Timeline for Why do we condemn pedophilia morally?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2020 at 13:06 | comment | added | Steve | I'm not sure society does agree. As I say, the prohibitions on child labour were originally an imposition upon people (many of whom wanted their children to get out and earn their keep), and there is a mixed picture of sexual abuse until mid-Victorian times too (where increasing economic exploitation and prostitution emerged as the most serious problems). Children are in practice compelled to labour in schools - it is the direct economic exploitation of their labour which is not permitted (save some small exceptions like film and theatre) | |
| Jun 9, 2020 at 12:34 | comment | added | tkruse | Parents may morally consent to some forms of child labour or sex involving their children in theory in some fictional societies. Philosophy knows no other boundary, though psychology might define other limits. I am explicitly saying adult consent does not make anything moral, only it's absence makes things immoral. And I don't say consent needs to be informed and prudent, but the ability to be prudent must be present. I already said what makes child labour different from bedtimes is that society agrees on the boundary following the categorical imperative. There is no specific harm to mention. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 11:23 | comment | added | Steve | To argue that the parent cannot consent for the child, because the child cannot formulate an appropriate consent themselves, omits the consideration that the whole reason why parents are generally given the right to consent for children, is because the children cannot formulate an appropriate consent themselves. What is it that makes employment and sexual matters different from, say, a choice of leisure pursuits or of bedtimes? | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 11:19 | comment | added | Steve | And I agree there are many things that are wrong regardless of children's opinions. I think what we're not being sufficiently clear about, in terms of moral philosophy, is why. We can establish the reason why children's opinions are immaterial is because of their lack of sophistication, what we're not putting our finger on is exactly what kind of harm is being risked, and why for example even an adult (including a parent, who is given wide latitude on most matters, including physical chastisement) cannot make the decision to yoke a child into employed labour or into sexual activity. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 | comment | added | Steve | my point is that (on the one hand) not even the parents can consent to child labour or child sexual abuse, and (on the other hand) the criteria for adult consent is simply that the adult expresses willingness or acquiescence at the time, it isn't necessary to investigate whether that consent is informed, that it is prudent, or that the person understands the world in a proper way. You're trying to load onto the word "consent" a variety of considerations that really have nothing to do with consent. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 11:00 | comment | added | tkruse | In other words, consent does not make anything right, but lack of consent makes most things wrong, and for children the lack of ability for viable consent makes many things wrong regardless of their opinion. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 10:33 | comment | added | tkruse | For actions involving children, it's a main pillar of morality that their decisions are not based on sufficient understanding of how the world works, so the simple categorical imperative does not work. If you like to pick a different word than "consent", do so, but the principle stays the same. For adults, the simple categorical imperative holds for what is moral, though what is legal is a different topic. For adults, lack of ability to viably consent is generally not assumed, unless mental health issues exist. So ability to consent is mostly relevant for morality involving children. | |
| Jun 8, 2020 at 0:01 | comment | added | Steve | Further on consent, I really think more weight is being placed on the concept than it can bear. Consent does not mean someone is shown to be acting in their own best interests, that they must be capable of assessing the minutiae of every risk or consequence, or that they would have the same attitude to the activity many years later. It means broadly that they engage in the activity willingly at the time or at least acquiesce to it. We outlaw many activities not because a person cannot consent, but despite the fact that they do consent. | |
| Jun 7, 2020 at 23:54 | comment | added | Steve | It does not really help matters, because as you say a parent cannot give consent to abuse either, and yet in some cases they do so anyway (indeed in some cases the parent is the abuser). As I say, these are really a class of criminal offence where consent is immaterial, and what is really at stake is (a) an overwhelming risk of harm to children if the conduct concerned (whether sexual activity, or child labour, or whatever) were generally permitted; and (b) the risk of children being diverted from what society sees as proper activities and interests for their age such as schoolwork. | |
| Jun 7, 2020 at 23:53 | comment | added | tkruse | Giving consent in the name or another is complex legally and politically as it is philosophically. It also is an issue for people with mental issues or people in koma. But it's not so relevant to the original question here I think. While legally, parents and the state share responsibility for children, the philosophical aspect likely is that the adult society of rational agents gives consent in place of those not assumed capable of consent. Morally, individual adults can then not give consent in place of a child when they may have a conflict of interests. | |
| Jun 7, 2020 at 23:29 | comment | added | tkruse | I put parental principles in my answer. It's a complex additional topic, but parents do have deciding power in lieu of children giving consent for some things, because somebody needs to make decisions until children can give consent. Parental consent can morally justify all actions which rational adults would agree fall under parental rights and duties. As long as pedophile actions do not call under that category, they cannot become moral even with parental consent. Children do not give moral consent to forced school, their parents do. It not immaterial that the parents do. | |
| Jun 6, 2020 at 22:46 | comment | added | Steve | but as I say, consent is a red herring. We don't ask children to consent to being forced to labour at schoolwork. The legal principle that children cannot give consent is not equivalent to saying children do not consent - it's another way of saying their consent is immaterial to the question of whether an offence is committed by adults. | |
| Jun 6, 2020 at 15:43 | comment | added | tkruse | Sure, child labour was not banned for philosophical reasons. I am only saying it may be considered immoral following the same moral principles (or even considered moral after applying the principle and judging viable consent is possible at a given age). | |
| Jun 6, 2020 at 13:04 | comment | added | Steve | "For all of them, the question is whether a young person is able to give consent." - that seems to me to ignore the historical reality of instances such as child labour. It wasn't banned because children couldn't consent to work (many parents encouraged children to earn their keep as soon as possible, and children are forced to labour in classrooms instead). It was banned for a number of reasons, including to force children into a longer period of education, to control the misuse of children and preserve their physical health for military purposes, and to preserve work for able adults. | |
| Jun 5, 2020 at 15:33 | history | answered | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |