Pedophilia

[Darth Raptor]

Why is pedophilia wrong? The general public rarely puts much thought into why things are right or wrong, but from a humanistic standpoint this seems like a pretty open and shut case, yes?

It was my understanding that pedophilia is wrong because it victimizes children. Since thinking people condemn things based on whether or not they cause objective harm- versus whether or not they cause them to retch uncontrollably- the crux of pedophilia's condemnation is that children who are too young to consent are being harmed.

Now, granted there is a large gray area of exactly when a human being gains the right to consent to things like sex, but it's generally accepted (and with good psychological basis) that really young children do not have the capacity to consent. Therefore, anyone who forces children to have sex- whether it be through force or coercion- is immoral.

But what about the attraction itself? Again, it was my understanding that as long as you're hurting no one or only hurting yourself, you could do whatever the hell you wanted. Acting on such desires is one thing, but how can it be immoral to simply have them? I propose that it is not. Furthermore, I propose that seeking release through avenues that niether victimize nor exploit the past victimizations of children are totally acceptable.

Thoughts?

[wolveraptor]

We may not like it, but pedophillic hentai is and should remain legal, under the proviso that it doesn't encourage more extensive actions.

I personally have more difficulty figuring out exactly why pedophillic actions committed on children who aren't harmed physically or psychologically and enjoy the act is wrong.

[Darth Raptor]

It's difficult to prove psychological damage, for one thing. And it's entirely a consent issue. If children are not competent to consent, it's wrong to drag them into things that require consent (regardless of how they feel about it).

[Darth Wong]

I think most people think of pedophilic attraction as a disorder rather than an immorality, and pedophilic actions as immorality.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm not disputing that pedophilic attractions are a psychological disorder, but as you're well aware I was challenged to defend the legitimacy of pedophilic art; which frankly, I can see nothing wrong with.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not disputing that pedophilic attractions are a psychological disorder, but as you're well aware I was challenged to defend the legitimacy of pedophilic art; which frankly, I can see nothing wrong with.

Pedophilic art stimulates the desire of pedophiles, which is not something that any normal person should want happening. Disseminating pedophilic art is like wallpapering a recovering alcoholic's house with pictures of beer.

[Darth Raptor]

Pedophilic art stimulates the desire of pedophiles, which is not something that any normal person should want happening. Disseminating pedophilic art is like wallpapering a recovering alcoholic's house with pictures of beer.

That argument can be made, but I would then argue that it's allong the lines of a Slippery Slope. If it doesn't encourage someone to go out and actually rape children, it's not wrong in and of itself, correct?

[Darth Wong]

Pedophilic art stimulates the desire of pedophiles, which is not something that any normal person should want happening. Disseminating pedophilic art is like wallpapering a recovering alcoholic's house with pictures of beer.

That argument can be made, but I would then argue that it's allong the lines of a Slippery Slope.

How the fuck is that a Slippery Slope fallacy?

If it doesn't encourage someone to go out and actually rape children, it's not wrong in and of itself, correct?

It does encourage that kind of behaviour, the same way tobacco advertising encourages smoking. It isn't a simple cause and effect, but when you have people with a recognized disorder who are struggling to control it, it is irresponsible to stimulate that disorder.

We're not talking about law here; we're talking about ethics, which imposes far more restrictions on behaviour than law in most cases (except for asinine theocratic laws).

[Darth Raptor]

How the fuck is that a Slippery Slope fallacy?

If the two events can be mutually exclusive, you cannot say A is wrong because it causes B. Even if A does cause B in some cases, but not all you cannot conclude that A alone is immoral when it happens by itself.

It does encourage that kind of behaviour, the same way tobacco advertising encourages smoking. It isn't a simple cause and effect, but when you have people with a recognized disorder who are struggling to control it, it is irresponsible to stimulate that disorder.

Indeed, but as you just stated it's not a simple cause and effect. Irresponsible? Yes. Unethical? Possibly. Illegitimate and immoral? That's stretching it.

We're not talking about law here; we're talking about ethics, which imposes far more restrictions on behaviour than law in most cases (except for asinine theocratic laws).

Again, it's not a simple causality case. As long as a behavior is not hurting anyone directly, one is free to do what they wish; regardless of whatever immoral behavior it may or may not encourage. The same could be said for artistic depictions of murder, genocide, animal cruelty or rape in general.

[Keevan_Colton]

Pedophilic art stimulates the desire of pedophiles, which is not something that any normal person should want happening. Disseminating pedophilic art is like wallpapering a recovering alcoholic's house with pictures of beer.

That argument can be made, but I would then argue that it's allong the lines of a Slippery Slope.

How the fuck is that a Slippery Slope fallacy?

If it doesn't encourage someone to go out and actually rape children, it's not wrong in and of itself, correct?

It does encourage that kind of behaviour, the same way tobacco advertising encourages smoking. It isn't a simple cause and effect, but when you have people with a recognized disorder who are struggling to control it, it is irresponsible to stimulate that disorder.

We're not talking about law here; we're talking about ethics, which imposes far more restrictions on behaviour than law in most cases (except for asinine theocratic laws).

This would suggest that roleplaying in general ought to be outlawed as it could/would lead to criminal actions...or to put it another way by this sort of logic, porno in general ought to lead to every pizza delivery guy getting laid at least 20 times a shift. I've never been convinced by the media effects model of behaviour, logically it's full of holes you could drive a truck through.

[Darth Wong]

How the fuck is that a Slippery Slope fallacy?

If the two events can be mutually exclusive, you cannot say A is wrong because it causes B. Even if A does cause B in some cases, but not all you cannot conclude that A alone is immoral when it happens by itself.

Are you fucking retarded or something? Are you saying that A is not immoral even if A really does cause harm? And what the fuck does this have to do with the definition of a Slippery Slope fallacy?

Indeed, but as you just stated it's not a simple cause and effect. Irresponsible? Yes. Unethical? Possibly. Illegitimate and immoral? That's stretching it.

"Unethical" and "immoral" are the same thing, jackass. The only people who differentiate the two are religious people, who think that morality is the exclusive province of religion.

Again, it's not a simple causality case. As long as a behavior is not hurting anyone directly, one is free to do what they wish

Bullshit. Ethics incorporates the concept of responsible behaviour, not just not DIRECTLY hurting anyone. This childish view of ethics that you have is a pitiful shadow of a real professional ethics code.

[Darth Raptor]

Are you fucking retarded or something? Are you saying that A is not immoral even if A really does cause harm? And what the fuck does this have to do with the definition of a Slippery Slope fallacy?

No, I'm saying that A and B can be mutually exclusive, so clamping down on anything beyond B itself is excessive. If A can happen by itself, without causing B, it's not doing any harm. Therefore, you need to go after B, not A. It was my impression that a Slippery Slope was where you condemned something based on potential indirect outcomes alone, without finding objective harm in the behavior in question.

"Unethical" and "immoral" are the same thing, jackass. The only people who differentiate the two are religious people, who think that morality is the exclusive province of religion.

I conceed this point, on the grounds that I probably am at least somewhat retarded.

Bullshit. Ethics incorporates the concept of responsible behaviour, not just not DIRECTLY hurting anyone. This childish view of ethics that you have is a pitiful shadow of a real professional ethics code.

Again, if there are instances where pedophilic art does not encourage pedophilic behavior, then it's not even indirectly hurting someone. In such cases, how is it wrong?

[AMX]

OT: You may want to re-check the definition of "mutually exclusive", Raptor.

[Admiral Valdemar]

How is this issue different to, say, videogames like the infamous GTA franchise that actively promote violent behaviour and other illegal activities? You could argue that allowing those inclined to become violent access to games that portray their darkest desires is only feeding their innate sociopathic disorder. We still have alcohol advertising despite alcoholism being so widespread, and while there are some governments clamping down on fast food and other unhealthy products be they advertisements or removing whole products, such things exist in the public domain. They can't help those that cannot control their diets.

So, in this respect, one could argue that pædophilic like drawn works aren't verboten (which they aren't) because, as with many other things, they don't directly cause harm (unlike actual pædophilia), but merely exist as another artform. Regardless of whether you like or dislike it, it would be clamping down on something that, while associated with bad things, would be like those whack job protestors who want to ban violence in videogames or, heaven forbid, get rid of pornography because it could lead to sexual fiends or rapists.

