News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

What makes this wrong?

Started by Drummer Guy, April 24, 2015, 03:29:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
You, and several other, have missed the point.  What makes these things wrong?  I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question.  But the question is, why is it wrong?  All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.

There are others who have given me some good material to work from.  Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer.
The "best interest of all parties in mind" by definition cannot be external to those entites. Only you can determine what your "best interests" are, and are not a matter for others to decide. As such, the "outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer" has no standing in the decision, and is not in a position to make any sort of recommendation.

Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves.  This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent.  The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind?  If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.

Follow up thoughts?
There is a deeper reason why this is wrong: we are a species that protects its young from harm, for we invest heavily in their conception and upbringing. That's where the feeling of wrongness comes from. It doesn't come from any deep notions of consent or the lack thereof â€" it's because we don't like children being used as if they were mere (sexual) toys. It runs contrary to every instinct we have as a social species.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Summertimeyeah

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 25, 2015, 09:27:04 PM
The "best interest of all parties in mind" by definition cannot be external to those entites. Only you can determine what your "best interests" are, and are not a matter for others to decide. As such, the "outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer" has no standing in the decision, and is not in a position to make any sort of recommendation.
There is a deeper reason why this is wrong: we are a species that protects its young from harm, for we invest heavily in their conception and upbringing. That's where the feeling of wrongness comes from. It doesn't come from any deep notions of consent or the lack thereof â€" it's because we don't like children being used as if they were mere (sexual) toys. It runs contrary to every instinct we have as a social species.

The ancient greeks would highly disagree with your notion that "it runs contrary to every instinct as a social species" as Pederasty was the norm is Greece :) Reed up on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty, as young as 12 year olds boys had adult male lovers.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Summertimeyeah on August 25, 2015, 10:47:41 PM
The ancient greeks would highly disagree with your notion that "it runs contrary to every instinct as a social species" as Pederasty was the norm is Greece :) Reed up on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty, as young as 12 year olds boys had adult male lovers.
I know about that. It doesn't change my answer.

Also, read again what you wrote: children were as young as 12 years old. Ie, around the time they start going through puberty.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Summertimeyeah

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 25, 2015, 10:52:13 PM
I know about that. It doesn't change my answer.

Also, read again what you wrote: children were as young as 12 years old. Ie, around the time they start going through puberty.

so?

Baruch

Gotta keep things simple.  I don't need any reasons, intellectual or emotional.  If you touch something you shouldn't touch, I can get violent on you.  And all the law, lawyers, judges and courts ... won't save you.  Your rationalization of your behavior won't save you either.  Perhaps what ails society, is that we have too little violence and way too many people.  This applies to what happens to pedophiles in jail ... the other prisoners can take care of something that society is unwilling to finish.

Really, using ancient society as an excuse?  So I can put together a group of Italian thugs (Roman legion) and go rob, rape and kill your people?  Yes those guys, and any other guys, can do that.  And don't use nature as argument ... otherwise I can kill and eat you ... if your dead body is fit to eat.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

wbuentello

Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 05, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
You, and several other, have missed the point.  What makes these things wrong?  I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question.  But the question is, why is it wrong?  All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.

There are others who have given me some good material to work from.  Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer.  Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves.  This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent.  The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind?  If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.

Follow up thoughts?
I love these thought experiments. They have a tendency to effortlessly poke holes in our moral theory. The key to working w them is to strip away all the emotional fluff. Reduce it to it's most fundamental components. Once you do that, you will know you've found a hole in your moral theory if you still can't find what is "wrong" even when you know it's wrong. It's like a math problem, if you're not getting the right answer using your current theory or formula then you have to go back to the drawing board. That's why I love thought experiments. It is a essential tool in critical thinking. Come up with a theory and then do everything in your power to disprove it.
Here is my perspective on the op. Evolutionarily, morality is individual behavior that promotes social cohesion. This is the premise of my moral theory.  From here we can extrapolate a lot but in the interest of brevity I will leave it at that.
So in this specific example it undermines the inherent value of the individual, not as a thing or object to be used in a utilitarian sense but as a sentient being. If this were to become a standard expected treatment of the individual within the social group then social cohesion begins to go out the door. I could add a lot more but I'm at work now so I'll leave it here for now

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Summertimeyeah on August 25, 2015, 11:27:50 PM
so?
So they didn't qualify as kids. The notion that childhood lasted well into puberty is historically recent.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

The suppression (not end) of chattel slavery is historically recent too ... so lets go catch us some "politically incorrect" people and make them do our work for us!  Of course we are doing that .. in China, only the Chinese slaves get better paid than our skinflint Southern masters would have allowed.  Also nets to catch suiciding factory workers would have been considered too expensive.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#53
You don't get to fuck anybody without their consent, and when you do, you should pay for it!

Certainly it's the caregivers who are harmed by this. If the child wakes up and is told about this, then this would surely be harmful. Best not to tell him, if it can be avoided, but this would not in anyway undo the wrong.

Necrophilia is also wrong, for the harm that it does to anybody who cared for said person. But again, it matters not two shits if you are fucking one without surviving family or friends.

