Moral Judgments

Then my having 12 wives, 6 of whom are age 11 is not wrong.agree or disagree?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Tal posits:

quote:

---

Then my having 12 wives, 6 of whom are age 11 is not wrong.

​

agree or disagree?

---

Disagree. Leaving aside the question of polygamy for the moment, child rape is demonstrably wrong.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

A 6 year old child, physically damaged beyond repair as a result of a sexual act, is defined as 'significant harm'.
I personally examined the forensic proof, does that suffice as evidence to show that the pedophile in this instance was wrong? He placed his mores, above the rights of the child. I can cite hundreds more of these cases, different ages, different examples and different effects. There is also plenty of evidence to show the psychological effect of pedophilia, on the child and the perpetrator, both the victims of a mental health condition. If you understand pedophilia, you would understand why the law is imposed as it is, not only for the child victim but also the pedophile victim. It is not about mores, it is about rights.Your arguement as to homosexuality, would receive the same response from me if it applied to a pedophilic orientation.

How about a 7 year old? 12 year old? 15 year old? So both are victims of mental health conditions?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

No. Let me make this clear. I am not saying that he cannot be challenged on why he says A is wrong. I think I have suggested opening a new thread.I am just saying that actually challenging him on that moral declaration is not relevant to this thread, and more importantly (logic wise) you cannot argue against his moral position based on a perceived "rightness" or your own moral labels. That is a logical error.You can argue for why you think your moral system is more sound, or preferable, but that takes an investigation into the rules of the system and not merely examining what their outputs are. The only way that is useful is if you know an output of their system might be objectionable to them.I am also arguing against anyone believing that their system is an absolute system in any case. I do not think of you like this at all. However, and I realize this will sound critical, you do seem to have too much emotion tied to sexual morals. You seem as wrapped up as most are these days in the sexual witchhunt mentality. You are too eager to get into disputes on that topic (seeing them offered when they are not) and wishing everyone would accept your own.You are also not very open into introspection of your own position and the evidence for it. For example... I just said it was relatively recent, at EvC, and was NOT submitted by me. They were clinical studies and while I could certainly rip parts of it to shreds, if you believe that they do measure harm, then homosexuality does not come off very well. Indeed Rrhain came in to make the defense which you are shooting down... that it must be seen in context of the socio-cultural environment.If the studies were as lame as answers in genesis I know I wouldn't have been talking about them, and certainly Rrhain wouldn't have felt the need to bring up viewing the harm as arising from sociological elements. I will look through the threads to try and find it, but I suspect if you really cared you could do the same thing.In any case, even if you doubt there is current evidence for this (and remember I said I was surprised to see the results), there is absolutely no denying that is what it used to be like for homosexuals. That is why the laws were in place. It was a horribly vicious circle until those who were being persecuted, stood up and declared that the harm which was apparent in homosexuality was a result of socio-cultural expectations.If you are going to deny that reality, then what can I say? Any port in a storm is not always sound logic, any weapon in a battle is even worse. I wish you would understand that I am actually trying to help you make your arguments better. It is the same harm they were measuring in victims of child abuse and that is self-harm. That is due to the psych issues of whatever, that they would act against themselves. If it was limited to physical harm from the perpetrator then we are talking about direct consequences of rape. Saying this does not make it so. I was not arguing that your challenge to Tal leads to an attack on gays. Whether attacking Tal's position in this thread is relevant, and whether your original method of attack on Tal's position was logically sound, is separate from this new issue.You responded to my discussion with crash regarding the whether the use of harm is objective or subjective in nature. You argued (to Q) that because someone shares the same culture as you, even if you believe in subjectivism you then have a right to discuss harm whether or not it arises from the cultural environment.I am not just philosophizing here, I am giving you factual history. In saying that cultural concepts of harm (or harm arising from the culture) should be considered you are championing the argument used against homosexuality. You are opening the door to its use again. You really do not want to pick up that weapon, as tempting as it may seem. That is irrelevant as I am talking to you. Are you deep enough to stop, step back a moment and really think about the implications of the argument you are using. I hope so. See, this is your problem. You are part of the modern witchhunt/commiekilling/fagbashing. At every turn you see a defense of something you hate, including words that I have not only not said, but within this thread have actually made a point of countering. You are the one out of control, not me.All I did was point out that there is a socio-cultural component to harm, and this includes (to children that were not overtly raped or coerced) sex with minors. Q's example (and let me say he did give a heads up to at least one of the cultures which exist and I would discuss if we were actually on that subject) explained this very well and in a very concrete manner.But in any case it was not even meant as a discussion of the morality of anything, or to defend any moral system. It was merely pointing out that "harm" is not an objective term, or thing for use in systems, and one should be careful when employing it within a system.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Tal; pedophilia, as opposed to a simple attraction to a younger person, are two different things. Pedophilia, is a mental health condition, and both the person with the condition and the child are victims. Much like any other mental health condition which exacerbates into actual harm against self or another. As for the rest of your post I can't even begin to comprehend your point of logic, in equating harm with age. Damage is damage, no matter who it is to. If you want to pose a question, or ask for clarification on anything please could you do in a manner that I can understand what the question is?ShazThis message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 20:31 AM