If there is something I'm not seeing here, some facet I've overlooked, then correct me. The way I see it, unless it's actual pædophilic "art" where innocents are harmed, the drawn kind is OK, as distasteful as it may be.

[Darth Raptor]

OT: You may want to re-check the definition of "mutually exclusive", Raptor.

Blargh. Again, retardedness. Substitute "mutually exclusive" for "not both true in all cases". I didn't mean never both true.

[Darth Raptor]

Valdemar just said what I was apparently too stupid to effectively put into words.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why is pedophilia wrong? The general public rarely puts much thought into why things are right or wrong, but from a humanistic standpoint this seems like a pretty open and shut case, yes?

Because a child does not have the mental faculties necessary to place sexual interaction in its proper context. A child has a very basic, instinctive grasp of sexuality, rather similar to those monkeys you see masturbating in the zoo. They also have a less-sophisticated grasp on human interaction and relationships that an adult does. Thus, an adult who commits pedophila against a child is taking advantage of that child's lack of mental maturity and innate sexual curiosity. This sets the child up for a whole host of psychological problems which will plague them when they reach sexual maturity. So pedophila has the potential to cause long-lasting harm, years after it took place.

But what about the attraction itself? Again, it was my understanding that as long as you're hurting no one or only hurting yourself, you could do whatever the hell you wanted.

Incorrect. As Darth Wong said, a good code of ethics incorporates the concept of responsible behavior. Merely adopting the attitude of "do whatever, as long as you're not directly harming anybody," is an incredibly short-sighted attitude to take. It creates a situation where conditions will eventually exist where harm can be done. The best way to minimize that is to create an environment where potential trouble is outed and dealt with long before it becomes actual trouble, or serious trouble.

Acting on such desires is one thing, but how can it be immoral to simply have them? I propose that it is not. Furthermore, I propose that seeking release through avenues that niether victimize nor exploit the past victimizations of children are totally acceptable.

Because having the desires in the first place may be symptomatic of deeper issues that might be preventing a person from reaching their full potential. So, on one hand, permitting the desire to exist may serve to restrain a person's utility, which would be harmful to them because they're not achieving optimum utility and/or optimum happiness.

The chief reason that just having the desire is inherently unethical is because it creates a potential for future harm to others. Allowing them to "seek release" through media such as pedophilic artwork creates conditions which may eventually permit them to attempt to act out their desires towards children (as opposed to, say, just seeking out and getting off on pedophilic hentai.)

Of course, what is ethically responsible and what is legally and culturally permissible or tolerable aren't always the same thing, as laws are set as a compromise between what is ethical and what is viewed as desirable or permissible by one's culture and society. So while something that blatantly peddles to latent pedophiles, like pedophilic hentai, or some fan-service in certain forms of written and visual media would be unethical and distasteful to non-pedophiles, it is permitted to exist because society at large places a greater value on artistic and personal freedom and is willing to accept the risk that some members of society will use those freedoms in a way that is either self-destructive, or harmful to others.

[Darth Wong]

This would suggest that roleplaying in general ought to be outlawed as it could/would lead to criminal actions...

When the fuck did I say anything about outlawing it? I'm talking about whether someone should consider it an ethical thing to do, not whether it should be outlawed.

Did everyone take illiteracy pills today?

[Darth Wong]

How is this issue different to, say, videogames like the infamous GTA franchise that actively promote violent behaviour and other illegal activities?

Not at all. I wouldn't make a game which actually rewards you for killing innocent people because I think it sends bad messages. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but I do consider it unethical. However, you seem to be the third fucking person in this thread who doesn't understand the distinction between "ethical" and "legal".

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well, my post was attacking the legal and ethical aspects of the issue. In my opinion - and I'm sure that of many others - actual pædophilia is an abomination. Given I see this whole thread stems from a certain altercation between Rye and Gil, I assume the idea of having a drawn, fictional artform based around such desires was the focus point. I doubt anyone can argue with a sane mind that allowing actual pædophiles to carry on with kiddy porn is a good thing, legally or ethically.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Not at all. I wouldn't make a game which actually rewards you for killing innocent people because I think it sends bad messages. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but I do consider it unethical. However, you seem to be the third fucking person in this thread who doesn't understand the distinction between "ethical" and "legal".

Unethical, yes, but then some groups of people will consider a great many other things unethical too that would seem bizarre to most everyone on this board. With that, I suppose I was going more with the legality of something, but the ethics of allowing such things as saturation advertisements for various products that can only do harm to certain people is a mixed bag given you have to weigh up freedoms in society against the willpower of the target audience. Though that's precisely how advertising works anyway; aiming at enticing people to give in to their wants, or even things they'd never want until some popular ad or celebrity promotes something.

I can see this being a grey area in many places, depending on the product and so on e.g. we allow McDonalds to promote on TV, yet smoking is ruled out despite both having clear ethical ramifications.

[Darth Wong]

Unethical, yes, but then some groups of people will consider a great many other things unethical too that would seem bizarre to most everyone on this board.

Yes, but they can't present a real argument for their bullshit.

With that, I suppose I was going more with the legality of something, but the ethics of allowing such things as saturation advertisements for various products that can only do harm to certain people is a mixed bag given you have to weigh up freedoms in society against the willpower of the target audience.

You're just trying to cleverly repackage an argument about banning as an ethics argument.

Though that's precisely how advertising works anyway; aiming at enticing people to give in to their wants, or even things they'd never want until some popular ad or celebrity promotes something.

Correct, which is why I consider it unethical to sell or advertise tobacco. Yes, I consider the entire tobacco manufacturing and advertising industry unethical. Don't you?

I can see this being a grey area in many places, depending on the product and so on e.g. we allow McDonalds to promote on TV, yet smoking is ruled out despite both having clear ethical ramifications.

Smoking is more addictive than McDonald's. While a lot of people have problems with obesity and food cravings, it is not for a particular kind of food, and food (unlike smoking) is an actual necessity of life.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, but they can't present a real argument for their bullshit.

True, but my point was, many religious or nannying fanatics will go out of their way to label things such as mixed-race marriages or MTV as "unethical". It's a better buzzword for inciting action than illegal since it impacts right at the roots of humanity.

You're just trying to cleverly repackage an argument about banning as an ethics argument.

Haha, guilty as charged. I fucked up there, though I did only get four hours of sleep last night, m'lord.

Correct, which is why I consider it unethical to sell or advertise tobacco. Yes, I consider the entire tobacco manufacturing and advertising industry unethical. Don't you?

Abso-fuckin'-lutely. And this reminds me to catch Thank You For Smoking when/if it opens over the pond.

Smoking is more addictive than McDonald's. While a lot of people have problems with obesity and food cravings, it is not for a particular kind of food, and food (unlike smoking) is an actual necessity of life.

A good point. I do find it grating though that the cholesterol card is played by smokers whenever talk of a ban is raised anywhere. It's a typical "If our unhealthy habit is outlawed, why can't theirs be too?" reaction. Again, the aformentioned movie apparently illustrates this exact argument in the form of fatty Vermont cheese. It won't win anyone over here, but to some fence sitters (likely the same that go with anyone's random definition of what constitutes "unethical"), it may prove a deal breaker.

[Darth Raptor]

Of course, what is ethically responsible and what is legally and culturally permissible or tolerable aren't always the same thing, as laws are set as a compromise between what is ethical and what is viewed as desirable or permissible by one's culture and society. So while something that blatantly peddles to latent pedophiles, like pedophilic hentai, or some fan-service in certain forms of written and visual media would be unethical and distasteful to non-pedophiles, it is permitted to exist because society at large places a greater value on artistic and personal freedom and is willing to accept the risk that some members of society will use those freedoms in a way that is either self-destructive, or harmful to others.

This seems to have been my major hangup. Thank you.

[Darth Servo]

Smoking is more addictive than McDonald's. While a lot of people have problems with obesity and food cravings, it is not for a particular kind of food, and food (unlike smoking) is an actual necessity of life.

Food is necessary but it could easily be argued that fast food isn't