As a newly self proclaimed amoralist, I am pondering the moral concept and its implications on everything I thought I knew.
You may have noticed as this is a running theme in almost all of my posts of late.
I certainly feel that atheism is incompatible with moral absolutism as well as moral subjectivism or anything incorporating morals or ethics. Doing some internet research I can see others with this exact same opinion.
Most people it seems, like to think of themselves as moral people, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists. It is this habit of clinging to the moral concept that I would like to challenge.
"Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable"
Morality is the concept that an action is right because it is moral and is wrong because it is immoral. This is as far as justification goes with morality. You have a moral code, it is black and white, on the moral side are a list of actions and on the immoral side are a list of actions. Some morals are deemed to be simple e.g. murder is immoral while some morals are deemed to be complex, lying is immoral unless it is done to save a life.
Some Atheists like to say that they are moral but suggest that morals are subjective as there is no universally accepted moral code.
Atheists don't tend to see the world in black and white, they invoke reason and critical thinking into their own subjective moral code.
So their subjective moral code comes with a reasoned justification. e.g. "Murder is immoral because it is harming another member of society, if this is allowed then society is not safe and neither am I or my loved ones"
The thing is some Atheist may confuse this with the "justifications" presented by theists with regards to some of their morals e.g. "Gay sex is immoral because it is disordered, it is against nature"
But I think it is important to recognise that a theist is not offering a justification. Their justification is only based on their moral standard e.g. "Gay sex is wrong because it is immoral". If a theist states "Gay sex is immoral because it is disordered, it is against nature", this is not a justification, this is an excuse in support of their justification. If you debunk this excuse, it will not change their stance on the morality of that action, they will simply look for other excuses or will simply state that they don't know why but it is immoral in the eyes of their god.
Morality does not come with justification, if you are justifying your morals then you are stating your personal values, not your subjective morals. An amoral person can appear to be a very moral person in the eyes of people whom believe in morals.
I think you made an excellent case for atheists. I personally don't feel I need, nor do I want to be told what my morals are or should be. In many areas, I feel my standards are higher than a christians. Heh heh heh, I actually took an inordinate amount of pleasure in saying that.
Atheist can beat god ten time to the center when it comes to fair judgments of moral transgressions and sinning including the severity of punishment or forgiveness of them. We wouldn't roast anyone, and certainly not for eternity, but this deity would/has.
What do you think your position is now Stevil?
Theistic morality generally is purely just arguments from authority.
"It's moral because my church or holy script says that god says so."
When you're thinking along those lines, there's no need to justify why something is moral. It just is to them, because they were told it is.
If going by that definition of morality (theists usually take the word to mean morality in the theistic sense - objective and given to mankind by a moral lawmaker) then I would see myself as amoral as well.
However, I dismiss theistic notions of morality out of hand, because they're too shallow or insufficient to explain why certain things are deemed moral and others not. Others are just outright ridiculous. Instead I apply the word to something broader, that still goes beyond personal values, and that is how social creatures need to behave in order to create the most optimal society for all possible.
The whole idea of subjective morals can be tricky too, because though moral codes are subjective, even an atheist's has objective consequences. If I were to guess, that's why people tend to objectify their moral codes and project them onto the interaction between social setting and social animals - morals in part come from the outside (society) in (upbringing). Could such a unwritten code be considered to be sort of objective? Do you see that as morality?
Quote from: Ateo on January 15, 2012, 11:39:26 PM
What do you think your position is now Stevil?
I think for the most part when people debate others of opposing worldviews, they are debating against strawmen arguments. Certainly I have read a couple of rebukes to amoralism and from these it is clear to me the person doesn't understand what amoralism is. I think most people don't understand amoralism, that is why, when a theist comes by to an atheist forum and makes a claim that atheists aren't moral then many atheists take offense and make claims as to why they are more moral than the theist.
But we don't need to do this. I think we can hold onto an inclusive humanistic amoral stance which leads to less oppression and guilt on members of society than the moral standard offered by some theists.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 15, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
Instead I apply the word to something broader, that still goes beyond personal values, and that is how social creatures need to behave in order to create the most optimal society for all possible.
Would you be proposing a moral society in order to have an optimal society?
Do you think that morals should be enforced by law?
NOTE: I am using the term "Moral" with regards to your definition, not theistic definition.
I have a set of personal values, some of these are intended to improve my standing within society, e.g. don't lie. If I do this well, then people might trust me, they then may reward me by offering me opportunities which require that level of trust in me. But I wouldn't want this put into law. It is a choice made by me, on how I want to build up my reputation because of the benefits that I perceive. I do not want to force my values onto others.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 15, 2012, 11:48:11 PM
The whole idea of subjective morals can be tricky too, because though moral codes are subjective, even an atheist's has objective consequences. If I were to guess, that's why people tend to objectify their moral codes and project them onto the interaction between social setting and social animals - morals in part come from the outside (society) in (upbringing). Could such a unwritten code be considered to be sort of objective? Do you see that as morality?
Each society is different, with different influences. A Western moral code would not be effective in the Middle East nor vise versa.
I don't see anything as being moral or immoral. I understand many people have the perception of morals, but I think that is flawed. It gives people the excuse to judge others based on their own values. This creates oppression and conflict IMHO. The morality concept is extremely dangerous.
Not at all, I don't equate morals with any law or moral lawgivers. It has nothing to do with arguments from authority in fact.
Rather, it's just as you described it, you say you don't lie because you would like to be trusted. Being trusted and trusting others is good for a group because it leads to higher levels of cooperation among other things.
Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society. You don't lie partly because you want others to see you as trustworthy choose to trust you.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society.
I am trying to understand your idea of morality.
You are putting a social aspect to this, as if there is a group of morals that a specific society know and agree with and would expect that following this moral code will result in a more optimally functioning and cohesive society.
Is it possible that you are describing culture?
Of course not all culture leads towards an optimally functioning and cohesive society, but a culture is an unwritten social guide on how to behave within the specific society. If a person acts outside cultural norms then they will likely find social resistance.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 12:43:28 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society.
I am trying to understand your idea of morality.
You are putting a social aspect to this, as if there is a group of morals that a specific society know and agree with and would expect that following this moral code will result in a more optimally functioning and cohesive society.
Basically this. Though since social interactions with a diversity of people with a variety of interests can be complex, that makes a fixed set of unwritten rules impossible. There will always be the so called lesser evil.
QuoteIs it possible that you are describing culture?
Of course not all culture leads towards an optimally functioning and cohesive society, but a culture is an unwritten social guide on how to behave within the specific society. If a person acts outside cultural norms then they will likely find social resistance.
Would you call your preference for telling the truth to be cultural?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 12:43:28 AM
I am trying to understand your idea of morality.
You are putting a social aspect to this, as if there is a group of morals that a specific society know and agree with and would expect that following this moral code will result in a more optimally functioning and cohesive society.
Basically this. Though since social interactions with a diversity of people with a variety of interests can be complex, that makes a fixed set of unwritten rules impossible. There will always be the so called lesser evil.
So there is no moral standard specific to the society?
Just a collection of society members each with their own personal values, interacting with each other and sometimes infringing on each other.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:03:49 AM
QuoteIs it possible that you are describing culture?
Of course not all culture leads towards an optimally functioning and cohesive society, but a culture is an unwritten social guide on how to behave within the specific society. If a person acts outside cultural norms then they will likely find social resistance.
Would you call your preference for telling the truth to be cultural?
Yes - in most cases, I feel the culture of my society rewards me for not lying.
However, if you look at corporate organisations or even the Survivor TV show, you can see that the culture is such that the truth is expected however those that lie are often rewarded. By this I mean, people go into deceitful alliances, and betray when the time comes. If you were on the Survivor show, would you be deceitful in order to win the prize?
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 01:18:37 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 12:43:28 AM
I am trying to understand your idea of morality.
You are putting a social aspect to this, as if there is a group of morals that a specific society know and agree with and would expect that following this moral code will result in a more optimally functioning and cohesive society.
Basically this. Though since social interactions with a diversity of people with a variety of interests can be complex, that makes a fixed set of unwritten rules impossible. There will always be the so called lesser evil.
So there is no moral standard specific to the society?
Just a collection of society members each with their own personal values, interacting with each other and sometimes infringing on each other.
Ha! I see what you did there, placing "personal values" in the sentence like that. ;) "Morality" to me would be the set of codes which optimise a society's functioning from which people get their value systems from.
I'm having a hard time articulating what I mean here, so I'll resort to Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Moral_codes)
QuoteMorality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.
Per this definition, not lying would be a moral and will be rewarded by a society or culture which sees it as moral, thus establishing it as part of a moral code.
QuoteQuote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:03:49 AM
QuoteIs it possible that you are describing culture?
Of course not all culture leads towards an optimally functioning and cohesive society, but a culture is an unwritten social guide on how to behave within the specific society. If a person acts outside cultural norms then they will likely find social resistance.
Would you call your preference for telling the truth to be cultural?
Yes - in most cases, I feel the culture of my society rewards me for not lying.
However, if you look at corporate organisations or even the Survivor TV show, you can see that the culture is such that the truth is expected however those that lie are often rewarded. By this I mean, people go into deceitful alliances, and betray when the time comes. If you were on the Survivor show, would you be deceitful in order to win the prize?
Those shows are designed to only have one winner. Codes for mutual or social group gain don't really apply.
But I see where you're getting at. I would choose my alliances carefully, and if I really wanted the prize and didn't have to really harm anyone to get it, then yes, I'd lie.
You? ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:40:28 AM
QuoteMorality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.
Per this definition, not lying would be a moral and will be rewarded by a society or culture which sees it as moral, thus establishing it as part of a moral code.
So you would define not lying as good and not lying as bad?
What if the nazi's were after some Jews that you were hiding under your bed. What if they told you they were going to kill all Jews that they could find and asked you if you know where any where. Would it be good to not lie, would it be bad to lie?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 01:03:49 AM
But I see where you're getting at. I would choose my alliances carefully, and if I really wanted the prize and didn't have to really harm anyone to get it, then yes, I'd lie.
You? ;D
Of course I would lie. Problem is, I am so used to telling the truth, I'm sure I would find it hard to lie without smirking.
But especially in challenges, you don't want to paint yourself as too good or too bad with any of the challenges, just middle of the road.
I don't know Stevil. I know you and I have already gone into this, and maybe I am just as bad as a theist, but I have to say that I feel that right and wrong are - I don't know how to put this - undeniable. God, this sounds so douchey, but I honestly feel like "right and wrong" are pretty obvious in most cases, and that speaks to me. Like, if right and wrong are so easy for me to spot, does that not mean that there really is a right and wrong?
I'm sure you're going to destroy me in this debate lol (because you already have once) but I guess I am hoping that maybe along the way I will figure out why I feel wrong and right so strongly if there is no such thing.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 02:16:25 AM
I don't know Stevil. I know you and I have already gone into this, and maybe I am just as bad as a theist, but I have to say that I feel that right and wrong are - I don't know how to put this - undeniable. God, this sounds so douchey, but I honestly feel like "right and wrong" are pretty obvious in most cases, and that speaks to me. Like, if right and wrong are so easy for me to spot, does that not mean that there really is a right and wrong?
I'm sure you're going to destroy me in this debate lol (because you already have once) but I guess I am hoping that maybe along the way I will figure out why I feel wrong and right so strongly if there is no such thing.
I certainly don't want to destroy you. I want to learn how to understand people through you. Although you are unique and special, I am sure with regards to your wanting to hold onto morality, there are many, many people like you. Actually I reckon that amoralists are the minority even within the atheist community.
Your emotive response is valid and I am sure it is strong. If you see someone being tortured, you would feel anger, anxiety, fear, compassion, empathy. You would have a strong desire to save this person.
You might interpret this to mean that torture is immoral. But you don't feel this way about all immoral acts do you? How would you feel if you saw someone steal a pen from the office at work? Presumably you also think this is immoral.
Have you watched the 24 TV series. It is a great show, which plays on morality all the time. The President is in his office making moral decisions. Jack is in the field protecting America against terrorists, seemingly making immoral actions all the time. Drugging people, killing unarmed (possibly handcuffed) people, chopping their heads off. Shocking stuff, which invokes an emotional response in the viewer however he is still the hero. You don't judge him as immoral, he is doing what needs to be done to protect America. You end up liking and respecting Jack as much as the President.
It is interesting to think about people's emotions and how big a part they play in a person deciding what is right or wrong.
I am personally less emotionally driven than most people.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 01:51:28 AM
So you would define not lying as good and not lying as bad?
