Moral Absolutism

[GliderGuider]

In another thread I was asked a very simple question. In response I gave a very simple answer. The resulting brouhaha disrupted the entire thread, which is unfortunate. As a result, I decided to start a new thread by posting a more complete (and less flippant) exploration of the question, my answer and the nature of absolutism as it relates to morality. I will admit to some trepidation in doing this, but it seems like a useful exercise. We shall see.

The question was “Do you consider “pedophilia is wrong” to be absolutely true?”
My answer was, “No.”

It’s no big surprise that this turned up the heat of the discussion by a few notches. I was immediately branded a supporter of pedophilia, and the demand to “justify child rape” reared its head. The idea of adult-child sexual contact, with its inherent power imbalance and violation of trust, is one of the most emotionally charged moral prohibitions in our society today. As far as I can tell, it trumps murder, genocide, slavery and torture in its ability to strike through to our emotional core.

I knew the territory was a minefield when I stepped into it, so why did I do it? Aside from being a bit of a mischief-maker, I wanted to make a very serious point about absolutism. The unprompted question gave me a perfect opportunity to venture to (and in the opinions of some, even past) the very edge of the acceptable. Now I would like to use this controversy to illuminate why I take such a paradoxical position as, “Absolute moral judgments are always a bad idea.”

Please keep in mind as you read this that it is a discussion of morality and philosophy, not an examination of legal issues. I have no problem whatever with most of the laws in this area, though I think their application can be a bit overzealous at times.

First, I’d like to look at the question itself.

“Do you consider “pedophilia is wrong” to be absolutely true?” seemed to me to be quite different from the similar question, “Is pedophilia always wrong?” The question as posed struck me as being more about the absolute nature of moral judgments of right vs. wrong than about the undesirability of pedophilia. My interpretation was obviously not shared by many of those who responded, and was the source of much of the ensuing confusion.

When we are asked to make a judgment, the first question that we must ask is, “What exactly is it that we are being asked to judge?” Rendering an absolute judgment requires a very tight and well-understood definition of what is being judged. It’s like handing down a death sentence – we need to be absolutely sure what we are condemning.

So what is pedophilia?

Let’s start with a definition. According to our good friends at the DSM-IV , “Pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.” Again from the DSM, “A paraphilia is a condition involving sex fetishes where a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about, and engaging in, sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme.”

So according to this admittedly medicalized definition, the condition of pedophilia is actually more of a disease than a moral failing. Viewed from that perspective, saying that pedophilia is morally “wrong” is much like saying that depression or the flu is morally wrong. So, if it makes no sense to describe something as being wrong, it certainly makes no sense to describe it as “absolutely wrong”.

We also need to consider the question of whether an action takes place. It’s not necessary for there to be any physical contact for pedophilia to be diagnosed. As we do not yet prosecute thought crimes, we are forced to consider only the realm of actions.

Now, rather than the dictionary definition of pedophilia, my questioner might have been thinking about child sexual abuse, where actions definitely take place. Surely everyone can agree that’s absolutely wrong. I certainly agree that if the victim is definitely a child, the activity is definitely sexual, and the action is definitely abusive, then we are on firmer ground.

However, there are problems here too. The definition of “child” tends to be heavily influenced by culture, and over time the judgment of who is or is not a child can change quite radically. There’s no question that a two year old qualifies, but how about a 12-year-old? Where along the age spectrum of 10 to 18 does a person stop being a child? What role do individual differences in maturity play? Likewise, the definition of sexual activity lives on a spectrum that doesn’t lend itself to absolute judgment. The same goes for abuse. Some activities are easily seen as abusive (rape with penetration, forcible confinement etc.) while others are much less clear-cut.

In general, it’s much easier to say whether some specific act that has been committed constitutes child sexual abuse than to justify a generalized moral judgement on the topic. While it’s easy and defensible to say “child sexual abuse is absolutely wrong,” that begs the question of what actually constitutes child sexual abuse and whether a particular hypothetical act qualifies.

This leads us then to the general consideration of absolutism in moral judgments. As the above dissection shows, it’s can be very difficult to answer the question, “What is it that is being judged?” in a way that is very useful. Most attempts quickly bog down in the varieties of human behaviour and response, varieties that are so broad that they prompted Justice Potter Stewart’s famous line about pornography, “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining pornography). But I know it when I see it.” The core of an activity that is truly worthy of universal disapproval can turn out on examination to be so small as to be quite unhelpful in making a general, absolute moral statement.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a general human need to be certain. When faced with a truly heinous act that generates such deep disgust as some types of adult-child sexual activity, our tendency is to think that such an intense emotional reaction must indicate some kind of universality, and anything remotely similar must be absolutely condemned for our own physical, psychological and even spiritual safety.

However, as has been shown time and again, putting in place absolutist moral codes can do more harm to human society than it could ever prevent. Think of the Inquisition, witch-hunts, race-separation laws or the absolute evil ascribed to the Jews during WWII.

I do think that there are acts of child sexual abuse that should be condemned robustly, even absolutely. However, I’m convinced that if we use an absolutist morality to justify our judgments we risk condemning activities that are not worthy of condemnation, and we may have serious unintended consequences on other aspects of our society.

On balance I prefer to move in the direction of relativism, with its requirement for case-by-case judgment. That approach seems to me to provide less opportunity for deep personal and social damage. Whether the moral arena is sex, drugs, violence or simple dishonesty I feel the human experience is better served by a more nuanced approach to moral judgment.

[laconicsax]

1. So you felt the need to start a new thread to explain your support for pedophilia?

[skepticscott]

2. And did you have all this in mind

when you stated that pedophilia was OK in some situations? Or have you been scrambling to put something together to cover your ass?

[GliderGuider]

3. I'be been a moral relativist as long as I can remember.

So none of this was new territory for me. I just used the fuss in the other thread to give it a context.

[laconicsax]

4. So how long have you held relativism to be absolutely true?

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

5. It's not, of course.

It's my preference for a moral system. It's my preference because I think it answers more human needs than absolutism.

[laconicsax]

6. So you prefer child rape to be permissible under certain circumstances?

Keep digging. You'll get out of that hole eventually.

[trotsky]

18. It bothered him enough to use the lame-ass "Just kidding!" excuse...

to be able to escape the conversation. Now he's mulled it over and tried to come up with something, ANYTHING to not look like quite the creep.

At any rate, I fail to see the point in engaging him since he admitted he's willing to just make shit up to jerk people around. He is not to be taken seriously on anything.

[struggle4progress]

7. Social views of what's appropriate here have changed a great deal over time

Edgar Allen Poe married a thirteen year old, and it seems not to have been considered that unusual at the time. The current view in this country would be: That's kinda creepy! -- and I pretty much agree with the current view. I have no problem with criminalizing contacts between adults and children. Sexual interests reflect emotional maturity, and adults interested in children are inappropriate stuck somewhere in their psychological development. Having said that, I will add that most of my friends became very interested in sex in early adolescence, many people I knew were sexually active as minors, and some of them had consensual relations with people rather older than they themselves were; if this not an ideal state of affairs, it is nevertheless common, and it is not always the same as abuse. It would be a good thing if America could take a more adult and balanced view of this topic: we do have grossly unfair cases in the country where A and B have been married for decades, but B is on a sex offender list forever because they had sex when B was 19 and A was 17

[Goblinmonger]

8. Let me point out a two-word phrase from the definition for you

"prepubescent children"

This isn't about deep love between a 19 and 17 year old. This is sex between an adult and a child that has not gone through puberty yet. Even Poe's 13-year-old bride doesn't meet this definition.

[laconicsax]

9. But Mohammed's 6 year-old bride does.

Zing!

This thread had to be made about religion at some point.

[struggle4progress]

10. As long as we are helpfully pointing things out, allow me to point out that

the distinction made in the technical diagnostic definition is not well-recognized by current popular English usage of the term, as exhibited in the following articles from April:

NEW YORK, April 15, 2010
Pedophile Priests and the "Geographical Cure"
Expert Cites "Checker Game" where Child Molesters Are Allowed to Continue Work in Places Where Their Past Is Not Known
... Father Vijaya Bhaskar Godugunuru is another example. In 2006, he pleaded no contest to assaulting a 15-year-old girl in Florida. Godugunuru was moved to India, then to Italy. There are similar cases involving an Indian priest who molested a 14-year-old girl in Minnesota then continuing work in his home diocese and another transferred to India after molesting a 12-year-old girl in New York ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/eveningnews/main6400632.shtml

Paedophile Priest protected by Catholic Church
admin | Apr 09, 2010 | Comments 1
... Fr. Jeyapaul was charged with sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl in Minnesota in 2005, shortly after he was discovered having an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old girl ...
http://www.catholicpriestscandal.com/world-news/paedophile-priest-protected-by-catholic-church/

I suppose we can sit around and argue about definitions, since that seems to be mostly what happens in this forum, and if you like you can go over and stand will Bill Donohue and argue about what is the right word to use in what circumstance, but I do not find that interesting or informative and I should be much more interested to see people think about these issues and problems in an adult way -- which seems unlikely, given the current state of American politics

[Odin2005]

11. Sorry, but relativism is complete garbage.

I don't give a fuck if it was seen as OK 500 years ago, or is seen as OK by some tribe in New Guinea, it's still fucking wrong.

