Moral Judgments

Rrhain:You make some interesting points here, and I don't think there could ever be an easy answer on questions of morality. Imposing our sense of morality, on another culture I think is wrong, but I also think that it is wrong to sit by and watch people be subjected to horrific acts. Really I suppose for me it boils down to; if someone asks for help give it. On the other hand if all indications are that someone needs help but is unable to ask, then also give it. (hence why social science streams include assessing non verbal indicators)I also think taking a stand against something, or to assist someone is not an automatic implication that one can offer them a better alternative. So in all moral dilemmas again I come back to my already touted concept elsewhere, 'minimise harm' in all we do.Shaz

Hello Lizardbreath:You have made some very interesting points and none that I could respond to briefly, so I apologise for the length of this post as to fully explain my position required addressing all the points you made. I shall break your post up and address each point individually (and hopefully make sense) to show the premise behind my statement; that it is wrong to impose mores.The point made: I never used the term 'morally wrong', in fact I said imposing morals on another was wrong. Which is why I personalised my comment with the, I perspective. The term wrong I use as being applicable to, ‘the violation of rights of another’. The basic premise of rights I hold for all of mankind, is that of equal value. My statement is not meant to imply an imposition of my mores on anyone; nor judge their actions based on my mores. I merely try to live and act by the code; that we as human beings are of equal value and subsequently of equal rights.The basic premise of my belief I draw from this conclusion: Throughout our individual lives we learn, we grow, we experience, we develop knowledge and mores. No two set of mores can ever be totally alike, subsequently one set of mores could never be held as the standard. Though we develop over time, we all start from the basic precept of having life. If we do not hold to the basic precept that life forms should have rights and be protected, then we must acknowledge that every single thing on this planet has no value. If anyone can say that they place meaning/value in one single life form, even if only their own, then value of life is a reality. Life is also the only single common denonimater we all share from the first breath, when we are vulnerable. So I base my premise on that concept, that the basic sanctuary of life, should be respected and given value.‘Wrong’ - Re: beheading example. This example you use is implying that one set of mores is of higher value than the rights of another. If the beheaded woman knowingly volunteered, then one could say that no matter how repugnant I find the act, there is no wrongness with the act in itself. If on the other hand, the woman was not a willing participant, then by taking her life, that is placing the mores of the perpetrator above the rights of the victim.No matter what justification one place’s on the beheading act though, in relation to the universe or her biological elements, the taking of her life without her consent is a violation of the basic rights. If her right is to be equally valued, then that includes the right to self determination (that is not to say that determinatin and choice cannot be biased, or be at a disequilibrium). This is not based on any religious precept; it is merely a statement in relation to existence. On the other hand one could dispute whether she was of equal value, but again to do so would be applying ones own individual value/more system, and would be an act of supremacy. Taking this into account and my basic premise of equal value and rights; is why I hold the view that imposing mores on another is wrong.Your point in relation to mores and brain activity, I will post seperately in case the admin wish to move them to another thread.ShazThis message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 16:53 AM