What if the nazi's were after some Jews that you were hiding under your bed. What if they told you they were going to kill all Jews that they could find and asked you if you know where any where. Would it be good to not lie, would it be bad to lie?
Since telling a lie to save the jews in that situation is definitely the lesser evil (if you're talking about values) I would lie.
I use the words 'lesser evil' loosely, but doubtless you get what I mean. I don't believe there is such a clear cut thing such as 'evil' or 'good' in the first place.
I think that personal values can be more problematic than a moral code, especially since such codes are made up of personal values/morals. They're organised in hierarchy, and sometimes different people's views of what's a 'lesser evil' conflict with that of others.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 02:34:24 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 02:16:25 AM
I don't know Stevil. I know you and I have already gone into this, and maybe I am just as bad as a theist, but I have to say that I feel that right and wrong are - I don't know how to put this - undeniable. God, this sounds so douchey, but I honestly feel like "right and wrong" are pretty obvious in most cases, and that speaks to me. Like, if right and wrong are so easy for me to spot, does that not mean that there really is a right and wrong?
I'm sure you're going to destroy me in this debate lol (because you already have once) but I guess I am hoping that maybe along the way I will figure out why I feel wrong and right so strongly if there is no such thing.
I certainly don't want to destroy you. I want to learn how to understand people through you. Although you are unique and special, I am sure with regards to your wanting to hold onto morality, there are many, many people like you. Actually I reckon that amoralists are the minority even within the atheist community.
Your emotive response is valid and I am sure it is strong. If you see someone being tortured, you would feel anger, anxiety, fear, compassion, empathy. You would have a strong desire to save this person.
You might interpret this to mean that torture is immoral. But you don't feel this way about all immoral acts do you? How would you feel if you saw someone steal a pen from the office at work? Presumably you also think this is immoral.
Have you watched the 24 TV series. It is a great show, which plays on morality all the time. The President is in his office making moral decisions. Jack is in the field protecting America against terrorists, seemingly making immoral actions all the time. Drugging people, killing unarmed (possibly handcuffed) people, chopping their heads off. Shocking stuff, which invokes an emotional response in the viewer however he is still the hero. You don't judge him as immoral, he is doing what needs to be done to protect America. You end up liking and respecting Jack as much as the President.
It is interesting to think about people's emotions and how big a part they play in a person deciding what is right or wrong.
I am personally less emotionally driven than most people.
I can see that. I've never watched 24, but one of my most beloved characters in fiction (Joe Pitt) kills people all of the time, and most of the time I agree that those people need killing, even though I am against killing in theory.
I think my "morality" is based on what I think I would feel and do in a given situation. Being a typical narcissitic human, I like to think that I would "do right" in a variety of situations. I would free the orphans. I would fight the bad guys and set loose the virgins.
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently. Please elaborate/ Would you NOT free the orphans?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:41:10 AM
Since telling a lie to save the jews in that situation is definitely the lesser evil (if you're talking about values) I would lie.
I use the words 'lesser evil' loosely, but doubtless you get what I mean. I don't believe there is such a clear cut thing such as 'evil' or 'good' in the first place.
I think that personal values can be more problematic than a moral code, especially since such codes are made up of personal values/morals. They're organised in hierarchy, and sometimes different people's views of what's a 'lesser evil' conflict with that of others.
I see personal values as simply pre-thought scenarios which are needed in order to make decisions quickly. (Have you ever worked in a values based organisation?). Having values can speed up the decision making process dramatically. You don't have to sit down and try to think of everything ahead of time. A principle can help e.g. The golden rule. It is a great guide.
I actually think the principle of functioning society as opposed to "moral" society is also a great guide.
It would be interesting to understand what it takes for a person to consciously re-assess their personal values or to decide that a particular scenario requires more in-depth discovery rather than simply referral to the personal values.
But thinking about things as personal values rather than morals hopefully makes it obvious to the person that these are personal and hence others can't be judged by these.
Society rules need to be based on something specific in my opinion e.g. "functioning society" so any social rules put into place need to be assessed against that goal. If it doesn't work towards that goal then the rule is unnecessary. For example, does restricting gay sex improve the ability for society to function? The answer is obviously no therefore the rule is unnecessary. Unnecessary rules oppress members of society and hence can cause conflict which is contrary to the goal of a functioning society.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently. Please elaborate/ Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.
My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.
Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:31:24 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:41:10 AM
Since telling a lie to save the jews in that situation is definitely the lesser evil (if you're talking about values) I would lie.
I use the words 'lesser evil' loosely, but doubtless you get what I mean. I don't believe there is such a clear cut thing such as 'evil' or 'good' in the first place.
I think that personal values can be more problematic than a moral code, especially since such codes are made up of personal values/morals. They're organised in hierarchy, and sometimes different people's views of what's a 'lesser evil' conflict with that of others.
I see personal values as simply pre-thought scenarios which are needed in order to make decisions quickly. (Have you ever worked in a values based organisation?). Having values can speed up the decision making process dramatically. You don't have to sit down and try to think of everything ahead of time. A principle can help e.g. The golden rule. It is a great guide.
I actually think the principle of functioning society as opposed to "moral" society is also a great guide.
That's interesting. No, I've never worked in a value based organisation where values are seen as facilitating the decision-making process. I always saw such things as more goal-oriented, having a cohesive and better functioning society could be one of those goals.
QuoteIt would be interesting to understand what it takes for a person to consciously re-assess their personal values or to decide that a particular scenario requires more in-depth discovery rather than simply referral to the personal values.
If they're beliefs about what's good and what isn't, then they might also be subject to empiricism first and foremost. You stick to what works until you see that it doesn't, and your beliefs need to be tweaked. That's when reasoned conclusions come into play.
Not so with the purely authoritive form, such as theistic moral codes.
Evolutionarily, taking the ability to be moral, or arrive at good (in the generally accepted sense) personal values are time tried solutions. Humans are social species so it's no coincidence that some of the more widely shared values are the same. Problem is we're also incredibly tribal, which can conflict with our wider interests in a larger group of people. That whole diverse group of people with conflicting interests can get in the way sometimes. ;D
QuoteBut thinking about things as personal values rather than morals hopefully makes it obvious to the person that these are personal and hence others can't be judged by these.
I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor
True?
QuoteSociety rules need to be based on something specific in my opinion e.g. "functioning society" so any social rules put into place need to be assessed against that goal. If it doesn't work towards that goal then the rule is unnecessary. For example, does restricting gay sex improve the ability for society to function? The answer is obviously no therefore the rule is unnecessary. Unnecessary rules oppress members of society and hence can cause conflict which is contrary to the goal of a functioning society.
I think that deep down they think that if gay couples were allowed to exist, then the smallest unit of groups (families) would be destroyed. It goes a bit beyond just being douches and interfering in people's private lives. They try and justify it with their 'natural law' but they don't know enough about nature in the first place to make that sort of judgement.
Of course, it's just paranoia on their part. And I don't see the same sort of zeal directed at divorced couples...
On the other hand, it's all about sodomy, in which case there would be a huge among of hypocrites among them.
QuoteIn NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.
My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.
Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Hmm...rational.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor True?
Problem is though that people go around stating that something is moral or immoral. This judgment can't help but imply an objective morality.
If they simply said this is contrary to my personal values then what they are saying is perfectly clear to all.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I think that deep down they think that if gay couples were allowed to exist, then the smallest unit of groups (families) would be destroyed. It goes a bit beyond just being douches and interfering in people's private lives. They try and justify it with their 'natural law' but they don't know enough about nature in the first place to make that sort of judgement.
Of course, it's just paranoia on their part. And I don't see the same sort of zeal directed at divorced couples...
This is the thing, they could have a very strong debating point with regards to the importance of certain types of families within society. Possibly a strong case against divorce of people with young children.
It would be worthy of further investigation.
But with regards to gay people, you can't fit square pegs into round holes. A gay person could never fit a one man, one woman, lots and lots of christian children outlook. I don't think they could prove that two gay people living as a family is detrimental to society, or even two gay people with adopted children.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 04:33:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor True?
Problem is though that people go around stating that something is moral or immoral. This judgment can't help but imply an objective morality.
If they simply said this is contrary to my personal values then what they are saying is perfectly clear to all.
Well, I agree with that. I think we'd be arguing definitions here. The way I see it, someone who knows that their moral code is subjective also knows that it's not a basis to judge others on alone.
Quote
This is the thing, they could have a very strong debating point with regards to the importance of certain types of families within society. Possibly a strong case against divorce of people with young children.
It would be worthy of further investigation.
But with regards to gay people, you can't fit square pegs into round holes. A gay person could never fit a one man, one woman, lots and lots of christian children outlook. I don't think they could prove that two gay people living as a family is detrimental to society, or even two gay people with adopted children.
They can't. All they have are arguments from authority.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:40:23 AM
Well, I agree with that. I think we'd be arguing definitions here. The way I see it, someone who knows that their moral code is subjective also knows that it's not a basis to judge others on alone.
Yes, as a guess I would think in principle you could go along with the concepts of amoralism. Even though I can't convince you to drop the "moral" word, conceptually we are talking about the same thing.
Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.
Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.
Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.
If there were no laws and you acted only in your own immeadiate best interest, you would find yourself in alot of trouble. Members of society would act with violence against you, eventually you would end up either dead, or toeing the line.
You would toe the line because you would realise that this is in your best interest.
Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 08:01:24 AM
Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Possibly because of two things:
1. Acting within the law is in your best interest
2. Not giving anyone reason to act violently against you is in your best interest
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 08:01:24 AM
Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Possibly because of two things:
1. Acting within the law is in your best interest
2. Not giving anyone reason to act violently against you is in your best interest
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.
Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.
What sort of selfish morality do you practice? It could be argued that even doing anything for the release of reward or happy neurotransmissors is not a totally selfless act. What do you mean by "selfish"?
With my sister, for instance, I help her out as much as I can financially because I know that if I don't, she'd affect my family with her debts. I consider that act to be selfish even though it is detrimental to my side. By helping her, I'm avoiding disaster and helping myself and the rest of my family.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently. Please elaborate/ Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.
My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.
Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin. "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!" But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony. I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?
You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic? ;D
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently. Please elaborate/ Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.
My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.
Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin. "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!" But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony. I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?
You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic? ;D
I get the impression that if the proposer mentions where the penguin came from, in that hypothetical scenario...things might not turn out as well as he had previously hoped.
;)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:59:20 PM
What sort of selfish morality do you practice? It could be argued that even doing anything for the release of reward or happy neurotransmissors is not a totally selfless act. What do you mean by "selfish"?
With my sister, for instance, I help her out as much as I can financially because I know that if I don't, she'd affect my family with her debts. I consider that act to be selfish even though it is detrimental to my side. By helping her, I'm avoiding disaster and helping myself and the rest of my family.
Do what I please, then pay for it, pretty much.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin. "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!" But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony. I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?
You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic? ;D
You ladies are sooooooo hard to please.
Unfortunately our zoo was not equipped to look after him and Kelly Talton's underwater world didn't want him. I don't know if they considered selling him internationally to other zoos. My suggestion was rather tongue in cheek, but I certainly don't think sending him back home was the best option.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.
What would you do?
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 06:22:23 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.
What would you do?
In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.
So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 06:34:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 06:22:23 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.
What would you do?
In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.
So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.
Lets say that everything checked out. You can take the car if you want, no-one else will care, you have absolutely no repercussions.
If you don't take it now, someone else will.
What do you do?
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 06:34:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 06:22:23 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.
What would you do?
In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.
So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.
Lets say that everything checked out. You can take the car if you want, no-one else will care, you have absolutely no repercussions.
If you don't take it now, someone else will.
What do you do?
I most likely wouldn't bother, but I don't see any issue with taking it. But again, I don't see how this has anything to do with Asmo's point.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
I am trying to establish motive behind 3.
Asmodean has stated that neither the law nor violent repercussions stop him from acting in his self interests.
I am trying to establish if coming into possession of a brand new Ferrarri Enzo might be perceived as in his self interest.
Then I want to try and work out what it is that is stopping him from taking the Ferrarri and whether this is consistent with his self interest.
Could "self interest" be "self image." Meaning that if I choose not to take the Ferrari, it is because taking the Ferrari is inconsistent with the way that I want to view myself (materialistic, takes advantage of people not in their right mind, et cetera.)
(Also trying to get behind Asmo's motives.)
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 07:38:54 PM
Could "self interest" be "self image." Meaning that if I choose not to take the Ferrari, it is because taking the Ferrari is inconsistent with the way that I want to view myself (materialistic, takes advantage of people not in their right mind, et cetera.)
