So the next time there is an unresolved charge of sexual assault against an applicant to teach kindergarten, remember #SusanCollins' advice: when applicants for a job face a charge of misconduct, they are owed the presumption of innocence.— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) October 5, 2018
Although Kavanaugh has been sworn in, there are some ethical reverberations that continue to merit discussion. Here's the viewpoint of Arminian theologian Randal Rauser (see above). By way of comment:
1. It's silly to use Susan Collins to frame the issue. She's not my standard of comparison.
2. Risk assessment involves two factors: (i) how likely it is to happen; (ii) how harmful if it happens. We counterbalance these factors in risk assessment.
3. Given Rauser's soft views on homosexuality, what's his position on known homosexuals as kindergarten teachers?
4. Of course, little kids are especially vulnerable, but that's not equally analogous to every other group.
5. Where does Rauser drawn the line on banning people from jobs based on uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault? To what extent are they still employable at all, given his position?
6. What about ex-wives who accuse the husband of child molestation in a custody battle. Given the potential for harm, if true, would Rauser say a father should be denied custody or even visitation rights based on unsubstantiated allegations of child molestation? That would mean every ex-wife and mother would automatically win a custody battle by merely alleging child molestation. Is that Rauser's standard?
7. Should Rauser be terminated as a seminary prof. if an uncorroborated charge of sexual misconduct with a student is lodged?
"Given Rauser's soft views on homosexuality, what's his position on known homosexuals as kindergarten teachers?"
ReplyDeleteI think we need to be extremely clear on what you mean here as you seem to be suggesting that being homosexual also entails being a paedophile.
I think we need to be extremely clear on the correlation between homosexuality and sexual abuse. According to the John Jay report, "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male."
DeleteHow do you explain that? It's not as if 80% of men are homosexual. According to a CDC survey, only 1.6% of the American population identified as gay or lesbian.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
That suggests homosexual men are less than 1% of men generally. So how do you account for the overwhelmingly disproportionate male-on-male sex abuse scandal in Catholicism–to take a well-documented example?
BTW, I didn't use the word "paedophile." So you're the one who's explicitly linking homosexuality to paedophilia.
Steve, I can't imagine any reasonable person being able to infer anything from your sentence "...known homosexuals as kindergarten teachers..." other than that you believe homosexuality and paedophilia are connected. As for the Catholic church, how I would "account for the overwhelmingly disproportionate male-on-male sex abuse scandal in Catholicism" is by pointing out the obvious: there are no women training to be Catholic priests.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure most people reading about the scandals in the Catholic church and similar problems in other churches are far more concerned that children have been abused than that adults have had homosexual relationships. You seem to find it difficult to differentiate these two separate problems. As Jay points out, "Priests who had same-sex sexual experiences either before seminary or in seminary were more likely to have sexual behaviour after ordination, but this behaviour was most likely with adults. These men were not significantly more likely to abuse minors."
The fact that priests are male doesn't begin to explain the overwhelmingly disproportionate male-on-male sex abuse scandal in Catholicism inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of men in general are heterosexual, so generally a sexual abuse scandal involving men will be male-on-female. Pretty obvious. You seem to find it difficult to draw that rudimentary distinction.
Deletei) It's always revealing that enablers only care about empowering homosexuals rather than protecting minors.
Deleteii) In popular usage, pedophilia is a coarse-grained term. Depending on the age group, there are more discriminating designations, viz. ephebophile, hebophile.
iii) "Entailment" connotes a necessary or inevitable correspondence. But the high gender correlation doesn't require one-to-one correspondence to be statistically significant.
iv) Homosexual pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia is more specific than generic pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia because it selects for victims of the same sex.
It's revealing that people like you try to shift the discussion from statistics to labels. Since you don't wish deal with the statistics, you try to make it a semantic debate.
DeleteI'm somewhat concerned that you haven't taken the opportunity of correcting my inference that I drew attention to in my first comment. I'm at a loss as to how else to interpret number 3 in your article unless you state what you mean explicitly.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite correct that I do find it difficult to draw rudimentary distinctions as they tend to suffer from the problem of missing many of the contextual details that make social phenomenon meaningful. In this instance, it is true that the overwhelming majority of men are heterosexual but it is also true that the majority of men do not go in to seminaries to train as priests. Presumably, for example, before women in the Navy were given front-line service on ships all ship-bound sex scandals would've been homosexual whereas there are now heterosexual scandals reported.
i) The problem is not all-male seminarians, but the fact that Catholic clergy are disproportionately homosexual. Many evangelical denominations restrict eldership to men, but that doesn't generate the male-on-male sexual abuse scandal we witness in Catholicism because most evangelical elders are heterosexual (there's the occasional closet homosexual). And that's because there's no policy of mandatory celibacy, so normal men attend evangelical seminaries.
