When it comes to moral philosophy, I tend to hold my own when having discussions with theists. However, a theist friend of mine has recently stumped me with this.
A child, who has no friends or family, is in an accident and goes into a coma. There is a pedophile who is going to pay for the continued life support of the child's body for his own selfish interest. I'm not going to spell out what that means, it makes me uncomfortable to even type it...
The question is, what makes this wrong? The child can't be hurt or be aware of being hurt, no family or friends are hurt, and there is no cost to society (at least not that I can see).
He was specifically asking me, under contractarianism, what makes this wrong, but I'm willing to look for an answer in any form of secular morality.
It's tough because if "wrong" is related to well-being, helping, and not harming, I find it hard to say that it's wrong. Maybe it's not wrong, but I'm not satisfied with that conclusion.
Thanks
If the child is still alive and capable of coming out of the coma, it's wrong because if/when he does wake out of the coma, he is capable of being hurt retroactively if he finds out what was done to him.
If he's brain dead but on life support, then it's closer to necrophilia.
It might still be argued that committing an act that most of society sees as morally reprehensible is harmful to the person committing it. That is, it might be harmful for the pedophile, suffering guilt and being outcast or even imprisoned if he is caught.
When an axe cuts down the tree, it's fairly obvious that the tree is hurt. What is less obvious is the slow dulling of the axe, but it is still happening.
The motive for the act.
I instantly think its wrong and you are not satisfied with the conclusion that it is not wrong, when you find it hard to say it is wrong because we are primates and we protect or young from each other and also protect each other.
Why the example is designed with a child? As almost in all thought exercises related to some form of morality, there is a factor that is put there to elicit emotional response at first sight and then force some 'objectivity' from the emotional resistance which in contrast, easier to do contrary to the belief. Child is the factor what makes you not satisfied with the conclusion and also what forces you to be 'objective' about the legitimate content of lack of consent. Despite of.
Would it change anything if it wasn't a child, but an adult. It wouldn't. But we are more desensitized to adult rape. This is not a philosophical issue. It's targeting emotional response and then uses it as a spring board.
What makes this wrong? Everything. First of all, it is against the law for an adult to have sex with a child. It doesn't matter what the circumstances. We don't know the true medical condition of this child, so who is to say the child would not be aware on some level. And the perp is harmed in allowing him to break a law and it harms society for it to allow one of it's taboo's to be broken. It would harm those who attended the child with life support. This is not difficult for me to figure out.
What makes it wrong is that a man is raping a child, end of. I dunno how someone can have any questionable moral basis of saying 'well he won't come out of the coma so it can't hurt him', thats a fucked up as saying you dug up someones corpse to fuck that, infact its worse because the kid is still alive, and the pedophile is having unconsensual sex with a child.
Doctors and nurses would be hurt by this. And a child would not simply have nobody, he would have foster parents or carers who would be responsible for him.
Scenario one: you are the child
Scenario two: you are the pedophile
Challenge:
Present both positive and negative positions to both scenarios.
Well….go ahead.
child: fuk no, well maybe im pleasuring someone
Ped: fuk yes, id ruining societys reputation
Let's pare it down to its barest essentials by eliminating all the squicky bits: even if the comatose person were an adult, it's still easy to call this wrong without having to split hairs.
There's no consent.
Game over right there, without any regard to who's doing what to who for whatever reason.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on April 24, 2015, 03:29:26 PM
When it comes to moral philosophy, I tend to hold my own when having discussions with theists. However, a theist friend of mine has recently stumped me with this.
When I think of all things that stump me (quantum mechanics, Vanilla Ice's career, magnetism, etc) the morality of rape isn't one of them. So yeah, another tally in the wrong column.
Yes, every kind of rape is very wrong. Period. That's not the main point here as I see it though.
I think the reason your theist friend asked you to answer to this one under a specific undertsanding of morality for a reason. You are not required to come up with a certain answer, however basic moral theory of contractarianism is sceptical; by modern interpretation in refusal of divine will. Because while the scenario can go on without noone knowing what is happening to the child -including the child- however, god is all knowing and the situation is immoral from the begining in his eyes.