(Also trying to get behind Asmo's motives.)
There could be many reasons. For the purposes of this thread I am wondering if Asmodean perceives "morals" as being intrinsic to his reasons.
It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.
But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.
We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.
I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 09:42:52 PM
It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.
But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.
We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.
I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.
I'm personally not so gung ho about eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands. It's accessible. I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.
http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
QuoteThree ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 09:42:52 PM
It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.
But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.
We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.
I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.
I think the biggest problem you're having in this discussion, is that you're using a definition of morality that most people do not agree with. The implications in the first sentence alone imply that what you consider morality is very different than what other people consider morality. In the very least, I don't use morality as an alternative to critical thought.
You appear to be conflating a person's moral standard with gut feelings, when that's not necessarily the case. To me, morality refers to a code of conduct, which very much falls in line with what you're saying. In effect, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with your definition of morality.
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 10:02:08 PM
I think the biggest problem you're having in this discussion, is that you're using a definition of morality that most people do not agree with. The implications in the first sentence alone imply that what you consider morality is very different than what other people consider morality. In the very least, I don't use morality as an alternative to critical thought.
You appear to be conflating a person's moral standard with gut feelings, when that's not necessarily the case. To me, morality refers to a code of conduct, which very much falls in line with what you're saying. In effect, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with your definition of morality.
I was going with what Ali said. That she sometimes judges something as moral or immoral due to an emotional response she has. I think this is probably a very natural and human thing to do.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
I'm personally not so gung ho about eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands.
Our language is influenced by thousands of years of theistic influence. The dice are loaded in their favour.
Atheism is in a difficult position because of this IMHO.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.
http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
QuoteThree ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.
Not being an American, I am not sold on the American constitution.
I don't think of religion as anything special, I don't think a special case needs to be made for it in particular. Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, freedom of any kind of belief is fine. I don't see why religion in particular should be free from government entanglement. All sub groups within our society need to be held accountable under the law.
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)
Quote
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right)
.
I am arguing against a moral code, against a list of rights and a list of wrongs.
I am arguing against the teaching of a moral code and the practice of judgement with reference to a moral code.
I am arguing against the English language and the use of the word "morality", "moral", "immoral", I am arguing against words that are derived from a perceived moral code "ethical", "rights".
Externalising of morality leads to oppression and conflict of members of society IMHO. Internalising of morality leads to suspension of critical reasoning IMHO.
I have issues with a person justifing an act because it is good. I would like to have people explain why it is good. Same thing for bad.
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
I'm personally not so gung ho about eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands.
Our language is influenced by thousands of years of theistic influence. The dice are loaded in their favour.
Atheism is in a difficult position because of this IMHO.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 09:56:53 PM
I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.
http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
QuoteThree ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.
Not being an American, I am not sold on the American constitution.
I don't think of religion as anything special, I don't think a special case needs to be made for it in particular. Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, freedom of any kind of belief is fine. I don't see why religion in particular should be free from government entanglement. All sub groups within our society need to be held accountable under the law.
As I understand it, the point of the Lemon Law is to serve as a sort of rule of thumb to try to ensure that the laws that are being passed are not being passed solely on the basis of religion; they have to hold a non-religious function. For example, a law proposed by Jews and Muslims to outlaw pork would fail the Lemon test. That's why I thought you would approve of some sort of Lemon-esque law that asks that the only laws that be passed are the ones needed to help society function (as opposed to based on religion or based on personal values.)
Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 12:18:59 AM
As I understand it, the point of the Lemon Law is to serve as a sort of rule of thumb to try to ensure that the laws that are being passed are not being passed solely on the basis of religion; they have to hold a non-religious function. For example, a law proposed by Jews and Muslims to outlaw pork would fail the Lemon test. That's why I thought you would approve of some sort of Lemon-esque law that asks that the only laws that be passed are the ones needed to help society function (as opposed to based on religion or based on personal values.)
Ahhh, yes, most definitely agree.
Interestingly I have just found a web article that makes a distinction on the various type of moral relativism some of which we have discussed in this thread.
All of the below are suggested as sub categories of moral relativism
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ethics.html (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ethics.html)
conventionalism
This says that what we call morality is really a matter of our cultural or social norms
prescriptivism
looks at morality more in terms of power within a society. What we call right and wrong are essentially prescriptions as to what we want others to do
emotivism
what we call good and bad are just labels for certain emotional responses we have to certain acts
moral skepticism
would say that we never truly know what is good or bad
moral nihilism (a.k.a. amoralism)
there simply is no such thing as good and bad, that those words are just misleading labels
So I guess when I am arguing for moral nihilism, I am being more specific and when you argue for moral relativism you are being more general. But it seems moral nihilism could simply be a form of moral relativism (even though it seems incompatible because moral relativism is based on morals which moral nihilism denies the existence of. But essentially when we get to this level of distinction it could come down to a semantic debate about what is meant by the word "moral")
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 06:22:23 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.
What would you do?
A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 17, 2012, 04:00:19 AM
A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.
:D
Even if you could immediately sell it for half a million dollars?
Hmm, your making this hard.
Quote from: Stevil on January 17, 2012, 04:10:17 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 17, 2012, 04:00:19 AM
A Ferrari? I'd walk right past it and not give it a second thought.
:D
Even if you could immediately sell it for half a million dollars?
Hmm, your making this hard.
Well, I have a car. It's not new, nor is it very fast or very powerful, but I don't want another. When I NEED another, that will be a different matter, but a Ferrari..? No thanks.
As for immediately selling the damned thing... Not really, since even though "cheap" for an Enzo, I'd have to find a buyer willing to dump that much money in a car who actually wants it.
I would take it, but I wouldn't keep it. I would sell it for whatever, even if I get 10% of it's worth I've profited. Though of course it would be better to sell it for what it's worth.
Insurance costs for such a car must be sky-high. ::)
Point being, if someone was giving it away, I would take it. I don't see anything wrong with that scenario.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 17, 2012, 04:49:22 AM
Point being, if someone was giving it away, I would take it. I don't see anything wrong with that scenario.
There is nothing wrong with that - if you want it and can has it, then why not?
I love Kevin Crady's thinking and writing style.
Quote
Playing god
What is it that makes Christians so viscerally afraid of atheism? Why are they so quick to cry that atheism must inherently lead to savagery?
Because, Christians do not beleive in morality at all. To Christians, the only reason not to run amok raping and pillaging is because the King says you can't, and he will punish you severely for it after you die. No King = no constraints on brutality. For Christians then, there is no morality, only legality. They hold this theory consistently, as is apparent whenever anyone questions the morality of God.
"God is not limited to human moral understanding."
"God is our Creator. He is entitled to kill humans. It is his sovereign right as our Creator."
"Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"
Whenever atheists bring up any of the moral atrocities in the Bible, Christians routinely exempt God from any moral standard whatsoever. This is only a natural consequence of their concept of "morality." God has no "higher power" to tell him what to do. No one will punish him, and no one can, because he has all the power. Relative to God, atheism is true. For him, there is no God. Having no law he is subject to, God is free to commit any atrocity whatsoever, or command his servants to do it in his name. God can do no wrong because for him, there is no morality. As long as its him doing it, any act is "holy" or "righteous."
Think about it.
What do we mean when we use the phrase "playing God?"
If a medical researcher discovers a cure for some horrific illness, we do not say she is "playing God."
If an aid worker lives in primitive conditions and works tirelessly to help poor people in developing countries, we do not say he is "playing God."
If a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade to save his buddies, we do not say he is "playing God."
No, we reserve that phrase only for frightening or evil acts done by a person who feels entitled to lord over other people's lives or over nature in some malevolent way, with no moral or legal accountability. When Dr. Mengele stood at the gates of Auschwitz arbitrarily deciding who would die, and who would be subjected to his inhuman experiments, that is what we mean by "playing God."
Why is this so? Because the Bible clearly portrays God acting in exactly that manner. See the ninth chapter of Romans. It's spelled out quite clearly. Why are Christians so afraid of atheism?
Because they're afraid we will act like God.
Very provocative.
This whole god and morality buisness, god just looks too much like Maquiavelli's description of "The Prince". A ruler who is not morally accountable because morality and efficient rulership are incompatible.
I always thought that anybody who says or thinks that they need religion to keep them from doing atrocities should steer very clear away from those I want to protect.
That article was awesome.
Quote from: Stevil
conventionalism
This says that what we call morality is really a matter of our cultural or social norms
emotivism
what we call good and bad are just labels for certain emotional responses we have to certain acts
moral skepticism
would say that we never truly know what is good or bad
moral nihilism (a.k.a. amoralism)
there simply is no such thing as good and bad, that those words are just misleading labels
based on neuroanatomical data, psychological tests and an interesting book called "character strenghts and virtues" I am convinced that morals is a mix of
conventionalism together with
emotivism. it is genetically prescribed (behavioural genetics) and universal, as far as human go, since if you have the normal nerve structure, when pinched, everybody pains
similarlyNow all this learned / springing-from-within emotional labeling can be tested, challenged and suspended by intellect, reasoning and egoic intention
moral skepticismso far so good.
But morals as a function and derivative of socialising of a social animal
in one is unaware of, then one was not social, asocial, not exposed, hole-in the mountain life
if one is indifferent towards, then one became dissocial , not participating, not part of, maybe affective disorder
if one is against, does not recognise, than one is reactive, against a perceived set, an oppressive example. maybe a misfit, maybe unlucky, in a wrong place with the wrong people
a parameter of happiness needs the training, the cultivation of wisdom: aligning the within emotional responses (having therefore a representative and well-matched to society autoresponse set) with the conscious choices and self-respecting/self-imposed reasoned rules justifications and guidelines
hard to do, no doubt, but not impossible
that is my take on this
In the absence of God, you would say that the concept of a source of right and wrong in any absolute, objective sense seem redundant.
But introducing God doesn't really resolve the issue. Christians cannot believe that God would want them to do wrong; so if he says something is wrong it must because it is wrong not merely because he says so. God knows everything so he is deemed to be 100% reliable plus he is a bona fide regular sort of God who is infinitely just so he would not deliberately mislead mankind. Accordinglyhis role becomes declarative, leaving us still grasping for the reasons why things are right or wrong.
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 02:16:25 AM
Like, if right and wrong are so easy for me to spot, does that not mean that there really is a right and wrong?
No, all it means is that you think right and wrong are easy to spot.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
Not at all, I don't equate morals with any law or moral lawgivers. It has nothing to do with arguments from authority in fact.
Rather, it's just as you described it, you say you don't lie because you would like to be trusted. Being trusted and trusting others is good for a group because it leads to higher levels of cooperation among other things.
Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society. You don't lie partly because you want others to see you as trustworthy choose to trust you.
I see morals as an evolutionary benefit. Man is a social animal, consideration and trust make the cooperation that was necessary for our ancestors to survive more likely. I imagine that people who could not be trusted by other members of their tribe, clan, whatever, and/ or were considered lacking in morals would have been ostracized and in extreme cases exiled. That would have made survival difficult and reproduction unlikely.
Morality becomes subjective in cases where killing members of your own group is detrimental to the group, killing members of rival groups to protect yours or to acquire territory is beneficial. There are many other examples of subjective morality, but in my opinion that one would have been the most obvious to paleolithic/ neolithic humans.
Quote from: Reprobate on February 14, 2012, 02:35:26 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
Not at all, I don't equate morals with any law or moral lawgivers. It has nothing to do with arguments from authority in fact.
Rather, it's just as you described it, you say you don't lie because you would like to be trusted. Being trusted and trusting others is good for a group because it leads to higher levels of cooperation among other things.
Morality, as I see it, is the unwritten and generally accepted ideas that optimise functioning and cohesion in a society. You don't lie partly because you want others to see you as trustworthy choose to trust you.
I see morals as an evolutionary benefit. Man is a social animal, consideration and trust make the cooperation that was necessary for our ancestors to survive more likely. I imagine that people who could not be trusted by other members of their tribe, clan, whatever, and/ or were considered lacking in morals would have been ostracized and in extreme cases exiled. That would have made survival difficult and reproduction unlikely.
Morality becomes subjective in cases where killing members of your own group is detrimental to the group, killing members of rival groups to protect yours or to acquire territory is beneficial. There are many other examples of subjective morality, but in my opinion that one would have been the most obvious to paleolithic/ neolithic humans.