Deleteii) As for your example, some straight men temporarily resort to sodomy when women are unavailable, viz. prisons. Although the behavior is stereotypically homosexual, the "orientation" is heterosexual.
OK, I see you've added some more comments some of which seem very puzzling at first sight so I'll take some time to think about them and reply later.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not sure I can untangle all of those statements but I'll try.
ReplyDelete"i) It's always revealing that enablers..." I genuinely can't make any sense of this. Who or what are 'enablers'? My whole point is that you seemed to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse.
"ii) In popular usage, pedophilia is a coarse-grained term." Yes, in non-academic discourse it's an inclusive term for anyone who sexually abuses a child. I don't know whether you've got children, Steve, but I have to tell you that if anyone had tried abusing my daughter when she was a child I wouldn't have wasted any time giving them a survey to determine if they were 'ephebophiles' or 'hebophiles' and, as I don't think this is an academic or scientific paper we're writing, I'm not going to waste any time looking up those terms to see what they mean.
"iii) "Entailment" connotes a necessary or inevitable correspondence." It's not clear from this whether you've understood the information I was trying to elicit from you with my original post.
iv) seems to be irrelevant or meaningless or, possibly, both.
"It's revealing that people like you..." Oh dear! You're going to have to tell me who 'people like me' are. Personally, I've never met anyone like me. "Since you don't wish [to] deal with the statistics..." I suspect that 'people like me' object to anyone being treated as mere statistics. "...you try to make it a semantic debate." Since my original point was a semantic one, I would say that this is a semantic debate and you're trying to shift it to a statistical one.
"Although the behaviour is stereotypically homosexual, the "orientation" is heterosexual." ...
Hi Chris,
DeleteIf I can weigh in:
"My whole point is that you seemed to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse."
1. Why choose? Both are bad.
2. Also, if NAMBLA gets its way, then homosexuality and pedophilia and pederasty (which is quite arguably tantamount to child abuse) may be more connected than ever.
Of course, NAMBLA is a controversial but long established homosexual organization (since the 1970s) that advocates there's no problem with pedophilia and pederasty. My read is, while many homosexuals outright reject NAMBLA, many homosexuals don't, and many homosexuals couldn't care one way or the other (which is itself worrisome). And some homosexuals even argue for NAMBLA or its philosophy.
I don't know that there's an equivalent heterosexual activist organization of similar size, scope, and significance for pedophilia as NAMBLA - is there? More to the point, my read is the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals reject pedophilia, whereas the majority of homosexuals currently reject pedophilia and pederasty, but my impression is there's a growing minority of homosexuals who support it, and, again, many homosexuals who aren't opposed to pedophilia but who wouldn't argue for it, which is itself disconcerting. At least, pedophilia doesn't seem anywhere near as hotly debated among heterosexuals in general as it is among the wider homosexual community.
"Yes, in non-academic discourse it's an inclusive term for anyone who sexually abuses a child. I don't know whether you've got children, Steve, but I have to tell you that if anyone had tried abusing my daughter when she was a child I wouldn't have wasted any time giving them a survey to determine if they were 'ephebophiles' or 'hebophiles' and, as I don't think this is an academic or scientific paper we're writing, I'm not going to waste any time looking up those terms to see what they mean."
I think it's important to better define what we mean, make distinctions, and the like in a debate. After all, as you pointed out, we need to be "extremely clear" on what we mean, right?
Chris Morris
Delete"My whole point is that you seemed to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse."
False dichotomy. They're statistically linked.
Sorry, I missed this reply.
Delete"They're statistically linked." It's possible to link anything, statistically so, no, it's not a false dichotomy. My original comment is still unanswered.
The link is quite specific. You offered no adequate alternative explanation.
DeleteHello, EoD.
ReplyDelete"Why choose? Both are bad." You're kidding... Abusing children is about the worst criminal offence possible whereas homosexual acts between consenting adults, no matter what your religious beliefs tell you, are not. Non-consensual sex, of any sort, is rape and therefore is also a serious criminal offence.
I'm sorry but I have no idea what NAMBLA stands for.
"I think it's important to better define what we mean... After all, as you pointed out, we need to be "extremely clear" on what we mean, right?" Well, in my experience defining the life out of ideas quite often makes things much less clear whereas articulating ideas in plain language may make things 'extremely clear'.
"You're kidding... Abusing children is about the worst criminal offence possible whereas homosexual acts between consenting adults, no matter what your religious beliefs tell you, are not. Non-consensual sex, of any sort, is rape and therefore is also a serious criminal offence."
