Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[ThinkAnarchy]

This ballparking, I have a problem with, it means that the majority will oppress the minority.

To jump in right here, the majority will oppress the minority when given the option. Democracy is evidence to support this claim. If you simply look at government on a local level in the U.S., you can see the majority in religious areas oppressing the minority with their laws.

After reading the rest of your post, I believe the above quoted part my have simply been worded poorly though. Seeing as you seem to be arguing a majorities morals should not lead to more laws.

[Stevil]

This ballparking, I have a problem with, it means that the majority will oppress the minority.

To jump in right here, the majority will oppress the minority when given the option. Democracy is evidence to support this claim. If you simply look at government on a local level in the U.S., you can see the majority in religious areas oppressing the minority with their laws.

After reading the rest of your post, I believe the above quoted part my have simply been worded poorly though. Seeing as you seem to be arguing a majorities morals should not lead to more laws.

I am arguing against belief in morality and specifically against using one's own belief in morality to define law and hence control and oppress some people in society.

If we are truly looking to separate church from state then we must remove the insistence that morality be used to define law.
Christian "morality" are certain actions that are interpreted from the bible as being good or bad. Christians believe in this morality. If it is expected that law be based on morality then Christians will enforce Christian "morality" into law, and hence oppress minorities such as atheists, muslim, hindu, jewish, homosexuals etc. There is no way to debate morality with these people, they believe that the word in their scripture is their god's word.

If instead we look to define a minimalist law, to only focus on the goal of stable and functional society rather than moral society then we have something tangible to debate with regards to law. We can then debate the merits of a law and show how we believe it is necessary to support a stable and functional society and how without it the society will become unstable, or unfunctional.

This approach would mean that we leave members of society to decide for themselves on other topics, e.g. we let people decide for themselves whether to be monogamous or polygamous or incestuous, etc. If it is not going to make society unstable then the government ought to butt out.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Yep, gotta say that I agree with you on this one, Stevil.

I find a personal sense of morality useful, but when it comes to legislation. I'm very wary of it.

[Firebird]

A lot these points have been discussed before (see http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9401.45) and I see many of the same issues with your arguments here that I brought up before.

For example, you argue that the government should not interfere with a family that abuses their children. In a similar vein, I brought up the example of pedophiles who argue that their behavior does not lead to an "unstable society" by your definition. Indeed, they often make the argument that they are an oppressed minority who were very active in the Greek and Roman empires, which were stable for hundreds of years, so they do not lead to an inherently unstable society. Do you feel that their argument holds water? If not, why?

I also, again, bring up the examples of Russia, China, and Iran. These are countries which value "security and stability" above all else, and use that as an excuse to repress free speech among their citizens. I say freedom of speech is an important value to many of us because of a sense of morality, even if it is subjective. You argued that western countries allow freedom of speech simply to prevent rebellion, and I countered that not only are China and Russia still very stable, but free speech constantly has to be defended against encroachment by governments, even in the Western world (see http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9401.msg156480#msg156480), because it does make societies inherently more unstable in a certain way. I never got a satisfactory response to that, and I'm curious if you could give one now.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I am arguing against belief in morality and specifically against using one's own belief in morality to define law and hence control and oppress some people in society.

I can get behind this.

If we are truly looking to separate church from state then we must remove the insistence that morality be used to define law.
Christian "morality" are certain actions that are interpreted from the bible as being good or bad. Christians believe in this morality. If it is expected that law be based on morality then Christians will enforce Christian "morality" into law, and hence oppress minorities such as atheists, muslim, hindu, jewish, homosexuals etc. There is no way to debate morality with these people, they believe that the word in their scripture is their god's word.

Perhaps this has been asked and answered, but how can we judge what the moral laws are? I would argue those who download child porn shouldn't be treated as criminals, seeing as they have not harmed a child. While those who rape children should have the most horrible torture inflicted upon them. This view is not based on morality per se, but it is based on my moral code. I live my life around the non-aggression principle, and my world-view is based around the inherent right of self-ownership.

My morals would never lead to more laws though...

If instead we look to define a minimalist law, to only focus on the goal of stable and functional society rather than moral society then we have something tangible to debate with regards to law. We can then debate the merits of a law and show how we believe it is necessary to support a stable and functional society and how without it the society will become unstable, or unfunctional.

I'm understanding better now, but I'm still not sure that would be much better. Lets look at the child porn argument above. I would imagine it would be argued that the viewing of child porn promotes the rape of children (as it sometimes is now), just as many feminists love to claim porn in general promotes violence against women. While the other side would say, the individuals viewing that type of porn are not damaging any children or women, thus it should be legal.