I agree we are probably hard-wired to feel an innate repugnance at certain forms of behaviour- so-called "moral universals" (though of course not derived from a coherent set of moral beliefs per se). However social conditioning can operate to nullify -or extend- these instincts.The idea of animal rights would have been risible in Western Society not so long ago.Probably only an affluent society can afford such extended benevolence.Conversely,in societies which have been infected and warped by malign ideologies,there are no horrors which we are not capable of inflicting on each other.
I found Stevil's posts interesting and thought I'd drop my 2 cents. I believe in objective morality, but not absolute morality. This whole debate centers around semantics, obviously. What I mean by objective morality is an understanding of science in order to make decisions for the greater good of humanity. I find the title of this thread to be kind of funny, because I consider (objective) morality to BE reasoned justification. And I consider subjective morality to be the knee-jerk gut reactions that people make, and then have to think about *why* they think about that.
I'll give an example of my form of objective morality here, I use this a lot when battling libertarians or people who take the ideal of "freedom" to an extreme.
In scenario A there is a person with a nuke. The person launches the nuke and kills people.
In scenario B there is an asteroid hurtling towards the earth. That same person has the nuke and can pre-emptively blow it up, but chooses not to and the asteroid kills people.
In both scenarios, the end result is exactly the same. I consider subjective morality to be that scenario A is moral and scenario B is immoral. The reason this is subjective is because the person may value those that are killed differently based on who they are.
But objectively speaking, it is obvious (through science) that we as people could potentially have been anyone. It simply makes no sense to be callous towards the suffering of others, because we could have *been* those others. This is ultimately my beef with both theists and libertarians. They both seem to think that an individual has free will and can make themselves whatever they want. But people are a product of environment and experiences. They did not choose this, they did not choose their personality, and they did not choose who they became, or even choose to be born. But here they are, paying the consequences of any given action or inaction. As rational being, I think it should be objectively obvious that we care for others as if they were ourselves, because they very well could have been us given the randomness of life.
My philosophy class many years ago made this ideal clear to me. I vaguely remember his example, so I will recreate my own.
There is an island with several people on it. They just crashed here and they are going to establish their own small island society. These people differ in gender, ethnicity, background, etc. Now, the first order of business is to vote on what rights they should have. Before they do that, they decide to vote on who gets to vote on what rights the get. Now say they target gender, and they first vote on whether both genders can vote in future elections, or if only male votes count. Obviously, the females will vote against this. The males will have split votes, depending on their individual empathy levels. Regardless of how the vote ends up, there is one major rule of thumb that should be followed objectively.
That rule is that you should remove yourself from the situation. Assume that you are not yet born, but are still capable of rational thought. You know you will be born in this island colony, but you do not know to whom. You don't know what gender you will be. You do not even know how you will act once you are born (product of experience, not free will). With this information only, assume you were to place a vote in this election. What would that vote look like? It would obviously be a vote for both genders to have rights. Because since you don't know what you will become, you could potentially be voting against yourself. The only reason someone could want to vote against themselves is if they were brainwashed into thinking they weren't worthy after the fact. But this is before you were born hypothetically.
You can apply this to just about anything that the islanders vote on and come up with an objectively concise answer. The fundamental knowledge and logic that I, as a person, could have been anyone else is what I base pretty much my entire moral framework around. However, I will be the first to admit that this is still not *entirely* objective, which is why I don't use the term absolute morality.
My morals are basically a form of utilitarianism. I am for maximizing well-being, and minimizing suffering. Those are my primary rules of thumb, and the whole I could have been born as anything is another rule of thumb. The first issue with this is that there is a biased tendency to maximize *human* well-being, and minimize *human* suffering. This is clearly just as subjective as an ingroup of humans discriminating against an outgroup. In the same manner, I am treating humanity as a whole as one massive ingroup, and other species as the outgroup which I am okay with killing for food.
I think the reason why this is justified is going to be subjective no matter which way you spin it. My same logic as being born as any lifeform certainly still applies. But overall, I feel like you have to draw the line somewhere. We take life all the time, oftentimes without even realizing it. Every time you mow your lawn you are committing genocide. We, as humans, tend to value mammals more than insects, and humans more than other mammals. But in a way, this is both subjective and objective. It is an objective fact that we are evolved to be cooperative towards our own species.
So as you can see, I like to have a moral "framework" that follows rules of thumb, and is not dogmatic. I have major issues with dogmatic morality, in that doing "A" is *always* wrong. I am strongly Buddhist utilitarian and believe in seeking the lesser of evils and learning from mistakes. I'm certain that many people can take my same outline for morality and come to vastly different conclusions, however. But I believe that any differences are due to different views of human nature or cultural norms. These things can be accounted for through scientific education.
I'll be honest, I truly get what you are saying about how we tend to say "that's wrong" as if it is an objective fact. I tend to do the same, and I try to really reason it out as to "why" it is wrong as you can see from the above. I think the difference between my kind of morality and the kind you are arguing against is that my form of morality is adaptable. If the facts change, the morals change. A dogmatic belief is a means of saving cognitive resources so that the person doesn't have to think through their moral reasonings like I often do. For example, they might say killing a baby is wrong, period. But what if killing the baby means 20 people don't starve and suffer (but not die) for the rest of their lives? 200 people? 2,000? Unless you view life as objectively better than suffering vs well-being, there is going to be a cut-off point where you side with the lesser of evils. Now I'll be honest, the line that we draw is going to differ from individual to individual. I guess objective morals don't truly exist on an individual level. You can try and justify them like I did, and I and most on this forum might agree with how I have laid things out, but I cannot ultimately say I am straight up better than someone else morally. Perhaps I could, but it would take an eternity of scientific knowledge being disclosed onto them and ridding them of any preconceived notions and brainwashing that has shaded their views.
But ultimately, I think what I get down to for objective morality is that it doesn't matter if the individuals differ on where *exactly* to draw their lines, because societies as a whole can still ballpark it. It won't be pretty because people enjoy having a set in stone answer. People hate ambiguity, which is why so many fall for the post hoc fallacy. I think this is why so many find comfort in dogmatic views. They don't have to constantly rationalize things and can thus save cognitive resources.
But yeah, after all that rambling I probably kind of proved your point that morals don't exist, lol. I still take comfort in my view of objective morality, although I consider myself a moral relativist at the same time. Basically, "there's a greater good that can be appealed to," and then "and here's what I think we should do to move towards that goal." I think what you will find when everyone follows this thought process is that our ideas will bounce off of each other, and eventually one truth will prevail. And by that I don't mean it will ever be set in stone, our morals and ideas of rights will constantly evolve and change so long as we continue to do so.
So ultimately, I think whether or not morals are "real" or not is immaterial. Just like any other construct that we humans create, its purpose lies in its utility. And I think morals have a clear utility in the basis of our language for communicating desirable behavior. I guess the thing I don't like about your position is that it seems to have no implications whatsoever. It's like, okay, I can no longer say "you're wrong" but have to say "you're wrong from my point of view." Like, so what? Morality as a construct has utility in disclosing acceptable behavior and conveying ideas off of each other to determine what should or should not be allowed. It's more aimed at improving society as a whole rather than judging people based on individual values. I feel like I kind of clarified or added to what someone else was saying earlier in the thread. But ultimately I view things from a macro perspective. Also, I am wary of any attempt to get rid of morals because I have a strong distaste against the naturalistic fallacy.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 07:09:36 AM
But ultimately, I think what I get down to for objective morality is that it doesn't matter if the individuals differ on where *exactly* to draw their lines, because societies as a whole can still ballpark it.
This ballparking, I have a problem with, it means that the majority will oppress the minority.
Lets consider polygamy. Because the majority see polygamy as immoral does that give them the right to impose via law restrictions on people whom want to live a polygomistic lifestyle?
What I am saying is that because polygamy won't cause society to become unstable or dysfunctional then do not create a law against it. Let people chose whether to live this lifestyle or not. Don't feel that your morals ought to be forced onto others through law. Morality should never be the basis for law. Let people make their own perceived moral decisions. Only infringe on people's right to make decisions if those decisions are dangerous for society.
I mostly agree with you there. I don't see how polygamy causes any problems in and of itself. But the thing is, there's gonna have to be a line that society draws eventually. What about condemning a family that treats their kid like crap because they are mormon or something? Like those stereotyped extremist cult families that teach their children that they are evil and their poop is concentrated evil, etc. Do you really think that should be allowed? I believe in equality of opportunity as one of the most important ideals. A person born into that family is clearly at a severe disadvantage. Even though it is society at large dictating its moral standards on the few that have whackjob beliefs, I still somehow think this is necessary. I like to think our moral standards of today are better than those of the past, on an objective level. In the other thread you said slavery was unstable for society. But it seems pretty arbitrary to me on what basis we determine stability. Is an extremist family cult unstable for society? What if there are lots of them?
I don't think there is a right answer in this area. Someone is going to get their feelings and "rights" stepped on no matter what. It just makes the most pragmatic sense to me to allow checks and balances between ingroups to cancel each others' influence out. In other words, democracy. But again, I think the whole stability of society thing is kind of arbitrary. We have come leaps and bounds in just the past century with more liberal ideas. To me it all comes from a fundamental empathy level for all people. I personally think extreme beliefs should be stepped on by society if the parents are treating their child terribly bad. Abuse is not a good thing, I am curious as to how you could avoid this familial dilemma without just shrugging your shoulders. Also keep in mind that the majority at large will not think like you. Even if it's against the rules, they will still voice their concerns and try to step on the family's rights to neglect.
I think the thing that bothers me is that you are trying to extrapolate what is bad for society based on what happens on an individual level. But a lot of times it is how you universalize something that determines its true consequences. We all have the right to smoke a cigarette. It is not unstable for society for me to personally smoke. But what if everyone smokes at the exact same time? Society stops dead in its tracks. We all die to smog. This is where morality comes into play, because everyone in this scenario is just 1/1,000,000,000th of the problem. Therefore certain rules have to come into play to regulate things that could prove disastrous in the long run. I don't think it wise to decide if something is stable for society based on how an individual instance harms society, but how it universalizes to harm society. It's going to be a blurry grey area no matter what, but I hope you get what I'm saying.
What is good for the many is ultimately what matters on an objective and subjective level. Subjective because we value human lives more, and objective because we have empathy and understanding that we cannot and should not differentiate between others. We are by default in the same boat as a species.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:20:05 PM
I mostly agree with you there. I don't see how polygamy causes any problems in and of itself. But the thing is, there's gonna have to be a line that society draws eventually.
Draw the line on things that matter with regards to a stable and functional society
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:20:05 PM
What about condemning a family that treats their kid like crap because they are mormon or something? Like those stereotyped extremist cult families that teach their children that they are evil and their poop is concentrated evil, etc.
Do you really think that should be allowed?
If this belief does not descend into an unstable society then don't interfere. Let the parent choose for themselves on how to raise their own children.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:20:05 PM
I believe in equality of opportunity as one of the most important ideals.
This is very important for a stable and functional society. If the poor will always be poor then they will be oppressed and eventually there will be an uprising.
There is no true equality in any human society, but there are things we can do to improve the playing field e.g. free education, free health, family support etc.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:20:05 PM
In the other thread you said slavery was unstable for society. But it seems pretty arbitrary to me on what basis we determine stability.
Not arbitrary. We can look to history, other countries, other cultures to see if certain lack of laws have created instability and conflict.
We also have the ability to think things through and to debate. To use reason.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 04:20:05 PM
Is an extremist family cult unstable for society? What if there are lots of them?
Not necessarily.
I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around how you are defining stability and how much is too much de-stability, as I mention in the other thread. I think my mammoth post in that thread says it all pretty much. We ultimately agree about most things.
The thing that bothers me is when you say let the parents decide how to raise the child. I think society should be the determinant of a child's upbringing. I am personally very against homeschooling when people do it to avoid their kids learning about science due to their religious beliefs. Anyone could make the case that this does and does not de-stabilize society. You end up arguing over moral gulfs no matter what in my opinion. Are you really looking at the externalities of the consequences, or just the tangible consequences? So child abuse is the parent's right? It doesn't de-stabilize society, or does it? Like I said, it seems mighty arbitrary. Furthermore, it seems like you are trying to establish your very own objective morality in the same way I do. Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.
I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.
Quote from: Stevil on February 25, 2012, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.
I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.
You want far more than mere safety for you and your family.
Quote from: En_Route on February 26, 2012, 09:22:21 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 25, 2012, 08:46:08 PM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.
I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.