The very reason how the scenario is designed is to force the basic normative quality of the consent and harm relation to an empty point. It's not a thought exercise, it's an emotional attack to force a sceptic who generally wouldn't be intimidated to go all the way. Because sceptic people are often able to view taboos stripped from their traditional baggage, furthermore sometimes they are driven to fight against them with a reflex on theoretical grounds, doesn't matter how functional the taboo in practical life. While you think you are torn between two sides of an argument, you are actually fighting against the emotional abuse of the scenario; your own moral response.
This is not a philosophical issue. It's not even an issue. It would be an issue, if morality had a supernatural source. Because that's the other side of the 'exercise' coin. It doesn't have a supernatural source. Roughly, being 'moral' is what we pick up while growing up, what we experience and how we interpret all that; how we decide to act. Actually, it is mostly 'monkey see, monkey do' eventhough we like to think we are employing our precious smarts while acting. I'm an ape. My evolution dictates, I need to protect other apes as much as I can do. Otherwise, I am conflicted, distressed. It's simple as this.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/#4
QuoteContractarians are skeptical of the possibility of grounding morality or political authority in either divine will or some perfectionist ideal of the nature of humanity.
QuoteThe moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement.
-Why should there be consent? Because any relations without consent or mutual agreement creates harm and therefore it's immoral.
-So lack of consent is immoral as long as the harm is recognisable by the recipient or the society. (BS 1) Then it is not immoral under some specific circumstances. (BS 2)
There is also another disturbing side to all this and that is the scenario reflects how some people percieve rape. Rape is expected to be violent and its harm visible, approved by society. If there isn't any of this, it is almost percieved as some ordinary act or even a sexual one.
Penny's comments led me to the second thing I find wrong with this: I would be inclined to say to the person who asked, "What kind of a sick fuck are you to a) think of something like this in the first place, and b) assume that I would have trouble saying it's wrong?" This is less a philosophical question than it is an attempted gotcha.
This question also assumes that morals are absolute, and we know this isn't the case: what's held to be moral at one point in history may be held to be immoral later on (unless your querent thinks that slavery should not have been abolished). In any case, the ancient Greeks would be looking at us saying, "The hell? How are you supposed to raise and teach the next generation of citizens that way?" Given that they invented democracy, the scientific method, geometry, logic, theater and rhetoric, while we modern humans have invented capitalism, communism, nuclear weaponry, talk radio and Pop Idol, it gives one pause to think.
The extended childhood is a very recent invention, socially; 'marriageable age' prior to the last century was generally around 14, even if marriages that young weren't common. The age of 18 being considered the onset of adulthood is essentially a 20th century invention -- a hundred years ago, your typical 18 year old was probably already working (if he hadn't been drafted). Two hundred years ago, he'd've been working for a couple to several years already.
It's against the law, and for reasons that should be obvious. Man created the law of consent, because God's laws are inadequate and often barbaric.
I don't think anybody is sick. This is an exchange about an imaginary situation between two people who are aware it is illegal.
One is an atheist, the other is a theist. From the typical theist perception, god covers all bases, human can't. It's possible that humans wouldn't know if something of the sort happened, but not for god. It comes down to the main fantasy bullshit of 'morality comes from god' in the widest sense and where two oposite points of view arrive with the material at hand.
Atheist has the tendency to carry this to the most 'objectively' available degree and tries to produce a 'correct' solution even if it would result in conflict. Theist has one objective; god sees all. The question and the answers are aside, whatever the answer would be, the perpetrator can escape from human detection, but never from god. With all that, if the circumstances of the situation also provides conflict in description of such main concepts defined in some argument of morality, then what comes out?
This is the problem of these thought exercises in any form of moral philosophy is that they create an illusion as if they could hold a mirror to real life, because they are directly related to every kind of human behaviour and anything that comes with it. But in human reality nothing works that way. There are countless things affecting outcomes of situations people live through. Oh and consent cannot be played down that way.
The sceanrio is designed to provoke and force a side for the reasons I wrote above in my opinion. Find a loop hole between consent and harm by pushing emotional and rational extremities. Which doesn't work. Or only works with god as in big picture.
Quote from: trdsf on April 25, 2015, 02:34:31 AM
Let's pare it down to its barest essentials by eliminating all the squicky bits: even if the comatose person were an adult, it's still easy to call this wrong without having to split hairs.
There's no consent.
Game over right there, without any regard to who's doing what to who for whatever reason.
I feel like I had to make this bolded and expanded, just because it sums up the pure fuckary of the one who asked the question in the first place. He is asking flat out 'whats wrong with fucking someone without consent?"