That is an extreme situation, where I'm in the minority, but wouldn't people simply argue their current positions from an angle other than what's moral?

This approach would mean that we leave members of society to decide for themselves on other topics, e.g. we let people decide for themselves whether to be monogamous or polygamous or incestuous, etc. If it is not going to make society unstable then the government ought to butt out.

I'm all for this. My justification for such a society, though it would be anarchist instead of minanarchist, is based upon my moral code. The non-aggression axiom is at the core of my philosophy and morals. We seem to mostly agree upon an outcome, but our "justifications" are different.

I think I can say, the violation of an individual to do with their body as they please is immoral, or wrong. Slavery is wrong for that precise reason, not because societies don't function well with it. My morality structure is simply so simple and basic, that I can't agree with you're premise, at least not with the knowledge I have now.

I also fail to see how this belief will prevent the majority from oppressing the minority so long as we have democracy. In it's purest form it's the majority oppressing the minority. With most other forms of government it's simply the minority oppressing the majority. Even if the society were completely amoral, the minority would continue to be oppressed in certain situations. Even if we were all amoralists, we would have different views and opinions.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your position, but I only have minimal knowledge in regards to amoralism.

[Stevil]

Yep, gotta say that I agree with you on this one, Stevil.

I find a personal sense of morality useful, but when it comes to legislation. I'm very wary of it.

A "personal sense of morality", could that simply be referred to as "personal values"?
Something that is more of a guideline on behaviour for the self, rather than hard and fast, and certainly not something to judge others by.

[Stevil]

For example, you argue that the government should not interfere with a family that abuses their children.

You were talking about home schooling, I answered that one. Government stays out of the matter.

In a similar vein, I brought up the example of pedophiles who argue that their behavior does not lead to an "unstable society" by your definition.

The family of the raped child will seek vengeance against the pedophile. They might incorrectly take vengeance on the wrong person, they might get killed themselves during their retaliation. The family of the deceased pedophile might take retaliation against the parents of the raped child. People might get caught in the cross fire. It all leads to an unstable society.

Indeed, they often make the argument that they are an oppressed minority who were very active in the Greek and Roman empires, which were stable for hundreds of years, so they do not lead to an inherently unstable society. Do you feel that their argument holds water? If not, why?

Is that right? People went around in Greek and Roman times and abused little children and this caused no instability, no retaliation, no feuds? Did the parents just shrug their shoulders, say "oh well" and move on?

I also, again, bring up the examples of Russia, China, and Iran. These are countries which value "security and stability" above all else, and use that as an excuse to repress free speech among their citizens. I say freedom of speech is an important value to many of us because of a sense of morality, even if it is subjective. You argued that western countries allow freedom of speech simply to prevent rebellion, and I countered that not only are China and Russia still very stable, but free speech constantly has to be defended against encroachment by governments, even in the Western world

Russia, China and Iran must rule by extreme force, the society members are oppressed, they would take up violence against their leaders if they thought they had a chance to survive.
The western world do not have to be scared of free speech, they do not censor the internet, nor do they stop people speaking up against the government, they do not control the media. They do not have to rule by force, society is stable without excessive force against its members.

[Stevil]

Perhaps this has been asked and answered, but how can we judge what the moral laws are?

It would become unacceptable for a person to justify a law based on certain behaviour being immoral.
e.g. a person can't make prostitution against the law because prostitution is immoral. Instead they need to show some more tangible and debatable reasoning behind the law.

I would argue those who download child porn shouldn't be treated as criminals, seeing as they have not harmed a child.

As in prostitution this would need to be debated from a perspective of tangible and debatable reasoning rather than a perception of moral or immoral behaviour. It would need to be shown how this is detrimental to society, there would need to be some proven evidence linking the porn to child rape.

I'm understanding better now, but I'm still not sure that would be much better. Lets look at the child porn argument above. I would imagine it would be argued that the viewing of child porn promotes the rape of children (as it sometimes is now), just as many feminists love to claim porn in general promotes violence against women. While the other side would say, the individuals viewing that type of porn are not damaging any children or women, thus it should be legal.

There will be proponents on both sides, they will need to present their case, and will need to tie it into the goal of stable and functional society.
It won't get rid of the arguments but it will focus them and force them to argue from a common perspective, no agenda hidden behind the unclear immoral word.

I also fail to see how this belief will prevent the majority from oppressing the minority so long as we have democracy.