You want far more than mere safety for you and your family.
explore the "want" vs "need" axis
far more still we can imagine and want it
by removal, loss-of-function we have gathered that needs are specific and universal
they come with the model
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 25, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
The thing that bothers me is when you say let the parents decide how to raise the child. I think society should be the determinant of a child's upbringing. I am personally very against homeschooling when people do it to avoid their kids learning about science due to their religious beliefs. Anyone could make the case that this does and does not de-stabilize society. You end up arguing over moral gulfs no matter what in my opinion. Are you really looking at the externalities of the consequences, or just the tangible consequences? So child abuse is the parent's right?
very nice
would it not follow, that we expect licenced professional educators that know how to disseminate knowledge, nurture sociability and inspire the pupils to teach our kids when we enroll them into school? wouldn't we expect that teachers working somewhere are qualified primary level educators by some state-approved system-degree or something?
So, do parents that proclaim homeschooling have to pass some sort of exam? some sort of licensing program to ensure "equal education, dignity " etc for all people under each nation?
where i am at the moment it is illegal, but some people put their kids at work and avoid school or schooling alltogether, there is anyway no social security watchdog or any real beneficiary police work.
Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible
they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist
Quote from: pytheas on March 22, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible
they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist
With applied Reason you will find that morality does not exist.
There is no objective morality since all the people in the world do not agree on anything.
There is no subjective morality since one person's morality is no more right than another person's it simply becomes a matter of opinion, with is hardly a morality.
People who apply reason do not say that something is right because it is moral they think it through and come up with something much more clear and specific.
They might suggest that murder is wrong because allowing it creates danger to themselves, as it essentially becomes open hunting season and there is nothing to suggest that they will not become the hunted. This reasoned person will be motivated to belong to a society which discourages murder. This is not a morality, this is a selfish desire to survive.
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: pytheas on March 22, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible
they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist
With applied Reason you will find that morality does not exist.
There is no objective morality since all the people in the world do not agree on anything.
There is no subjective morality since one person's morality is no more right than another person's it simply becomes a matter of opinion, with is hardly a morality.
People who apply reason do not say that something is right because it is moral they think it through and come up with something much more clear and specific.
They might suggest that murder is wrong because allowing it creates danger to themselves, as it essentially becomes open hunting season and there is nothing to suggest that they will not become the hunted. This reasoned person will be motivated to belong to a society which discourages murder. This is not a morality, this is a selfish desire to survive.
Ok, I pin-pointed a misunderstanding we have
I didn't add what I initially thought with my last entry, which would refer to you along these lines:
" As for stevil's remark (wanting safety-etc) it can form the basis of the most enduring type of morality being rooted and feeding from cold reason, cool logic and correspondant verification
the process of understanding creates emotion
verification by experience of the validity of a notion created by logic deduction as principle brings waves of emotional satisfaction that stoics know about, but do not admit.
for me and my input, moral, morality is this: the feeling, the emotion of a person. A little, a lot, they don't have, or, they do. In some issues we are bound to feel the same. In others we may not.In some issues some feel and others do not. As a phenomenon, a characteristic of the conscious social human, it exists. Subjective means people have one but it may be different from each other.
To feel nothing, ever, and to actually be like that and not in some reactionary denial, for me and a line of experts means psychopathology, affective disorder.
Since you refer to motivation you are in effect already moral and pretty normal
all people in all the world certainly agree on a few things or at least one, I would expect.
A matter of opinion Is what any morality amounts to be. That is the morality I understand and try to abide to by logic. I am afraid the connotations of "morality" that you seem to react towards are translated to me as poisonous dogmatic regulations by false authorities costituting blasphemy to the human essence. As far as the HIJACK of the term morality by church and religion goes, my oppinion falls behind Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_%28book%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_%28book%29)
Christianity "...turned every value into an disvalue, every truth into a lie... it created distress in order to eternalize itself."[69] It has "...contempt for every good and honest instinct..., and its Beyond is its will to negate every reality... ."[69] Nietzsche believed that Christianity is a conspiracy "...against health, beauty, whatever has turned out well, courage, intellect, goodness of the soul, against life itself."[69] He considered Christianity to be a curse and a corruption.
If a person puts a gun against your head and demand you give them your wallet.
If you want to live, to survive then the "right" thing to do would be to give them your wallet. Would this be deemed as the moral thing to do?
Quote from: Stevil on March 22, 2012, 09:43:58 PM
If a person puts a gun against your head and demand you give them your wallet.
If you want to live, to survive then the "right" thing to do would be to give them your wallet. Would this be deemed as the moral thing to do?
that is easy, normal thing to do, nothing with morality. fear of survival, anxiety-enhanced perception, ( or panic) weighing your odds and following suit. Really nothing to do with morality.
If a person puts a gun against someone else's head and demand you give them your wallet.
(as governments often do)
Now we start to approach questions of "morality"
-endager to disarm him?
-happily give him your wallet?
-cheer on for the shooting, you keep your wallet?
-something else?
let me put it this way, as long as we are not in a basal level of extreme anxiety, survival, war in the open field, morality can form, and it does so in certain similar-or-equivalent fashions. It is applicable in situations that are not self-life-threatening.
morality is a prerequisite for good living, "better" living as some would like it.
pointing guns on people's heads and spraying neuronal jellies on wallpapers is not good living.
choices need to have a viable prospect for morality to claim the choosing. you can go eitherway and survive but how do you feel about it eitherway. The quick and the dead as far as choices go is like a flawed statistic test
Quote from: pytheas on March 23, 2012, 05:59:50 PM
that is easy, normal thing to do, nothing with morality. fear of survival, anxiety-enhanced perception, ( or panic) weighing your odds and following suit. Really nothing to do with morality.
This is contradictory to this
Quote from: pytheas
As for stevil's remark (wanting safety-etc) it can form the basis of the most enduring type of morality being rooted and feeding from cold reason, cool logic and correspondant verification
As far as I am concerned, I want to survive, and I want not to be oppressed.
If I break the law, I will become oppressed in prison.
If I try to kill someone, they will try to kill me back or their loved ones will try to kill me or society will try to kill me, so I am forced to behave (at gun point, so to speak)
If I see a group become oppressed by another group e.g. homosexuals getting oppressed by Christians, then I know I must support the homosexuals. Otherwise, eventually there will be war which will endanger my life, or the Christians at some point will want to oppress me.
For Christian's that are doing good deeds, e.g. for charities etc, they are doing this so that they themselves will go to heaven and avoid eternal damnation. They too have a gun against their heads. When they do "good deeds" they tend to evangalise at the same time, this shows their true intention. They don't just want to do good deeds for the sake of helping others.
Morality is a human made up concept. If you break everything down you get the drive of survival.
Quote from: Stevil on February 25, 2012, 08:49:29 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 23, 2012, 08:19:52 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 25, 2012, 08:49:29 AM
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.
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 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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 03:20:11 AM
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.
Quote
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...
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 03:53:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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?
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 24, 2012, 05:02:13 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 24, 2012, 05:02:13 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 24, 2012, 05:02:13 AM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 24, 2012, 05:02:13 AM
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?
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 08:05:44 AM
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 24, 2012, 01:46:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 08:05:44 AM
[Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 08:05:44 AM
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 04:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 05:19:07 PM...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.
Quote from: Firebird on March 24, 2012, 05:19:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 08:51:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Asherah on March 25, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
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).
Quote from: Asherah on March 25, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
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.
QuoteObviously, 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.
Quote from: Asherah on March 25, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
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.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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 have to disagree with you there. Consumers create the demand, and are therefore involved and culperable if the demand is for something illegal, tho I would say it's to a lesser extent than the suppliers.
QuoteAlthough 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.
If selling vids of those crimes is the reason for the crime being committed, I think buying them, or paying to watch them on the internet, should be illegal along with committing the crime and taping the crime.
QuoteJust 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.
I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
Most countries have a law that if you are aware of a crime then you are legally obliged to report it.
Would you agree with this law? Would you agree that viewers of child porn would thus be legally obliged to report it?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
If there is justified reason to oppose an action then government can impose law. If there isn't justified reason then the society members will need to learn to mind their own business. Again, we aren't moral guardians, if morality exists and there is a god that cares about morality then leave it to the god to implement justice in the afterlife.
If society members can't mind their own business on an issue then it is worth exploring further as maybe there is justified reason to oppose.
Nothing is certain, there are many ambiguous scenarios that require much debate. This is why I like common law as opposed to legislative law.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
I have to disagree with you there. Consumers create the demand, and are therefore involved and culperable if the demand is for something illegal, tho I would say it's to a lesser extent than the suppliers.
I agree that supply and demand apply to how much of a product is created, but I'm not positive that logic works in relation to child porn. I am unsure of how much child porn is sold, vs. how much is shared for free.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
If selling vids of those crimes is the reason for the crime being committed, I think buying them, or paying to watch them on the internet, should be illegal along with committing the crime and taping the crime.
What about when money does not exchange hands? I used to frequent 4chan.org for a while, in order to keep up with what anonymous was up to. That site, due to it's anonymity (I think that is the reason), has a major problem with child porn being posted. The threads get deleted, the IP banned and likely reported, but those images can be downloaded for free. I also used the program TOR for a while when I would visit the site, because I didn't want my IP associated with the site, but it became impossible to use it, because about 90% of the IP's I rerouted through were banned due to the posting of CP. 4chan informs you why the IP is banned when you attempt to access the site through that address.
The point is, I don't think most people make money off child porn. I see no evidence to suggest it is a profitable business model. Granted that is likely due to it being illegal.
I also have never been provided with evidence proving a link between those who view child porn and harming children themselves. Nor have I seen evidence that sharing child porn leads to more child porn.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.
I have to disagree. The crime against the child is justification for criminalizing those who directly aggress upon the child. But the problem I have with your argument, which is similar to most I have seen, is that the logic is not applied across the board. If we were to apply this logic to everything; viewing videos of robberies, assaults, murders, etc should be illegal as well. It isn't though, at least in most Western countries I can think of. There are laws for those who commit the crime, but those who witness it or watch a video, are not viewed as criminals. I see no reason why that same logic does not apply to this issue.
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
I don't think it has to, the crime against the child or children directly involved is enough.
I have to disagree. The crime against the child is justification for criminalizing those who directly aggress upon the child. But the problem I have with your argument, which is similar to most I have seen, is that the logic is not applied across the board. If we were to apply this logic to everything; viewing videos of robberies, assaults, murders, etc should be illegal as well. It isn't though, at least in most Western countries I can think of. There are laws for those who commit the crime, but those who witness it or watch a video, are not viewed as criminals. I see no reason why that same logic does not apply to this issue.
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
The difference between a video of a robbery and a video of child porn is that the video of child porn is a commodity. Most robbers don't rob a bank so that they can sell/produce the video after the fact. Most people are aware of this context when you view the videos.
On the murder front, I think there is definitely a difference between watching a snuff film where someone is intentionally murdered to produce the film, and watching a youtube video (or something similar) where a murder just happens to be caught on film.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 25, 2012, 10:31:01 PM
The difference between a video of a robbery and a video of child porn is that the video of child porn is a commodity. Most robbers don't rob a bank so that they can sell/produce the video after the fact. Most people are aware of this context when you view the videos.
I don't see any evidence proving people record their raping of children solely to share it though. Nor do I see evidence to support the motivation of the crime was the sharing or selling of the video. I have recorded some of my sexual conquests, mind you they were legal and consensual, but my motivation was not personal gain or online sharing. Those videos are encrypted and password protected, and the motivation was purely my being able to watch them later. I had sex with those women, because I was horny, the videos were simply a bonus of my desire and their willingness and trust in being filmed. Just as most robbers don't rob a bank due to a want to share the video, I don't think those who rape children are motivated by the idea of sharing the video. It can be a result of the act, but I don't see it as being the motivation of the act... I hope that makes sense to others.
Quote
On the murder front, I think there is definitely a difference between watching a snuff film where someone is intentionally murdered to produce the film, and watching a youtube video (or something similar) where a murder just happens to be caught on film.
I'm unable to make that distinction. It is either wrong to view acts of aggression, or it isn't. I don't see why watching a snuff film is any different than watching someone being murdered during a bank robbery. With snuff films, the practice of murdering women after sex, was not a result of video or the internet. Video simply facilitated the sharing and/or selling of such films.
I view snuff films the same as child porn. I choose not to watch or make such videos, but don't think people should be punished by the state for simply viewing these videos. I'm all for society shunning people who enjoy viewing these videos, but I don't support laws that criminalize the viewing. I simply don't see the link between crimes being committed due to a want to sell or share the video. No matter the money, you couldn't get me to star or record a snuff or child porn film, just as you wouldn't be persuaded to be in one. Those who are in them, or record them, are likely motivated by the act itself, not the monetary gain. I would argue the adults in CP videos are motivated by a want to have sex with a child, not the actual act of recording and selling such videos.