Yes, exactly. And worse than that he is also doing that by twisting the definition of consent. But you would be surprised how often people think, 'what's the big deal if he/she didn't feel anything -or didn't know- when they're raped'. Most people's perception on rape is something out of a movie, violent rape that happens under rare conditions, by 'monster' scale villains. That common view is closely related to the scenario offered here.
Because fucking kids is wrong.
A variation of that argument was given to me in regards to abortion: "If it's OK to kill a fetus because it is not aware, then it should be OK to kill a severely retarded person that isn't aware, right? Or how about a relative that tells the doctor to pull your life support if you are in a vegetative state?"
He was countering the lack of sentience of the fetus which I had mentioned. Now I wouldn't kill a bed ridden hydrocephalic, but I countered that I hoped someone would have the presence of mind to pull my plug if I were in a vegetative state (which seemed to terminate further argument from him). His argument does nothing to change my position, but it does have a sort of logic to it that tests my lack of concern for a non thinking fetus.
In thinking about this now, killing a fetus or a hydrocephalic is more of an empathetic dilemma, but not so much a moral dilemma for me. I dunno. I'd like to know how others might respond in that situation.
Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
A variation of that argument was given to me in regards to abortion: "If it's OK to kill a fetus because it is not aware, then it should be OK to kill a severely retarded person that isn't aware, right? Or how about a relative that tells the doctor to pull your life support if you are in a vegetative state?"
He was countering the lack of sentience of the fetus which I had mentioned. Now I wouldn't kill a bed ridden hydrocephalic, but I countered that I hoped someone would have the presence of mind to pull my plug if I were in a vegetative state (which seemed to terminate further argument from him). His argument does nothing to change my position, but it does have a sort of logic to it that tests my lack of concern for a non thinking fetus.
In thinking about this now, killing a fetus or a hydrocephalic is more of an empathetic dilemma, but not so much a moral dilemma for me. I dunno. I'd like to know how others might respond in that situation.
Okay, I'll take a stab.
1. A fetus is unaware--I regard it in the same light as a guy masturbating and killing all those potential baby starters. Or a woman ovulating and expelling an used egg. So, it is a decision that each person should be able to make for themselves.
2. Killing a severely retarded person. I guess it depends upon the situation. Is that person in constant pain? If so, then the kindest thing to do would be to put them to sleep. Otherwise, who is to say if they are tormented or have any quality of life. I don't really see a connection to #1.
3. I can't say for anybody else, but if I am ever in a brain dead state, or a state of hopeless pain, then put me down! This is a decision that each of us should be able to make for ourselves. And I don't see how this is connected to either #1 or #2.
:wtff: Maybe we should get Bill Cosby's take on this? It's against the rules of our society that say it is wrong to rape a child, or an adult. It has nothing to do with religion and its moral code. Morality isn't just about hurting someone, or we wouldn't have armies and police trained to kill, or we would be guilty for self defense, or defense of another person. Is it OK to rape an animal? A better question is why would this be OK, even if God ordained it, like a lot of other sick stuff He has ordained? The person asking this question is using absolute black and white thinking that is logically wrong, like so many shall not's in Christian morality. Solitary
With my above thoughts in mind, I think the OPs example, as well as my own about abortion, only become problematic if one subscribes to the idea that morality has to be chiseled in stone, like a god given morality, or if one believes that morality can be decided by logic. If there is no god given morality, humans determine their own morality. Atheists are free to decide morality for themselves, so we consider human laws, cultural norms, empathetic responses, and other resources to decide on morality.
But the thing is that theists also determine their own morality exactly the same way. They just support it with a myth for which they have no evidence, and then go on to claim that it is therefore superior, eternal, and sacred. Then they go on to create a scenario that creates a logical dilemma with their theoretical bullshit. But perhaps morality is neither god given or purely logical. In fact, I don't think it is. We are talking about human VALUES, which have only cursory relationships with the imagined divine, or the process of logic.
That's what those cute little values exercises are all about in high school classes or values seminars. You know, exercises like 5 people of varying backgrounds in a life raft with enough food to save only 3 people. Who do you throw into the sea? Or do you all die? Such is the nature of values, they vary from person to person. And likewise, that is the nature of morality, unless you are a Christian and dogmatically pontificate it's been ordained by a god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 25, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
2. Killing a severely retarded person. I guess it depends upon the situation. Is that person in constant pain? If so, then the kindest thing to do would be to put them to sleep. Otherwise, who is to say if they are tormented or have any quality of life. I don't really see a connection to #1.