Oh, and pedos are attracted to prepubescent individuals, attraction to teens is Ephebophilia.

[ironbark]

13. Ok, I'll go along with you...but here's your,my, our problem...

There are New Guinea tribes and Australian Aboriginals looking straight back at us with Absolute Moral certainty saying-

"How the fuck can you people stick a human being in a locked cage for years when they do something wrong!? And then you shame and stigmatise them with a criminal record even when they get out!
It’s just fucking wrong. It’s barbaric.
If someone does something seriously criminal you determine their guilt and spear them in the leg. Punishment over, job done, the individual comes straight back into the community accepted and stigma free.
This locking up a human for year after year and pretending 'rehabilitation' is going on....you wouldn't do that to a dog".

[GliderGuider]

16. How do you know it's "wrong"?

Seriously, other than by the strength of your emotional reaction, how do you arrive at that judgment? And is it still wrong if someone has the feelings but doesn't act on them?

An perhaps most importantly, what does "wrong" mean to you?

[ironbark]

12. “Moral Absolutism”…the arrogance of certainty?

I enjoyed your OP (and the thread exchange that prompted it ;-)…both meaty and thought provoking.
A pity that what you are saying is being met with trite, glib, shallow one liners that seek to blatantly misrepresent your pov and demean your character. The clear game is to tag you with “support for pedophilia” and no appeal to logic, reason or fair play is going to change the game.

On prior occasions the attempt has been made here to discuss pedophilia and the broader issue of child abuse in the context of the role of church schools, women’s refuges ect and the Mandatory Reporting that governs secular and church welfare and educational agencies. The response then was as it is now…trite, glib, shallow and disingenuous. If it wasn’t about ‘Priest abuses child’ there was no interest and the day to day protective role of a myriad of church and secular agencies was dismissed and denied out of hand. Sad, because it’s a huge and complex social issue that desperately needs and deserves sustained examination.

I don’t have much to add to what you have already said regarding Moral Absolutism…we are pretty much in agreement.

I’d like to take a slightly different (and hopefully not too diversionary) tack that goes to the nature of complexity and the repercussions of certainty (or even strong suspicion).

Case Study-
I work at a primary school with ‘K’, a thirteen year old, bright, affable, sensitive and creative boy. Last year he was a faultless and co operative student…this year he has been Suspended three times, has Teachers, Counsellors and Aids constantly on the hop and faces Expulsion through disruptive behaviour.
K is fixated on birds and draws them freehand like an angel…gifted without doubt. He also dotes on his baby nephew and can be seen wheeling him endlessly around the block. These behaviours in combination with K’s effeminate demeanour has K pegged by staff and students as ‘Gay’. (Maybe…time will tell).
But when male and female peers start calling a thirteen year old boy “Gay” it is not surprising that he sets out (with sexually charged and inappropriate language and behaviour and acts of uncharacteristically aggressive violence) to prove to all and sundry that he is not Gay.

Now it gets complex. Because under Mandatory Reporting the School/Counsellor is obliged to consider any overt sexualised behaviour as symptomatic of child abuse (and so it is) and is obliged to report such behaviour to Child Protection and The Sexual Assault Unit.
Now we have K being interviewed by outsiders/strangers/welfare professionals…with the result that K now believes he has a “disability” and that his disability explains and excuses his behaviours.
(I say “Bullshit K” and he laughs as he goes to report me for swearing ;-)

There are risks inherent with the certainties of Moral Absolutism…there are also risks inherent with Diagnostic Absolutism and the certainties of shallow and simplistic conclusions and labelling. (M Scott Peck refers to this as the ‘Overdetermined Response’).

It can, in the case of K, lead to pathologizing normal reactions into disorder and perception of “disability”

It can also lead to the Overdetermined Diagnostic Absolutism of “your support for pedophilia” bullshit.

;-)

You can ignore it or work around it…but I’m (absolutely certain ;-) you wont change it with appeal to reasoned and logical discourse the likes of-
" On balance I prefer to move in the direction of relativism, with its requirement for case-by-case judgment. That approach seems to me to provide less opportunity for deep personal and social damage. Whether the moral arena is sex, drugs, violence or simple dishonesty I feel the human experience is better served by a more nuanced approach to moral judgment."

But I admire and apreciate the attempt ;-)

[GliderGuider]

14. Thanks, I thought I'd give reason one last kick at the can.

It was a useful exercise for me to consolidate some of my thoughts on the subject.

It's interesting how much the tone of the discussion here resembles what I experienced on the old alt.atheism newsgroup on Usenet back almost 20 years ago. I wonder if it's the subject of religion itself that makes people on both sides so prone to one-liners, drive-bys and personal attacks, and so reluctant to engage in nuanced discussion. I must admit I was surprised to find this in a corner of DU, a site that is otherwise a bastion of reason and discernment.

[Goblinmonger]

15. The problem is that you assume only you have had those discussions.

Perhaps the one-lines come because we, too, have had this discussion out and are sick of it. But it does speak volumes that your conclusion is that only you have the intellectual capacity to think this through as completely and as long ago as you have. Don't flatter yourself.

[GliderGuider]

17. These discussions have been going on for centuries.

And they will go on for centuries to come. Discussions like this are like dogs chewing a bone, it's just what humans do until it's time for the next meal. If you're so sick of them, why engage at all, let alone try to shout down opinions you disagree with?

[ironbark]

22. “surprised to find this in a corner of DU”

Your “surprised”? I’m freaking stunned, dismayed and disillusioned ;-)

As an agnostic and tired of the binary/oppositional mindset of old battle grounds like alt.atheism I came here deliberately seeking the “nuanced discussion”…the “bastion of reason and discernment” centred on interfaith/nonfaith dialogue.
Yes, I was naïve if not stupid and guided by a vision- an episode of West Wing-

“Terrorism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity”

‘Democrats’ thinks I…..that’s the American voice I long to hear…liberal, balanced, justice centred, intelligent thoughtful, courteous……“nuanced discussion”.
The kind of mindset that takes the time and energy to scratch the surface, dig deep with an open curiosity and seek to see the subtleties and complexities of any given issue.

fuck.
Religion is Good VS Religion is Evil, God exists VS God does not exist…choose your tribe or one will be allocated for you.
“one-liners, drive-bys and personal attacks”…character assassination, lie, slander, fabrication, misrepresentation and forgery….

As an agnostic do I get to say- Thank god it’s Moderated? ;-)

Yea…I know it’s the wild wild West Net and it’s all good clean entertaining fun when your tribe rides and the feathers are flying….

But……………If DU R&T is not the place at which intelligent and “nuanced discussion” can potentially occur between liberal Christians, secular humanists, moderate Moslems, agnostics and open minded atheists………then where?

[GliderGuider]

23. Where indeed?

I think that as long as one wants to include representatives of organized religions in the discussion, such havens of reflection and nuance will be very few and far between.

It all comes down to people getting invested in their beliefs, whether they are religious, political, environmental, economic or philatelic. As soon as someone says, “This belief defines an important aspect of Me” any attack on the belief becomes instantly personal.

You should see the wind power vs. solar power vs. nuclear arguments over on the Energy and Environment board. They are just as bad as the stuff that goes on here.

Fortunately, my “spiritual tribe” these days consists of Zen and Advaita practitioners. They tend to be very inclusive and thoughtful conversationalists, so I do get a welcome break from the vitriol and entrenchment.

And then there are occasional exchanges like this.
Thanks.

[GliderGuider]

24. Here's something else you might find intersting

One of the unusual side benefits of pursuing Zen and Advaita is that my sense of being a “real person” is diminishing. As that fades and I come to see most beliefs as illusions, I find that I take things much less personally. This is both because the beliefs that would carry the charge are less entrancing, and because there is less “me” to need support from those beliefs.

It’s an odd situation to be in, but quite refreshing

[ironbark]

28. Symptoms?-Fuzzy ego boundaries? Detachment?….

Layers of self identification and belief laying around you like onion peel?

It is an admirable/desirable identity state and clearly (in your case) renders ad hom and insult ineffective and pointless. Beliefs not bound to identity (as you’ve already pointed out) don’t require defending.

But what about ‘principles’ Guider? What about truth, justice, liberty and the rest of those little rascals? Should we hang on to them?
The reason I ask is that I’ve recently had close contact with a group of folk heavily into detachment (to the point they believe the words ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘mine’ will eventually be abandoned)…..but I found their sense of justice/social justice profoundly diminished. i.e. Turning the other cheek is ok/great if >you< wish to detach from a notion of ‘self’ being assaulted… but shouldn’t an assault on >another< require some desire/attempt to defend them?
(should/shouldn’t again ;-)

Is- People shouldn’t deliberately lie, falsify, forge or practice blatant historical revisionism for tribal/ideological ends- a ‘belief’ I ought abandon?
Or are there inherent principles worthy of preservation and protection?
…………………….

