The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[Cynric]

How about this as a way to distinguish things?

Photographs of the victim of a crime suffering said crime cannot legally be reproduced or distributed without the permission of the victim or their next of kin.

Photographs of people committing crimes are fine, as long as the victim is not present and/or identifiable.


"High profile" crimes, such as the Kennedy assassination are a grey area, as they constitute a major public interest. Invasions of privacy (paparazzi) can be determined on a case by case basis.

With that system, child abuse, murder, assassinations, even "happy"-slapping would be illegal. Which suits me. I can't think of a good reason to allow people to vicariously experience a criminal event from the perspective of the perpetrator.

Thoughts?

ETA: as about six posters got in before me, I should clarify this is about the OP issue, rather than nannies or relativism

 

[Earthborn]

Relativism = the self-defeating stance that all morals are of equal worth.

That's a ridiculous definition. A relativist does not have to believe that all morals are of equal worth (and probably doesn't) because relativism does not imply that the value of all morals can be compared. Therefore claiming that they have equal worth is meaningless; equal worth according to whom? To claim that there is equality in value is to assume there is someone making this value judgement outside the two conflicting moralities, and there may not be any.

 

[Piscivore]

First off, I'd dispute that many people claim to get their morality from a god.

From here:
"A solid majority of Americans consistently have expressed the opinion that it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) expressed that view in a 2002 Pew Research Center survey, while 40% said that belief in God is not a prerequisite for morality."

As far as I'm aware, the ten commandments are pretty out of vogue these days.

I didn't mention that as the only possible way to get morality from a god.

Secondly, moral relativism isn't the problem as much as insistence on it being rigidly applied to all situations.

Please elaborate.

You're still missing the point that atheism has anything to do with it, which it doesn't. Atheist = lacking belief in god/s.

Right.

Nothing about morals at all.

If approx 60% of Americans get their morals from a god, and you don't have one, I think the question of where you get your moral sense is relevant.

As I pointed out to Huntster the other day, just because I'm an atheist, I'm still able to be a Satanist.

Link? I'm not sure I buy that.

I'd probably have a different moral standard in that case, too.

And that standard would come from your belief in that god. But I didn't ask where you would get it if you were a Satanist, I asked where you do get your morals as you stand now.

My morals don't come from anywhere, they just are.

Not hardly, if they are not given to you, by parents, by society, they must be generated by you, right? You just pull them out of your ass as the situation warrants? How is that not relative?

Where did matter come from again?

Your morality exists as a fundemental component of the universe? How do you access this inherent wisdom?

See above. Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with morality as atheism; zero.

See above, you are wrong.

No, looks more like a dollar each way.

Is that a NZ idiom? I've not heard it before, but I get the gist from context.

Looks like an apt description of life in the 21st century in the western world.

That's neither here nor there. Is it a relativistic position, or an absolutist position?

Unless you manage to achieve complete anarchy or a totalitarian takeover,

Those are the only options?

you're stuck with what we have and all you're doing is bashing your head against the brick wall of the majority.

And your anti-theist crusade is what?

That's pretty meaningless, although I guess that's what internet forums are for - put your views out there, gain the applause of the like-minded, then rail about why nobody cares.

Is there something particularly wrong with putting one's views "out there", and is an internet forum the only way to do so?

You left unanswered "...[W]hich of these [brands of totalitarianism] do you particularly favour over "moral relativism"?"
Hammy gave totalitarianism as the alternative to relativism. Do you agree?

 

[Gurdur]

So where is the other one?

Which to me sounds surprisingly close to a relativist position, so it would really help if you could explain why you consider relativism as such a horrible thing.

The emotive phrasing of your rhetorical questions kind of leads me to suspect bias, so also since this is on page 14 of a FUBARed thread and your question has anyway already been answerd in a reply to Piscivore, I'ld suggest to you it would really help if you could explain your position on nannies.

 

[Earthborn]

The emotive phrasing of your rhetorical questions kind of leads me to suspect bias

The only reason that I phrase my questions emotively is because you started with an emotive phrasing: "I am a moral subjectivist, unabashedly. I decry relativism, unabashedly and wholeheartedly." That to me suggests that you consider one position great and the other horrible, which is strange to me because I think the positions are very similar.

your question has anyway already been answerd in a reply to Piscivore

Yes, while I was writing the thing you quoted.