I'm also curious if viewing fantasy rape films should be illegal, or fantasy child porn? I'm trying to narrow down how you all view this by asking these questions. Does staged fantasy rape porn promote rape? Is viewing fantasy rape equivalent to watching an actual rape? Does having a young looking model, who is over the legal age, promote violence against children or make people want to abuse children? Are those who view these fantasy video's contributing to actual rape and other forms of violence?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:58:24 PM
I'm also curious if viewing fantasy rape films should be illegal, or fantasy child porn? I'm trying to narrow down how you all view this by asking these questions. Does staged fantasy rape porn promote rape? Is viewing fantasy rape equivalent to watching an actual rape? Does having a young looking model, who is over the legal age, promote violence against children or make people want to abuse children? Are those who view these fantasy video's contributing to actual rape and other forms of violence?
If it's simulated rape between consenting adults, or sex with a consenting adult who looks like a child, that's not a legal matter for me. The "adult" and "consenting" make all the difference. We'll have to agree to disagree about consumers of real kiddie porn, rape and snuff films being contributing factors in the particular crime that was taped.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.
How am I as the viewer, expected to know what the motivation behind the video is?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.
If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it, otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.
How am I as the viewer, expected to know what the motivation behind the video is?
If it was produced as part of the porn industry, I think we can assume it was done for profit and the viewer/buyer is contributing to that industry continuing to make that type of porn. If it was just done and shared for sheer fun then, as Stevil noted, seeing it and not informing the police makes the viewer an accessory.
Quote from: Stevil on March 25, 2012, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Am I responsible for a murder simply because I watched a video of someone being murdered?
Think I did address this aspect of it -- if the murder was committed in order to make the video, then yes.
If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it, otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.
How do you know if the police know of it? I also don't agree with compelling bystanders to report a crime, but that is a different argument. You wouldn't be concealing evidence unless you hide or destroy it yourself. If you happen to stumble upon an internet underground site that hosts illegal content, I don't think you are "concealing evidence" simply by failing to report it. The destruction of such evidence I think would constitute concealing it, but not reporting the infringing site, and never going back to it, doesn't seem to constitute concealment. If you were to destroy evidence the site ever existed, I would say you are guilty of concealment, but simply not reporting a crime, shouldn't constitute concealing evidence. If I happened across illegal content while searching for porn I see no reason why I should be forced to report the crime, especially since I have failed to report crimes that were perpetrated against me. I'm not arguing along what current laws are, but rather what they should ideally be if we are to have laws enforced by the state.
I also apologize for derailing your thread, but I wanted to use an example that would get people to respond mainly on instinct, as a way to test you're argument.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 25, 2012, 11:06:17 PM
If the police don't know about the video then you are entitled by law to report it, otherwise you are deemed to be concealing evidence which makes you an accessory.
How do you know if the police know of it? I also don't agree with compelling bystanders to report a crime, but that is a different argument. You wouldn't be concealing evidence unless you hide or destroy it yourself. If you happen to stumble upon an internet underground site that hosts illegal content, I don't think you are "concealing evidence" simply by failing to report it. The destruction of such evidence I think would constitute concealing it, but not reporting the infringing site, and never going back to it, doesn't seem to constitute concealment. If you were to destroy evidence the site ever existed, I would say you are guilty of concealment, but simply not reporting a crime, shouldn't constitute concealing evidence. If I happened across illegal content while searching for porn I see no reason why I should be forced to report the crime, especially since I have failed to report crimes that were perpetrated against me. I'm not arguing along what current laws are, but rather what they should ideally be if we are to have laws enforced by the state.
I also apologize for derailing your thread, but I wanted to use an example that would get people to respond mainly on instinct, as a way to test you're argument.
Err on the side of caution. If you think the police might not know then let them know. No harm in them knowing twice.
Don't worry about derailing, conversation is organic, I have no problem with it.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
How do you know if the police know of it?
Does that matter? You tell them, they take it from there.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:18:51 PM
If it was produced as part of the porn industry, I think we can assume it was done for profit and the viewer/buyer is contributing to that industry continuing to make that type of porn. If it was just done and shared for sheer fun then, as Stevil noted, seeing it and not informing the police makes the viewer an accessory.
I have already responded to Sevil's point, but it was posted after this post. Porn producers don't dabble in child porn, I would imagine it's equivalent to legal amateur porn, in that an individual simply decides to record their sex act and post it online. Sometimes amateur porn is motivated by monetary gain, other times the couple simply gets off on other people watching them. Amateur porn sites, can easily pay their contributors though, I don't think the same applies to child porn sites.
Now we are on the topic of reporting a crime. For this I would like to mention the following:
Max Hardcore, who owned and starred in his films, was sentenced to jail time for one of his videos. I have seen the video that resulted in him being charged and prosecuted, and agree it could have been rape. I don't know all the facts though, so can't determine if it actually was or not. Seeing has he has been charged with the crime, and served his sentence, am I a criminal for having watched that porn video, in order to determine if he should have been arrested?
By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?
Also, in many U.S. jurisdictions it is not illegal to not report a crime.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:37:07 PM
By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?
I'll quote your arguement here: how do you know those responsible have already been arrested? Report it anyway.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:29:00 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
How do you know if the police know of it?
Does that matter? You tell them, they take it from there.
It does when the argument is based upon the "concealing of evidence." How can you conceal something the government has already discovered?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:37:07 PM
By the argument you have laid out, I have not concealed evidence seeing as the trial had played out and the video is still easily accesible through the internet. If we carried this over to kiddy porn, is it acceptable to view it if the individual in it has been arrested?
I'll quote your arguement here: how do you know those responsible have already been arrested? Report it anyway.
With this, we are getting into a different discussion of if an individual should be compelled to report a crime, which I don't think they should. Witnessing a crime is not a crime, or at least it shouldn't be. If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you? If I see someone loosening the bolts holding up a chandelier, and fail to mention it, am I responsible for a death that occurs due to it's collapse. I would argue that the person who loosened the bolts is responsible for murder, but me as a witness has done nothing illegal. Even if I could have prevented a death by saying something, does not mean I'm responsible for the death. The only person responsible is the one who actively loosened the bolts holding the chandelier in place, at least from my perspective.
The argument seemed to come down to "concealment of evidence." As with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.
Added after initial post: With the Max Hardcore example, I searched out the video after reading articles about it. I wanted to make my own decision about the charges against him, coupled with a sadistic curiosity on my part. Is the viewing illegal based purely on the viewing, or should it only be illegal if the crime committed in the video has not yet been reported to the police?
Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?
I continue to ask questions because I'm attempting to better understand the reasoning behind this position. I ask for the sake of this discussion, people answer these questions.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?
Actually, if there's a crowd of people witnessing a crime, there's a logical premise to suppose that it
hasn't been reported. It's called the "bystander effect". We talked about it a bit in this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8468.0). A related principal is diffusion of responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility). So, in short, you should probably never assume that everyone else is doing the right thing in those kinds of circumstances.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
Along the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported. You can easily argue that I "should" report such a crime, but at the same time, I can reasonably assume it has already been reported. If nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?
Actually, if there's a crowd of people witnessing a crime, there's a logical premise to suppose that it hasn't been reported. It's called the "bystander effect". We talked about it a bit in this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8468.0). A related principal is diffusion of responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility). So, in short, you should probably never assume that everyone else is doing the right thing in those kinds of circumstances.
By arguing people should assume the crime has not been reported, does not seem to support the idea it should be required by law to report a crime. By saying it's logical to assume nobody has reported the crime, you have to assume the witnesses understand the "bystander effect." Many people are rightfully ignorant of such a thing, and should not be charged with a crime due to their ignorance.
I fail to see any logical basis that supports passivity being a crime the way active aggression is.
No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 12:43:34 AM
No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.
I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem. ;D
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:40:52 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 25, 2012, 11:29:00 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
How do you know if the police know of it?
Does that matter? You tell them, they take it from there.
It does when the argument is based upon the "concealing of evidence." How can you conceal something the government has already discovered?
I don't think most people would know that, particularly if the material is still online. To echo Stevil, there's no harm in reporting something more than once. And as I discuss further below, the inital crime and punishment are not the only issues.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you?
Not of murder, but definitely of depraved indifference, which is a crime in some places. And if
I were still able to think anything, I'd certainly consider you complicit in my death.
QuoteAs with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.
I don't know what kind of porn we're discussing, but if it involves something illegal then the punishing of Mr. Hardcore is not the only issue -- the illegal material is still being purveyed which, if that isn't illegal in and of itself, I think should be. As I mentioned, I know nothing of internet law but it seems to me such things can be taken off-line, even if it needs to be done more than once.
QuoteAlong the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported.
I don't think that would be an actual problem, it sounds more like pushing an arguement to improbable extremes. In any case, it's still better to do it than not do it since the kind of result you're suggesting is just as unlikely as the assumption that someone has already reported it.
QuoteIf nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?
I would say you're all guilty of depraved indifference (which I know isn't illegal everywhere) and, yes, of facilitating that rape.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 01:06:57 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 12:43:34 AM
No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.
I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem. ;D
?? What? It was the assumption that quoted in my post.
Anyhoo, it's not a big deal. Carry on.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 01:31:16 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 01:06:57 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 12:43:34 AM
No, and I wasn't necessarily making that argument. I was just countering an assumption you put forth when it came to crowds/crime/reporting.
I'm not 100% positive of which assumption your directly referring to. I know I have made many assumptions just as others have, but I think it's unavoidable when discussing a topic like this. This is one of those discussions that will be riddled with assumptions though, due to none of us, I hope, having firsthand knowledge and experience with the problem. ;D
?? What? It was the assumption that quoted in my post.
Anyhoo, it's not a big deal. Carry on.
I have simply been responding to so many people in such a short time, I wasn't exactly sure what you were referring too. Seeing as there was no quote in that last post, I wasn't positive you were referring to the quote of the previous post... Forums aren't the most organized venue for discussing things with multiple people, at least not for the way my brain functions.
No worries :)
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 26, 2012, 01:19:03 AM
I don't think most people would know that, particularly if the material is still online. To echo Stevil, there's no harm in reporting something more than once. And as I discuss further below, the inital crime and punishment are not the only issues.
It doesn't matter if people should reasonably assume it has already been discovered or not.
There could be harm in reporting something more than once. Imagine if everyone dialed 911 when 100 people witness a hit and run. All 100 people reporting the same crime, at the same time, would simply hinder other crimes from being reported. That logic does not apply to this exact discussion, but it does accurately suggest that it isn't always good for "everyone" to report a crime.
I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.
I also differentiate between passive and active concealment of evidence. If you harbor a fugitive, you are directly helping that individual avoid prosecution. If you witness a crime and fail to report it, you are passively allowing that individual to avoid prosecution. I see a major difference between passive and active "concealment."
How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 25, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
If I see the chandelier you are about to walk under is loose, and fail to warn you, am I guilty of murder if said chandelier falls on you?
Quote
Not of murder, but definitely of depraved indifference, which is a crime in some places. And if I were still able to think anything, I'd certainly consider you complicit in my death.
That is simply an example of inaction. There are many logical explanations as to why I wouldn't have warned you. Perhaps I thought the individual loosening the bolts was a trained individual hired to do something with the chandelier. Perhaps, I simply don't like you and didn't care if you died. Regardless of the reason for my remaining silent in that regard, my inaction is not equivalent to the action of loosing the chandelier from it's mount. I understand personally holding it against the individual who didn't say anything, but don't support laws to punish individuals for inaction.
QuoteAs with the Max Hardcore example, if you know the crime has been punished, should the viewing still be illegal? I feel it is a valid question based upon your argument.
Quote
I don't know what kind of porn we're discussing, but if it involves something illegal then the punishing of Mr. Hardcore is not the only issue -- the illegal material is still being purveyed which, if that isn't illegal in and of itself, I think should be. As I mentioned, I know nothing of internet law but it seems to me such things can be taken off-line, even if it needs to be done more than once.
He produced legal, but sick porn. The man is into urinating on the models, rough sex, and fictional pedophilia. From what I have read about him, and what I have seen first hand, he likes making his actresses appear as young girls. The video that resulted in his arrest was due to the woman telling him to stop in the middle of the shoot and his ignoring her plea. I'm not sure if it can be classified as rape though, because I'm unsure of the wording of the contract she signed.
Regardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.
What is the justification, aside from obvious moral reasons, is there for punishing individuals for watching that video?