3. I can't say for anybody else, but if I am ever in a brain dead state, or a state of hopeless pain, then put me down! This is a decision that each of us should be able to make for ourselves. And I don't see how this is connected to either #1 or #2.
I think they relate because the arguments are based on similar tactics. The dilemmas are set up by the theist appealing to the need for consistency. You are challenged to be consistent using only logic or the Bible. But consistency is sometimes not possible. Therefore, YOU LOSE! However, the theist is not required to be consistent. He uses as his source the Bible, or some theistic dogma that is inconsistent in itself. Since this is all divine, he does not have to follow the rules he sets for you. HE WINS!
Alright, moral pyramid time.
|Me
|-Do not desire harm
|-May harm if harmed
|-Consent (to action performed by other)
|--Cannot consent if lacking necessary device
|---Speech
|---Brain development (pre-frontal lobe)
|--Lack of consent leads to harm
|-Mine
|--Wish to prevent harm to
|--Baby
|---Unable to consent
|Society
|-Includes other individuals defining themselves as "me"
|-Will sometimes help me if helped
|--If not reciprocated, specific "me" no longer receives help from other specific "me"
|--Harm from one can be mended or avenged by help from another
|---Incentive to help or avenge those who are harmed
This is a small sub-section of a larger chain that ultimately illustrates an individual's secular values. If a theist tries to challenge this by saying it is ultimately selfish, challenge them to explain why it is bad to be selfish.
Quote from: trdsf on April 25, 2015, 02:34:31 AM
Let's pare it down to its barest essentials by eliminating all the squicky bits: even if the comatose person were an adult, it's still easy to call this wrong without having to split hairs.
There's no consent.
Game over right there, without any regard to who's doing what to who for whatever reason.
This, actually.
The problem with these sort of ... questions... is that they use hot button topics, pedophilia in this case, to distract you from seeing what is actually going on.
You'd said your friend who'd posed this ... question is religious and I am not fucking surprised. Emotional manipulation is not so much a stock and trade tool to them as a reflex, a mental tick. It's as if they'd go bugshit if they didn't emotionally manipulate someone every five fucking seconds.
For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people think its impossible for anyone to have sound moral judgement without god.
Every fucking five year old that ever set foot inside a sandbox understands that the reason you don't go over and knock down the other kids sand castle is because you don't like when the other kid comes over and knocks down your sand castle. Its not fucking rocket science.
Therefore you do not have nonconsensual sex with a person because you would not like it if someone had nonconsensual sex with you. Its not fucking rocket science.
If someone asked me the same question i think id fkn punch them, seriously.........
It's wrong because having love , compassion, and empathy for a person does not stop simply because they are unaware or unconscious.
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2015, 05:58:10 PM
What makes it wrong is that a man is raping a child, end of. I dunno how someone can have any questionable moral basis of saying 'well he won't come out of the coma so it can't hurt him', thats a fucked up as saying you dug up someones corpse to fuck that, infact its worse because the kid is still alive, and the pedophile is having unconsensual sex with a child.
Doctors and nurses would be hurt by this. And a child would not simply have nobody, he would have foster parents or carers who would be responsible for him.
Care givers for sure, foster parents maybe, but if not, this child is still part of society - a society that does not advocate child rape - allowing this man to pay for sexual services is practically advocating child rape.
It's a bit scary that you (OP) really don't see, or couldn't argue what was wrong with this. Wow!
Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.
Reminds me of Great Expectations. The main character's good fortune was tainted because it was derived from a criminal benefactor.
Logically, you take the money because the child being alive is of greater value to the parents than the child being dead - dead children do not grow into adults capable of producing subsequent generations.
Morally, the child receiving aid from a sexual predator can harm the child's quality of life - by tainting the child's good fortune, or inviting a predator into the child's life through emotional manipulation from the "kind" act. It would be morally wrong to encourage saving a life when the method of saving it is guaranteed to reduce the quality of life tremendously.
It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.
1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.
Do we need the cup of tea thread again? (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7571.msg1069949#msg1069949)
What's wrong with fucking a dead kid? It's the same damn question. Here's a hint: if you are fucking a dead kid something isn't right with you psychologically.
