sympathy? Oh, what makes you think that?

In your belligerence and blind haste to discredit me, you have contradicted yourself. Check the beginning of this post - you complimented me - remember? Now you are saying my arguments are hollow. Make up your mind echidna. (are you female btw?)

Your earlier argument however, that consent isn�t really important because you don't think so, remains absolutely watertight.

Thank you again (though I dont remember putting it that way). But you have contradicted yourself again. Now its hollow, now its watertight. Gotta make up your mind.

I have nothing to counter this, other than my opinion that consent is important. It�s a good thing we�ll never meet.

Why would we even think of meeting? What have you been thinking of? meeting me? Jesus! no wonder you are not focused (from the self-contradictions) echidna

HelenM · 09-17-2002, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Intensity:

MY RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS

Concerning argument 1:
(a) It is a double-standard measure to demand that children provide consent for sex - yet the same society mutilates the genitals of children without their consent in the name of circumcision - which has no practical benefits

Maybe it is.

That doesn't make sexual abuse of children ok, though.

So, is it okay to have sex with an adult who is not legally qualified to give consent (ie people suffering from mental disorders)?

Not necessarily.

But, is anyone arguing that it is?

About psychological suffering, as I have argued before, its the result of living in a "western" society and sharing a western perspective on child sexuality.

It's still real, because we do live in a Western society.

As Amen Moses argued, those who are known to be psychologically traumatised are the ones that make the news. Many more live with the so-called trauma and get married and move on in obscurity.

People often show a remarkable ability to overcome an abusive past.

That doesn't justify the abuse, per se.

So, the psychological suffering is a conditioned syndrome, not an inborn or natural one.

Even if it is 'conditioned' it's still real.

And I question whether it is conditioned since children obviously do not have bodies intended for sex with adults. I do think that's obvious.

And the western society propagates the abused, suffering, traumatized and unstable victim as the normal image that those who were involved in sex early should adopt.

Childrens' bodies are not meant for sex and I believe the violation they feel is real and detrimental to them.

This is a weak reason because there are numerous physically weak adults too and sex with them is not discouraged because they are "defenseless". People marry cripples and people suffering from physical infirmities and have kids with them.

If they consent that's their business.

About being dependent on adults, there are numerous adults who have been "abused" for the same reasons. And at the same time there are kids who have been able to fight-back in cases where the advances are unwanted.

It doesn't make it ok.

So children have no monopoly over being in powerless and dependent positions.

I completely fail to see how them having no monopoly on it makes it ok...?!

Going by the aforementioned reasoning, we would invalidate sex with wives who are dependent on their husbands and vice versa on the grounds of one partner excercising undue influence on another.

Things should be decided on a case by case basis as far as possible. Generalizing from one case to another should be done with the utmost caution because of varying circumstances between the two.

I will be happy to receive a strong rebuttal to my arguments.

I won't guarantee this is a strong rebuttal. In fact it probably isn't.

Without that, our collective extreme loathing of any acts that use children sexually is as irrational as racism and other forms of bigotry.

With all due respect, I haven't seen whether you argue for or against racism and bigotry so I'm not sure whether you are saying that it is irrational to be racist or not to be...

take care
Helen

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

The AntiChris · 09-17-2002, 05:20 AM

Intensity

Quote:

You provide examples of sick people in need of help or extremely rare aberrations of the human nature. I don't think those are people you can consider normal.

So, you're saying such examples are not within your definition of sexual exploitation?

Until you define what activities you do consider to be "normal" sexual exploitation of children, it's difficuly to know precisely what it is we're supposed be debating here.

Chris

Ted Hoffman · 09-17-2002, 05:52 AM

Helen,

Quote:

So, you're saying such examples are not within your definition of sexual exploitation?

They are not Helen (and Chris). I know you wish they were echidna does too. But they are not. Those are patently sick people you are talking about.