QuoteAlong the same line of thinking, if I'm walking down the street and a crowd starts gathering around a woman being raped, am I obligated to report it, seeing as it's logical to assume the crime has already been reported. If everyone is expected to report it, you could run into a problem with the emergency dispatch getting overwhelmed with the same reports, resulting in other crimes being prevented from being reported.
Quote
I don't think that would be an actual problem, it sounds more like pushing an arguement to improbable extremes. In any case, it's still better to do it than not do it since the kind of result you're suggesting is just as unlikely as the assumption that someone has already reported it.
It's not. I posed that question based on reports like this one:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
It's clear those who partook in the rape committed a crime. I don't think it's so clear in regards to those who simply watched and recorded though. There is no way to determine for sure who recorded so their would be evidence to convict, and who recorded to share the video online. I also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.
QuoteIf nobody witnessing the act reports it, are we all guilty of rape, or at least guilty of facilitating that rape?
Quote
I would say you're all guilty of depraved indifference (which I know isn't illegal everywhere) and, yes, of facilitating that rape.
Perhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.
When you move onto directly encouraging something, it is arguably worse than simply watching, but is still not equivalent to committing the crime yourself. I can see an argument made for that being illegal though. I can't agree that passive indifference should be a crime however.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.
I am not sure how you can expect society to function if we don't help ourselves and behave as if we belong to the society.
The law and police are simply a necessary function of our own society. If society members do not support these functions then how can society function?
An alternative would be to have a huge amount of resources put into a large police force or to have camera's and surveillance everywhere.
In a perfect world people would be more than happy to support their own society by reporting crimes, providing testimony etc, however it seems we don't live in a perfect world. At times our law needs to coerce society members into reporting crimes, providing testimony etc. This works towards the goal of a functional and stable society.
Just because you are not a member of the police force it doesn't mean that you don't have social responsibilities.
Morality is irrelevant and worthless. Morals are a set of definitions on "what it is to be good" however they are pointless as no code or rule book is needed to be such. In fact I would argue that morality has been used more often than not to do harm under the pretense of doing good, and is used to judge others to create a sense of superiority over others.
I like what the tao te ching says on morals.
Quote from: chapter 19 - Tao Te Ching
Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.
If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
I understand the argument behind reporting crimes if you're unsure, but I disagree that it should be required by law.
Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 03:00:23 AM
I am not sure how you can expect society to function if we don't help ourselves and behave as if we belong to the society.
I agree societies function best when we help each other, but I don't conclude it should be illegal to not help someone.
Quote
The law and police are simply a necessary function of our own society. If society members do not support these functions then how can society function?
I also believe there is a need for police and justice; I simply argue such institutions should be privatized. My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.
Quote
An alternative would be to have a huge amount of resources put into a large police force or to have camera's and surveillance everywhere.
The point I was trying to make is that most people who witness crimes and fail to report them are completely innocent. Their passivity does not warrant harassment or prosecution. Their could be other uncivil reasons behind inactivity, but the reason does not seem important to me. It is often times impossible to fully understand a person's motives behind an action or inaction, and laws that "require" people to report things would only result in good citizens being arrested or fined by these laws. It would get some creeps off the streets, but likely at the expense of innocent people.
Quote
In a perfect world people would be more than happy to support their own society by reporting crimes, providing testimony etc, however it seems we don't live in a perfect world. At times our law needs to coerce society members into reporting crimes, providing testimony etc. This works towards the goal of a functional and stable society.
And many people do today, but there are too many variables to enforce it by law. I also don't see why an individual should be compelled to testify on another's behalf. I see no reason why I should be required to miss work and lose money to help someone I don't know. It would be nice of me to help that person out, but maybe I can't afford to miss anymore work.
Most people seem to be good, and most people's intentions seem to be just (even if misguided.) Most people, even during inaction are productive and beneficial to society on the whole. I simply see no justification for enforcing action on one individual to help another. Many people will do it regardless of being forced, and the rest shouldn't be compelled to.
Quote
Just because you are not a member of the police force it doesn't mean that you don't have social responsibilities.
I don't agree with the idea of social responsibilities. My philosophy is based around the right to own property and the non-aggression principle. The most important thing is the individual and it is how I justify rape being wrong and criminal, among other things. However, failing to report something is not in violation of the non-aggression principle. I think there are far to many laws, and governments will continue to grow and oppress until their inevitable collapse, conquest, or revolution. The same cycle keeps repeating throughout history.
My only responsibility is to not initiate violence against another. My personal code of honor, and political philosophy does not require anyone to report anything, or take action in another's defense. No one is responsible for violence other than the one who committed the violence.
This is why I began searching for limited government philosophies and eventually found the one I like and agree with.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 03:31:17 AM
My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.
I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?
I would like to add. It is often hard, if not impossible to predict the unintended consequences of a law.
Even statutory rape laws result in innocent children being charged and sometimes prosecuted, and child porn laws have been used to do the same.
I have read articles about underage male children being charged with possession of child porn, because they received a nude and often unsolicited picture from a female of their peers. There are also cases of males who were 18 being charged with statutory rape for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. Something that is legal when he was 17 should not arbitrarily become illegal when he hits 18.
It's because of the illogical nature of such laws I oppose them, not because I condone child porn or statutory rape. Even laws created for the benefit of minors or society as a whole will inevitably be used to persecute innocent people.
I oppose more laws, and most of those currently on the books, for the same reason I oppose the death penalty; sometimes the government abuses it's power or makes a mistake.
Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 03:40:29 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 03:31:17 AM
My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.
I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?
Will do, although it may not be tonight as my wife is getting annoyed I'm paying more attention to y'all instead of her.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.
I'm assuming that the material itself is illegal, so if it's still up on the internet someone is putting or keeping it there. If it's not the person who was already punished for making it in the first place, he or she is in the clear -- at least as far as that bit of porn goes -- but the person who is maintaining the site it appears on is not.
QuoteRegardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.
Based on that, I think this is not a good example. If the porn itself is not considered illegal, there's no problem with it continuing to be available.
QuoteI also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
QuotePerhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.
Of course they're not guilty of the rape, but to my way of thinking they did facilitiate it by seeing it and doing nothing to stop it, even if that was doing no more than calling the cops.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 02:17:14 AM
How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 26, 2012, 03:49:17 AM
I'm assuming that the material itself is illegal, so if it's still up on the internet someone is putting or keeping it there. If it's not the person who was already punished for making it in the first place, he or she is in the clear -- at least as far as that bit of porn goes -- but the person who is maintaining the site it appears on is not.
In the case of child porn the material is always illegal, at least in most countries. I'm not sure of the legality of hosting, downloading, or viewing that particular Max Hardcore video though. It's worth noting he was convicted on obscenity charges and not rape. But, I still don't follow how possessing something should be a crime.
I simply don't understand how possession of a video of a criminal act is justified as being a criminal act itself.
QuoteRegardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.
Quote
Based on that, I think this is not a good example. If the porn itself is not considered illegal, there's no problem with it continuing to be available.
That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."
QuoteI also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.
Quote
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. :)
QuotePerhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.
Quote
Of course they're not guilty of the rape, but to my way of thinking they did facilitiate it by seeing it and doing nothing to stop it, even if that was doing no more than calling the cops.
I understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.
Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 03:40:29 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 03:31:17 AM
My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.
I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?
If you're curious, you can look at this thread to read a bit more on it. But, I can't remember what points I make or how articulately I defend or explain my ideas.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9297.0
I will post a thread explaining the basic principles of the philosophy though and some explanations about my reasoning behind certain beliefs. I will PM you with the link when I do.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 04:00:50 AM
That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."
I think you're still missing the issue of distributing illegal porn being the crime and that's where finding it, and not reporting it, can turn into withheld evidence.
(edited to add: I wasn't sure about the legality or illegality of merely possessing child porn, so I went looking and found this: Laws concerning child pornography (http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1476#3). It's not just a legal offense, it's a Federal offense and it's the FBI that gets involved.)
QuoteI understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.
Another area in which we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's a matter of only one guilty action or inaction. I believe that depraved indifference should be criminal. I don't think it should be treated as equal to the crime witnessed, but it's worth some legal consequences. And frankly, I also disagree with your point that such laws target good, innocent people -- if they witnessed a crime and did
nothing to help, not even call the police, they're neither that good nor that innocent. I'm not saying they're evil, but in some circumstances just being weak is enough bad.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 26, 2012, 06:12:49 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 04:00:50 AM
That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."
Quote
I think you're still missing the issue of distributing illegal porn being the crime and that's where finding it, and not reporting it, can turn into withheld evidence.
Yes the possession and distribution of child porn is currently illegal in the U.S. I already know that. I'm simply saying possession alone should not be a criminal offense.
Quote
(edited to add: I wasn't sure about the legality or illegality of merely possessing child porn, so I went looking and found this: Laws concerning child pornography (http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1476#3). It's not just a legal offense, it's a Federal offense and it's the FBI that gets involved.)
I'm not arguing it isn't currently a criminal offense in our current system.
QuoteI understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.
Quote
Another area in which we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's a matter of only one guilty action or inaction. I believe that depraved indifference should be criminal. I don't think it should be treated as equal to the crime witnessed, but it's worth some legal consequences. And frankly, I also disagree with your point that such laws target good, innocent people -- if they witnessed a crime and did nothing to help, not even call the police, they're neither that good nor that innocent. I'm not saying they're evil, but in some circumstances just being weak is enough bad.
But should being weak be a criminal offense? I don't think so. I am not saying not reporting a crime is a "good" action, but I don't believe it should be a criminal offense. There are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Indiana-Teen-Arrested-For-Nude-Cell-Pics-of-Friends-119787169.html
Edited after post: I could see a civil suit by the victim against those who possess such material. The only reason I really even care about these particular laws is due to how they get abused by the state, like in the story linked above. I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:01:23 AM
I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.
Yeah, this is a good point. Child pornography is one of those issues that's so new that the law hasn't been able to figure out where to draw the line. While it existed before the internet and cell phones with cameras, it was much more out of sight, and you didn't have teens sending naked pictures to each other the way they do now.
However, while it may not be a money-making enterprise necessarily, the possession of child pornography does encourage more abuse of children. Case-in-point, many of the child porn websites out there require that each member submit a certain number of their own pictures to the site before they can get access to more, which often implies that they create their own pictures. Thus more abuse. Now, perhaps a line can be drawn between possession and distribution, but I admit that a mere slap on the wrist for someone possessing that stuff still makes me queasy. Unless they legitimately downloaded it by accident, which has happened to some people.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:01:23 AM
But should being weak be a criminal offense?
In some circumstances, I'd say yes.
QuoteThere are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.
Granted it's not perfect, but nothing is and we can work on the flaws in the system. Unless it's found that the abuses outnumber the benefits, I'm willing to play the odds of making taking action vs. doing nothing a legal requirement when you're aware of a crime.
Quote
EDIT: Links Removed. If the sites do give access to potentially products then links here are inappropriate here. - Tank
It wasn't a link to the site that has illegal products, it was simply a link to a site that had screen shots of the site, as well as his experiences using it. No one could buy anything from the site I linked to, but it does explain how to access the underground site. So I apologize for that.
Damnit, I accidentally edited the entire post instead of simply adding that part.
According to this report (http://make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/Child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf) one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 07:10:16 PM
According to this report (http://make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/Child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf) one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.
And those 1 in 3 are criminals who deserve incarceration. But I agree it is difficult to study the problem scientifically.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:23:17 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 07:10:16 PM
According to this report (http://make-it-safe.net/esp/pdf/Child_pornography_internet_Carr2004.pdf) one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.
And those 1 in 3 are criminals who deserve incarceration. But I agree it is difficult to study the problem scientifically.
So, if the other two admit "I'm addicted to child porn, I want to have sex with a child and I really feel like I might commit child abuse down the road", you wouldn't consider that a problem worth investigating? Just wait for the child abuse to actually happen and address it then?
If you had a friend who was drunk, heading home, and had their car keys in their hands, would you let them walk out of your party because A) they haven't done anything "wrong" (yet) and B) you don't know for certain that they will drive drunk? I don't like persecuting people unjustly as much as the next person, but I think there's a reasonable limit where the pros of prevention outweigh the cons of limiting freedom.
Not to mention the fact that sexualized images of children are often used TO commit child abuse. Child molesters frequently use them in the process of "grooming" kids by de-sensitizing them to sexually explicit material. Which is completely different from how most adult rapes occur (you drew a parallel to adult pornography and rapists in a similar fashion). I'd argue that adult rape has very little to do with actual sexuality, where child molestation usually does.