Delete1. I'm afraid by this logic it means pedophilia is fine if the child or adolescent or underaged person "consents". Suppose a 14 year old "consents" to an adult having sexual feelings for them.
2. Also, to be more clear, pedophilia is about sexual feelings, not sexual acts. Is it fine to have sexual feelings toward a child or underaged person so long as one doesn't act on these feelings?
"I'm sorry but I have no idea what NAMBLA stands for."
NAMBLA = North American Man/Boy Love Association. A very prominent homosexual organization in the United States.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're in the UK? And from an older generation? If so, then that might explain why you're not aware of NAMBLA let alone its prominence.
"Well, in my experience defining the life out of ideas quite often makes things much less clear whereas articulating ideas in plain language may make things 'extremely clear'."
I don't see that Steve has crossed the line into "defining the life out of ideas".
NAMBLA and the like-minded typically argue the age of consent should be abolished or significantly lowered. They argue children can consent.
Delete"1. I'm afraid by this logic..." Logic has very little part to play in this, it's the Law: no child can consent to sexual activity (in the UK at least, I presume the same applies in the USA). Even if the child is willing it is still rape.
ReplyDelete"2. Also, to be more clear, pedophilia is about sexual feelings, not sexual acts." It's about all sorts of things, for example the exercise of power but what the moral status of unexpressed feelings may be is well beyond the scope of this conversation as far as I'm concerned.
"I don't see that Steve has crossed the line into 'defining the life out of ideas'." No, I don't think there's a line to be crossed, just a sliding scale of gradually picking the flesh off of reality until only a few dead bones are left.
"Logic has very little part to play in this, it's the Law: no child can consent to sexual activity (in the UK at least, I presume the same applies in the USA). Even if the child is willing it is still rape."
Delete1. What is the law based on if not logic?
2. I'm afraid you've just moved the goalposts. Originally your argument was based on consent. That's why I responded the way I did. However, now your argument has shifted so that it's an argument based on the law.
3. Homosexuals and pedophiles argue the law should be changed.
4. According to your present argument, if the law is changed so pedophilia is legal, then pedophilia should be morally acceptable.
Similarly, same sex marriage used to be illegal. When same sex marriage was illegal, then, according to your argument, it was immoral too.
In short, your argument based on the law backfires if applied consisently.
"It's about all sorts of things, for example the exercise of power but what the moral status of unexpressed feelings may be is well beyond the scope of this conversation as far as I'm concerned."
1. Feelings are relevant to the topic inasmuch as sexual attraction involves the entirety of a person including their feelings, emotions, thoughts, and everything else that makes a person a sexual being. Or to put it another way, love is not merely feeling, but love is not less than feeling.
2. Let the record show what you say here isn't a response to my question: Is it morally acceptable to have sexual feelings toward a child or underaged person so long as one doesn't act on these feelings?
"No, I don't think there's a line to be crossed, just a sliding scale of gradually picking the flesh off of reality until only a few dead bones are left."
In that case, I don't see Steve is anywhere near "gradually picking the flesh off of reality until only a few dead bones are left".
Good responses.
DeleteThanks, Jesse! :)
DeleteWhile I'm eating my breakfast, I'll just add some thoughts here although I suspect you may see the conversation as already completed.
ReplyDelete"What is the law based on if not logic?" You'll probably need to ask a lawyer that one.
"I'm afraid you've just moved the goalposts." I didn't realise we had any goalposts. This conversation has arisen simply because I wanted to give Steve the chance to clarify something he wrote in the original article. I haven't expressed any arguments, I've only responded to whatever comments you and Steve have presented in the hope that Steve would eventually clarify his original point.
"2. Let the record show what you say here isn't a response to my question..." Erm… let the record show...? That's slightly odd, especially as Steve is flooding his blog with articles (some of which are in response to points that have arisen here so I'm pleased to see that what I've written is taken as a serious challenge) possibly in an attempt to bury this conversation!
I didn't answer the question directly because it doesn't really make sense - I could ask "is it morally acceptable for you to think I'm an evil old man because I disagree with some of your views?" or "is it morally acceptable for General Kelly to think that President Trump is a moron as long as he doesn't say it out loud?"
"In that case, I don't see Steve is anywhere near..." Well, that's for Steve to consider, it's just my opinion of how the way Steve articulates his views looks to someone who doesn't know him.
Chris Morris
ReplyDelete"While I'm eating my breakfast, I'll just add some thoughts here although I suspect you may see the conversation as already completed."
Cool, breakfast is nice. But yeah, in this latest reply of yours, unfortunately, you don't really say a whole lot that I can respond to. It's mainly just you attempting to explain yourself for whatever reason, but there's not much for me to work with, I'm afraid. Still, that won't stop me from trying. :)
"You'll probably need to ask a lawyer that one."