I am talking about relatively healthy people who for need of a cheap thrill, might be attracted to the idea of using children sexually - maybe because sexual use of children is being sold to them.

The same kind of people who might ocassionally use prostitutes (so-called call Girls). There are brothels that provide young girls to such people for example. These are the people I had in mind.
Not some person who keeps his daughter locked in and rapes her habitually. I did not have the domestic situation in mind because its quite extreme (to turn on ones own progeny is not a very human thing to do) and requires a level of mental illness.

I hope this is clear?

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

HelenM · 09-17-2002, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
I am talking about relatively healthy people who for need of a cheap thrill, might be attracted to the idea of using children sexually - maybe because sexual use of children is being sold to them.

I'm confused but it might be because I haven't read the whole thread.

Is this what you are arguing? That it is morally ok for relatively healthy people to use children sexually if they so desire?

Or that it is morally ok at least if the children seem to have given consent?

Is consent necessary?

Could I have a very brief summary of your position that you are defending, by way of response to these questions? (And I apologize if in asking this I am making the thread more repetitive)

Helen

Ted Hoffman · 09-17-2002, 07:28 AM

Ok Helen,
Is this what you are arguing? That it is morally ok for relatively healthy people to use children sexually if they so desire?

What gave you the idea that I am arguing that its okay for relatively healthy people to use children sexually if they so desire? You can just read this page to get the whole picture: you dont have to go through the whole ten pages.

But to answer you: NO, that is not what I am arguing Helen.

This thread goes like this:

Its stated a priori that its unethical or morally wrong to use children sexually.

My question was: is there a rational explanation for this assertion or this morality so to speak?

I was interested in finding a logical or rational basis for saying that it is wrong to use children sexually.

So in summary, I am NOT defending anything.

Comprendre?

09-17-2002, 04:47 AM	#246
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Originally posted by Intensity: MY RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS Concerning argument 1: (a) It is a double-standard measure to demand that children provide consent for sex - yet the same society mutilates the genitals of children without their consent in the name of circumcision - which has no practical benefits Maybe it is. That doesn't make sexual abuse of children ok, though. So, is it okay to have sex with an adult who is not legally qualified to give consent (ie people suffering from mental disorders)? Not necessarily. But, is anyone arguing that it is? About psychological suffering, as I have argued before, its the result of living in a "western" society and sharing a western perspective on child sexuality. It's still real, because we do live in a Western society. As Amen Moses argued, those who are known to be psychologically traumatised are the ones that make the news. Many more live with the so-called trauma and get married and move on in obscurity. People often show a remarkable ability to overcome an abusive past. That doesn't justify the abuse, per se. So, the psychological suffering is a conditioned syndrome, not an inborn or natural one. Even if it is 'conditioned' it's still real. And I question whether it is conditioned since children obviously do not have bodies intended for sex with adults. I do think that's obvious. And the western society propagates the abused, suffering, traumatized and unstable victim as the normal image that those who were involved in sex early should adopt. Childrens' bodies are not meant for sex and I believe the violation they feel is real and detrimental to them. This is a weak reason because there are numerous physically weak adults too and sex with them is not discouraged because they are "defenseless". People marry cripples and people suffering from physical infirmities and have kids with them. If they consent that's their business. About being dependent on adults, there are numerous adults who have been "abused" for the same reasons. And at the same time there are kids who have been able to fight-back in cases where the advances are unwanted. It doesn't make it ok. So children have no monopoly over being in powerless and dependent positions. I completely fail to see how them having no monopoly on it makes it ok...?! Going by the aforementioned reasoning, we would invalidate sex with wives who are dependent on their husbands and vice versa on the grounds of one partner excercising undue influence on another. Things should be decided on a case by case basis as far as possible. Generalizing from one case to another should be done with the utmost caution because of varying circumstances between the two. I will be happy to receive a strong rebuttal to my arguments. I won't guarantee this is a strong rebuttal. In fact it probably isn't. Without that, our collective extreme loathing of any acts that use children sexually is as irrational as racism and other forms of bigotry. With all due respect, I haven't seen whether you argue for or against racism and bigotry so I'm not sure whether you are saying that it is irrational to be racist or not to be... take care Helen [ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

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

09-17-2002, 01:24 AM	#242
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Your earlier argument however, that consent isn�t really important because you don't think so, remains absolutely watertight. I have nothing to counter this, other than my opinion that consent is important. It�s a good thing we�ll never meet.