Quote from: doorknob on April 28, 2015, 12:26:57 PM
It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.
1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.
I was going to say something similar but your #4 applys to children only but if a consenting adult wants to be used like an inanimate sex toy then so be it.
Quote from: doorknob on April 28, 2015, 12:26:57 PM
It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.
1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.
You, and several other, have missed the point. What makes these things wrong? I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question. But the question is, why is it wrong? All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.
There are others who have given me some good material to work from. Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer. Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves. This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent. The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind? If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.
Follow up thoughts?
Quote from: Termin on April 26, 2015, 10:23:46 PM
Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.
That is a most excellent point. You should trademark that. I like it.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on May 01, 2015, 03:13:30 PM
What's wrong with fucking a dead kid? It's the same damn question. Here's a hint: if you are fucking a dead kid something isn't right with you psychologically.
When you say "something isn't right" you make it sound like humans are intended to be a certain way. Is that what you think?
Quote from: Termin on April 26, 2015, 10:23:46 PM
Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.
Wouldn't it be more true to say that about the law and social justice? It would make more sense for a recognition of morality to evolve first, and then for the law to evolve because there are no punishments for immoral acts.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 06, 2015, 07:17:27 PM
Wouldn't it be more true to say that about the law and social justice? It would make more sense for a recognition of morality to evolve first, and then for the law to evolve because there are no punishments for immoral acts.
Basic morality, which I would define as not hurting those in your own tribe/family group, would have evolved long before we even had languages, let alone laws.
Alot of this is wrong. I'm more than certain that several people would expose said child molester before he even gets out his wallet and also alert police. I also think that the power of crowdfunding and internet activism would see this child to a safe home. So this scenario is a tad unlikely IMO.
Now back to why this is wrong. The motive is all wrong. It's like Hansel and Gretel where the Witch feeds the kids and entertains them first. That's all there needs to be said about that. He's not saving the kid's life really because he's most likely going to fuck it up even worse when he wakes from the coma.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 06, 2015, 07:15:52 PM
When you say "something isn't right" you make it sound like humans are intended to be a certain way. Is that what you think?
Um we pretty much are programmed to be a certain way. Science and psychology prove that. Humans behave in similar ways to similar situations for the most part. Of course there are exceptions but from a generalized perspective they are intended to be a certain way. Not saying that deviating from that is wrong. In some cases deviating from the normal human reaction is the right thing to do, it's just rare. So yeah fucking dead things is not a prescribed human behavior.
And I did not restate that it was wrong. If you can't understand the reasons why it's wrong what is it you are looking for? What would be by your definition an except able description of immoral? Please give an example.
No consent; basically rape.
Introduction of "pedophile" has made it so obviously wrong. There's no trick answer that could possibly argue against this.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
You, and several other, have missed the point. What makes these things wrong? I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question. But the question is, why is it wrong? All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.
There are others who have given me some good material to work from. Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer. Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves. This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent. The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind? If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.
Follow up thoughts?
People are getting taking advantage without their consent all the time. All the time.
Consent is for the upper class. Get back to work you scum!
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
You, and several other, have missed the point. What makes these things wrong? I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question. But the question is, why is it wrong? All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.
There are others who have given me some good material to work from. Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer.
The "best interest of all parties in mind" by definition cannot be external to those entites. Only you can determine what your "best interests" are, and are not a matter for others to decide. As such, the "outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer" has no standing in the decision, and is not in a position to make any sort of recommendation.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves. This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent. The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind? If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.
Follow up thoughts?
There is a deeper reason why this is wrong: we are a species that protects its young from harm, for we invest heavily in their conception and upbringing. That's where the feeling of wrongness comes from. It doesn't come from any deep notions of consent or the lack thereof â€" it's because we don't like children being used as if they were mere (sexual) toys. It runs contrary to every instinct we have as a social species.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 25, 2015, 09:27:04 PM
The "best interest of all parties in mind" by definition cannot be external to those entites. Only you can determine what your "best interests" are, and are not a matter for others to decide. As such, the "outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer" has no standing in the decision, and is not in a position to make any sort of recommendation.
There is a deeper reason why this is wrong: we are a species that protects its young from harm, for we invest heavily in their conception and upbringing. That's where the feeling of wrongness comes from. It doesn't come from any deep notions of consent or the lack thereof â€" it's because we don't like children being used as if they were mere (sexual) toys. It runs contrary to every instinct we have as a social species.