Of course, my question was rhetorical.
"I haven't expressed any arguments"
Well, you did say things like: "My whole point is that you seemed to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse"; "Non-consensual sex, of any sort, is rape and therefore is also a serious criminal offence"; and "Logic has very little part to play in this, it's the Law: no child can consent to sexual activity...Even if the child is willing it is still rape."
What are these if not arguments for a particular position (yes, another rhetorical question)?
"...possibly in an attempt to bury this conversation!"
Not sure why you're jumping to conclusions without concrete evidence. It could just as easily be that Steve is posting a lot of posts because he wants to share useful information with his audience. You don't know what Steve's motives are without Steve expressing them. At best, you're speculating. However, by attempting to impute suspicious motives to Steve, you're arguably attempting to poison the well against him.
"I didn't answer the question directly because it doesn't really make sense"
1. You never say what doesn't make sense about the question. At most you give what you assume to be analogous questions. However, these questions you ask aren't analogous to my question at all. At least, you don't explain how they're analogous. You just assume without explanation that they're analogous.
2. Still, as far as these questions are concerned, even these questions "make sense" and can be answered.
"is it morally acceptable for you to think I'm an evil old man because I disagree with some of your views?"
Here's an answer to this first question: It depends on the views in question. If the views are innocous views, like the view that my favorite sports team is better than your favorite sports team, then it would not be morally acceptable for me to think you're "an evil old man" for holding a contrary view to mine about a sports team.
However, if the view in question is something like, "I believe it's morally acceptable to rape and murder innocent people", then obviously that view has moral entailments, and it would be justifiable to consider you an "evil" person if you actually hold to and argued for those views.
"is it morally acceptable for General Kelly to think that President Trump is a moron as long as he doesn't say it out loud?"
If there's reasonable justification for Kelly to think Trump is a "moron", then it is morally acceptable for Kelly to think Trump is a "moron" even though Kelly "doesn't say it out loud".
Now, how about my question? Is it morally acceptable to have sexual feelings toward a child or underaged person so long as one doesn't act on these feelings?
"What are these if not arguments for a particular position..?" Well, in my view they are factual statements offered as clarification or rebuttal.
ReplyDelete"Not sure why you're jumping to conclusions without concrete evidence..." My almost baseless speculation about Steve's actions were meant to demonstrate how easy it is to 'impute suspicious motives' when we have very little reliable information to work with. Your original question was: "Is it fine [morally acceptable] to have sexual feelings towards a child or underaged person so long as one doesn't act on these feelings?" My inability to make sense of the question stands. We don't choose whether to have sexual feelings or not and moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions.
My apologies if I'm not giving you much to work with but, as I've mentioned a couple of times, my original post was simply offering Steve the opportunity of clarifying what appeared to me to be an ambiguous point, rather than being the opening statement of a debate on morals (not that I ever object to having a moral philosophy debate, of course).
"Well, in my view they are factual statements offered as clarification or rebuttal."
DeleteAh, but to say these are "factual statements" is the very point in dispute! :)
Also, you're still taking a particular position which, as you say, is "offered" for "rebuttal".
"My almost baseless speculation about Steve's actions were meant to demonstrate how easy it is to 'impute suspicious motives' when we have very little reliable information to work with."
Sure, it's easy to "impute" anything to anyone. For example, there have been women who have falsely accused innocent men of sexual assault without a single shred of evidence whatsoever. That may damage his good name, but it's still a false allegation. By contrast, if there's actual reasonable evidence that he did commit sexual assault, then he's guilty. But these things can't be predetermined. They need to be weighed on a case by case basis. Sometimes the man is guilty, other times the man is innocent. It just depends.
"We don't choose whether to have sexual feelings or not and moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions."
If that's true, then that opens you up to taking the position that pedophilia is morally licit, because the pedophile could simply say: "I didn't choose to have sexual feelings toward children or not. I just have these sexual feelings toward children. But I'm not morally culpable for having these sexual feelings toward children, because moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions."
"My apologies if I'm not giving you much to work with"
Please no need to apologize! Perhaps I should be the one apologizing, for I didn't mean to imply this was something for which you needed to apologize! Rather I just meant to make an observation, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If so, that's my fault!
"as I've mentioned a couple of times, my original post was simply offering Steve the opportunity of clarifying what appeared to me to be an ambiguous point"
Right, understood, but for my part I was just responding to statements you yourself made. :)
"Ah, but to say these are 'factual statements' is the very point in dispute!" Yes, by all means, dispute the rebuttals as facts. The point of clarification (that Steve seemed to me to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse) is indisputable because it was a report of how something seemed to me. Of course, you can dispute that Steve's concerns where in fact expressing such a view.