09-17-2002, 02:44 AM	#243
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	If this has been said before... aw well. Why shouldn't children be sexually exploited? Because it's well known what the consequenses are. Considering the nature of those consequences it's hardly something you'd make 'case sensitive'. The exceptions to the rule, don't outweigh the rule here.

09-17-2002, 04:10 AM	#245
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	echidna Yes, well worked out. Oh, well, thank you echidna Of course your reasoning overlooks 3 groups of paedophiles You provide examples of sick people in need of help or extremely rare aberrations of the human nature. I don't think those are people you can consider normal. Out of a million people, how many can you find who are willing to let other adults use their children sexually? So, if one fell into these groups, by your reasoning their particular strain of paedophilia is still quite alright. The above argument appliesto this example too. It would not be quite alright because by applying this subjective morality the maxim "all principles of conduct produced by the will must be to everyones advantage" would be violated because other people would be very disturbed by his use of their own children, or even the use of his own children sexually. So this act would only be "pleasurable" to him and his pleasure would get replaced by unhappiness because the society would reject him (his acceptance needs and self-esteem needs would not be met) and probably put him in jail. So his quest for pleasure would still lead to his unhappiness. I have seen that here in Kenya where a man sexually abuses his daughters in secret - it gets discovered and the mob kills him before the police arrive. Those that are not discovered are very rare and not worthy of much consideration while reflecting on a form of objective standard morality. And if such people exist (who abuse their own children in secret) such that it becomes a pervasive social problem, the society would devise a means of rooting them out, identifying them early etc even at the cost of personal privacy . They may exist at the moment only because they are very rare and do not pose such a huge threat to the society. So long as they are few and rare, they lurk fearfully in the shadows away from the societys eyes, afraid of being spotted, always guarded, not open and very secretive - the very opposite of a free life. A human being who is not free is not a happy human being. Thus the act would result in consequences that are against its intended objective. Your earlier rejection of paedophilia is hollow Is that why you could not offer a trenchant rebuttal? and simply quoting Kant to earn sympathy, doesn't make your argument any more valid. I needed some sympathy? Oh, what makes you think that? In your belligerence and blind haste to discredit me, you have contradicted yourself. Check the beginning of this post - you complimented me - remember? Now you are saying my arguments are hollow. Make up your mind echidna. (are you female btw?) Your earlier argument however, that consent isn�t really important because you don't think so, remains absolutely watertight. Thank you again (though I dont remember putting it that way). But you have contradicted yourself again. Now its hollow, now its watertight. Gotta make up your mind. I have nothing to counter this, other than my opinion that consent is important. It�s a good thing we�ll never meet. Why would we even think of meeting? What have you been thinking of? meeting me? Jesus! no wonder you are not focused (from the self-contradictions) echidna

09-17-2002, 07:28 AM	#250
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Ok Helen, Is this what you are arguing? That it is morally ok for relatively healthy people to use children sexually if they so desire? What gave you the idea that I am arguing that its okay for relatively healthy people to use children sexually if they so desire? You can just read this page to get the whole picture: you dont have to go through the whole ten pages. But to answer you: NO, that is not what I am arguing Helen. This thread goes like this: Its stated a priori that its unethical or morally wrong to use children sexually. My question was: is there a rational explanation for this assertion or this morality so to speak? I was interested in finding a logical or rational basis for saying that it is wrong to use children sexually. So in summary, I am NOT defending anything. Comprendre?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.