The ancient greeks would highly disagree with your notion that "it runs contrary to every instinct as a social species" as Pederasty was the norm is Greece :) Reed up on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty, as young as 12 year olds boys had adult male lovers.
Quote from: Summertimeyeah on August 25, 2015, 10:47:41 PM
The ancient greeks would highly disagree with your notion that "it runs contrary to every instinct as a social species" as Pederasty was the norm is Greece :) Reed up on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty, as young as 12 year olds boys had adult male lovers.
I know about that. It doesn't change my answer.
Also, read again what you wrote: children were as young as 12 years old. Ie, around the time they start going through puberty.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 25, 2015, 10:52:13 PM
I know about that. It doesn't change my answer.
Also, read again what you wrote: children were as young as 12 years old. Ie, around the time they start going through puberty.
so?
Gotta keep things simple. I don't need any reasons, intellectual or emotional. If you touch something you shouldn't touch, I can get violent on you. And all the law, lawyers, judges and courts ... won't save you. Your rationalization of your behavior won't save you either. Perhaps what ails society, is that we have too little violence and way too many people. This applies to what happens to pedophiles in jail ... the other prisoners can take care of something that society is unwilling to finish.
Really, using ancient society as an excuse? So I can put together a group of Italian thugs (Roman legion) and go rob, rape and kill your people? Yes those guys, and any other guys, can do that. And don't use nature as argument ... otherwise I can kill and eat you ... if your dead body is fit to eat.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
You, and several other, have missed the point. What makes these things wrong? I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question. But the question is, why is it wrong? All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.
There are others who have given me some good material to work from. Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer. Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves. This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent. The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind? If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.
Follow up thoughts?
I love these thought experiments. They have a tendency to effortlessly poke holes in our moral theory. The key to working w them is to strip away all the emotional fluff. Reduce it to it's most fundamental components. Once you do that, you will know you've found a hole in your moral theory if you still can't find what is "wrong" even when you know it's wrong. It's like a math problem, if you're not getting the right answer using your current theory or formula then you have to go back to the drawing board. That's why I love thought experiments. It is a essential tool in critical thinking. Come up with a theory and then do everything in your power to disprove it.
Here is my perspective on the op. Evolutionarily, morality is individual behavior that promotes social cohesion. This is the premise of my moral theory. From here we can extrapolate a lot but in the interest of brevity I will leave it at that.
So in this specific example it undermines the inherent value of the individual, not as a thing or object to be used in a utilitarian sense but as a sentient being. If this were to become a standard expected treatment of the individual within the social group then social cohesion begins to go out the door. I could add a lot more but I'm at work now so I'll leave it here for now
Quote from: Summertimeyeah on August 25, 2015, 11:27:50 PM
so?
So they didn't qualify as kids. The notion that childhood lasted well into puberty is historically recent.
The suppression (not end) of chattel slavery is historically recent too ... so lets go catch us some "politically incorrect" people and make them do our work for us! Of course we are doing that .. in China, only the Chinese slaves get better paid than our skinflint Southern masters would have allowed. Also nets to catch suiciding factory workers would have been considered too expensive.
You don't get to fuck anybody without their consent, and when you do, you should pay for it!
Certainly it's the caregivers who are harmed by this. If the child wakes up and is told about this, then this would surely be harmful. Best not to tell him, if it can be avoided, but this would not in anyway undo the wrong.
Necrophilia is also wrong, for the harm that it does to anybody who cared for said person. But again, it matters not two shits if you are fucking one without surviving family or friends.
The law exists to protect people by punishing those who do wrong, and it never be enforced based on who you are or were! All too often this is done in reality, and I'm glad that it wasn't done in this case.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2015, 07:46:52 PM
The suppression (not end) of chattel slavery is historically recent too ... so lets go catch us some "politically incorrect" people and make them do our work for us! Of course we are doing that .. in China, only the Chinese slaves get better paid than our skinflint Southern masters would have allowed. Also nets to catch suiciding factory workers would have been considered too expensive.
My comment about the historical recentness of childhood lasting well into your teens was not an endorsement of practices that treated them as full adults in the past. The notion that children need to be taken care of and protected has not changed. What has changed is the people who belong in that category, triggered by better understanding of the developing child psyche. We now recognize that chattel slavery is also wrong, and anyone who owns a slave needs to be dealt with. As Lawrence Krauss said, "Morality without science is empty."