I am hoping that oppression would be reduced if laws must be tied into stable and functional society.
e.g. how can a person argue that letting gay people get married will lead to an unstable society?

[DeterminedJuliet]

For example, you argue that the government should not interfere with a family that abuses their children. In a similar vein, I brought up the example of pedophiles who argue that their behavior does not lead to an "unstable society" by your definition. Indeed, they often make the argument that they are an oppressed minority who were very active in the Greek and Roman empires, which were stable for hundreds of years, so they do not lead to an inherently unstable society. Do you feel that their argument holds water? If not, why?

The context for sexualizing children has changed. I don't know enough about the inner workings of Greek or Roman society to argue as to how functional pedophilia was back then, but I think a good measure for it these days is how it effects children involved in pedophilia. I think it's pretty safe to say that, on the whole, pedophiles in this day and age tend to screw up the lives of the children they're involved with. The pedophiles might have all kinds of rationalizations for why it's "okay", but those rationalizations shouldn't be the measure - the actual effects should be the measure.

When you take into account the dysfunction, trust issues, substance abuse and host of other issues many of the children involved in pedophilia have, I think that's a pretty sound argument for why society shouldn't allow it. Beyond that, it's a consent issue. When there are two humans involved in any activity the issue of consent is an important one - I think there's a good argument that children can't consent to sexual involvement with adults because they don't have the faculties to understand what they're getting into. Pedophiles might argue that their children "consent" (after been groomed and manipulated into certain behaviour), but, again, we shouldn't just take their word for it. We should look at what we'd consider reasonable criteria for consent. 

Social functionalism doesn't mean that we allow anything that doesn't literally destroy society, it means that making society "better" balances the objective pros and cons of collective activity. I think there are definitely more "cons" in a society that allow men to have sex with 3 year old girls than "pros" from any angle or argument.

[Firebird]

In a similar vein, I brought up the example of pedophiles who argue that their behavior does not lead to an "unstable society" by your definition.

The family of the raped child will seek vengeance against the pedophile. They might incorrectly take vengeance on the wrong person, they might get killed themselves during their retaliation. The family of the deceased pedophile might take retaliation against the parents of the raped child. People might get caught in the cross fire. It all leads to an unstable society.

Two problem with this: What if that family does not take vengeance against the pedophile? And what if it's someone in the family who is raping the child, which often happens in these cases? Then the child has no one to defend him/her against that family except the government. And if the government is based simply on a "stable society", then it could potentially be considered ok to look the other way, since society itself is not affected, just the health of this one defenseless child. At least, that's what I gather based on your argument. I don't find that kind of system acceptable in any way.

When you take into account the dysfunction, trust issues, substance abuse and host of other issues many of the children involved in pedophilia have, I think that's a pretty sound argument for why society shouldn't allow it. Beyond that, it's a consent issue. When there are two humans involved in any activity the issue of consent is an important one - I think there's a good argument that children can't consent to sexual involvement with adults because they don't have the faculties to understand what they're getting into. Pedophiles might argue that their children "consent" (after been groomed and manipulated into certain behaviour), but, again, we shouldn't just take their word for it. We should look at what we'd consider reasonable criteria for consent.  

Obviously, I agree with this. The problem is that the pedophile will try to use a counter-argument based on their own empirical evidence about why it should be allowed. Under Stevil's ideas, both groups should parse through the empirical evidence together and decide the issue "from a perspective of tangible and debatable reasoning rather than a perception of moral or immoral behaviour", removing any considering of your own personal gut feeling about this, or consideration of values. I reject that approach.

[

I also, again, bring up the examples of Russia, China, and Iran. These are countries which value "security and stability" above all else, and use that as an excuse to repress free speech among their citizens. I say freedom of speech is an important value to many of us because of a sense of morality, even if it is subjective. You argued that western countries allow freedom of speech simply to prevent rebellion, and I countered that not only are China and Russia still very stable, but free speech constantly has to be defended against encroachment by governments, even in the Western world

Russia, China and Iran must rule by extreme force, the society members are oppressed, they would take up violence against their leaders if they thought they had a chance to survive.
The western world do not have to be scared of free speech, they do not censor the internet, nor do they stop people speaking up against the government, they do not control the media. They do not have to rule by force, society is stable without excessive force against its members.

Yes, maybe the Western world doesn't have to rule by force to maintain a stable society, but if the goal is simply stability with no consideration of ethics or morality, where do you draw the line saying one way (oppressing freedom of speech) is not ok but the other (allowing freedom of speech) is? There's no justification if they both lead to stable societies.