ReplyDelete"For example, there have been women who have falsely accused innocent men..." Yes, I've got no disagreement with that.
"If that's true, then that opens you up to taking the position..." Yes, how is that disagreeing with what I said? I might have sexual feelings for next door's Christmas tree which I can't help but it only becomes a problem if I can't control myself and jump on it.
"...I was just responding to statements you yourself made." Yes, that's ok. I'm always happy to examine views that I don't normally come across every day.
"The point of clarification (that Steve seemed to me to be more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse) is indisputable because it was a report of how something seemed to me."
DeleteObviously I can't speak for Steve. However, even if (arguendo) it's true that Steve is more concerned with homosexuality than child abuse, I don't see why that's a problem. It could be Steve thinks both are bad, but homosexuality is worse. But again, I can't speak for Steve, so I'm merely speculating.
"Yes, how is that disagreeing with what I said?"
Since you agree, the obvious problem is your position logically commits you to concluding pedophilia is morally licit. That an adult having sexual feelings (not sexual acts) toward a child is morally acceptable.
By contrast, the vast majority of people in the world would find pedophilia (sexual feelings toward a child) odious to say the least. (Of course, sexual acts toward a child would be even worse.)
"I might have sexual feelings for next door's Christmas tree which I can't help but it only becomes a problem if I can't control myself and jump on it."
So you don't think it's a problem to have sexual feelings toward a Christmas tree so long as you don't act on these sexual feelings? I would tend to think if someone genuinely has sexual feelings toward a Christmas tree, even if they don't act on these feelings or desires or the like, then there's something mentally or psychologically off about such a person. They're not in the norm of humanity. After all, most people in the world don't have sexual feelings toward Christmas trees.
"I'm always happy to examine views that I don't normally come across every day."
Same here. Glad we agree here.
As ever, the difficulty of explaining complicated ideas in short posts is causing confusion. Some commenters on blogs try to get round this problem by linking to books or articles that save them the time and trouble of long and detailed explanations but I feel some obligation to support my own ideas with my own explanations, and I have no choice in whether I feel this or not but I do have a choice as to whether to act on it or not. So I choose to try and offer the best explanations of my views that I can given the time constraints of a normal life. However, I think it would be wrong of me to not put the washing on or to not pick my wife up from work this evening because I'm busy writing comments on blogs.
ReplyDeleteSo, let me attempt to clear up some of your confusion:
"Since you agree..." I agreed with your example of a court case being decided by the evidence rather than the beliefs or feelings of the people involved. Who would disagree with that?
If this 'logically commits me to concluding paedophilia is morally licit' then it also commits you to the same view. My point, I repeat, is that we don't choose to have feelings, they are built in to us as physical beings - I can't help feeling hungry if I haven't eaten or feeling pain if I stub my toe on the chair leg. For all I know, there are actually people who have sexual feelings for Christmas trees (when you get to my age, there's very little that surprises you about humans) but the point is I don't know because I've never come across anyone who has expressed that view or acted on it.
I can't read Steve's mind so I can't know whether he sees homosexuality as being equivalent to or linked to paedophilia but he made a public comment which appeared to me to suggest that homosexuals as kindergarten teachers would be paedophiles. I asked him to clarify this point and he said that, no, he hadn't mentioned paedophiles, that it was me that was making that link. Now, for me, that would've stood as an acceptable answer but Steve blurred the issue by also bringing in other things about Catholic priests and statistics. He later also completely turned this upside down by claiming that there IS a direct link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Presumably it's possible to argue that there are different levels of feelings, some more instinctual than others, but this is a long and well-trodden path which is why I said earlier that "...what the moral status of unexpressed feelings may be is well beyond the scope of this conversation as far as I'm concerned."
Chris Morris
Delete"As ever, the difficulty of explaining complicated ideas in short posts is causing confusion. Some commenters on blogs try to get round this problem by linking to books or articles that save them the time and trouble of long and detailed explanations but I feel some obligation to support my own ideas with my own explanations, and I have no choice in whether I feel this or not but I do have a choice as to whether to act on it or not. So I choose to try and offer the best explanations of my views that I can given the time constraints of a normal life. However, I think it would be wrong of me to not put the washing on or to not pick my wife up from work this evening because I'm busy writing comments on blogs."
You're no different from most adults in this regard. Nearly every adult is busy. Certainly I'm quite busy. I'm a physician in training with a young family to support. In fact, I would wager I'm likely busier than you are. For one thing, in a different post, you mentioned you're retired.
