Moral Judgments

Pots calling kettle black! Pots calling kettle black! Extra extra, pots calling kettle black!Certainly if you can just "see" something wrong with adults romantically kissing a child, he can "see" two boys kissing each other as wrong.Of course I find this all ironic as he has no reason to find someone kissing a 7yo wrong anyway, it's definitely not in his bible.Looks like everyone just wants to make it up as they go along and pretend they know what the real morality is.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tal,I understand that it is not up to us to fulfill the law but according to your quote from Matthew shouldn't we still be following it? It doesn't appear that everything has been accomplished yet.

quote:

---

From post #49: Example of a levitical law you would like to see passed?

---

I have to admit there isn't one I want passed but I have heard people wanting to use Leviticus as the basis of legislation such as DOMA and Bush's "marriage is between one man and one woman" amendment. I was just trying to determine how one can pick one piece of Leviticus to legislate and not all of Leviticus. And if we are to use common sense then shouldn't we just do away with Leviticus entirely and just work from a "what is reasonable/fair" point of view?

How does that make it wrong? A 7yo cannot consent to be taken to a soccer game, or whether to have a cookie before dinnner, yet it would not be "wrong"... right?You appear as backward and stretching to fulfill your own requirements for right and wrong as he is, as you certainly did not get your rule from anywhere. You are partly right and partly wrong with this. I would love to see him be consistent with regard to lev, but even in the New Testament there are passages (mainly from Paul) that could indicate homosexuality is wrong. Not sure if kissing is tantamount to homosexuality, but ya know...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Certainly if you can just "see" something wrong with adults romantically kissing a child, he can "see" two boys kissing each other as wrong.

---

Yes, I very definitely see something wrong with a romantic kiss shared between an adult and a seven-year-old. Just to be clear, by "romantic" I mean the sort of kiss that's likely to lead to sex. A seven-year-old hasn't even reached puberty yet, how can he or she give informed consent?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I knew exactly what you meant. The problem is that only defines a difference between the two scenarios, not why one is wrong and the other is right.You don't just get to say it is different and so obviously wrong. Otherwise he can say what is obviously different about homosexuality and so it is wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hello Holmes, Well a soccer game is a sport conducted in the presence of adult supervision. Having a cookie before dinner is not even comparable to a adult "romantically" kissing a child of age seven. I respect your openmindedness and realize you often play devils advocate. But... Holmes, children must be protected from sexual predation. We as 'adults' must assure them that measure of protection. They are vunerable to trauma of both mind and body. A adult is on a completely different playing field both mentally and physically. There is a taboo here. One that is indisputable IMO.

quote:

---

How does that make it wrong? A 7yo cannot consent to be taken to a soccer game, or whether to have a cookie before dinnner, yet it would not be "wrong"... right?

---

Yes, holmes, having a cookie before dinner and going to a soccer game is exactly the same as a man in his twenties making sexual advances to a 7 year old.Does a 7 year old understand what soccer is? Does a 7 year old understand what a cookie is?

quote:

---

You appear as backward and stretching to fulfill your own requirements for right and wrong as he is, as you certainly did not get your rule from anywhere.

---

I get my rule from the fact that most 7 year old girls have not reached any sort of physical sexual maturity, nor are they in the same emotional or social league as a 27 year old adult, so are easily manipulated.Is is OK in your eyes for an adult to make sexual advances on a developmentally disabled person with the mental capacity of a 7 year old?

quote:

---

You are partly right and partly wrong with this. I would love to see him be consistent with regard to lev, but even in the New Testament there are passages (mainly from Paul) that could indicate homosexuality is wrong. Not sure if kissing is tantamount to homosexuality, but ya know...

---

Yes, I know about the stuff in Paul, but there is a lot of that that I'll be he doesn't follow, either.b