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 27, 2015, 09:00:28 AM
As Lawrence Krauss said, "Morality without science is empty."
I had not read that before. I'll have to devote some time to Mr. Krauss!
Americans believe that whatever foreigners do, it is wrong. Foreigners feel the same way about Americans. What is wrong? Nothing. Being offended, isn't the same as what you are offended at is wrong ... otherwise racist scorn for White-Black dating would be OK.
I think that quote is an upside down sarcasm ... didn't WW II show that science without morality is murder? And slavery has never ended ... only people's awareness of it has ended ... because if you benefit from it ... it feels so good!
Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2015, 08:53:45 PM
Americans believe that whatever foreigners do, it is wrong. Foreigners feel the same way about Americans. What is wrong? Nothing. Being offended, isn't the same as what you are offended at is wrong ... otherwise racist scorn for White-Black dating would be OK.
I think that quote is an upside down sarcasm ... didn't WW II show that science without morality is murder? And slavery has never ended ... only people's awareness of it has ended ... because if you benefit from it ... it feels so good!
Maybe this quote is an upside-down sarcasm? Or maybe the source of it is upside down?
Is pedophilia wrong, or is it not? If so, does that depend on who the victim is? On the former, I believe "Yes", and on the latter, I don't think so, and I would not want to live in a society which officially operates by such a stipulation.
WWII was NOT science without morality - much of it was bad science, and some of it (including the science which ended it with Japan) was science that worked, but with poor in-depth understanding of the consequences of using that product. Arguably, it wasn't even necessary for ending WWII on any front, but that was administrative immorality, not scientific.
Slavery - in which US-recognized country is this still illegal? Philosophically, I regard religion as a form of slavery, and certainly it's bad for women in Saudi Arabia, but not on absolute legal terms. Even Saudi wives aren't without any legal rights, and true slaves never had any other than how close to death you can beat them without paying a fine for for such poor economically-minded sense of restraint should you kill one.
Bad science? What is that? There is no bad science, just the banality of evil. Of course we can do experiments on human beings, same as we do on any other animal, provided we claim we are doing it for a good cause. It is the application of science that is moral/immoral.
Unfortunately I have found in morality, it is often a question of "did the victim deserve this". And we were very biased about "deserving" whether it be punishment or remuneration (pay football players how much money?).
Quote from: Baruch on August 29, 2015, 10:02:32 AM
Bad science? What is that? There is no bad science, just the banality of evil. Of course we can do experiments on human beings, same as we do on any other animal, provided we claim we are doing it for a good cause. It is the application of science that is moral/immoral.
Unfortunately I have found in morality, it is often a question of "did the victim deserve this". And we were very biased about "deserving" whether it be punishment or remuneration (pay football players how much money?).
You're right, there isn't any bad science which is truly science. There are errors in science, miscalculations. Fat Man and Little Boy turned out to be of human consequences unanticipated - they didn't understand the long-term horrors of nuclear fallout when they were used. The hydrogen bomb tested in the Bikini Islands gave a blast 3x what was predicted, plus the US military still didn't understand just how long the radiation would stay around. Then there's the political perversion of science, such as with the Genetic Determinism model for predicting human behavior - this was based on what was known of genetics in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and it should have been left at that, but unfortunately the politicians all over Europe, Britain, and America ran away with it and made it a doctrine, nothing scientific at all. It later came to be replaced by the Standard Social Science Model, which proclaims that no genes, no matter what the scientists say of them, hold any sway on individual proclivities, natural talents, individual neurological quirks. Which essentially states that almost any individual can be raised to be competitive and fearless in risky sports, can be raised to take chances financially or avoid all manner of gambling, be naturally high-strung, rebellious, the perfect gentleman, or a gifted public speaker, be highly disciplined in his day-to-day behavior or a completely disorganized slob. If you don't fit one of those better models or happen to fall into one of the less fortunate ones, then it's to the credit of your upbringing and environment, or it's to be blamed on the same. Because admitting that genes may have any influence at all on behavior as they do on the rest of your physical health (all behavior is in fact physical neurochemical) became that much a political foe paugh under the fallout of Nazi abuses, ideas which are even dumber became doctrine! No, the Blank Slate theory isn't science either.