Following on from previous thread.Mores and brain activity. Using the sun and an exploding comparison; is indeed relevant to the beheading scenario you pose. What I use my energy for, or how I wish it to be used in future, is my right to determine, and anyone taking that would be subjecting me to their value/mores system. The sun acting within its own energy base is very different, to one choosing to blow up the sun. If all matter is energy, then each component has its role. Though there may be interaction, cause and affect, consciously and forcibly attempting to alter the equilibrium of life, proposes judgement. In relation to mores and rights, a conflictual situation arises. You are also right in your comparison of beheading, and putting a dollar into a Salvation Army tin. Though in the giving of charity, you are not determining the affect on a specific individual, whereas with beheading you are. If you are the distributor of that charity though, then reasonably the same principle should apply, that all people are of equal value and rights. Anything less, is imposing ones individual value/mores on them, implying judgement and supremacy.Reason and method. IMHO, mores directly stem from the process of brain activity in relation to the cause and affect principle, which leads to intellectual reasoning. No two brains are wired in precisely the same manner, or have the exact same chemical composition. It is through knowledge and reasoning that one develops their set of mores, i.e. your nerves are wired to the physiological process of tactile stimuli. Example: You touch a hot plate, subsequently you avoid future episodes, then you get burnt by the sun, or stand too close to a heater, you may then begin to apply the same principle to all sources of heat or their like. However individual perception is a combination of other stimuli, cause and effect, much like your pebble example, it affects those in the vicinity, but it also is a component of the whole view.In the case of beheading, applying that to conscious thinking, the victim may have prior knowledge/experience of pain, fear of the unknown, fear of disempowerment or a myriad of other things, or equally none. Each emotion is connected to experiences, which make the collective consciousness of the individual. To say that there is no reason to our brain process, is like stating that the person’s experiences have not been real, and implies that the feeling or experience should be weighted according to a particular scale. Therefore attempting to apply any one set of mores to another being, is illogical, but a basic premise of rights is applicable to all.To test this, I could ask you to turn on a hot plate and tell a toddler with no prior experience of burn to put their hand on it. If I was to ask this though, it would be a confliction of rights and mores, i.e. demonstrating by example - knowingly inflicting harm to one who has no concept of the likely ramifications - my more: to harm a child is wrong - your more may equally be that the idea of harming a child is repugnant. If we reversed our mores though, to have no regard for the rights of the child, and tested the proposed idea, then we would be exerting our mores over the rights of the child, and subsequently we would be wrong. However if I turned on the hotplate and put my own hand on it, there is nothing right or wrong, it just is, albeit possibly stupid.Brain activity as a chance event. I disagree that the existence of the brain is merely a chance event, it ‘may’ be predetermined, but that is a different debate. Chance however implies to me, that we have no control over our existence, or what we come to learn or know. Knowledge and/or information, is a pivotal cornerstone in cause and affect.Example: I may choose to sunbake, being unaware of the suns radiation, I read about skin cancer, and that may then affect my attitude to sunbaking in future. Had I been given biased information, or influenced by someone I care about, that further adds to the weight of the information I receive.Equally if I was to watch a video of a beheading, and be repulsed, am I going to be the next time? Could I be repulsed today, and in two years find it provocative? Could I be the perpetrator today, and tomorrow decide I don’t wish to be that type of person, or vice versa? All these are possible, and all may be a product of our brain activity as you say. To imply though that these are chance, takes all onus of responsibility of me completely and places my perspective along the lines of either ignorance or supremacy thinking. It also implies that I; am without any concept of foresight, which may lead me to desire gaining knowledge and information. It also implies that I am unable to train my brain along a particular path, or that I may not influence its activity and neuron functioning. Basic chemical restraint, Neuro linguistic programming, hypnosis, speech pathology, sensory integration therapy, and many other therapies would not be successful if such was the case. Subsequently chance is only restricted by what I have access to, and my individual desire.Therefore I conclude, that wrong is indeed a component of our existance, but that it is merely a basis for placing value on life, because it is the common denominator we all share, have shared, and will share. Wrong is not a judgement, it is about the reality of upholding the right and the basic premise of equal value in life to all. Of course this is my perception and my mores, but as I said before I believe that it is entirely feasible that everyone places value in some life form, even if only themselves.Okay that is all, now you can shoot me down. ShazApologies for the length of this post.This message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 17:13 AM

Holmes:Excuse me for jumping in here, but we might need to butt heads again. After reading over the previous posts a couple of comments you made that I would like to see addressed. Really Holmes? I would like to see your support for that statement. Making an assertion that this is beyond dispute, does not gel with my knowledge of the social science industry. I am sorry Holmes, but again I need to ask for your supporting evidence of your comments: to seperate the level of harm in relation to rape, coercion, and sexual abuse. Having worked in the child protection industry, I have a different understanding than what you have stated. I am also interested in seeing your definitions to seperate, sexual abuse from coercion, and/or rape, and/or harm.Therefore Holmes could you please, either support your claims, rephrase them, or retract them.Shazedit ~ typoThis message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 18:36 AM

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

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

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

I have actually given a definition for wrong, and also explained my reasoning and given examples on post Message 123 & Message 125. Therefore somebody has given a definition, me.Shaz

This is my point Holmes, you make that statement and then offer nothing to support it, much like Tal also did. So okay this is of the topic of this thread, so lets not address it here. I will prepare a new thread, based on your comment above, unless someone has beaten me to it.Shaz

I opened up another thread for the pedophilic discussion as Holmes suggested. However Admin have closed it, until such a time as it can be decided if we want to discuss it.