As I've stated before, I don't believe in objective morality, but I do in subjective morality. There's no definite line between what's moral and what's not, but there is a line somewhere, and we as a society need to be vigorous in finding that line. Stevil argues that ethics and morality are not a "natural" concept, and I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the natural order of the universe is one of chaos and entropy, and we must resist that natural order if we are to survive and prosper as a species. And that includes coming up with a set of ethics and morals. They can include leaving consenting adults alone in the bedroom as long as they're not hurting anyone, but also protecting children from being exploited sexually, or any other way. Using simply the standard of a "stable" society is not a sustainable concept.

[Stevil]

In a similar vein, I brought up the example of pedophiles who argue that their behavior does not lead to an "unstable society" by your definition.

The family of the raped child will seek vengeance against the pedophile. They might incorrectly take vengeance on the wrong person, they might get killed themselves during their retaliation. The family of the deceased pedophile might take retaliation against the parents of the raped child. People might get caught in the cross fire. It all leads to an unstable society.

Two problem with this: What if that family does not take vengeance against the pedophile? And what if it's someone in the family who is raping the child, which often happens in these cases? Then the child has no one to defend him/her against that family except the government. And if the government is based simply on a "stable society", then it could potentially be considered ok to look the other way, since society itself is not affected, just the health of this one defenseless child. At least, that's what I gather based on your argument. I don't find that kind of system acceptable in any way.

The child itself will seek vengeance in later years, its friends will seek vengence, neighbours, school teachers, most people that know about the issue will feel compelled to take action even at the risk to their own lives. People don't necessarily get compelled to put their own lives at risk in order to seek vengance against others performing immoral acts. People aren't moral/immoral guardians. If a person cheated on their partner, most other people would mind their own business, but the rape of a child is something quite different. It is a treat to society. This rapist is perceived as a danger to society, what is to say this person won't rape other children. What parent wouldn't want to see this person severely punished?
Members of a functional and stable society need to know that rape will not be tolerated, that this threat will be dealt with and removed from society.

...removing any considering of your own personal gut feeling about this, or consideration of values. I reject that approach.

Then you open up society to oppression.
There are many people who have a gut feeling that homosexual behaviour is immoral.
There are many people who have a gut feeling that not being a Christian is immoral.

Yes, maybe the Western world doesn't have to rule by force to maintain a stable society, but if the goal is simply stability with no consideration of ethics or morality, where do you draw the line saying one way (oppressing freedom of speech) is not ok but the other (allowing freedom of speech) is? There's no justification if they both lead to stable societies.

As a member of society, I have a desire not to be oppressed, however I do recognise that for the greater good of a functional and stable society certain people do need to be oppressed, pedophiles and rapists for instance. Controlling people's speech is oppressive and dangerous to society. It means that the government can control anyone on anything. I would not consider a stable society to be one that is controlled by extreme force. If you take away the extreme force then you will be left with a rebellion, people will rebel because they must to survive. People do not put their lives at risk for trivial things.

Certainly there is more than one way to skin a cat, I am proposing for a government that represents society rather than one that rules over society despite what society wants, I am proposing a minimalist government that must justify all laws in terms of a tangible goal rather than a made-up moral belief. I don't think it is possible to justify that in order to have a functional and stable government, the government must control people's speech.

[Asherah]

It would need to be shown how this is detrimental to society, there would need to be some proven evidence linking the porn to child rape.

I'm jumping in late on this thread and didn't read all six pages of posts. However, just wanted to add my two cents. Why does something need to be detrimental to society to be against the law? Do individuals not count? Obviously, children involved in child porn are being abused. The person downloading the porn is supporting the abuse of children. Child porn is made (in the amount that it is today...which is a lot) because people get on the internet and download it. Stop downloading it. Decrease in demand means less porn will be made, hence less child abuse.

In addition, if you download child porn, you are financially contributing to the abuse of children. The producers of the porn can sell advertising and such (based on downloads) to fund their sick and twisted business.

I don't give a shit if it's detrimental to society. It is detrimental to children and that should be enough!! WTF?!! Anybody who downloads this shit should be punished by the law.

[Stevil]

Why does something need to be detrimental to society to be against the law? Do individuals not count? Obviously, children involved in child porn are being abused. ...

I don't give a shit if it's detrimental to society. It is detrimental to children and that should be enough!! WTF?!! Anybody who downloads this shit should be punished by the law.

You have a good point, the impact on the individual.