I'ld suggest to you it would really help if you could explain your position on nannies.

I think The Nanny is very funny.

 

[Almo]

Thanks.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound like a trite comeback - even though I'm sure it will - but I really think your views might change if you were a father.

My views on gun control didn't change when Trena was at Dawson college during the shootings. Neither did hers. Outlawing the guns would not have prevented the trouble. Canada has what I believe to be good gun control laws, and everything that could have been done with regard to gun control had been. It just comes down to one person determined to hurt others. When this happens, laws are not going to stop them.

The thing that made a difference in this case was the police response once the trouble started. They had changed their strategy since the last school shootings, and with solid results.

We live in a world of risk. It is impossible to stop crime before it happens. You can, however minimize its impact by being prepared for it.

 

[dann]

It seems to me you are slinging some mud and running for the exit.

Pointing out the difference between, on the one hand, photos taken of a child being sexually abused by a sick pervert and downloaded by paedophiles and used as porn and, on the other hand, pictures of themselves that people for some reason don't want distributed is not exactly mud slinging. Nor is giving up on somebody who cannot tell the difference.
I'll let you wallow in your own mud.

 

[Piscivore]

False dichotomy, and false.

First, I did not make any sort of logical argument with that statement, it was a simple statement of identification, so a fallacy of any stripe does not apply.

Second, I did not, nor did I imply, nor did I seek to state or imply that the world of reference books was limited to only encyclopedias and dictionaries, and never the twain shall meet. I have an encyclopedic dictionary, I've seen dictionaries of encyclopedias. There are also atlases, thesauruses, almanacs, indexes, and a plethora of others.

Third, and I realise this is only a grotty old "general dictionary" sort of definition:
en·cy·clo·pe·di·a
n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

Are we next going to go six rounds about whether or not "comprehensive" and "in depth" are equivalent because you have special meanings for those words, to?

Fourth, the title of the work you referenced is the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". It says it is an encyclopedia, and that's my basis for saying "Tsk. You provided an encyclopedia".

Hee hee, you cherry-picked there; you didn't give the rest of it. You really need to to do it properly.

That's why I put in all this bit here:

But, unfortunately, "In general, the term ‘relativism’ refers to many different ideas."

There is also:
"in moral philosophy ‘relativism’ is usually taken to suggest an empirical, a metaethical, or a normative position. The empirical position is usually:

Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR). As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be."

It goes on, setting up another definition that seems to mirror our "general" defenition:

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

However: "It is important to note several distinctions that may be made in formulating different metaethical relativist positions."

"First, it is sometimes said that the truth or justification of moral judgments may be relative to an individual person as well as a group of persons."

"Second, that to which truth or justification is relative may be the persons making the moral judgments or the persons about whom the judgments are made."

"Finally, MMR may be offered as the best explanation of what people already believe, or it may be put forward as a position people ought to accept regardless of what they now believe."

Nope, still the conflation between subjectivism and relativism

That statement ("moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society." ) does not reference subjectivism at all, so how does it possibly "conflate" the two?

Hammegk clearly means something else than you do; therein lies the confusion.

That's possible. Hammy often means something other than what the face value of his statements seem to mean. That's why I was asking him clarifying questions.

Why don't you share what you think Hammy meant?

Tsk. Read it. Subjectism is the recognition of epistemological problems owing to individual perception.

Right... and that invalidates or differs from "the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual" exactly how?

Wrong. The recognition of the epistemological problems leads directly to recognising moral statements have no truth values.

That does not follow, and your linked article even says the opposite:
"Cognitivism is the denial of non-cognitivism. Thus it holds that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity."

" This variety [cognative] of subjectivism agrees with one of the positive non-cognitivist theses (that moral utterances conventionally express non-cognitive attitudes), but it does not agree with either of the essential negative non-cognitivist claims (that the judgements don't express beliefs and/or that they are not truth-apt). According to this subjectivist theory, the moral utterance expressed the speaker's belief that she approves of the action and this has truth conditions which are also the truth conditions of the sentence uttered. "

I don't think it is me that is confused.

Yet this does not make all moral statements of equal worth, since "worth" is a value judgment itself; relativism is properly used for the self-defeating stance that all morals are of equal worth.
See?

Subjectivism = recognition that moral statements have no truth values and eventually result from individual perception and cognition.
Relativism = the self-defeating stance that all morals are of equal worth.