"So, let me attempt to clear up some of your confusion:"
No confusion on my part. I took you at your own words. If there's confusion, as you claim there is, then it must be on your end, not mine.
"I agreed with your example of a court case being decided by the evidence rather than the beliefs or feelings of the people involved. Who would disagree with that?"
Sorry, you're mistaken. Here's what you originally said: "We don't choose whether to have sexual feelings or not and moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions."
Here's what I said in response: "If that's true, then that opens you up to taking the position that pedophilia is morally licit, because the pedophile could simply say: 'I didn't choose to have sexual feelings toward children or not. I just have these sexual feelings toward children. But I'm not morally culpable for having these sexual feelings toward children, because moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions.'"
Here's what you said in response: "Yes, how is that disagreeing with what I said? I might have sexual feelings for next door's Christmas tree which I can't help but it only becomes a problem if I can't control myself and jump on it."
Here's what I said in response: "Since you agree, the obvious problem is your position logically commits you to concluding pedophilia is morally licit. That an adult having sexual feelings (not sexual acts) toward a child is morally acceptable."
In short, I said "If that's true..." and you said "Yes" which means you agree. In fact, what's more, you even went on to make an argument from analogy: You likened having sexual feelings toward a child (pedophilia) with having sexual feelings with a Christmas tree! Others can follow our statements and see whether or not my assessment of what you've said is valid, sound, logical, reasonable.
"If this 'logically commits me to concluding paedophilia is morally licit' then it also commits you to the same view."
DeleteSaying so doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate how this commits me to the same. However, that'll prove difficult if not impossible because I never gave my own argument about this (like you gave your argument from analogy).
"My point, I repeat, is that we don't choose to have feelings, they are built in to us as physical beings - I can't help feeling hungry if I haven't eaten or feeling pain if I stub my toe on the chair leg. For all I know, there are actually people who have sexual feelings for Christmas trees (when you get to my age, there's very little that surprises you about humans) but the point is I don't know because I've never come across anyone who has expressed that view or acted on it."
And my point, I repeat, is if what you say is true, if "we don't choose to have feelings, they are built in to us as physical beings", and if what you said earlier is likewise true (i.e. "moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions"), then the pedophile could use the same logic to argue he's not morally culpable for having sexual feelings toward children, because he or she didn't "choose" to have sexual feelings toward children, these feelings are just "built in" to him or her as a pedophile. So far, your attempts to "clear up some of [my] confusion" haven't "cleared up" anything, but on the contrary what you've said reinforces I'm correct in my assessment about your statements.
"I can't read Steve's mind so I can't know whether he sees homosexuality as being equivalent to or linked to paedophilia but he made a public comment which appeared to me to suggest that homosexuals as kindergarten teachers would be paedophiles. I asked him to clarify this point and he said that, no, he hadn't mentioned paedophiles, that it was me that was making that link. Now, for me, that would've stood as an acceptable answer but Steve blurred the issue by also bringing in other things about Catholic priests and statistics. He later also completely turned this upside down by claiming that there IS a direct link between homosexuality and paedophilia."
Well, I'm not Steve, so this statement is neither here nor there for me.
"Presumably it's possible to argue that there are different levels of feelings, some more instinctual than others, but this is a long and well-trodden path which is why I said earlier that "...what the moral status of unexpressed feelings may be is well beyond the scope of this conversation as far as I'm concerned.""
That's up to you, of course, though I never had any qualms about going there.
As far as this post is concerned, however, I can only respond to what you've said, not to what you haven't said.
"For one thing, in a different post, you mentioned you're retired."
DeleteOr close to retirement.
Chris Morris
Delete"We don't choose whether to have sexual feelings or not and moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions."
"Yes, how is that disagreeing with what I said? I might have sexual feelings for next door's Christmas tree which I can't help but it only becomes a problem if I can't control myself and jump on it."
"My point, I repeat, is that we don't choose to have feelings, they are built in to us as physical beings - I can't help feeling hungry if I haven't eaten or feeling pain if I stub my toe on the chair leg."
1. It's possible for the pedophile to argue the pedophile did not necessarily "freely choose" to have sexual feelings toward children. These sexual feelings toward children were "built into" the pedophile. The pedophile "can't help feeling" sexual feelings, desires, urges, and so on toward children.
Presumably this is similar to a heterosexual man who "can't help feeling" sexual feelings toward women (or at least women attractive to him). It doesn't mean the man will act on his sexual feelings toward women, let alone sexually assault women, but the heterosexual man "can't help feeling" sexual feelings toward women.
If the pedophile's sexual feelings toward children are like the heterosexual man's sexual feelings toward women, which is a reasonable inference from your statements, then it's arguable there's nothing morally wrong with the pedophile having sexual feelings toward children, according to your statements.