Let's say the person enjoys being naked and enjoys getting their photo taken, enjoys the money they earn from doing this job.
Now a person against child porn will need to state that they see dangers in a person under a specific age (a child) participating in this.
Maybe they can show how the person will be affected later in life. Maybe when they grow up they will start to have resent of the photos, which can lead to depression, and potentially suicide.
This would be catastrophic for the individual, but not so for society.

Maybe the goal of stable and functional society also needs to include something about the individual.
I've been hesitant about this because it leads to the problem that government knows best for the individual whereas I think government's concert ought to be for society and leave individuals to decide their own fate.

Opening up for the individual, certainly means government may be able to infringe on abortions, euthanasia, pornography, etc...
Maybe this individual infringement should only be limited to children after being born and prior to a certain age (maybe 16).

[Sandra Craft]

I'm jumping in late on this thread and didn't read all six pages of posts. However, just wanted to add my two cents. Why does something need to be detrimental to society to be against the law? Do individuals not count?

I don't see that much of a distinction, since individuals make up society.  To take care of one, you need to take care of the other.

Obviously, children involved in child porn are being abused. The person downloading the porn is supporting the abuse of children. Child porn is made (in the amount that it is today...which is a lot) because people get on the internet and download it. Stop downloading it. Decrease in demand means less porn will be made, hence less child abuse.

In addition, if you download child porn, you are financially contributing to the abuse of children. The producers of the porn can sell advertising and such (based on downloads) to fund their sick and twisted business.

Agreed, on all counts.  I'm not up on internet law, but isn't downloading child porn already illegal, if difficult to enforce?  In any case, I don't see this as a law based solely on morality -- it's a case of protecting persons, with children both of being involved in something without their informed consent (possibly to the point of child slavery) and of physical endangerment.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm jumping in late on this thread and didn't read all six pages of posts. However, just wanted to add my two cents. Why does something need to be detrimental to society to be against the law? Do individuals not count? Obviously, children involved in child porn are being abused. The person downloading the porn is supporting the abuse of children. Child porn is made (in the amount that it is today...which is a lot) because people get on the internet and download it. Stop downloading it. Decrease in demand means less porn will be made, hence less child abuse.

In addition, if you download child porn, you are financially contributing to the abuse of children. The producers of the porn can sell advertising and such (based on downloads) to fund their sick and twisted business.

I don't give a shit if it's detrimental to society. It is detrimental to children and that should be enough!! WTF?!! Anybody who downloads this shit should be punished by the law.

The reason I brought up child porn in my example is because people tend to react to it based purely on instinct. You believe it is morally reprehensible and repulsive, just as I do, but things aren't always as simple as that. Viewing a video of physical battery does not mean you are promoting battery, nor are you the one who did the battering.

I also don't think child porn is a money making venture. There may be some sites out there that host that content and make ad revenue off traffic, but I don't really see how it promotes the act. Those who aggress upon children are usually doing so for their own sexual gratification, not monetary gain.

It is certainly detrimental to the children, but what is most detrimental is the act being committed, the individual or individuals who make the videos are responsible for the aggression upon the child, not the men or women who watch it. I think you imagine it to be like the main stream porn industry, which I doubt it is. I don't see how they can make it a profitable business without making it easier for the government to find and arrest them. Even with the sites I'm sure are out there, I doubt they would be able to find advertisers. I know when I had a blog, some advertisers drew the line at foul or suggestive language.

Although I think the viewing is sick and repulsive, I don't think it should be illegal. Watching videos of other crimes being committed is usually not a crime itself. So, I fail to see why this crime is different.

This is my main problem with the idea of amoralism. I don't think it would help the problem of people reacting to "morally repulsive" behavior based off their strong opinion about it.

Just as I have never seen evidence to link mainstream porn to abuse against women, I have seen no evidence that child porn leads to violence against children.

You argument about it being detrimental to children is a valid argument against those who have sex with children and/or record it, but I don't see how it carries over to the individuals watching it.

I would speculate, that even if nobody watched these videos, it wouldn't help with the problem of abuse against children. I don't think the act is motivated by money, viewership, or anything else. It is most likely motivated by a sick sexual impulse or a twisted want of power. It's not as if children weren't abused prior to the invention of video and internet, if anything, the fact some of these acts are recorded, should make it easier to catch those making the films. Either through seeing the face of the adult in film, tracking IP adress of original uploader, or figuring out who the child is and questioning them about who did it. If there is an actual link to abuse against children and those who view it, I will be happy to change my position on this issue, but I have never been provided with any.