Pretty familiar with Zen, mainly through the parables and the practice of the Roshi. Used to have some precious (to me) Zen books…lost them in a bushfire…still can’t obtain detachment;-)
Not so familiar with Advaita, am interested, thank you, will pursue and investigate.

[GliderGuider]

35. Symptoms include:

A constant sense of wonder, excessive smiling and laughter, increased friendliness and tolerance and an absence of facial wrinkles... And yes, lots and lots of discarded onion peel.

Boundaries aren't rendered fuzzy so much as unimportant. A soap bubble has as sharp a boundary as a bowling ball, after all.

The question of principles is a difficult one. I have noticed that I feel much less need to fix things now than I did a few years ago. If things are perfect in their imperfection, there's less charge attached to the imperfection, and consequently less felt need to make things conform to some arbitrary standard of "goodness".

Which is all well and good on a personal level, but then what of society? For me the thing that makes your question most difficult to answer (as you recognize) is the use of the words "should" and "shouldn't" - I don't do should and shouldn't much any more. Instead I would say that each of us gets to express our true nature, even in this sort of open state, and if one's nature includes activism then it's perfectly natural to act. It just no longer feels like there is a self that gains its identity from activism - activism without the activist if you will. Of course such an approach works much better in a society of groups smaller than Dunham's number (i.e. tribes) than in an urbanized, impersonal, alienated industrial civilization, but it even works here within the various tribes we're all part of.

Bummer about your books. All I can say is you didn't really need them to get where I suspect you want to go.

[laconicsax]

25. You were surprised to find people who think pedophilia is wrong?

Funny, I was surprised to find people unwilling to say that pedophilia is wrong.

[Jim__]

19. I agree that moral absolutism is wrong.

It's especially wrong when people use absolute moral standards to condemn disease as immoral - as in your example case.

I also agree that this topic has been going on for centuries. Any conclusions we reach on questions of morality are tentative at best, and we can expect that future generations will see us as barbaric - but then, they're not living through our times.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I think we are "barbaric," and I am living through our times.

"Depraved" may be a better word. We lock up pot smokers in rape cages and allow children to die from treatable illnesses. Our only excuses are sadism and/or stupidity.

[trotsky]

21. Sure, maybe someday people will think child rape is OK.

Until then, I'm comfortable with condemning it under all circumstances.

[laconicsax]

27. Some people think it's ok right now.

Who are we to tell the OP that child rape is wrong?

[ironbark]

29. Some people clearly think falsification and misrepresentation is ok.

I think it’s a desperate display of the depths to which some will sink to assassinate and discredit anothers character.

“The question was “Do you consider “pedophilia is wrong” to be absolutely true?”
My answer was, “No.” …”

A response now (and then) falsified down to approval for or acceptance of “child rape”

‘Pedophillia’ and ‘child rape’ are not the same thing, not identical and not interchangeable….but this has already been pointed out to you and will not deter you from the character assassination game.

To the question was “Do you consider “pedophilia is wrong” to be absolutely true?
I will add my “no”

Pedophillia, by definition is- “The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.”

pedophilia

Etymology: Gk, pais, child, philein, to love
1 an abnormal interest in children.
2 (in psychiatry) a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification.

As a moral question I have no problem with those paedophiles who take their “ abnormal interest” and “fantasy” >NO FURTHER< than the confines of their own heads…and there are millions of those.

Frankly I find those who engage in such fantasy >without acting upon it< far less disturbing than the ethically inept and morally bankrupt who deliberately seek to falsely portray another’s pov as condoning child rape and take action in the public domain to do so.
Clearly people are strange and get their kicks in all kinds of strange ways.

[laconicsax]

30. Good to know you have no problem with pedophilia. n/t

Why resort to character assassination when your opponent is so willing to shoot themselves in the face?

Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true?

[ironbark]

31. Good to know the falsification game is more important to you than the truth. nt

[laconicsax]

32. So you're falsifying your own position?

As a moral question I have no problem with those paedophiles who take their “ abnormal interest” and “fantasy” >NO FURTHER< than the confines of their own heads…and there are millions of those.

Frankly I find those who engage in such fantasy >without acting upon it< far less disturbing than the ethically inept and morally bankrupt who deliberately seek to falsely portray another’s pov as condoning child rape and take action in the public domain to do so.

Sounds to me like you have no problem with pedophilia...

Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true?

[ironbark]

33. Dear laconicsax. To put your question in a personal/professional context.

Several of my posts here over the last four years have indicated I’m a welfare worker. Coming from an Arts background I am a therapeutic specialist practicing Counselling, Art and Narrative therapy with Wards of the State in Residential Care. Each and ever one of our dozen+ adolescent clients has suffered physical and/or sexual abuse.
Two weeks ago I was honoured to present one of our clients with ‘The Iron Wombat’ award during his passing out/moving on ceremony.
He received the ‘Iron Wombat’ for turning his back on abusive housemate peers, burrowing down, and not responding to their constant bullying, provocation and vitriol.
(If I had another Iron Wombat and knew how to deliver it I would send one to GliderGuider ;-)
Six years ago the kid in question was designated as the most damaged child in the State, crawling around on the floor and barking like a dog. All initial therapeutic sessions involved him cutting up and destroying craft materials as an alternative to cutting up and destroying himself/home.
Today he is a happy healthy independent young man whose greatest disability is his obsession with cars and whose strongest character traits are his sense of justice/fair play and his ability to walk away from the petty provocation of Aholes.

That’s all the answer you’ll get from me and more than your behaviour deserves.

But you’re a clever bunny….you can work it out from there.

[laconicsax]

34. Thanks for the story. I notice you refuse to condemn child rape, though.

I'm sure you'll always remember this thread as another of the times when those darned atheists were mean to you.

[skepticscott]

37. Duck, dodge, divert

It's a simple question that any decent human being should have no problem answering. Is child rape always wrong? Yes, or not always?

[The Magistrate]

39. It Is An Interesting Position, Sir, For One So Absolute Concerning Other Matters....

[ironbark]

54. One trick ponies

Identifying the central role of atheism within communism is spun/falsified into- “Only Atheists Kill”

Identifying that sexual fantasy upon which no action is taken does not constitute a moral issue is spun/falsified into “Good to know you have no problem with pedophilia”.

Is there another schtick on offer or is lie/falsification all you can do and support?

[The Magistrate]

56. Particularly Odd, Sir ,For Someone Claiming To Be A Social Worker In Charge Of Disturbed Adolescents

[GliderGuider]

57. "One-liners and drive-bys"

Ho hum...

[ironbark]

70. Yea...seeing as you can't even identify or articulate what is supposed to be "odd".

Is there any point at which your intended jibe actualy connects with anything?

Or do they all just hang impotent in mid air as obscurist waffle?

[GliderGuider]

40. Loaded question..

Wikipedia: Loaded Question

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.

Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.<2> The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he or she will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

Given that the terms "child", "rape", and "wrong" are not defined in your question, answering the question as posed is not possible. If you were to define your terms, perhaps we could arrive at a conclusion.

Here's a suggestion. If you were to ask, "Should forcible penile penetration of a person of either sex under the age of 8 years by a person over the age of 18 be always punishable by law (unless the perpetrator is of such diminished mental capacity as to be unable to form an intent)?" I would answer "Yes."

[laconicsax]

42. So what definition of "child rape" makes the act acceptable?

By intentionally making a point of needing a definition of "child" and "rape" to determine whether "child rape is wrong," you imply that there is at least one definition for both "child" and "rape" that would cause you to determine that child rape is not wrong.

Would to care to provide those definitions, or simply answer whether or not you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true.

BTW: Asking, "Is A always B" is not a loaded question as there's no "controversial assumption" or "presumption of guilt." Asking, for example, "do you still enjoy raping children" is a loaded question; "Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true" is not.

Oh, and one more thing... If the answer to a question is dependent on defining its terms in a certain way, it can't be a loaded question because there wouldn't be a "controversial assumption" or "presumption of guilt." Way to accidentally falsify your own argument.

[GliderGuider]

44. Acceptable to whom?

The act of child rape is perfectly acceptable to some military commanders as a weapon of war. I heard rumours that it was even acceptable to guards at Abu Ghraib. Of course it wasn't the "definition of child rape" that made it acceptable, but the context and the individuals involved. Rape of anyone is not acceptable to someone with a conscience, but of course not everyone has one of those. That's why we have laws.

For the record, I'm one of those who believes that all rape - or assault of any sort - is wrong in that it violates my personal moral code and aggrieves my conscience. It doesn't matter what the age of the victim is. That's not the same as saying I believe there can be no possible circumstances under which it would be acceptable, which is in turn not the same as saying I believe there are circumstances under which it would be acceptable.

There is an old moral dilemma that's used to teach the difficulty of making absolute moral pronouncements that might be useful here. It's the "killing Hitler" argument.

We start with the premise that murder is always wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone to save others? If it was obvious the others were under threat, then the answer is usually "Yes". Now what if you had a chance to kill Hitler as a child, while he was still innocent of any wrongdoing, and thereby save the lives of 7 million Jews? No problem, right? Even if Hitler was innocent when you killed him, he was still going to murder 7 million people later. Fair trade...

Now imagine a slightly bizarre situation in which you are being held captive by a madman, who is in the middle of a mass killing spree using nerve gas. He insists that if you kill one innocent person he will turn himself in and not release nerve gas into the subways of New York, but that if you don't he will carry out his plans and tell the world he did it because you failed to act. You believe him. Would you kill one innocent person to save tens of thousands?

Now change the scenario a bit. Say that instead of killing an innocent person he demanded that you rape a child. Would one act of rape be an acceptable price to save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people?

I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that by any definition of "absolute", you would have to refuse to perform the rape and let thousands die in order to satisfy your absolute moral code. Absolute means absolute, and that means it has to cover ALL situations, even those as contrived as this. That's why I can't say that any moral judgment can be considered absolute.

Is that any clearer?

[Jim__]

45. A more everyday example of the question of the morality of murdering innocent people ...

... is the question: Is it moral to bomb cities? In the west, and maybe especially in the US, we seem to believe that it is, at least when it's us doing the bombing.

[laconicsax]

48. The answer is no.

Someone doing something does not make it moral.

[Jim__]

50. The question is not whether doing something makes it moral.

The question is whether believing something is moral makes it so or not. And, if belief is not the determinant, what is?

[laconicsax]

58. Morals can be derived objectively from what's best for a general society.

You have to ask yourself what the purpose of morals is. I would say that morals essentially exist to facilitate the functioning of society. If we lived as in some libertarian wet dream with no involuntary interaction between individuals, it would be fine for individual preference to hold sway. Since we live in communities, that won't work so well.

Basic reciprocity can form the basis for an objective morality that allows a society to function. While this allows for a certain amount of variation as to what is considered moral and immoral, generally speaking those variations are within a framework of a reciprocal moral code--don't do to someone else what you would find objectional if done to you. In a broad sense, laws are the codification of this (a bonus). Of course, to every rule there are bound to be extraordinary circumstances where the wrong action is considered permissible. This doesn't make the wrong thing suddenly right, just excusable.

Murder is objectively wrong, rape is objectively wrong.

If individual beliefs were to the sole basis of morality, we wouldn't be able to say that A or B was right or wrong or justify condemnation of an individuals action, no matter how abhorrent. Person X rapes and murders 15 people because he believed it to be the moral thing to do; who are we to say he was wrong to do it? Exceptions would essentially become the rule.

[GliderGuider]

63. Laws can be derived that way. Morals are harder.

There's been an ongoing debate for years between positions like meta-ethical relativism and moral universalism. I don't think the jury is in yet on any of them - nor would I expect it to come in any time soon, because of the varieties of human perception, cognition and experience. So no matter how much some might crave certainty, it's unlikely to be forthcoming.

My position actually goes further than meta-ethical relativism. I totally deny the fundamental, universal, absolute validity of concepts such as right/wrong or good/bad upon which morality is based. In fact, I believe that the whole notion of good/bad duality is an illusion. So in a sense I'm a moral skeptic. I say "in a sense" because my position isn't based on classical philosophical arguments like those used by J. L. Mackie. Instead, it's based on the direct experience of monistic states facilitated by Zen, Advaita and other non-dualist teachings.

You may adhere to moral objectivism if you wish - there's lots of support for it - but there is also support on my side of the fence if one is looking either for logic or arguments from authority. I don't care much either way, because for me direct experience trumps all such argumentation.

[laconicsax]

68. So what direct experience tells you that child rape isn't all bad? n/t

...actually y/t:

I don't think the jury is in yet on any of them - nor would I expect it to come in any time soon, because of the varieties of human perception, cognition and experience.

It would surprise me greatly if the matter were ever satisfactorily resolved.

[Jim__]

65. In post #48 you said that bombing a city is not moral. Now you claim that ...

Morals can be derived objectively from what's best for a general society.

Well, US society has determined that under certain conditions, bombing cities is best for this country. So, there is some conflict in your answers to various posts.

Laws, not morals, are what allows a society to function. Laws are generally agreements about how people can live together in society peacefully. Your idea of morality seems to confuse morality with legality.

Murder is really a legal term. Murder is the illegal taking of a life. Most people would consider killing a person under certain circumstances to be legal, and so we have to differentiate between killing and murder.

Rape is illegal.

We can condemn individual actions based on their legality. If person X rapes and murders 15 people, we arrest him because he broke the law. In general, we don't care whether or not he considers it immoral - in the case of insanity, we usually don't imprison the offender but sentence him to mandatory hospitalization.

[laconicsax]

67. Do the words "general" and "society" elude you?

In the matter of bombing cities, you are confusing "society" with "military objective." It isn't determined that bombing cities is best for society, but the best way to achieve a military objective.

Murder refers to the intentional taking of a life in opposition to their wishes. If you have a better term for intentionally killing someone who doesn't want to be killed, by all means, let's use it.

You must have also missed (or ignored) the part where I said, "In a broad sense, laws are the codification of [societal morals&93; (a bonus)."

If morality is purely subjective, we can arrest, charge, and convict someone for breaking the law, but we can't say that their actions were morally wrong. We would also have a difficult time rationalizing the applicable law. If we can't agree that rape and murder are objectively wrong, then why have such strict laws against them? Laws without a clear societal benefit are often considered unjust and eventually repealed with many wondering why a law against something not objectively wrong was ever enacted. (This refers to criminal law and not, for instance, statutes concerning highway maintenance.) Criminal laws (again, in a broad sense) exist to establish set definitions and penalties for actions a society has determined to be wrong or in opposition to societal function. I would argue that objective morality can be derived from reciprocity, which underlies the smooth functioning of a society.

[Jim__]

74. In WWII, the US bombed cities because they considered it necessary to save our society.

Under any rational definition, preserving society fits under the general argument of what is best for society.

So, under your definition of murder, killing someone in self-defense is murder (your post #67) and is objectively immoral (your post #58). Actually the general term for killing someone is "kill". "Murder" is a perjoratively and legally loaded word.

Modern secular society is organized around the concept of justice rather than morality - see, for instance John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Theocratic societies tend to organize around morality, for instance, Islamic sharia or Christian Dominionism.

If morality is purely subjective ...

This is just a strawman. There is no dilemma between the claim that morality is absolute and the claim that morality is purely subjective. You seem to stumble over the complexity of the real world. Almost everyone can agree that the gratuitous killing of an innocent is wrong. The question is much more complex when that killing is not gratuitous but happens as a predictable side-effect of a self-defense action. You may claim thaat any killing of a human is immoral (again, your post #58), but you'll get few people to agree with you on this "objectively derived" point.

[laconicsax]

83. Again, does the word "general" evade you?

I hope you can show that a general society is best represented by war-time America.

Otherwise your argument is little more than a straw man.

[Jim__]

116. As explicitly stated in post #74, preservation of society fits under the umbrella of the word ...

... "general".

But, I don't blame you for trying to hide from challenges to your claim. Any attempt to apply your "objective" morality in specific situations immediately exposes its weakness. And, of course, a morality that cannot be applied to specific situations is useless.

[laconicsax]

131. You're trying to force relativism on an objective absolute.

Sorry, "murder/killing/whatever you want to call it must not be objectively wrong because society X did it in a time of war" sidesteps the argument that murder/killing/whatever you want to call it is objectively wrong because it is antithetical to the functioning of a society. It's also a lazy way to start from a conclusion to reject a challenge to that same conclusion.

The US, while leveling whole cities, still held murder/killing/whatever you want to call it as wrong, and your 'preservation' argument basically boils down to whether self-defense is an exception.

As I've already pointed out in this thread, exceptions don't change the rule. If a crazed individual was trying to kill you, you could be justified in killing them in self-defense, but that doesn't mean that you were morally right to do so. A justification is little more than a potentially valid excuse.

[Jim__]

146. Your moral absolute fails the test of empirical reality.

You claim that killing is antithetical to the functioning of a society. But that fails the simplest test. All human societies allow killing under certain conditions. Morality determines those conditions.

[laconicsax]

147. Straw man.

It is murder--the intentional killing of another person that is antithetical to the functioning of a society. I never claimed that "killing" as a general concept is antithetical to the functioning of a society.

Morality determines those conditions.

How does morality determine the conditions by which killing is acceptable in your argument--what constitutes moral killing and what makes it moral?

[laconicsax]

47. Something is not "acceptable" simply because it's done.

The act of child rape is perfectly acceptable to some military commanders as a weapon of war. I heard rumours that it was even acceptable to guards at Abu Ghraib. Of course it wasn't the "definition of child rape" that made it acceptable, but the context and the individuals involved.

FFS, just because someone felt it was acceptable to do something abhorrent doesn't make it so. Since you already jumped ahead to Hitler, do you feel that since he felt it necessary to go on a genocidal rampage across Europe, it was acceptable?

In your various hypothetical situations, murder or rape or whatever may be the necessary thing to do, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. A great real-world example would be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

Carrying out an attack on a civilian population is never the right thing to do, especially on the scale involved with nuclear arms. Arguments can and have been made that the nuclear attacks on both cities was the necessary thing to do, but that doesn't for a moment mean that it was the right thing to do from a moral standpoint.

In short, whether or not something was justified doesn't make it right--the fact that a justification may be needed to excuse an action should tell you something about whether or not it was morally wrong. Such justifications are simply excuses used to "live with" doing the wrong thing; they're what let you sleep at night.

To address your reductio ad Hitlerum, killing Hitler prior to his rise to power may be justifiable depending on the circumstance (ie it's the only possible solution), but still wrong. I hold "murder is wrong" to be absolutely true.

To address your "madman with nerve gas" question, assuming the sincerity of a clearly unhinged individual and that it's the only possible solution, raping a child to save the lives of millions may be justified, but it would still be wrong, and I would expect to suffer the consequences of the action. I hold "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true.

Does this mean that all moral questions are guided by absolutes? Of course not. I would never go so far as to say that that. Some moral issues are relative, others are not. For example, theft likely is, rape and murder are not.

[GliderGuider]

52. In that case you have to say who needs to find it unacceptable.

Many people feel that dropping the bomb on Japan was absolutely moral and totally acceptable. I don't, but they don't ask me for my opinion.

When you talk about acceptability, you always need to answer the question, "Acceptable to whom?" If you intend to mean "universally acceptable" or "universally unacceptable" you need to provide a justification in logic for the claim to universality.

A position that says it can be OK in some circumstances to commit an absolutely immoral act seems to be prima facie evidence of relativity. What does the word absolute mean to you, then, if it has limits like that?

[laconicsax]

59. I think you should re-read what I've posted and reconsider your assumptions. n/t

[GliderGuider]

60. And I could say the same. So what?

If you want to discuss, discuss. If not, then don't.

[laconicsax]

62. Your questions are answered in the comment to which you posed them.

Why should I take the time to correct your errors when the answer is not two comments above?

[ironbark]

53. No answer is needed, no answer is merited.

No answer is needed because sufficient response to the question has already been provided.

No answer is merited because it is clearly not “a simple question” asked with the intent of exploring an issue. It is a loaded question with the clear and demonstrated intent of gleaning more ammunition to spin into character attack.

Having already clearly articulated that pedophilia confined strictly to the realm of imagination with no action taken ought evoke no Moral Absoluteism... this is immediately spun and misrepresented into-

“Good to know you have no problem with pedophilia”

With the addenda that I have supposedly thus “shot in the face” with my "no problem" acceptance of pedophilia.

It is just a dirty nasty sleazy game of seeking to demean, deride and assassinate the character of another.
There is no indication whatsoever of any interest or preparedness to do otherwise.

The character assassination objective has been clear throughout the discussion-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=260553&mesg_id=260705

Go for it skepticscott….ride shotgun support for the endevour to glean more material to play “you have no problem with pedophilia” .

Now you “Duck, dodge, divert” and try to tell me that’s not what has been clearly going on.

[skepticscott]

77. What a surprise

the same old dodge..."no answer is merited"

It IS a very simple question designed to discover the OPs view on an issue. I assume he has one, so why is he afraid to share it? Calling the question "loaded" (the flaw of which has been addressed above as well), is just another cowardly of saying that no matter which of the possible answers I provide, my position will be undermined and I'll look bad, so I'm going to pretend that the question is illegitimate. In logical thought, when you reach such a point, that's your clue that your premises were flawed to begin with.

[ironbark]

78. It would be a “dodge” if no explanation was provided

as to why ..."no answer is merited"……or….if that explanation was refuted and rebuked.
But explanation was provided and rather than refute and rebuke it (thus exposing the supposed “dodge”) you cut and ignored the explanation entirely…a fine dodge indeed.
Here is the explination that you could neither rebuke nor refute-

“No answer is merited because it is clearly not “a simple question” asked with the intent of exploring an issue. It is a loaded question with the clear and demonstrated intent of gleaning more ammunition to spin into character attack.
Having already clearly articulated that pedophilia confined strictly to the realm of imagination with no action taken ought evoke no Moral Absoluteism... this is immediately spun and misrepresented into-
“Good to know you have no problem with pedophilia”
With the addenda that I have supposedly thus “shot myself in the face” with my "no problem" acceptance of pedophilia.
It is just a dirty nasty sleazy game of seeking to demean, deride and assassinate the character of another.
There is no indication whatsoever of any interest or preparedness to do otherwise.”

And here is the subsequent invitation for you to “Duck, dodge and divert” from what had been said-

“Go for it skepticscott….ride shotgun support for the endevour to glean more material to play “you have no problem with pedophilia” .
Now you “Duck, dodge, divert” and try to tell me that’s not what has been clearly going on.”

Which you promptly did-

"It IS a very simple question designed to discover the OPs view on an issue. I assume he has one, so why is he afraid to share it?"

Either-
1/ You are now Ducking, dodging, diverting to the "OPs view on an issue"(Which has nothing to do with me so why would you be expecting me to answer for it?)
2/ You have lost the thread and lost the plot and can't recall who you are talking to(The OPs view not being involved or an issue in any post since you first adressed me in #33)

[skepticscott]

36. Well, why don't you ask the OPer

if he thinks that child rape is always wrong, or if the same moral relativism that he claims should apply to pedophilia applies to that as well?

[GliderGuider]

41. It's a loaded question, I addressed it above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=260876&mesg_id=260983

[laconicsax]

43. What's the "controversial assumption" or "presumption of guilt" involved?

"Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true?"

Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be a controversial assumption? What's the presumption of guilt?

[GliderGuider]

51. The controversial assumption is

either that I might feel child rape is OK under some circumstances, or that I could be coerced into acquiescing to a position I don't agree with. That's what the continued use of the word "absolutely" in the question is intended to accomplish, and that's what makes the whole structure a loaded question.

[laconicsax]

61. Oh, come on.

You didn't consider the EXACT SAME question loaded when it pertains to pedophilia. Might I remind you that you intentionally left open the possibility that you may find an instance of pedophilia you consider fine and dandy.

The question is, at its core, "do you consider "X is wrong" to be absolutely true?" You can't answer it half the time and then refuse to do so claiming it as a loaded question (it isn't) without being a first rate whiny hypocrite.

Do you consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true?

[GliderGuider]

64. The original question was loaded for bear. I answered it anyway.

As I've said, I consider nothing to be absolutely true. Not even "The sky is blue." In fact, as I hinted above above I actually consider the concepts "true" and "false" to be illusions. You would probably disagree with that position ;-)

[laconicsax]

69. I probably would. It isn't certain though.

BTW: The sky is only generally blue under specific conditions, so that's a bad example.

[ironbark]

72. Ha! Is it absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true?!!!

And what makes your "consideration" non illusory?

(Oooooooo......I'm like a Ninja at this game ;-)

[GliderGuider]

73. Yes. And no.

All perceptions/understandings are illusory, including this one.

[ironbark]

79. Simultaneously Yes and No or sequentially Yes and oh never mind….

I have come to percieve and understand that the propisition "All perceptions/understandings are illusory, including this one" does in fact reflect an absolute and imutable non illusory truth about reality.

[GliderGuider]

81. Yes!

As far as I can tell (so far) this does represent a truth. Is it a truth "about" reality? Hmmm, my absolute certainty breaks down at that point.

I'm currently exploring the idea that truth isn't a quality that things have so much as an aspect of existence - truth being more thing-like than quality-like. The temptation to use a capital "T" is almost overwhelming... But that's for another thread on another day :evilgrin:

[ironbark]

82. Ok......Three things in closing

1/ Is it true that if I can take the pebble from your hand it will be time for me to go...but you will call me back and ask me how far along the path I would have been if you had not called me back?

2/ If I speak in the forest and my wife is not there to hear me...am I still wrong?

3/ Is it absolutely necessary…I mean really absolutely necessary…to keep calling me grasshopper?

.............

;-)

Thanks Glider.

Fun,informative and 'nuanced'

[tama]

137. Illusory reality?

I find it curious that English and generally indo-European speakers (who are into advaita philosophy or similar) like to call reality illusion and hold those words as T/truth.

As far as I understand, this illusorism is based on European metaphysics presupposing that reality is something permanent(ish) and objectifiable that can be owned and manipulated by the Subject. Also, in semiotic web of codependences, meanining of 'illusion' is dependent on the concept of reality (referring to something else than real). Historical background of this metaphysic seems to back at least to Greek language, where the word 'ousia' - substance, reality etc. had also the very usual meaning of 'solid property' (e.g. land, buildings etc.).

Now, if we abandon the metaphysical requirement that reality is solid, immutable and objective, there is no problem perceiving and sensing reality as this happens and unfolds, and calling this as happens and is being sensed reality.

Also good to keep in mind the etymological meaning of 'existence', which means the process of actualizing. In my language the word for truth is 'tosi'. Truth (tosi) and reality (todellisuus) are the same root. Reality-todellisuus litterally becomes true ('toteutuu'), or in terms of classical philosophy, actualizes (from infinite potential?).

[GliderGuider]

138. Very interesting.

I wonder if the use of the word "illusion" by 7th-Day Advaitists :evilgrin: might be just a way of trying to say, "Reality isn't necessarily what European metaphysics (esp. Cartesian dualism) says it is." I agree that it's possible to define the unfolding moment as "reality" - people like Tolle and Almaas seem use that approach.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Let me show GG and ironbark how easy this is.

Yes. I consider "child rape is wrong" to be absolutely true.

That's not so hard, now, is it?

[GliderGuider]

86. Would you say that if you didn't believe it? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

103. Do you believe it? n/t

[GliderGuider]

105. As I've said,

I don't believe any moral or value judgment can be said to be "absolutely true".

[laconicsax]

26. Would you say that it's absolutely wrong? n/t

[skepticscott]

38. Most people would not

feel the need to go on a long-winded diatribe to defend pedophilia specifically, under the guise of moral relativism. One might just as easily have waited until an actual case came up where the particular situation made pedophilia clearly (or at least arguably) the right thing before one spoke up in defense of it.

[ironbark]

55. "Most people would not" falsify/pretend it was "diatribe to defend pedophilia"

Just to petty point score through attempted charater assasination.

[skepticscott]

76. It was the OP who chose

pedophilia as his topic, not me. And since he refuses to say that it's always wrong, because of his deeply considered views on moral relativism, then he must believe that there are situations where it is acceptable. If that's not defending it, what is?

[ironbark]

80. And you chose and continue to choose to falsify and misrepresent.nt

[skepticscott]

90. Any alleged falsification on my part

or anyone else's could be quickly and easily corrected by GG cleary stating either "pedophilia is always wrong" or "pedophilia isn't always wrong" or "I don't know if pedophilia is always wrong or not".

Those choices encompass all of the options, whether you like it or not. He's been given every opportunity to state his position clearly and simply, about both pedophilia and child rape, and he refuses, for reasons that are obvious to every rational person on the thread.

[GliderGuider]

92. Ah.

"I don't know if pedophilia is always wrong or not" comes close enough to my true position to be acceptable, so I will say that. Are we all good now?

BTW, my position on the wrongness of pedophilia is essentially the epistemological position adopted by agnostics regarding the existence of gods. It's not simply that I don't know whether it's always wrong (which is true) but that I can't know if it's always wrong. As a result I can't say that any statement about the absolute truth of the proposition is itself true because I believe that there are some things that aren't knowable, which is what started the whole brouhaha.

But hey, I don't know if pedophilia is always wrong or not. If having me say that makes you happy, I'm happy to oblige.

[skepticscott]

95. Not sure why

you needed a whole thread and endless prodding to be able to state your own position clearly (and even then, only after it was fed to you). But whatever.

BTW, your thinking process needs some serious reevaluation if you equate the epistemology of a moral issue with one of objective fact. And in any case, saying that it's completely impossible in principle that you or anyone else will ever know enough to take a position on something requires considerably more justification than simply saying "I'm not sure about this right now, and I need more information before I take a firm position", or "This is what I think now, based on the available evidence, but my position is subject to change if new evidence comes to light." The last two are hallmarks of rational thought, while the first smacks of intellectual laziness or cowardice.

[GliderGuider]

96. I believe I have stated my position clearly from the outset.

I was originally asked whether I could say that "pedophilia is always wrong" was absolutely true? I replied no, I couldn't say that. Clear as you could ask for. The subsequent merry-go-round has all been related to people either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position, and trying to force me to say things I don't believe. Notwithstanding my statement that "I don't know if it's always wrong", my original answer stands as given. I've tried in good faith several times to explain the distinction as I see it.

It's not impossible in principle to take a personal position on something with incomplete information. We all do that, me included. It is, however, impossible to take a position on the absolute nature of anything, because that would require infinite information. It was that aspect of the issue that drove my original answer, not my inability to take a stand on whether I personally thought pedophilia was wrong or not. I can say I personally believe it's wrong, but simultaneously be unable to say I think the statement is absolutely true. The two positions are compatible because one addresses the subjective, personal realm and the other the realm of absolutes.

Is that any clearer?

[GliderGuider]

99. BTW, my unwillingness to answer the original question

was based on my application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"> Godel's incompleteness theorems to the philosophical consideration of absolute systems. The theorems state that it's impossible to to have complete knowledge of an open, infinite system, and that it's impossible to prove the consistency of the system itself. These are mathematical theorems, of course, but they seem to have applicability to philosophical systems, in particular to systems about which absolute knowledge is being sought.

[tama]

46. As a professional translator, I've translated

classical Greek poetry into my native language. Yes, including love poems of the pedophilic genre. In terms of moral absolutism - that many so called skeptics curiously subscribe to, that part of classical heritage should be banned just like other child porn is banned - including many works of Plato.

So, unless you really want to torch the books of Plato and lots of classical Greek poetry, I don't think you really are a moral absolutist...

[laconicsax]

49. That's quite the leap you make--from regarding something as wrong to burning books. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

66. In my opinion, a large difference exists between talking about fucking children,

and actually fucking children.

[ironbark]

71. Oh no....your missing the point and practice of 'the game'.

If you can get some one to say that >thinking< about such an act without ever >acting< upon it is not something that requires moral judgement THEN you can play the unethical and imoral game of character assasination by pretending they have condoned pedophilia carte blanche.

See upthread- "Good to see you have no problem with pedophilia"

The beauty of the irony of the game is that by attempting to falsify anothers pov in such a manner (fabricating moral weakness and aberrance and projecting it upon them)you supposedly demonstrate your moral superiority by behaving unethically.

Please try to keep up with the state of play ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

85. Another instance where it is pretty easy to show you the way.

Observe:

Child rape is always wrong.
Writing about child rape is not always wrong (and said books need not be burned).

See how I can have an absolute position on one thing but not on another, even related, thing. I'm amazing that way. Apparently you and your new-found buddy haven't figured that out yet.

[ironbark]

87. Good to see that you have no problem with books that encourage and condone child rape

Observe.
Anyone who abandons honesty and integrity can play 'the game'.

[Goblinmonger]

88. You're not playing right.

You have to give me a question first and I'll answer it. If you had asked me if I had a problem with books that encourage and condone child rape, I would have said yes. I just said they shouldn't be burned. The game is not about misquoting. Get it right.

[ironbark]

107. Don’t be ridiculous, ‘the game’ is bound by no such conventions

as-“ You have to give me a question first and I'll answer it”

‘The game’ is clearly one of falsification, misrepresentation and disingenuous extrapolation all combined to demean and assassinate character.

I say just thinking about something is not a moral issue and your old found buddies say “you have no problem with pedophilia”

You say “Writing about child rape is not always wrong” and I demonstrate ‘the game’ with “you have no problem with books that encourage and condone child rape”.

That is the crux and core of 'the game' that has been in play here for at least four years- character assasination through falsification and misrepresentation.

IF YOU HAVE >ANY OBJECTIONS< TO OTHERS PLAYING (or displaying) THE DISHONEST INTEGRITY FREE ‘GAME’ THEN STOP PLAYING IT AND/OR RIDING SHOTGUN FOR IT.

[skepticscott]

89. And what justifies the leap from

books "about" child rape to books that "encourage and condone" child rape? Only a lack of honesty and integrity.

[GliderGuider]

91. The same thing that justifies the leap from

not being able to say that "pedophilia is wrong" is absolutely true to being accused of supporting child rape. Only a lack of honesty and integrity.

[skepticscott]

93. Uh, no

His being unwilling to say clearly and unequivocally, despite asked over and over, that child rape is always wrong, justifies that, and it's no leap. if you don't think it's always wrong, then you must think that it's acceptable and justifiable in some situations. It's just that simple.

Give this one up. You've descended to lameness and irrationality (again) because you resent those on one side of the argument.

[GliderGuider]

94. You evoke an intereresting historical parallel.

Your comment, "His being unwilling to say clearly and unequivocally, despite asked over and over, that child rape is always wrong, justifies that..."

is eerily reminiscent of, "His being unwilling to say clearly and unequivocally, despite asked over and over, whether he is now or ever has been a member of the Communist party, justifies that..."

[Goblinmonger]

97. For someone that touts moral relativism

it's pretty absolutist of you to say that making the claim that you feel child rape is always wrong is the same as McCarthyism. Not to mention the horribly obvious slippery slope argument that you just took a ride on.

[GliderGuider]

98. Read much?

It's the invocation of my repeated unwillingness to answer a loaded question that is reminiscent of McCarthyism.

[Goblinmonger]

100. How is it a loaded question?

Sure, I know, you have all the definitional arguments above, but that just goes to when you think it might be OK. You had every option to answer the question. This isn't like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It presupposed nothing. You might not like the position it puts you in, but that's a position you put yourself into.

And it's kind of sweet that you think of yourself as one of McCarthy's victims...as misguided as that is.

You just fell prey to a wicked cross-ex and didn't look far enough ahead. Saw it many times in college debate.

[GliderGuider]

101. Here's how.

From our friends at Wikipedia we get the following discussion of loaded questions:

The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to loaded language that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation. Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it.

Substitute "Do you support child rape?" for the question "Are you a murderer?" in the example, and the nature of the question becomes obvious.

The section on Defense is likewise applicable:

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be either "I have never beaten my wife" or "I have never had a wife."<5> This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers of "dodging" the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose their tactic or stop the line of inquiry. In many cases a short answer is important. I neither did nor do I now makes a good example on how to answer the question without letting the asker interrupt and misshape the response.

My impression is that this is a very precise description of what happened here. This is also what happened during the HUAC hearings, so the parallel is apt, whether you have any sympathy for my predicament or not. I've certainly learned a lot about the character traits of people who ask such questions, as well as an ability to recognize them and a lesson in the need for caution in responding to them.

[Goblinmonger]

102. Are you a murderer?

THAT'S a loaded question? Um, no, I'm not.

Notice that your primer on "defense" refers not to the "Are you a murderer" (probably because that's a pretty elementary lame example) but to the "Do you still beat your wife" example I referenced.

And the HUAC parallel is NOT apt. There were two problems there: 1. who gives a shit if you were a member of the communist party; and 2. if you said "no" and that was the truth, the problem was that they probably had some asshole that said you were in order to save their own ass so they would use that as a means to prosecute you for perjury.

Neither of these are a problem here.

[Goblinmonger]

104. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Sorry, that's a loaded question.

Do you like ice cream?
Sorry, another one--ice cream evokes a lot of emotion in people.

Should people eat at Olive Garden?
That's pretty loaded, too.

Does Oprah put on a good show?
Yikes, is there anything that doesn't fit that definition of loaded?

[trotsky]

108. Dude it's simple.

Any question GG doesn't want to answer because it blows a whole in his philosophy = loaded question.

Especially that one about Oprah.

[GliderGuider]

109. You did notice that I answered the original question, right?

Child rape is definitely a more controversial topic than Oprah, so questions about it may be loaded where those about Oprah are not.

"Loaded questions" obviously have a strong cultural component. It's possible to imagine a question that would be loaded in another culture that we would consider utterly benign. For example, if you were Afghan, the question "Do you support publishing of cartoons that depict Allah as a terrorist?" would be heavily loaded. Asking it in North America would carry no such freight, because of the cultural differences.

You don't even need to cross an ocean to find cultural differences that turn benign questions into loaded ones. For example the question "Do you support the right of gays to marry?" would probably be considered a loaded question at a Tea Party nomination meeting, but not here on DU.

Is that clearer?

[trotsky]

110. No, you didn't.

What, exactly, about child rape is "controversial?" Oh wait, that's probably a "loaded" question too, huh? Because it's controversial in regards to child rapists being on one side of the issue and all the rest of us on the other?

Oh, and on edit: asking a candidate at a Tea Party rally if they support the right of gays to marry is definitely NOT a loaded question. The candidate can answer "yes" and lose Tea Party support, or answer "no" and retain it. Sheesh.

[GliderGuider]

111. Actually, I did. I answered "No."

When you asked your original question "Do you consider "pedophilia is wrong" to be absolutely true?" I answered "No" in the subject line in my response. I belatedly realized I'd stepped on a landmine, and went back to try and clarify how I was answering the question in the body of my post: ("ETA: I consider it to be true in the vast majority of cases of adult-child sexual contact, but I consider virtually nothing to be "absolutely true". I'm not much for absolutism.") Unfortunately, the damage had been done by then.

I had misread your intentions and also underestimated the degree of vitriol an answer like that would raise. It was definitely a learning experience for me, because I tend to assume the good faith of most posters on DU. That faith was misplaced in this case. Live and learn...

[trotsky]

112. LOL

Yeah, go figure that people wouldn't feel comfortable with someone who thinks raping kids might just be OK in some circumstances. I mean, who coulda figured! People sure are weird about the sexual abuse of children, huh? And now you try to blame it on me and/or my "intentions." Too funny. You got burned, and burned bad. If only that had been the lesson you learned instead of blaming others.

[GliderGuider]

113. You have such a pleasant persona, trotsky...

Actually, I learned a lot from this episode, and for that you have my deepest thanks.

All the best,
GG

[Goblinmonger]

114. Yeah, I'm with trotsky on this

you were trying to be all pithy and philosophy major on us and, instead, stepped in a steaming pile of shit probably because you figured that your intellect and experience was so superior that the rest of the forum had not thought through the same things you have, had the same conversations you had, and had the capacity to evaluate absolutism. We have. And we just skipped all the mental masturbation along the way and went to the question that we have all come to feel is an absolute across cultures. Now you are trying to place your miscalculation onto us.

[GliderGuider]

115. I know you are.

We have very different positions, and that's bound to cause problems when we get too serious about stuff. I'm especially guilty of this, despite my desire to see this internet jousting as entertainment.

It's unfortunate that the exchange seems to have upset you. I've discovered over the years that it's really impossible to change peoples' fundamental convictions through Internet battles. I have strong opinions as well, so in order to preserve my own equanimity I try to focus on ideas rather than personalities, or if that proves difficult, simply ignore the exchange.

In this case the exchange did a lot to help me clarify my thinking on the direct subject, on my position on value systems and also on the nature of communication. That's tremendously valuable for me, so thanks to you for your part in this as well.

[trotsky]

117. And to think you lectured me about projection.

The person who got upset by this exchange is you, as evidenced by your obvious contempt throughout the previous thread and this one. You can try to bow out of this one blaming everyone else for the holes in your philosophy and your failure to communicate, but I think most readers will see right through that ruse.

Feel free to put in your precious last word now - hopefully with one last snarky slam on yours truly.

[ironbark]

118. "focus on ideas rather than personalities"

Ahhhhhhhhhh.

Play the ball not the man?

I have some Aussie Rules True Faith leaflets and tracts to share with you if you have a moment...

;-)

[GliderGuider]

119. Oh, I have no expectation that everyone will play by those rules.

I try to stick to them for my own peace of mind, and that's enough for me. I can't really make anyone else happy in this world, so as long as I stick to the issues and don't bash the man then I don't worry too much about others' emotional reactions. That's their stuff.

The nice thing about the internet is that you don't need to play someone else's game if you don't want to. My goals here are to learn a few things and to have a bit of fun. Simple and straightforward.

[ironbark]

122. Agreed....but....if the differing rules/expectations are at very least discussed

is there not a much better chance of avoiding treading on others toes or they on yours?

I also have no expectation that everyone will play by those/my rules...but I suffer the delusion that if people are at least aware of what others hold to be fair play they are less inclined to make transgression.

?
maybe.

[GliderGuider]

123. Good luck with that!

When motivations are different, agreement on rules becomes impossible. Some people are here to step on toes, after all.

[Goblinmonger]

125. Yet you seem to get ruffled and, honestly, a little condescending

when others don't play by your rules but their own.

And while you are saying in your head that you aren't being condescending, reread your first paragraph in the post above and tell me it doesn't sound like "well, I'm not a dick, but I can't stop all those other people from being dicks."

[GliderGuider]

127. Point taken. I get condescending at times, no question.

I've also taken great great delight in stepping on other peoples' toes for fun. I'm trying to get past it, but I'm not enlightened yet... That urge to poke a bear with a stick just to see it snarl was what made me answer "No" in the first place and got me into all this. It seemed like innocent fun at the time...

Thanks for being straightforward about it, I really appreciate that.

[tama]

140. "the question that we have all come to feel is an absolute across cultures."

And yet, that universalist moral absolutism is a mere culturally producted emotion - especially common in imperialistic cultures. Horny Greek men going after boys who don't yet have pubic hair and lamenting the appearance of pubic hair - and then writing poetry about those emotions - is just as well a cultural product.

[ironbark]

106. The same lack of honesty and integrity that justifies the leap

from acceptance of the exceptions-

“As a moral question I have no problem with those paedophiles who take their “ abnormal interest” and “fantasy” >NO FURTHER< than the confines of their own heads….”29#

to fabrication of carte blanche acceptance of paedophilia-

“Good to know you have no problem with pedophilia” 30#
Capped off with the pretence that such acceptance is “shooting yourself in the face”

Shit…you guys wanna play the character assassination game, cut and ignore all objections to it and then object when someone mimics/exposes the way the game is played.