This is exactly what the case was for homosexuality until homosexuals began arguing that cultures could create harm by their expectations, and so challenging mental "health" definitions. I mean you do know homosexuality was pulled off the list of disorders within the last 30 years or so right, and that more from political pressure within the community?Tal would have every right to argue this as a defense of his position. Indeed, there are still disorders associated with homosexuality.Harm or damage is not necessarily an objective reality.But maybe I am making a mistake in what you are saying, in which case I think maybe you are talking right past Tal. Your distinction between pedophilia and attraction to children is unclear, and if "attraction" means sexual attraction then it seems Tal may only be talking about that.In any case this is way separate from the thread topic, which has already veered wildly after Tal's mention of pedophilia. Personally I am very interested in this thread's actual topic, so I'd like to see it not descend into the madness of debating pedophilia.If you want to open a new thread on that, I'm sure it will be white-hot. I am intrigued that you say there is plenty of evidence for harm inherently coming from children engaging in sex, and you apparently have personally seen the forensic evidence. I would love to see such evidence presented on that issue... just please not here.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-12-2005 05:49 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Pedophilia is not merely an isolated sexual attraction, nor is it dependant on whether it is acted upon or not. The mental health aspect, was in relevance to showing harm was not only applicable to the child victim. This was merely in relation to, propaganda around pedophiles being morally reprihensible or evil creatures, much the same as homosexuals, intellectually disabled, schizophrenic etc. were once viewed as. I also suspect in time pedophilia will come of the mental health list. I have no problem with Tal or yourself argueing that position, however I have a problem with blanket statements saying that pedophile activity does not cause 'harm'. It was these statements, by Tal and yourself that I was addressing. The age difference was also proposed as being irrelevant.However you are right, digressing explicitly into the realm of pedophilia as opposed to 'moral judgement' is not what this thread is about. So I will let it go, unless Tal wishes to pursue it. I will leave the opening of a new topic to someone else at this stage, and I am unable to present hard copy evidence. Nor would I wish to breach anyones confidentiality, by going into anything more than a blurred synopsis.Therefore I will agree with you to drop it. Until we cross paths again Holmes. Cheers. Shaz

This debate seems pointless to me becuyase nobody has indicated what "wrong" means.Homosexuality is a fact. It happens. Water flowing down hill is a fact. It happens.This is completely distinct from the basis from which wee draft law, which is preusmed to be in the service and defence of the populace at large.It's pointless to ask if polygamy is "wrong" without indicating the standard by which wrongness shuold be judged. That is in fact just a tacit appeal to a universal morality that is shared by all people such that they automatically know what "wrong" means.I can argue against polygamy on any number of platforms, not least being womens rights. I can argue that homosexuality should not be persecuted by the state becuase it occurs between consenting adults. I can argue that paedophilia should be persecuted by the state because one party is incapable of giving informed consent.In none of these cases have I made an appeal to "wrongness". All three cases indicate specific behaviour and my position in relation to it. None of them appeal to morality, although morality may be implicit in, say, our legal conventions that children are not legally competent.By and large I consider arguments to and from "morality" to be futile and often counter-productive.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 07:26 AM

I never said such a thing, unless you mean when I said there is no evidence that sexual activity causes any harm to anyone of any age? That stands. The harm from such encounters is not from the sexual contact itself but everything around it (violence, coercion, guilt, etc). Whether those are inherent or other is a matter of debate and explains why harm can be socially defined and enforced.Q's example demonstrated this. I am kind of sad to hear this. It has been the constant reply of everyone that has at first stated the mounds of evidence that is out there regarding harm. I was hoping someone would show it, or admit they were wrong. Okeydoke.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Well this is the subject of the thread. How do you go about demonstrating to a culture that involves a moral belief/practice you disagree with, that they are wrong?For the ongoing example (polygamous marriage to an 11 year old) there are cultures which think this is fine, and if extended up to 12 or 13 is possible within the US.You cannot simply say sex with a child = rape in that case, since that could be voluntary and certainly without force (and would be socially accepted). That is unless you can come up with a definition of rape that allows voluntary unforced socially acceptable sexual activity to be objectively defined as rape.So what this means is that "rape" is out as part of a method to say they are wrong (other than to say they are doing something wrong according to your own beliefs).What then can you do? It is possible to criticize them, but in what way? And does that way have to include them being wrong, as opposed to something else?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

/agree

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Here's an attempt to get at the point of the thread. I do believe that moral systems can be criticized, though none can be said to be "wrong" compared to another in any objective sense. I will show how this can be done, using a poor unwilling assistant named crashfrog...Now I am choosing crash because I respect him and think he can understand what I am about to say, and hopefully has a good sense of humor. What this says is that pain and pleasure are objective measurable qualities that we can use as Good and Bad to determine the ultimate rightness and wrongness (or worth) of any action and moral system. Thus Utilitarianism on the pleasure principle.Is this really objective and unquestionably the best measure of morality?Let's take an example. I am working for a catering business that regularly screws me over. I mean they make me miserable. As a form of revenge I have taken to pissing in the ice machine. Is this right or wrong?Since I have regular health checkups I know that my piss will not make anyone ill, thus there is no physical harm. As it mixes into the ice, I stir it around, it is neither noticeable visually or by taste. Thus it cannot effect the pleasure that anyone is having of their meal provided by the catering service, including the jackasses who run the place.In this case then, my pissing in the ice machine and making sure everyone drinks my urine with their meal is not only not wrong it is quite right. The absolute joy I experience as I watch them drink down (and enjoy) their urine laced beverages is unquestionably good and that no one suffers means net gain good and right!The only flaw is if I get caught, where pain might occur, and so secrecy is essential. Thus lying and betrayal become moral necessities and right actions in order to maintain my morally correct behavior of hosing down the ice.In fact if someone catches me I can argue that the morally correct thing for them to do is not to tell anyone because that would only cause people unnecessary pain. I might even point out that if they would get a kick out of doing the same thing then they should join me.Now maybe crash decides that this is a perfect outcome for his moral system, in which case I will not be going to his house for lemonade. But my guess is he will squirm a bit and try to figure out where his moral system is having some problems.One suggestion would be that a purely teleological system is not good enough. In addition to pain and pleasure there are some things that have intrinsic value, like the truth, or loyalty. Thus it is wrong because if they knew the truth they would not be happy at all, and thus before applying the pleasure principle we must have a deontological rule that the truth must be known (or pleasure must derive from facts and not beliefs). Unfortunately that ends any claim that pain and pleasure are absolutes as bases for a moral system.Let's say we don't want to go there and retain the functioning of a perfectly teleological moral system. Well we could say that truth is a source of pleasure and to be denied the truth is a source of pain, and that is why to maximize pleasure it is important that truth be revealed.Using that argument we could say that if the pain suffered by those sucking on my ice cubes if they found out the truth, would not be as great as the pleasure of having knowledge of the truth in general it would be wrong to not tell them.Only that has equally disastrous results. Instead of saying it is then wrong to piss in the ice machine, the result is simply to mandate that I piss in the ice and after having watched them enjoy the drinks, announce proudly that they drank my piss. That way pleasure is maximized all around.Hmmmmmm... maybe teleological moralities based on pain and pleasure are not all they are thought to be.Indeed once we cement that basis, it is pretty much obligatory to do whatever you want to all the time as long is it is not directly hurting them, including such things as cheating on your girlfriend. The only wrong is in getting caught which may cause pain. That may work for republicans, but I am not sure if crash would agree.Ahem. That is a way to attack another person's moral system, without challenging its rightness or wrongness, or assuming an absolute truth.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-12-2005 08:42 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Wait a second, I though you argued for the existence of absolute morality somewhere else on EvC?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

If Christians acted as if they loved God more than needing to judge others, people may become intrigued with the lifestyle. Then again, maybe the natural inclinations of humanity drift towards self rule and human deification under the guise of freethought. Again, from a Christian perspective, our fight is not against humanity. It is a spiritual battle, and it is fundamentally absolute. (Although a world full of non fundamental, non literal "Jar type" Christians would be just fine with me!