2. In any case, at a bare minimum, your statements logically lead to the conclusion that pedophilia (sexual feelings toward children) is not morally inculpable, since "moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions".
3. Of course, you've already attempted to qualify what you said. But as I've shown above, your qualifications only further reinforced my point that your statements open you up to pedophilia being morally licit or at least not morally illicit.
You can retract what you have said, but that would mean conceding your current position as it stands.
I've just replied but the post disappeared because the wi-fi dropped out so I'll try again and apologise if you get two posts saying the same thing!
DeleteUnfortunately, due entirely to my not being sufficiently clear about what I was doing, you've misconstrued my first paragraph. I was not in any way suggesting I was too busy to partake here. Rather, I was trying to provide another example of the difference between feelings and actions. Just to be absolutely clear, I am retired and conversations such as this are simply a hobby for me; when I have other things to do they are set aside and occasionally forgotten altogether.
I think a full response to your three posts would probably require us to repeat the whole conversation all over again which seems a bit of a waste of time so I'll just give a summary of the sort of ideas that I've presented in response to your questions.
I don't think we can be held responsible for our feelings, no matter what they're about or directed at. Thus, I agree with you that criminals of all types can, and frequently do, attempt to argue that they couldn't help their feelings therefore they couldn't help acting on them. The legal system and Western society in general does not recognise this argument, it views feelings and actions as separate and considers moral culpability to enter the argument at the point of action unless it can be proven that the actor is not mentally competent.
"Well, I'm not Steve, so this statement is neither here nor there for me." I presumed this was a single conversation and you were either speaking for Steve or with his blessing but if that's not the case please feel free to ignore those comments.
"I've just replied but the post disappeared because the wi-fi dropped out so I'll try again and apologise if you get two posts saying the same thing!"
DeleteSorry to hear that. But yeah, unfortunately, technology isn't always reliable.
"Unfortunately, due entirely to my not being sufficiently clear about what I was doing, you've misconstrued my first paragraph. I was not in any way suggesting I was too busy to partake here. Rather, I was trying to provide another example of the difference between feelings and actions. Just to be absolutely clear, I am retired and conversations such as this are simply a hobby for me; when I have other things to do they are set aside and occasionally forgotten altogether."
Fair enough. I guess as far as hobbies go, it's not a bad one to have! Otherwise I'd be in trouble too. :)
"I think a full response to your three posts would probably require us to repeat the whole conversation all over again which seems a bit of a waste of time so I'll just give a summary of the sort of ideas that I've presented in response to your questions."
Sounds good.
"I don't think we can be held responsible for our feelings, no matter what they're about or directed at. Thus, I agree with you that criminals of all types can, and frequently do, attempt to argue that they couldn't help their feelings therefore they couldn't help acting on them. The legal system and Western society in general does not recognise this argument, it views feelings and actions as separate and considers moral culpability to enter the argument at the point of action unless it can be proven that the actor is not mentally competent."
1. I think you might be conflating morality with legality. What's legal isn't necessarily moral. What's moral isn't necessarily legal.
2. In any case, the law may not have anything to say to a pedophile who never acts out his sexual feelings toward children. I wouldn't know because I'm not a lawyer. However, most people in most places at most times would think there's something off or askew about a person who has sexual feelings toward children even if the pedophile never acts out on these feelings. Just as most people would think there's something off or askew about a person who has sexual feelings toward Christmas trees even if the person never acts out on these feelings. As such, the issue of sexual feelings (e.g. pedophilia) isn't solely a legal issue, but a moral issue too (among other issues).
"I presumed this was a single conversation and you were either speaking for Steve or with his blessing but if that's not the case please feel free to ignore those comments."
1. Nah, that'd just be weird, man. I never asked nor received Steve's "blessing". I would think the general presumption in any discussion is every person speaks for themselves.
2. Perhaps you should consider directly asking Steve your questions if you wish for him to respond?
"I think you might be conflating morality with legality..." It seems reasonable to say that the two are vaguely connected (and just in case you misinterpret this, I mean that 'literally' not 'ironically') as they are both manifestations of the general attitude formation of society. The reason for, in part, looking at this from a legalistic point of view, for me, is precisely what you recognise in your comment above. As you say, the majority of people would, undoubtedly, think that there's something wrong with sexual feelings towards children but I suspect that if you pushed those people to analyse why they think that, most of them (and, again, just to be clear I include myself in this group) would say that it's because acting on those impulses is harmful. In a practical sense, it's not just a case of "the law may not have anything to say to a pedophile who never acts out his sexual feelings toward children" but that it absolutely cannot say anything about it in the same way, as I agreed with you earlier, that it can't say anything about an accusation of sexual misconduct that has no evidence to support it.