I do not find that in your linked articles. Would you point out where it says that?

ETA: In any case, As I am not a "specialist", and as I was using the "general dictionary" definitions with which my posts agreed fully, and neither the Atheist not Hammy has expressed the need for a "special" vocabulary in this discussion, I do not see how I've "conflated" the two in this context.

I apologise for those "specialists" out there I may have thusly offended.

Bad idea.

Indeed.
____________

But what do you have to say about nannies? Subjectively, of course.

I think it would be lovely to have a proper English nanny spank me and take me to bed. I'm very naughty.

And bring me a nice spot of tea after.

I loathed Fran Drescher though.

 

[The Atheist]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2246775#post2246775

From here:
"A solid majority of Americans consistently have expressed the opinion that it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) expressed that view in a 2002 Pew Research Center survey, while 40% said that belief in God is not a prerequisite for morality."

Ah, I see. Is it all people, all moralists or all christians who live in USA? As far as I know, USA has about 6-7% of the world's population. If you want to discuss Americans, fine.

I didn't mention that as the only possible way to get morality from a god.

Nor am I, but those are probably the most recognisable ones. Which of the other biblical rules via god are christians living by? Stoning adulterers? Burning witches? Eating pork?

Please elaborate.

I thought that was self-explanatory, but the point is that no single, helpfully-labelled train of thinking is going to fit into what morals are and how morality is applied in law. And rightly so.

Right.

Then why ask this?

If approx 60% of Americans get their morals from a god, and you don't have one, I think the question of where you get your moral sense is relevant.

Here are those 60% of 6% again. So, 3.6% of people on Earth think like that. I have to explain my position because I'm in the remaining 96.4% minority?

No, you answer these questions first:

How deep is a hole? How deep is half a hole? Where did matter come from? Those are all as relevant to the equation.

Where morals come from has no relevance at all. I won't dispute that you adequately shown where 3.6% of the world gets theirs from, though.

Link? I'm not sure I buy that.

Right here.

And that standard would come from your belief in that god. But I didn't ask where you would get it if you were a Satanist, I asked where you do get your morals as you stand now.

Same question, same answer.

Not hardly, if they are not given to you, by parents, by society, they must be generated by you, right? You just pull them out of your ass as the situation warrants? How is that not relative?

Same question again. Your option definitely isn't the right one in my case.

Your morality exists as a fundemental component of the universe? How do you access this inherent wisdom?

Did I suggest that? I asked an irrelevant question to answer an equally irrelevant one.

See above, you are wrong.

No, excatly the opposite, in fact. Rugby, the size and shape of the universe and atheism each have to do as much with my morality as any of the others. You could also add; cooking, whales and the Punakaiki rocks as having the same relevance. None at all.

Is that a NZ idiom? I've not heard it before, but I get the gist from context.

Betting idiom rather than Kiwi - taking a bit of both rather than sticking to one.

That's neither here nor there. Is it a relativistic position, or an absolutist position?

Just that. Neither one nor the other - the "dollar each way".

Those are the only options?

Probably. We have a situation where morality is ruled by laws made up from historical (and biblical) tenets, the thoughts of common man and the opinion of the [hopefully] learned. To change from that is going to require an extremely comprehensive measure of force, in my opinion, so those two are the most likely culprits.

And your anti-theist crusade is what?

What anti-theist crusade is this?

Is there something particularly wrong with putting one's views "out there", and is an internet forum the only way to do so?

I said there's no harm in putting the options on a forum and that it's the only choice available, so it's a good thing. It enables people like my little Tazzy mate, Kev, to state his ridiculous concepts without the same risks as if he were to try it outside a shopping centre or in a bar. It enables you to bash your head against a brick wall and it enables me to smugly occupy the central position, currently backed by the laws under which we live.

You left unanswered "...[W]hich of these [brands of totalitarianism] do you particularly favour over "moral relativism"?"
Hammy gave totalitarianism as the alternative to relativism. Do you agree?

So I did, good spot.

I don't favour any and I've already answered the second part.

 

[Piscivore]

Ah, I see. Is it all people, all moralists or all christians who live in USA? As far as I know, USA has about 6-7% of the world's population. If you want to discuss Americans, fine.

My profoundest apologies. I hate it when I get Americo-centric.