Holmes and Tal:At the outset let me say that I find it totally remiss of you both, to make statements and then appear to be using all manner of subterfuge to wriggle away. Holmes your comment leads one to speculate that your assertion is ‘beyond dispute’, and that there is ‘no empirical evidence that sexual activity is harmful to anyone’. I wonder if you base this on the Rind et al study, which is the only one I am aware of which proposes the view you put forward.The Rind et al study, has certainly been a furiously disputed, within the medical, welfare, and legal industries. It has also been retracted from leading medical journals, and openly denounced by many paediatricians, and social welfare agencies. However, NAMBLA is still touting it as the legitimate citation to their practices.

quote:

---

The House voted 355-0 to denounce the study in the Psychological Bulletin, one of the APA's 37 journals
Congress Resolution

---

Statements by the APA, and other media reports against the Rind study
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/rebuttal.htm#JAMA

quote:

---

Leadership Council's Examination of the Meta-analysis"...As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings. Our analysis found that the study by Rind et al. was seriously flawed. In fact, we found the paper was a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data and misrepresented findings that led to faulty conclusions. Some of these problems are outlined below." Leadership councilhttp://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/Rind/rind.html#LC%20Examination%20of%20MA

---

Regardless though of where your comment stemmed from, according to you Holmes there is no evidence. Your blanket statement is ludicrous, no matter which line of argument you take to support it, some children are harmed by sexual activity. Therefore even with limited resources due to the nature of the topic and confidentially, I offer this information to show harm resulting from sexual activity/sexual abuse. (Please don’t quibble about the term ‘abuse’, it is a generally accepted term used to describe sexual activity with minors by adults, and you know it Holmes.)

quote:

---

Assertions made:

---

quote:

---

Definitions:

---

Subsequently given the definition of harm being, injury and/or damage (including wrong in that definition), then clearly one needs to look at the incidence of injury in relation to sexual abuse. (To go into details of specific injuries would be insensitive, but the titles of injuries that have been sustained by minors during sexual activities are: STD’s (including HIV), death, trauma lower genitourinary, amongst others. Therefore to show that there have indeed been injuries (harm) caused to children by sexual activity I offer the following as evidence.

quote:

---

Fatalities:

---

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For 2002, an estimated 1,400 children died due to abuse or neglect. Physical abuse and sexual abuse also were major contributors to fatalities.Chart available which shows fatalities, in relation to sexual abuse to be less than 1% which is less than 14 children, however to register it has to be more than 1.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/...ts/fatalitydlinks.cfm#dlinktwo

quote:

---

STD's

---

"Gutman and associates identified sexual abuse as a certain or possible source of infection in 10 (10.4%) of 96 HIV-infected, 2- to 15-year-old children.62" Another study: "..., 14 (53.8%) had no identified risk factor for HIV infection other than sexual victimization by an adult male."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/...ull/104/1/S1/178#T4STD’s may result in further morbidity... Most STD prevalence rates in prepubertal children tend to be below 4%; in adolescents the prevalence rate is approximately 14%.
Child Sexual Abuse in Emergency Medicine: Practice Essentials, Background, Pathophysiology

quote:

---

Physical injury

---

Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California
A prospective 10-year study was conducted of 94 children who had anogenital trauma Of the 47 injuries to the posterior fourchette, 22 abrasions, hematomas, or tears healed completely; 12 required vascular changes; 2 developed fusions; 10 lacerations required surgery; and 6 scarred and 4 healed with vascular changes
Healing patterns in anogenital injuries: a longitudinal study of injuries associated with sexual abuse, accidental injuries, or genital surgery in the preadolescent child - PubMed

quote:

