Why are there laws against paedophilia?

Post Reply New Topic

In this case, it is not 'just semantics'. I did not talk about deportation. You assumed and asserted I did.

And defeat you? What is this - 'First they came for the paedophiles'? Ah, you come here to have and 'win' arguments? Well, that's nice for you.



Well, yes. That's what I said. But that factual component is not the only one, and the weight one gives it is in itself an ethical decision. The judgement would also be made up of other factual components, and also of one's ethical and social etc attitudes, as well as one's opinions of justice.




The one that began 'cjb.sagepub.com'.

Thanks for the paper. I'll print it out tomorrow and have a read through. Only fair, having already read the criticisms of it.



I disagree - it is morally relevant. What's more, would you say the results presented by science are irrelevant to the moral ground?



I know. The subject of the articles you referred to was that, what, a child might not be as affected by sexual abuse as is generally thought? Hmm. You wanted to introduce 'science' into the matter, and you picked that paper.



Interesting etymology, 'quaint'. Thanks.

Well played, but I will stand by my claim. Your proposed solution and the solution of deportation have so many similarities that I really see no reason to elaborate further.

And yes, I consider these exchanges to be battles. We all have our analogies...



I do not recall claiming otherwise...



Yes.



Yes, I did. And?

I definitely don't think having sex with a 14-17 year old girl is as bad as raping an adult woman. In fact I wouldn't even consider a person in their 20s having sex with an older teen immoral at all. Though any younger than 14, and I would say it's essentially equivalent, sex with a 14 or 15 year old is sleazy but not even close to as bad as raping someone of any age.

I think you got the idea of deportation from Tequila -



- who himself got the idea from a proposal by thomas81 in another thread a while back. But such an arrangement was not my proposal. You may think there's little difference between what I've said and what you imagine I've said to still be outraged, and I'm ok with that. But I did not say deportation.

I consider the exchanges to be just that. I take part in them for a variety of reasons, but not to 'win' (I am not sure how one could judge such a thing).






Then why the eagerness to introduce 'science' into a moral question?

And I disagree - I think the findings of science can certainly be relevant to morality.



And why did you choose those papers? You said -



- which to me suggested "something actually *scientific*" is Top Trump. That I would change my mind if I listened to The Science, or that all the while we'd been awful barbarians, but The Science was going to come along and enlighten us, sort out our moral judgements, to show us how wrong we'd been, that The Science trumped our moral beliefs.

(Further, your 'As always...to add to this thread' suggests I am talking with someone who considers themselves Mr Scientifically Rational, forever wearily ready to step in and enlighten the idiots. Which would explain a lot)

And my point in all this was that you have to already have a moral framework into which The Science fits. That The Science is of use, but the use one makes of it depends already on one's moral framework and beliefs etc.

No, I got the idea of deportation from this post:


Once again, what is the difference between this post and the concept of deportation?


Because it is *not* just a moral question. The discussions in this thread include assumptions about the personality of sex offenders and the impact of child sexual abuse on victims. Both are factual questions, and are thus subject to scientific inquiry. Unsurprisingly, a few of the 7 billion people living on this beautiful floating blue-green ball actually tried to answer those questions. And they reached conclusions which did not support the conventional wisdom (too bad, that's the occupational hazard of living in the real world).

If this thread was just about "I think the age of sexual consent should be [insert age here], because that is my personal belief" and "I think child molesters should be [insert punishment here] because that is my personal belief", then I could care less about the thread. But once people start to base their moral judgement on assumptions about facts then I will call people out on their BS.

On the off chance that the posters supporting such draconian measures against a specific subset of sex offenders had actually previously *read* the works I referred to and - on the basis of an understanding of those works - decided that they would still support such draconian measures - well, then I shall deeply apologize for my interjection. In that case, it is simply a matter of opinion.


Perhaps you should answer that yourself. What assumptions about the personalities of paedophiles and the impact of child sexual abuse did you have when you suggested rounding non-molesting paedophiles up and carting them off to somewhere fairly pleasant? What are your assumptions now, given the information forced upon you by that pesky reptile? Does this lead you to modify your suggestion?


That is a fairly accurate description of my raison d'être (I think that's French). Perhaps I should make it my signature?

I don't recall calling anyone an idiot, though. I have called certain posts idiotic, but that's not the same thing. I have called people barbarians too, but is that not a fitting term for those who advocate "corrective" rape, torture, the complete abandonment of due process and other wonders of the human imagination?