ReplyDeleteThe implication of this, and presumably the point of confusion that I've not made sufficiently explicit, is how you would legislate (in its broadest sense) against people feeling things that have bad outcomes. My own view is that you do your best to add your voice to the general discourse. As I indicated in our previous conversation, I'm old enough to be aware that attitudes in society do gradually change. I know that the general attitude towards paedophiles has strengthened since the 1950s mainly due to people recognising that it is harmful.
"Perhaps you should consider directly asking Steve your questions if you wish him to respond?" Well, as I don't have Steve's address or phone number the best I can manage is to comment on his blog which is actually how this conversation started. As you can see, I asked him a couple of questions just before you entered the conversation which he hasn't answered but it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!
1. Of course, the legal issues are important. However, I don't see the legal issues as fundamental to this discussion. That's in large part because laws can be changed. After all, homosexuals argue laws should be changed, say, toward same-sex marriage. Likewise homosexuals like NAMBLA argue the law should be changed toward pedophilia and pederasty (e.g. lowering or abolishing the age of consent because in their view the underaged can consent). If laws should be changed, then the question arises, why should laws be changed? That's the deeper question.
Delete2. Now, I find pedophilia morally odious. I think most people find in the world would find pedophilia morally odious. You yourself suggest you find pedophilia morally odious in your earlier comments above.
At the same time, your earlier comments above entail there's nothing necessarily morally wrong with having sexual feelings toward children as long as the sexual feelings aren't acted on, in the same or similar way that there's nothing necessarily morally wrong with having sexual feelings toward Christmas trees as long as the sexual feelings aren't acted on. As you have said: "We don't choose whether to have sexual feelings or not and moral culpability only enters the picture in the context of freely chosen actions."
That's about as clear a statement as there can be with the direct implication that the pedophile who did not choose to have sexual feelings toward children and who does not act on these sexual feelings toward children is not morally culpable for having sexual feelings toward children! The legal issues aren't even primary in this statement of yours given you spoke about moral culpability.
"Well, as I don't have Steve's address or phone number the best I can manage is to comment on his blog which is actually how this conversation started. As you can see, I asked him a couple of questions just before you entered the conversation which he hasn't answered but it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!"
Just scrolling up, it looks to me like Steve has had several replies to your questions.
1. "Why should laws be changed?" Because societies change.
ReplyDelete2. I'm sorry but I've run out of different ways of repeating this. Any sort of child abuse is morally odious. Any sort of basic feelings cannot be considered from a moral perspective because they do not involve free choice. When they are freely acted on they become subject to moral judgments. Can I make that view any clearer?
"...it looks to me like Steve has had several replies to your questions." Correct
"...I asked him a couple of questions just before you entered the conversation which he hasn't answered..." Also correct.
Chris Morris
Delete"Because societies change."
In which case a society could change the law so pederasty (which is an example of child abuse) is legal.
"Any sort of child abuse is morally odious."
The issue isn't that child abuse is morally odious (since we both agree), but that your statements are inconsistent, as I've shown above more than once now.
"Any sort of basic feelings cannot be considered from a moral perspective because they do not involve free choice. When they are freely acted on they become subject to moral judgments."
Sorry, that's simplistic. For example:
A person who did not choose to have feelings of anger which could lead to murder (but hasn't yet) can still have their feelings of anger "considered from a moral perspective" (e.g. it's bad not good to have anger that could lead to murder).
A person who did not choose to have feelings of greed which could lead to them defrauding others or stealing from a business (but hasn't yet) can still have their feelings of greed "considered from a moral perspective" (e.g. it's bad not good to have greed that could lead to theft).
A person who did not choose to have feelings of egotism or narcissism which could lead to them taking advantage of others (but hasn't yet) can still have their feelings of egotism or narcissism "considered from a moral perspective (e.g. it's bad not good to have egotism or narcissism that could lead to manipulating others).
"Correct...Also correct."
Steve's last reply to you left it open for you to respond to him, which it looks like you never did.
"Any sort of basic feelings cannot be considered from a moral perspective because they do not involve free choice. When they are freely acted on they become subject to moral judgments."
DeleteFor example, suppose there's a proud, self-centered, or vain person who didn't choose to be proud, self-centered, or vain. There's nothing illegal about being proud, self-centered, or vain. Nevertheless, people can notice this person is a proud, self-centered, or vain person. When people notice this person is a proud, self-centered, or vain person, it's possible these people are rendering a "moral judgment" about this person. It's possible they are considering the person's pride, self-centeredness, or vanity "from a moral perspective".