---

Cases treated

---

U.S. Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Statistics
A substantial number of the child patients, representing 39% of the rape and sexual abuse cases of children under age 12 treated at the ED's in 1994,
Among patients treated for a violence-related injury, about 29% of the children under age 12 were treated for suspected or confirmed rape or sexual assault, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt157 cases were identified for study, We used a standardized classification system and determined that 25 patients (15%) had examination findings in the sexual abuse clinic, Common examination findings included anogenital erythema Vol. 152 No. 7, July 1998 Archives of paediatrics and adolescent medicine.

quote:

---

Correlation, sexual acts/injury/perpetrator

---

Inmate interviews in 277 prisons in 45 states, conducted during 1991, revealed:

Of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault, two-thirds victimized children;

​

For offenders imprisoned for violent crimes against victims younger than 18 (1991):

Fifteen percent were convicted of forcible rape;

Fifty-seven percent were convicted of other types of sexual assault;

Approximately 10 percent had beaten or threatened;
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats2.htm#Offenders

​

quote:

---

Summary

---

Now according to the information I have cited, some children do experience injury as a result of sexual activity. This injury has been shown to range from, STD’s, physical damage requiring surgery, permanent scarring, or even fatalities. Given the definition or harm and wrong, then the findings clearly support that harm can be caused by sexual activity. Further to that, I have personally attended cases, including one of an 18 month old child, repeatedly used by a pedophile for sexual activity. The outcome of that was horrific, and the child died. Forensic evidence is indeed available in all cases, but it is only done so on a need to know basis. Dispute this all you want Holmes, the facts still stand. The stats are in and sexual activity between adults and minors has in cases proven to be harmful, and significantly at that.

​

My apologies again, if anyone has been offended by this post, and also for the length of it. Shaz

Oh and Holmes, this has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of any culture group or personal preference. It is about the statement that YOU made, and stood by. You dragged sexual activity with minors, into the 'harm' arena.

Tal, ignorance indeed does not become you. If you think for one minute you can entice me into a propaganda love fest in relation to your pet interests think again.
You made a comment, I provided evidence to show the error in that comment, either retract your original comment, or prove me wrong. Then we can move on to what you pose with your soap suds.Edit to add point: My apologies to you Tal, this post reads in an implied deragatory manner to you. I am remorseful for that. To reword it though would indicate I am above visible {self} reproach, and I am not. So I will leave it, and reiterate once again Tal, my apologies to you.ShazThis message has been edited by Shaz, 15 January 2005 02:22 AM

Apologies if my post reads that I am being uncivil, should I have said the same to you in person, you would know that I was not intending to be uncivil, but merely expressing dissapointment that this has dragged out into an arena of specifics.You are very right to state that some of what I used appears to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, however I needed to show a correlation between activity, injury, and person. This is because specific evidencial data is not available, due to the nature of statistical measurements and confidentiality. (Hope that makes sense, I am tired) Indeed again I agree that is the basis for all healthy discussion, and debate. I believe I have been objective and clinical in my post though. I merely highlighted the personal account, to show that I have the weight of first hand witness, which is why I took your original comment to task. I did also attempt to highlight that disputing your comment, was not a personal thing, it was merely in response to the generalisation of what you stated.In many things I believe we have been talking past each other. My peeve was the generalisation of your comment, not about the semantics of the moral debate, it only ended up there because of a need to highlight the innacuracy of generalisation.Edit to add the following point: How you manage to seperate a sexual act, from sexual activity, is beyond my understanding, and I intend to query this on the other thread.This message has been edited by Shaz, 14 January 2005 22:53 AM

Holmes, my point to Tal, is merely that his original comment either needs to be upheld, retracted or rewritten. Once that is done, he can use whatever he wants to show correlation to other things, and I will either agree or disagree.
In the meantime though, I am ignoring the soap suds, until the original point is addressed.