The same source did not give numbers, but did say " Majorities in most countries say it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. But Canadians and Europeans – both in the West and the East – take the secular view that it is possible to be moral without believing in God. Opinion in the United States is closer to that in most developing countries, where agreement is nearly universal that personal morality is linked to belief in God."

Nor am I, but those are probably the most recognisable ones. Which of the other biblical rules via god are christians living by? Stoning adulterers? Burning witches? Eating pork?

Why limit it to Xtianity? Every religion has moral rules.

I thought that was self-explanatory, but the point is that no single, helpfully-labelled train of thinking is going to fit into what morals are and how morality is applied in law. And rightly so.

Why rightly? is this area off limits to investigation?

Then why ask this?

You enthusiatically supported Hammy's statement mocking Moral Relativism, I'm trying to find out where you are coming from that you would do so.

Here are those 60% of 6% again. So, 3.6% of people on Earth think like that. I have to explain my position because I'm in the remaining 96.4% minority?

You don't have to explain your position at all. I'm just telling you why I asked.

No, you answer these questions first:

How deep is a hole?

However deep you dig it. It is relative.

How deep is half a hole?

Half as deep as it was dug. It is also relative.

Where did matter come from?

Presumably, the same "place" energy did.

Those are all as relevant to the equation.

No, they are not.

Where morals come from has no relevance at all.

How is it not relevant to me asking where your morals come from?

You supported supported Hammy's statement mocking Moral Relativism. I'm curious what alternative source of morality you have found that is 1) not relative, and 2) not theistic. So I asked where your morals come from. That is the question, and it cannot be irrelevant to itself.

Right here.

No link.

Same question, same answer.

You didn't answer. You evaded.

What anti-theist crusade is this?

Erm, the one plastered all over this message board?

So I did, good spot.

I don't favour any and I've already answered the second part.

I guess I'm just left wondering then what part of Hammy's post was "music to [your] ears".

 

[Roadtoad]

I wrote a longer post about this, but decided to delete it. The short version is, downloading a picture of a crime long after the criminal involved has been brought to justice is simply not morally equivalent to committing that crime in the first place. Even if a child abuse victim says otherwise.

I think there are defensible arguments for saying that it should be illegal to possess or distribute pictures of other people, if those other people do not want their pictures possessed or distributed. I think there are also defensible arguments for saying that criminalising such possession or distribution is a bad idea.

Obviously cases like those of Masha Allen are very different from cases involving fictional or theatrical portrayals of underage sex, or of cases in which a given activity is legal for the participants but selling depictions of that activity is not.

Why am I not surprised that you don't get it, Kevin?

 

[The Atheist]

My profoundest apologies. I hate it when I get Americo-centric.

It's not a hard position to fall into, but it must be galling for a Canuck!

Why limit it to Xtianity? Every religion has moral rules.

I'm not limiting it christianity at all, it's just the most convenient one and the one I know best.

Why rightly? is this area off limits to investigation?

Not at all, it's just not going to change anything, as far as I can tell.

You enthusiatically supported Hammy's statement mocking Moral Relativism, I'm trying to find out where you are coming from that you would do so.

Well, I've tried to state in several places that I don't see any one position having a mortgage on morality. It needs to be a combination of traditional and evolving beliefs. To swap to a purely relativistic position would be the rule of the minority and that's not something I'm in favour of.

You don't have to explain your position at all. I'm just telling you why I asked.

What more explanation would you like? Mine is self-learned.

How is it not relevant to me asking where your morals come from?

It might be relevant to you, but I can't sum up a lifetime in a sentence or two. Just stick with multiple inputs.

You supported supported Hammy's statement mocking Moral Relativism. I'm curious what alternative source of morality you have found that is 1) not relative, and 2) not theistic. So I asked where your morals come from. That is the question, and it cannot be irrelevant to itself.

Why can't the two be combined with Buddhist morality, subjective morality and historical morality?

No link.

Sorry, here it is.

Erm, the one plastered all over this message board?

Even if I were on an "anti-theist" crusade, which I'm not, it wouldn't preclude me from accepting some of the wisdom of a belief network which has operated for thousand of years. I frequently even berate christians on their inability to follow the moral lead of Jesus.

I guess I'm just left wondering then what part of Hammy's post was "music to [your] ears".

All the bits which tend to agree with my stance, of course! In other words, most of what he's posted here.