Besides, (adult) porn is legal and available everywhere. I'd find it believable that someone could get "into" adult porn pretty accidently on the internet (we've all had "surprising" Google image search results), but you don't "accidently" collect a hard drive of child pornography. It's dangerous and risky behaviour which means that the people who are willing to take those risks must REALLY want that material.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 07:51:17 PM
So, if the other two admit "I'm addicted to child porn, I want to have sex with a child and I really feel like I might commit child abuse down the road", you wouldn't consider that a problem worth investigating? Just wait for the child abuse to actually happen and address it then?
It would be a potential problem and most individuals would rightly deny access to their children by individuals like that, assuming they new it. Arresting people due to a "potential" danger an individual posses is a slippery slope into tyranny. Although the argument is valid in regards to this argument, how to you apply it to other potentially dangerous criminals? I don't think people should be punished for inclinations they may have. When it's discovered someone may have a propensity to commit a crime, it may warrant monitoring but not arrest. It also warrants parents keeping such individuals away from their children who they believe might have a high likelihood of abusing children.
Quote
If you had a friend who was drunk, heading home, and had their car keys in their hands, would you let them walk out of your party because A) they haven't done anything "wrong" (yet) and B) you don't know for certain that they will drive drunk? I don't like persecuting people unjustly as much as the next person, but I think there's a reasonable limit where the pros of prevention outweigh the cons of limiting freedom.
I don't think it is exactly a fair comparison. It would depend on the individual situation, but I would offer the friend a ride and attempt to "force" them into my car, or call them a taxi. If they posed an obvious threat to other drivers due to their level of intoxication, I may even report them to the police. There is a difference in that their is an obvious risk of the immediate consequences. Just as if I were to think I were about to see a violent crime committed, I may interfere before it's determined it would actually lead to a crime. I would probably make sure the person knew they weren't alone, and maybe give the police a heads up that something violent is likely to occur. That does not logically follow that people should be punished though based on the possibility of the crime they may have committed though.
It is admittedly an issue of contention because I would technically be left with the decision of preventing a potential crime, meaning the possible criminal would still be free to commit a similar later. Or I could watch and wait to see if the individual commits the crime, in which case I'm now indirectly guilty for the victims being attacked, while also doing good by helping get the person off the streets.
Neither theory is ideal, and in this situation, it would be better to prevent the crime and punish the individual, but I can't morally justify such an action.
Quote
Not to mention the fact that sexualized images of children are often used TO commit child abuse. Child molesters frequently use them in the process of "grooming" kids by de-sensitizing them to sexually explicit material. Which is completely different from how most adult rapes occur (you drew a parallel to adult pornography and rapists in a similar fashion). I'd argue that adult rape has very little to do with actual sexuality, where child molestation usually does.
You are probably right about that, I'm not 100% sure. Those who use the images in such a way are aggressing upon the child though. I'm not against punishing those who do such things. The penalties for child abuse should be strict enough that other, less justified charges, don't need to be brought to achieve justice, however.
I could speculate, but this is purely speculation, that some never abuse children "because" of child porn. I don't know if there is any evidence to support it, but the fantasizing aspect of porn could be a much safer outlet for a dangerous sexual propensity or violence. It seems like a reasonable possibility the fantasizing of a sexual taboo would prevent the outward manifestation of the fetish. It is also reasonable to assume that the viewing of such things makes the desire stronger leading to a greater probability of children being abused.
I'm unsure, but would imagine it's a mixture of the two depending on the individual.
Quote
Besides, (adult) porn is legal and available everywhere. I'd find it believable that someone could get "into" adult porn pretty accidently on the internet (we've all had "surprising" Google image search results), but you don't "accidently" collect a hard drive of child pornography. It's dangerous and risky behaviour which means that the people who are willing to take those risks must REALLY want that material.
I agree with this.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
I could speculate, but this is purely speculation, that some never abuse children "because" of child porn. I don't know if there is any evidence to support it, but the fantasizing aspect of porn could be a much safer outlet for a dangerous sexual propensity or violence. It seems like a reasonable possibility the fantasizing of a sexual taboo would prevent the outward manifestation of the fetish. It is also reasonable to assume that the viewing of such things makes the desire stronger leading to a greater probability of children being abused.
I'm unsure, but would imagine it's a mixture of the two depending on the individual.
I understand what you mean with your other explanations, and they all seem reasonable enough, so I'll just respond to this part.
I think the context/source of the image is still important. For example, I don't know that someone should be arrested if they have "cartoon" child pornography. I don't like it, personally, but since there is no actual child in the picture, the argument for child exploitation in that particular case is shakier (you could still argue that the image legitimizes and normalizes child pornography, but definitely not so much as an actual image).
When it comes to distributing images without consent of the person in it, though, I think it should be taken into consideration. Origin matters.
Hell, that's a concern for all images these days. You hear about bloggers get sued for using pretty innocuous images without permission - let alone something portraying an illegal activity. So really, I guess it just depends on, philosophically, you think an image can/should be divorced from its origin.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:01:23 AM
Yes the possession and distribution of child porn is currently illegal in the U.S. I already know that. I'm simply saying possession alone should not be a criminal offense.
Then I misunderstood that, and I don't necessarily disagree. In fact, reading over the law from the site I found I was surprised at how broad the scope is, including things I would not have considered necessary to make illegal, such as depiction of young-looking adults acting as children, or sexual depictions of children in art or animation -- instances where no actual child is harmed.
The problem seems to be in the issue of whether just looking at something suggestive of sex with children can or at least might encourage actual sexual abuse of children. To be honest, I don't have a strong enough stomach for the kind of research I'd have to do to have an informed opinion on this so I'm going to have to default to erring on the side of caution.
QuoteThere are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Indiana-Teen-Arrested-For-Nude-Cell-Pics-of-Friends-119787169.html
Edited after post: I could see a civil suit by the victim against those who possess such material. The only reason I really even care about these particular laws is due to how they get abused by the state, like in the story linked above. I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.
I've been thinking about this, and similar instances of over-reach: the 6-yr old boy who got accused of sexual harassment for kissing a 6-yr old girl during recess, the high school student arrested for carrying a weapon at school (it was an x-acto knife from art class), and it seems to me that all these cases are instances of zero tolerance policies. I will be the first person to say that zero tolerance policies are both asinine and lazy, and the authorities should just gut up and make a judgement call.
However, that doesn't mean laws against sexual harassment or carrying a weapon are not valuable and necessary. And altho I'm on the fence about how dangerous it is to possess nude pictures of minors (no more baby in the bath or on a bear skin rug in daddy's wallet), considering the level of damage done when sexual abuse
does happen to children I just can't bring myself to take as much risk as I otherwise would and say the illegality of possession should be dropped. More common sense needs to be used in making charges, but that's as far as I can go.
And the arguments against are very compelling, but not proven. If there were a proven link between violence and the content, I would have to seriously reevaluate my position. We both simply have different default views and both have our reasons for erring on the side of what we we think is more cautious.
My justification is simply that most laws meant to do good, will usually be unintended consequences and abuses due to it. Once it starts it seems easier simply to abolish the law. It would be ideal to reform laws so they better target actual offenders, but I think it's easier to monitor the problem when it's legal. There would also be natural deterrents for partaking in behavior a lot of people find morally repulsive. Even if incest were legal, many people would still not act on it because they would be shunned by the rest of society. Even without laws, you can't stop people from shunning, being rude to, etc, individuals you disagree with.
I also understand the argument from your side because I used to hold the same views.
The research involved also wouldn't be worth getting you're I.P. adress flagged.
Sorry for not, quoting, but in regards to what you mean by sexual harassment. Molestation of an employee is obviously wrong, but with general sexual harassment laws, they get abused too. I think verbally harassing someone is wrong but don't support it being illegal.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 27, 2012, 04:48:54 AM
I've been thinking about this, and similar instances of over-reach: the 6-yr old boy who got accused of sexual harassment for kissing a 6-yr old girl during recess, the high school student arrested for carrying a weapon at school (it was an x-acto knife from art class), and it seems to me that all these cases are instances of zero tolerance policies. I will be the first person to say that zero tolerance policies are both asinine and lazy, and the authorities should just gut up and make a judgement call.
However, that doesn't mean laws against sexual harassment or carrying a weapon are not valuable and necessary. And altho I'm on the fence about how dangerous it is to possess nude pictures of minors (no more baby in the bath or on a bear skin rug in daddy's wallet), considering the level of damage done when sexual abuse does happen to children I just can't bring myself to take as much risk as I otherwise would and say the illegality of possession should be dropped. More common sense needs to be used in making charges, but that's as far as I can go.
I would like to add one more thing. Simply because I don't feel verbal sexual harassment should be illegal, doesn't mean I don't think people should not have protections against such advances. I would imagine when a company received a complaint about being sexual harassed, they would likely turn to a arbitration type firm to settle the dispute.
When I speak of no laws, I am referring to mostly criminal. People will always have disputes, but a lot of them can be handled with a simple discussion.
That may not completely solve the problem, but the current laws haven't solved it either.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 05:19:48 AM
My justification is simply that most laws meant to do good, will usually be unintended consequences and abuses due to it.
(my emphasis)
Really? You think that laws intended to prevent abuses usually do more harm than good? Why is that? I can understand the concern that they "could" be used in an unintended way, but "usually"?
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
I would like to add one more thing. Simply because I don't feel verbal sexual harassment should be illegal, doesn't mean I don't think people should not have protections against such advances. I would imagine when a company received a complaint about being sexual harassed, they would likely turn to a arbitration type firm to settle the dispute.
I think that is how most harassment problems are handled, I may have simply assumed too much in thinking there were actual criminal laws about it. In any case, I have have no problem with starting at the lowest level practical and then working up, if and when the problem escalates.
QuoteMy justification is simply that most laws meant to do good, will usually be unintended consequences and abuses due to it. Once it starts it seems easier simply to abolish the law.
I think this may be where we're looking at it differently. I think of any law as not being meant to do good, but being meant to protect (altho of course that's good). If a law works properly most of the time, I'd rather tweak it to narrow the failure rate than abandon it at together. The only laws I'm willing to abandon are either those that aren't working right at all (like the 3-strikes law) or something that shouldn't have been a law in the first place because it's based solely on morality or is just plain silly (like not whistling at ducks on Sunday, which I think is a real law somewhere in the Midwest).
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 05:19:48 AM
My justification is simply that most laws meant to do good, will usually be unintended consequences and abuses due to it.
(my emphasis)
Really? You think that laws intended to prevent abuses usually do more harm than good? Why is that? I can understand the concern that they "could" be used in an unintended way, but "usually"?
Yes, most laws are useless in their nature, or deal with a non-problem. Those that do are often abused. I'm not saying most laws aren't used mostly for their intended purpose, but the majority of laws are used to harass non-violent people, protect some criminal actions, or completely evil in their very existence, to often for my tastes.
Drug laws are continuously abused,
-Cops break down doors of completely innocent home owners, who have no drugs, and are in no way liable for their mistake.
-It is common practice to shoot the families dog, regardless of it's size or threat level.
-Innocent people die to often precisely because of the drug laws, especially those of lower income.
That's not to mention general shootings at the hands of cops. They are rarely fully investigated, and no matter how outraged the public gets, it's almost always deemed justified. They are sometimes held liable for murder, while other times they get to go back on the force. Some police shootings are justified, but many that clearly appear to be unjustified go unpunished.
citizens arrested for filming cops,
children arrested for statutory rape,
DUI checkpoints to catch anyone who is slightly drunk without any consideration to the actual danger they possess,
Child kicked out of school for using pizza shaped like gun to "shot" students.
Adult photographers harassed by the cops (sometimes arrested) for taking innocent pictures of children in public; sometimes their own grandchildren.
The state using other traffic laws to raise money, like rolling through stop signs, that one was used to give me a ticket because I stopped passed the white line in order to see oncoming traffic.
That's not even mentioning laws and regulations that artificially prop up certain certain businesses or industries. Below is just one example. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/livery-services-use-legis_n_1101708.html
My problem is that people don't stop to think how big a problem is. Most of the U.S, especially when something happens to a child, blindly start screaming for a new law. No matter how many laws are created, people will never be completely safe.
Laws used to protect us from our food for example, typically do nothing to protect us and simply harm many.
-It used to be popular for low income farmers in my area to park their trucks on the side of the road and sell their strawberries and a few other foods they harvested. That got shut down, because the food had not been "inspected." There was nothing wrong with their food, there hadn't ever been any serious problems, yet they got screwed because we all need to be protected like children.