I believe I have addressed that particular point elsewhere in this post. But the Is-Ought problem still prevails.

The reason why there are strict laws against pedophiles is that without them the teen age male population would be ravaged and ravished by Priests and Football Coaches. Especially the teen age boys with lovely round firm buttocks. Panic and disorder would ensue and the entire society would come crashing down, just like ancient Rome. Teen age boys would have to armor plate their arses.

ruveyn

Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

If you build it, they will come. If you wiggle it, your priest will come or your football coach.

ruveyn

Ok, we don't have laws against pedophiles here. Age of consent is 15 here. For sex with someone under 15 you can get punishment between 1 and 8 years imprisonment and up to 3 years it can be conditional. If you were joking, you weren't very good at it.

There is no such thing as objective morality. However in the context of modern society Paedophillia is subjectively wrong due to majority consensus.

That is why there are laws against it - as with most other laws (Though the law is not always the same thing as "morality"). The law is a societal institution - Morality is a human ideal.

But say I have a (hypothetical) friend who believes that modern society is subjectively wrong? And he just happens to be a pedophile? Doesn't society owe it to him to allow him to do what he likes?


But you said that there is no such thing as objective morality. Morality, then, cannot be what society wants. It is whatever the individual wants it to be. Society has no right to interfere with individual subjectivity, whether or not he acts on his personal morality in the face of what everyone else wants.

The problem is that once an individual subjectively selects his personal moral code, he carries with him the expectation that he will be advantageously treated according to his own rules. Once he doesn't get what he wants, he is forced to concede, perhaps reluctantly, that he believes he is being treated unfairly. Morality shifts from being subjective to being objective. The reason why is because he has to choose between ignoring his feelings of being unjustly treated or imposing his personal "subjective" morality on someone else. It's easy to pay lip service to subjective morality, but when our morals are directly challenged, we tend to find we have a sense of justice that just won't leave us alone. If we're being honest with ourselves, the reality is that there really is no such thing as subjective morality. If morality exists at all, it has to be objective.

I never said morality was what society wants. I said "morality" by definition is qualitatively established as "What most people in a given society believe to be ideal/just/right" - That's not a statement of my own opinion of "morality" but a semantic fact. If you lived (and were brought up) in an alternate universe not unlike earth but where it was deemed normal and virtuous to have sex with your dog seven times a day you would know no different.

If morality does exist it can't be objective - else why is it "right" to kill another in self defence but not right to kill in cold blood? Objective morality makes no sense.

There is no right or wrong in the cosmic, metaphysical "law of the universe" sense - but there are pro-social ideals which are good for the collective endeavors of humanity that could be considered "moral" but NOT objectively. Most "morals" are designed to preserve "society", preserve the status quo.

Morality is an emotion.

In this sense it is "real", just as fear, love, hunger and pain are "real". Given sufficiently sophisticated studies of the human brain one could probably describe its physical component, as well. The prefrontal cortex and the amygdala might be good places to start...

But morality is not "out there", so there is no reason to make references to society, majority consensus etc. when explaining morality.

Examples:
If X percentage of population Y believes that activity Z is wrong, then one can draw the conclusion that... X percentage of population Y believes that activity Z is wrong.

If X percentage of population Y believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then one can draw the conclusion that... X percentage of population Y are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

"Child sexual abuse is wrong"

... is a BS statement. It is neither true nor false.

"GGPViper believes that child sexual abuse is wrong"

... is a scientific statement. It can be true or false.

It's a poor definition. In other words, it is what society wants given majority consensus. Essentially you're just making an appeal to majority. "Most people in a given society" could be wrong.


Because those are two completely different things. Generally speaking, humans dislike killing each other. They don't even like killing others in self-defense. It happens when someone feels there is no better recourse. "Cold blood" killing has no justification. Murder is defined by its intent, not by its end result alone.


Who cares about the status quo? Why care about society? Maybe I'm sick and tired of killing people on video games and want to go on a killing rampage just for fun. Who is "society" to tell me that I can't?

Speaking of status quo, the status quo sucks. The USA was founded as a reaction to the status quo. If my founding fathers could rage against s.q., why can't I?

You can do whatever you want.

Better still: an empirically verified statement that can be established or refuted factually.

ruveyn