 

[Piscivore]

It's not a hard position to fall into, but it must be galling for a Canuck!

I bet it would be, but I was born and raised in Arizona.

...I don't see any one position having a mortgage on morality. It needs to be a combination of traditional and evolving beliefs. To swap to a purely relativistic position would be the rule of the minority and that's not something I'm in favour of.

That is a relativistic position, though.

Even if I were on an "anti-theist" crusade, which I'm not,

My apologies. That's not how you come off sometimes:

I guess it's just that battling against christians, you do find a few worth talking to.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Piscivore just wishes he were Canadian.

Or had Tim Hortons nearby

 

[Gurdur]

Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with morality as atheism; zero.

See above, you are wrong.

Heh, very funny. Do you see any irony in a relativist claiming that a statement about moral systems and relations must be "wrong" ?

Like it or not, Piscivore, you're unconsciously appealing to objectivism standards there, both epistemologically and ethically, in relation to ethics; in your case, it really does not work.

 

[Roadtoad]

Piscivore just wishes he were Canadian.

Or had Tim Hortons nearby

All right, enough is enough.

My Canadian daughter-in-law keeps telling me how great Tim Horton's is, as does my son. Either cough up the doughnuts, or quit talking about them.

 

[Piscivore]

Heh, very funny. Do you see any irony in a relativist claiming that a statement about moral systems and relations must be "wrong" ?

First, I did not say I was a relativist.
Second, the statement was not a moral statement. It was not about a moral system. It was not about a moral relation. It was a statement in reference to whether a certain factor (atheism) was or was not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Third, someone being a moral relativist does not automatically extend that relativism to every single statment with the word "moral" in it he or she may make.
Fourth, it's not really got anything to do with you. There's a whole lot of unanswered questions for you already.

Like it or not, Piscivore, you're unconsciously appealing to objectivism standards there, both epistemologically and ethically,

No, I'm doing it consciously. I don't really have any confidence you have any idea what you are talking about in this area, Gurdur. Everything you've come at me with you haven't been able to sustain- and why on earth you have such a hard-on to prove me wrong in something, I have no idea.

in relation to ethics; in your case, it really does not work.

Why not?

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore just wishes he were Canadian.

Or had Tim Hortons nearby

Too right.

 

[The Atheist]

That is a relativistic position, though.

Appears to be the opposite of your own description, but if you're welcome to give it any label you like. Given that it does contain absolutes, I fail to see it myself.

My apologies. That's not how you come off sometimes:

Eh? That post alone should make it clear that I do find christians worth talking to. If you read it in context, I was saying that CTists have no redeeming features, exactly the opposite of christians, who often do.

 

[Gurdur]

First, I did not say I was a relativist.

I concluded it from some statements you made: If you're not and I am wrong, I will be happy to hear your explanation of your exact stance. Succintly, of course.

Second, the statement was not a moral statement. It was not about a moral system.

Oh, bollocks and codswallop. The Atheist made a statement about the relation of moral systems to other things; you decried it as "incorrect", IOW you made a truth value statement about his system of relations to morality. Get it straight, fer crissakes.

It was not about a moral relation. It was a statement in reference to whether a certain factor (atheism) was or was not relevant to the discussion at hand.

It involved most certainly morality, and you are simply not being honest here.
Here FYI is The Atheist's statement yet again:
"Playing rugby has exactly the same to do with morality as atheism; zero."

So The Atheist was saying atheism has nothing to do with morality, just as rugby doesn't; you flat-out told him he was wrong, and only said "See above" as to why he was wrong.
So you are not being honest at all when you claim it was not about a moral relation; sheeeeesh, what's the matter with you?

Third, someone being a moral relativist does not automatically extend that relativism to every single statment with the word "moral" in it he or she may make.

Ah, you are defending inconsistancy then.

Fourth, it's not really got anything to do with you.

Don't be so stupidly silly. If you want private discussions unmarred by the intrusion of others, grow up, and use PM's or email instead. This is a public bulletin board.

Gurdur. Everything you've come at me with you haven't been able to sustain- and why on earth you have such a hard-on to prove me wrong in something, I have no idea.

Now you are drama-queening; I have no idea why you conclude I have anything specially in for you, but your paranoia is simply unwarrented; I assure you, I have no special attitude to you whatsoever, and you are a mere blip on my horizon. So grow up already if you want to have an adult discussion.