Before this gets dragged into the whole pedophilia thing, I want to make clear that I am not trying to debate if that is right or wrong. Indeed the only reason why that is the subject is that it is what Tal brought up and and you objected to. He could have chosen many other moral issues and we could still be here.The point I am getting at is he stated that something is wrong. Obviously it is wrong to him. People are coming out to say that his moral position regarding A is wrong. When he connected A to moral subject B, which people do agree with, then it is said that obviously B is wrong but A is not and he is therefore wrong to connect the two.Yet there are no reasons given for this judgement besides the physical differences, and suggested intellectual differences, between A and B. Those differences do not inherently make a moral difference at all and indeed he could easily avail himself to similar differences regarding heterosexuality and A.Thus I am saying all of you are right in your personal moral judgements, and it is wrong for one group to pick on the other as if one holds the objective moral truth.I get why he might do this, but it seems odd for you and Schraf to try.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ya know what I hate about the sexual paranoia of this generation? The fact that everyone is so busy trying to support their personal sexual morality that they cannot recognize the actual debate going on. Protection of children from predation is a completely separate subject from whether a romantic kiss, or sex with a minor is morally wrong. The most extreme sexual acts could be morally permissable with a child and yet there exist practical concerns to limit such activity.I was only arguing that any moral position regarding minors and sex, would have the same absolute basis as a moral position regarding gay sex. That is only theoretically true. The elderly and mentally/physically handicapped can have less mental and physical capabilities than some children. That does not mean that interaction between fully capable adults and them is wrong.And I will point out again, that just being on a different mental and physical level does not make interacting with someone abusive. This is truly a taboo subject, and I wish Tal had mentioned another sexual pecadillo so I could have made my point on that instead. But as to it being indisputable... that is just ridiculous. It is as disputable as any other sexual morality, including homosexuality. Certainly whole cultures have and do exist fine without that taboo.Whether there are practical reasons for legal constraints on it, is another subject totally separate from that.Now can we get back to the real issue, which is that no one can claim Tal is simply wrong and they are right, especially if all that is given is certain physical differences between the situations.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is mistated. It is either "a child having a cookie or going to a soccer game is exactly the same as that child having sex", or "a man (love that its a man) in his twenties enticing a child to have a cookie before dinner and luring and coercing a child into playing a soccer game is the same as making sexual advances to a 7yo." In all honesty it all depends on the child, but to the same extent that they could know what sex is, yes. How can they possibly know what soccer will mean for them or having a cookie?Or maybe you can open a new thread and explain how sex is so different than any other human activity. That does not inherently make any act wrong. You are simply setting your moral criteria. How does that make yours more right than Tal's? That is the actual point I was trying to make.You are judging his criteria by yours, which just doesn't make logical sense. The only credible point being made was to question the consistency of his position (which you were doing when you were addressing lev). This is completely irrelevant, and that is the point I am trying to make. Whether I find it morally wrong or not does not make Tal's position on the same matter more right or wrong.He has said that homosexuality is wrong. Apparently it is as wrong using his criteria as and adult kissing a 7 yo. You are simply saying he is wrong about homosexuality yet right about the adult, and then defining the two using your moral criteria.That is wrong.If you want to know my actual moral position, or legal position (both of which are separate) on sex then you'll have to open a new thread. My argument here is not contingent on either of those positions. Exactly, and this is the correct target for shooting down his moral position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi Holmes,
Well the point I thought you were making was that if one has no basis to say homosexuality is morally WRONG, then one can not say on the same basis that pedophillia (sex with children) is WRONG. The difference between the two is that two consenting adults may have sex. But a child of 7 and an adult having sex is morally wrong on the basis that the child is not mature enough mentally or physically to engage in that activity. There is a difference between pedophilla and homosexuality. Consent , Physical and mental differences. If you advocate or believe there is no difference then more power to you, fine but you still have to defend why a adult with superior intellect and physical make up can Morally be supported in engaging in sex with a seven year old. What culture to you know of that practices having sex with children of age 7?

This confusion always seems to occur when pedophilia gets wound up in an argument.What I was doing was sticking to the topic of the thread, which was whether you can criticize another moral system. I was arguing for subjectivism instead of moral absolutism, in that they cannot judge Tal's moral position just because he has different moral criteria.As far as I can tell, all they did is describe their moral criteria, that doesn't make their criteria superior to his or more absolute.My guess is that both schraf an berberry would be arguing against moral absolutism on any other subject, yet here they want gay to be right and pedophilia to be wrong. They are calling for absolutism... as much as Tal. I see that that is at least part of the basis for their (and I assume your) moral position. However that is neither factually beyond question, and certainly is not morally an absolute.I could easily argue that children are not mentally mature enough to be brought into a church and theology thrown at them, and so wrong. I assume some will argue that is not factually correct, and certainly not morally absolute (even if they don't like religion being foisted on children). I have not advocated for any position being right or wrong. My position here has only been a logical one, not a moral one.Everyone who thinks I took a moral position ought to go back and reread my post and then start thinking about how badly sexual prudery (moralizing) has affected themselves. We are really in withhunt times when a guy making a logical point is forced to defend a specific moral position.If you really feel the need to know my moral and legal position on this topic, then open a thread on it. I was not even attempting to address it here. Since this is not on topic I will not answer it here, but I will give you something to think about. Why do you believe there hasn't been any?Interestingly enough, not more than a few decades ago I could have asked how many cultures practice homosexuality and you'd have had fewer than those allowing pedophilic acts. Indeed we are obviously still debating the morality of homosexuality within this culture.(edited in: I apologize if my answers seem a bit edgy, I'm just frustrated because my point got dragged off course.)This message has been edited by holmes, 01-10-2005 16:01 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!As much as I found your points interesting and not without merit (even where I disagreed with them), they have nothing to do with what I was trying to say here.If I remember right, though I could be wrong, you have defended the position of moral relativism over moral absolutism.Look and see where this started. Schraf and Berberry were not arguing, but simply assuming the superiority (objective absolutism) of their moral position over Tal's. I didn't bring up kissing 7yo's, and man I wish he had picked something else.But that is what was being used so I simply ran with that to argue that they cannot simply act as if they are right moral determiners and he is wrong.If people want to discuss this subject, please open a different thread. Sexual morals stem mainly from icky feelings and not from criteria that are objectively "harm based".People are abused in all sorts of ways (including sexual). I have never denied this or implied this. And the harm from abuse can be lifelong.However, and this is also beyond dispute, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that sexual activity (in general) is harmful to anyone at any age even when engaged in by anyone else of any other age.Outside cases of overt rape and coercion, harm from sexual "abuse" stems from social expectations enforced on those who have been through a sexual encounter which is beyond the "norm". This does not minimize the harm that has been done, but does change the direction from which it is coming.Homosexuality has been linked to problems, just recently we had someone accidently show studies which showed more problems from that than sexual abuse when young. Yet I assume you would argue any harm that does come from homosexuality (and this is beyond dispute) comes from impression of cultural expectations regarding that behavior.Thus harm is a tricky thing, and not an instantaneous answer for why something should be "wrong" or even outlawed. It could be that moral and legal rules create an even worse situation making an act look worse than it is.That explains why we can see differing cultures with differing results for all sorts of activities. It is also why I am a subjectivist and arguing against absolutism, and arguments for absolutism which rely on self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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