“Only a lack of honesty and integrity.”

OBVIOUSLY!!!!!. That’s why it was FLAGGED as such a display of the tactics being employed-
“Observe.
Anyone who abandons honesty and integrity can play 'the game'.”

The mimicking/exposing display having been made the only question that remains is-
Do you wish to keep playing 'the game' in the same manner with the distinct possibility of others playing with the same disregard for honesty and integrity?

Experience tells me the very question/issue will be cut and ignored.

[tama]

139. Experience tells me the very question/issue will be cut and ignored.

As has been often said, our ability of self-deception has no limits. So this is how it goes, walking the Paths of Self-Deception and accepting there is no escape... :)

...and trusting that confidence starts with self-confidence - which curiously means also trusting All...

[ironbark]

142. “If a carpenter strikes a nail and the nail bends

should the carpenter then loose trust and confidence in all nails”?
‘Kung Foo’ (Circa 1972)

To which I respond (then and now)- “No blind Master...but if all the nails in the box bend...I at least have the capacity to identify the manufacturer and avoid his products”.

;-)

I apply the same principle to local bent nail displays of diminished capacity for “honesty and integrity”.......and my prediction based on experience was accurate-
“the very question/issue will be cut and ignored”.

[skepticscott]

75. By the same tortured logic

you could argue that if someone thinks murder is wrong, they should and would advocate that all murder mysteries should be banned. Sheesh.

[humblebum]

120. If there is no moral absolutism, then how can there be moral relativism?

It would seem that in order for moralism to be relative, it would need to be relative to something absolute. How can you have relativism without an absolute?

[GliderGuider]

121. You might try thinking of it this way

In order to be relative, something only needs to change in relation to something else. There's no need for an absolute yardstick. It's like the motion of stars and galaxies within the universe - they move relative to each other, but there is no absolute fixed point against which the motion of all bodies can be judged.

The same goes for morality. In absolute morality a fixed frame of reference is assumed, and moral choices and actions are all measured against that frame. The further from the fixed point of reference, the more immoral the choice or action is said to be. In relative morality the moral value of a choice or action is measured against other choices or actions - within the local context, but without referenced to a fixed immutable value-set.

Absolute and relative morality are separate, orthogonal systems of thought. They may intersect (i.e. provide the same outcome) on a single moral judgment, but they do not share the same frame of reference. Seen from the "plane" of moral absolutism, relativism can seem to be almost nonsensical, and vice versa. The issue is not so much that different rules are applied to any given moral judgment, but that the rules governing the system (the rules behind the rules, if you will) are utterly different and perhaps even irreconcilable.

[humblebum]

124. In that case you can only have moralism, period. For something to be relative there

must be an absolute.

[GliderGuider]

126. How would you define "moralism"?

What would provide the standard for judgment in such a system?

[Jim__]

130. Morality is considered to be relative to language, culture, and other things.

Not necessarily to an absolute morality.

[humblebum]

133. Then would not " language, culture, and other things" be considered

"absolutes". And if they are considered relative too, then what are they relative to?

[Jim__]

134. No, they would not be considered "absolutes".

Relative and absolute generally deal with value judgements. For instance, language is a form of verbal communication. There is no value judgement associated with it. But, to say that morality is relative to language means that value judgements are not universal but are, at least partially, based on the language.

One of the "other things" that morality is relative to is historical period, and it's easier to come up with an example for this. For instance, slavery. Do we consider people who owned slaves 1500 years ago to have been immoral people? In my experience, most people don't. It was considered moral at the time and that is sufficient to accept this behavior. Of course, these same people would consider anyone owning slaves today, to be immoral.

[humblebum]

135. then, of course, morality could not then be relative to them as you previously stated.

As you also said,"Relative and absolute generally deal with value judgements. "Language, culture, and other things" are not morals.

[Jim__]

136. Why not?

If the judgement made depends upon the historical period it was made in - as in the given example - then the judgement made is relative to the historical period. If morals change over time, then they are not absolute.

[tama]

141. Morals and ethics

Latin 'mores' and Greek 'ethea' both mean originally (local) customs. It's impossible to imagine morals and ethics independent of language and culture.

[humblebum]

143. Then it probably is correct to say that "absolute" morals are

those related to the particular language and culture and deviations from that are to be considered relative. I doubt that a 'relative' can be relative to another relative; rather, to be relative by definition requires an absolute to which to be related.

[tama]

144. "relative by definition requires an absolute to which to be related. "

That is a relativistic definition and by no means universal or even generally accepted view. :)

It seems however, worth while pointing that the conceptual pair relative-absolut could be seen as a cabodependent "dialectic" opposition, like the pair good and bad where good is defined as not-bad and bad as not-good.

For a deeper search of meaning of 'absolut', e.g. Spinoza's Ethics could be a usefull starting point.

[humblebum]

145. "Mitakuye Oyasin" - If we are all related to on e another then

would that not be where we find the absolute to which all the "relatives" are related.

[dmallind]

128. I can argue both aspects here

As a utilitarian I believe that we can quantify good and bad effects, and I can also point out (admittedly very far fetched and exceptionally unlikely) cases where child-rape would be a perfectly sound moral choice. Now that does not mean it would a nice or pleasant thing to do, or something that should be universalized as a sound moral choice. It relies on the concept that minimizing harm is morally equivalent to maximizing benefit.

In less emotionally charged terms it's the equivalent of saying that the pain of a tooth filling, even sans anaesthetic, is preferable to the far greater pain of unchecked tooth decay. A much easier and neater situation as the pain applies to the same person, but based on the same concept. Fillings hurt - without novocaine they hurt a hell of a lot, but they hurt less over time than not filling that tooth.

So to come back to the example you have to posit something worse than child-rape happening that child-rape could prevent. Again we are into comic book/ Peter Singer class discussion level of realism here but given the scenario of "rape this child or I detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of NYC" with established certainty that it is both possible the speaker can detonate such a bomb and certain he will not do so if said child is raped, then what kind of person would not value the lives of millions and long term health of tens of millions, including millions of children, over the physically moderate and mentally quite severe but survivable pain of one child?

[GliderGuider]

129. While I agree completely, I'm still left wondering about one thing

A few people have raised the point that even if it was somehow justifiable "it's still just plain fucking wrong". I don't see the word "wrong" anywhere in your analysis. What does the word "wrong" mean in this context, or does it even have a place in the discussion?

[dmallind]

132. Quite simply wrong = greater harm or less benefit than alternatives

would be the way utilitarianism would see it, although generally not the word used. While you get some dissension, the vast majority of utilitarians apply a universalized view. So if I make a moral choice that gains me $100 but loses my neighbor his house and his job, that would be a "wrong" choice.

In this case child rape would always be wrong UNLESS it prevented some greater harm to either the victim or more victims.

Clearly there is no hard and fast conversion rate and some examples of course get murky (as they do in any teleological ethical system, or even deontological ones for those with more nuance than Christine " I would tell the truth to the gestapo officers asking if there were Jews in my house" O'Donnell). MY own silly example would be pretty easy if it were to occur, but what happens if child rape could avoid a handful of children being beaten severely, which also causes physical damage greater than rape but mental damage, while not nil, probably slightly less than rape.

A choice is normally considered ethically sound if the moral agent making the choice applies this kind of felicife calculus to all reasonably foreseeable results of his actions and makes a decision on that basis. Obviously I could buy a used car from a person who sends that money to a terrorist group who uses it to blow up Chicago. Horrible utility, but unforeseeable unless I buy from a guy with a sign on his garage sale saying "Al Qaeda Fundraiser" in which case I would be making a poor ethical choice to give him money. Same here. If some loony says "rape this child or I blow up NYC" out of the blue, you laugh at him and call the cops. If it's instead supported by verifiable evidence that he indeed can and will blow up NYC if you don't rape the child (again silly example, but illustrative) then "sorry kid" is the ethically sound response.

I don;t want to put words in others' mouths but I suspect some of those who say it's always wrong may mean one of two things

1) It always causes serious harm to rape a child. Inarguably true.
2) It should always be the generally universalized rule of morally sound behavior that you should never rape a child. Also inarguably true.

Where I differ is only in applying act/rule utilitarianism that states that given the circumstances, ANY action can be morally sound. The worse the harm caused by that action the less likely and more fantastical are the circumstances that would make it a sound choice, but killing one million people to save one billion people is an easy choice for me morally (buggered if I can think of a scenario not out of sci-fi though).

Personally I think the far greater outrageous choice is the reverse. Those who say it's absolutely, no exceptions, always a wrong moral action to rape a child should be asked if they would kill millions if child rape were the only alternative (as wacked out and unlikely as that may be). Perhaps to make that slightly more imaginable I would ask the old chestnut: Given enough data to conclude that WW2 would simply have been a territorial fight with no holocaust victims without Hitler (it's a scenario, not my opinion or assumption BTW), and imagining that you have a ten year old Hitler in your power for only two minutes due to some wormhole in space/time that will never reoccur, do you kill him or not?