Moral Judgments

I think the problem is that we have no ability to determine whether or not a given child understands the concept of "giving consent" in the first place.I'd have no objection to an adult having sex with a minor if I could somehow be assured that consent was mutual. But currently it's practically impossible to distinguish between a person giving consent because they do consent, and a person who gives consent because they feel someone of authority is asking them to do so. Which is why, for instance, service personnel cannot have sex with their superior officers, or teachers cannot have sex with their students.I can concieve of a minor who is knowing and able to give consent, say, a 17-year-old girl having sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend. Or even a 14-year-old girl giving consent to a 30-year-old man. (and yes, it makes me feel icky. But I can concieve of it.) What I can't concieve of is how I would distinguish that situation from a 14-year-old girl being abused by a 30-year-old man and being told never to come forward with it or else.What do you suggest, Holmes? The reason we criminalize these relationships is because we can't distinguish the legitimate ones from the abusive ones, even by interrogating the participants.I'm on your side, on this. I usually am even if I have trouble articulating it (which is why we get into arguments.) But what I can't understand is why you don't seem to be aware that these prohibitions and taboos you speak of are motivated not be personal ickyness, but because real children are being sexually abused, with lifelong consequences. And there's no dispute about that. Yes, of course you're right. It's entirely possible for a teacher to have sex with her adult pupil with no feeling of coercion for either party.But it's impossible to distinguish that situation from coercive sex stemming from an abuse of power.

Yeah, I'm pretty relativist. Maybe it would be better to say I'm a moral pragmatist; I believe we should have the morals that, when followed, produce the best results for everybody. I know, and I should have addressed that more clearly. With what I've said already out there, let me see if I can tie it in to how I believe you're misinterpreting their response.Schraf and Berb did respond to the idea of the situation presented with immediate opposition and (moreover) the assumption of correctness on their part; they appeared to brook no discussion that an adult kissing a 7-year-old in a sexual way could ever be appropriate.But I think you're wrong to explain that assumption of correctness as simply a cultural reaction to the breaking of an entirely cultural, subjective taboo; I think they're sense of rightness stems from the fact that the taboo is the best practical response to the inability to discern between healthy child/adult sexual relationships and unhealthy ones.In other words I think their - our - view has merit, and that Schraf and Berb know this, and that's why they think they're right. Not because society told them to think that way, though I'm sure that's at least part of it. We get the "icky feeling" because of the harm involved, I should think. You appear to be saying what I thought I already agreed with - that it's possible for a legitimate sexual relationship to develop between a child and an adult. I mean, yes. I'm sure this is true.But surely you must agree that it's possible for an adult to hold such sway over their child victim that, upon interrogation, the child would not admit to any harm done, or that they were in a relationship that was harmful to them? That's what I was getting at, though. In the kind of power structures I mentioned - adult/child, teacher/student, etc. - there's literally no way to tell if you're outside of rape and coercion or not. Hence, a universal societal taboo against these relationships protects more than it harms, and is more than just a subjective cultural more, it's the practical, correct response to the problem of predatory, abusive relationships. Schraf and Berb and I have a legitimate, practical, objective reason for the response that we have.

Says you, but I can and do use it to judge other people's moral positions. I disagree. People are people. Culture has an awesome effect on our perceptions of the human experience, but no culture can turn misery into happiness. Largely, people are made happy by the same things. Human satisfaction is as objective a moral goal as anything else. In fact it's the very basis of the discussion itself. It's entirely germain to the discussion because you're criticizing Schraf and Berb for asserting moral superiority on a certain point with no legitimate basis.To the contrary; they do have a legitimate basis to believe that a moral structure that precludes potentially coercive relationships are superior to those that do not; hence, their disdain of that act is entirely reasonable and not nearly as subjective and arbitrary as you suggest. You can, however, judge or measure the effectiveness of another's morality based on its effects. Sure. But if he wants me to do something about it - if he wants this to become taboo for other people besides himself - he's going to have to actually present the harm involved.On the other hand there's no dispute that coercive sexual relationships or rape cause harm to children. Is there? I know that. But I feel that the reason you percieve this as a logical problem is because you're ignoring the moral factor. There's a very practical, objective reason for Schraf and Berb to feel that they're right about the situation, and that people who disagree with them are wrong. That's because their position protects the most people from harm, objectively.

There are some things that are universal across the human experience. Misery and contentment are some of these. I don't claim that they are absolutes; I wouldn't try to judge the morality of intelligent beings of a different species, for instance.But pain and pleasure are universal among humans. That's more than enough absolute basis for me to make qualitive statements about the relative worth of the morals of a culture. Well, I didn't say it was easy or perfect. Ok, I understood that, and I think I laid out a pretty good argument why you are wrong - they can do that. The existence of opposing or different views than mine does not make my view wrong. I don't expect everyone to agree with me; if they're going to fight about it I have as much right to fight back. They're not my criteria; they're the only objective criteria possible. Oh, God. I think we can just stop right here. If there's one thing I can't abide, it's philosophy. No offense.

I don't see that in your example, because there's no harm done in these relationships. In any sense. And I already agreed that there could be legitimate adult/child relationships.Your example is interesting but it doesn't really support your argument that there's a cultural component to harm.

But I've disagreed with that. The behavior isn't wrong because it doesn't cause harm. And I've already stipulated that I don't believe all relationships like this would be harmful.But I guarantee that the rape of a young girl in that culture would be just as harmful to her as it would be to a young girl in ours.I still don't see the cultural basis for harm in your argument.

Outside of coercion, why would it be? No, I don't agree.

Fair enough. When it gets into these thorny subjects of morality and subjectivity, I really have a hard time getting my point across.It was an interesting example, though, and I thank you for presenting it.

Why do we assume that a minor cannot give consent?If a minor can be charged with murder as an adult, why can't they have sex as an adult? If you can be mature enough to understand the consequences of an action that takes a life, why can't you understand the consequences of sex?Now, I don't know how we'd tell the difference between a child giving consent and a child being forced to pretend to give consent by an adult; but that's a different thing than saying that nobody under the age of 18 can give consent.