The law exists to protect people by punishing those who do wrong, and it never be enforced based on who you are or were! All too often this is done in reality, and I'm glad that it wasn't done in this case.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2015, 07:46:52 PM
The suppression (not end) of chattel slavery is historically recent too ... so lets go catch us some "politically incorrect" people and make them do our work for us!  Of course we are doing that .. in China, only the Chinese slaves get better paid than our skinflint Southern masters would have allowed.  Also nets to catch suiciding factory workers would have been considered too expensive.
My comment about the historical recentness of childhood lasting well into your teens was not an endorsement of practices that treated them as full adults in the past. The notion that children need to be taken care of and protected has not changed. What has changed is the people who belong in that category, triggered by better understanding of the developing child psyche. We now recognize that chattel slavery is also wrong, and anyone who owns a slave needs to be dealt with. As Lawrence Krauss said, "Morality without science is empty."
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Mike Cl

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 27, 2015, 09:00:28 AM
As Lawrence Krauss said, "Morality without science is empty."
I had not read that before.  I'll have to devote some time to Mr. Krauss!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Americans believe that whatever foreigners do, it is wrong.  Foreigners feel the same way about Americans.  What is wrong?  Nothing.  Being offended, isn't the same as what you are offended at is wrong ... otherwise racist scorn for White-Black dating would be OK.

I think that quote is an upside down sarcasm ... didn't WW II show that science without morality is murder?  And slavery has never ended ... only people's awareness of it has ended ... because if you benefit from it ... it feels so good!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2015, 08:53:45 PM
Americans believe that whatever foreigners do, it is wrong.  Foreigners feel the same way about Americans.  What is wrong?  Nothing.  Being offended, isn't the same as what you are offended at is wrong ... otherwise racist scorn for White-Black dating would be OK.

I think that quote is an upside down sarcasm ... didn't WW II show that science without morality is murder?  And slavery has never ended ... only people's awareness of it has ended ... because if you benefit from it ... it feels so good!
Maybe this quote is an upside-down sarcasm? Or maybe the source of it is upside down?

Is pedophilia wrong, or is it not? If so, does that depend on who the victim is? On the former, I believe "Yes", and on the latter, I don't think so, and I would not want to live in a society which officially operates by such a stipulation.

WWII was NOT science without morality - much of it was bad science, and some of it (including the science which ended it with Japan) was science that worked, but with poor in-depth understanding of the consequences of using that product. Arguably, it wasn't even necessary for ending WWII on any front, but that was administrative immorality, not scientific.

Slavery - in which US-recognized country is this still illegal? Philosophically, I regard religion as a form of slavery, and certainly it's bad for women in Saudi Arabia, but not on absolute legal terms. Even Saudi wives aren't without any legal rights, and true slaves never had any other than how close to death you can beat them without paying a fine for for such poor economically-minded sense of restraint should you kill one.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Baruch

Bad science?  What is that?  There is no bad science, just the banality of evil.  Of course we can do experiments on human beings, same as we do on any other animal, provided we claim we are doing it for a good cause.  It is the application of science that is moral/immoral.

Unfortunately I have found in morality, it is often a question of "did the victim deserve this".  And we were very biased about "deserving" whether it be punishment or remuneration (pay football players how much money?).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#59
Quote from: Baruch on August 29, 2015, 10:02:32 AM
Bad science?  What is that?  There is no bad science, just the banality of evil.  Of course we can do experiments on human beings, same as we do on any other animal, provided we claim we are doing it for a good cause.  It is the application of science that is moral/immoral.

Unfortunately I have found in morality, it is often a question of "did the victim deserve this".  And we were very biased about "deserving" whether it be punishment or remuneration (pay football players how much money?).

You're right, there isn't any bad science which is truly science. There are errors in science, miscalculations. Fat Man and Little Boy turned out to be of human consequences unanticipated - they didn't understand the long-term horrors of nuclear fallout when they were used. The hydrogen bomb tested in the Bikini Islands gave a blast 3x what was predicted, plus the US military still didn't understand just how long the radiation would stay around. Then there's the political perversion of science, such as with the Genetic Determinism model for predicting human behavior - this was based on what was known of genetics in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, and it should have been left at that, but unfortunately the politicians all over Europe, Britain, and America ran away with it and made it a doctrine, nothing scientific at all. It later came to be replaced by the Standard Social Science Model, which proclaims that no genes, no matter what the scientists say of them, hold any sway on individual proclivities, natural talents, individual neurological quirks. Which essentially states that almost any individual can be raised to be competitive and fearless in risky sports, can be raised to take chances financially or avoid all manner of gambling, be naturally high-strung, rebellious, the perfect gentleman, or a gifted public speaker, be highly disciplined in his day-to-day behavior or a completely disorganized slob. If you don't fit one of those better models or happen to fall into one of the less fortunate ones, then it's to the credit of your upbringing and environment, or it's to be blamed on the same. Because admitting that genes may have any influence at all on behavior as they do on the rest of your physical health (all behavior is in fact physical neurochemical) became that much a political foe paugh under the fallout of Nazi abuses, ideas which are even dumber became doctrine! No, the Blank Slate theory isn't science either.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.