Moral Disgust

[Gods Big Toe]

Interesting thread. It sort of reminds of college bull sessions, only back then we did not call the guy who brought it up a troll or a pedophile nor did we suggest less controversial topics.

The 9 year old driving case is not really relevant since that is about risk assessment more than anything else. The hypothetical incest eliminated any risk by the dual use of birth control. The point would be the same if both parties had been rendered sterile via surgery.

Someone claimed that the rational basis for child molestation was the lack of consent. I assume the term molestation was broadly used to also includes those situations where had the minor been an adult, there would be no doubt whatsoever about consent. While a lack of consent is a rational basis, it still requires a rational basis to declare that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult.

I have recently seen several arguments for this presumed lack of consent that I consider weak at best. I write this knowing full well I may likely be accused of being a pedophile or otherwise promoting it, but I know in my heart that this is a mental exercise and not a reflection of my proclivities, which are a far cry away from that.

David Finkelhor makes a fairly decent argument stating that consent is not possible (ht tp :// newgon . com /prd/lib/Finkelhor1984/c2.html) after knocking down a few of the common arguments about why adult sex with children is wrong. The referenced article is a good example of what Ivor brought up because before Finkelhor addresses consent, he compares it to slavery in the sense that we would not condone slavery even if slaves were shown to be better off. In other words we just know it is wrong from a moral sense rather than empirical. Apparently he equates empirical with evidence of physical well-being.

His arguments for lack of consent as I understand them are directed at prepubescent children and do not necessarily apply to those who have reached puberty. Taken in that context I can see where he is coming from stating that children have no free will (his term). Any teacher will tell you that they have too damned much free will at times. I can see how a parent can severely restrict free will, but that power diminishes at the next level of authority (teachers) and diminishes greatly with other adults and with age. It is still a reasonable point, though.

He also argues that they lack an understanding of what is involved even though they may grasp the mechanics and how it feels. He argues that they do not understand the social implications including how other people will react. This argument only works if you accept his initial premise that adult sex with minors is wrong. If society did not already believe that, then the social implications would not matter. It is hard to wrap my brain around that last part since it is so ingrained in American/Western culture that it is wrong, but as a mental exercise it is intriguing.

I read elsewhere (cannot find the link right now) that Finkelhor was reminded that children quite often make uninformed consent. Gymnastics has one of the highest injury rates, but we allow children to choose that sport. We actually reward those children who get up at 5 AM to practice before school and practice several hours each day of the weekend to win competitions that require them to do things the body does not do naturally or even have a practical use outside of the competition. Do they really understand what they are missing in their childhood? There are many other examples, religion being a fantastic example of something that has life-long effects and for which the child has no free will or concept.

Finkelhor argues that sexual activity is different because it is harmful. Unfortunately, this again relies on us accepting his initial premise that adult sex with children is inherently wrong. If it is inherently wrong, why make an empirical argument in the first place?

As a society we decide upon certain values and construct laws accordingly. We mostly agree on adults and children not having sex. When it comes to privacy and security, we often disagree. Some are willing to give up privacy and grant more power to the police so that we get all the bad guys while others are willing to have a system where some bad guys get away with it because they value privacy and not locking up innocents to be more important. National health care is another issue where differing values come into play.

I think a lot of it comes down to what we personally *feel* is acceptable. I do not want my son to end up in a shower with Sandusky. If when he is in his early teens Mrs. Robinson next door decides to show him the ropes, I probably will not be all that upset because I lusted after several Mrs. Robinsons at that age. If, however, my 14 year old daughter dives into the sack with her 30 year old swimming coach, I am not going to be a happy camper.

Do I have a rational basis for that? My rational basis is based on a similar premise of Finkelhor, which is to say that the way society is today, there will be negative social and psychological consequences. At the same time, though, I can freely admit that I simply find it wrong because I was brought up that way and live in a society where those beliefs are reinforced. Yes, some would object to the Mrs. Robinson scenario, but generally speaking most would not find it a serious problem, which is evidenced by popular press accounts.

I believe it is ALWAYS a good thing to examine our beliefs, especially those to which we have the most visceral reactions and/or believe to be self-evident. Had we not done so, homosexuality would still be suffering far more than it does now. Then again, if we apply the arguments by Finkelhor, we should not allow children to demonstrate homosexuality tendencies. After all, they really do not understand the social implications of their choice to act on their feelings, and the evidence of systemic prejudice against homosexuals is overwhelming. How can a young boy consent to merely kissing another young boy and going with him to a dance when has no concept of how society will react? If his parents are active in certain religions, the guilt may be enormous and cause psychological harm that may manifest itself physically.

Makes you think, eh?

 

[H'ethetheth]

What you're describing is indeed a part of a moral decision cloaked in other terms. What is it about "public perception" that is not moralistic? If anything that's almost the dictionary definition of a moral argument. Maybe you're looking for some kind of absolute morality that's distinct from absolute rationality. The real world doesn't work that way. There are many many shades of grey and you've discovered one of them and seek to occlude it with words.

Well, that's certainly a novel approach to ethics.

Mind you, in this case we were talking about actions that, in isolation, affect nobody in any negative way whatsoever. In fact, it makes two people happier.
But, you say, it is immoral if other people know about it and take offense.

I don't think that's a reasonable basis for a system of ethics, as it would make homosexuality immoral in certain communities, as well as interracial marriage, blasphemy, etc etc.
If the only negative effect on any moral agent is that they are offended if they find out, I'd say it's at worst morally neutral.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Makes you think, eh?

Something else worth considering is that the disgust people feel about particular behaviours may increase the harm to those who we associate with them. It has been shown that a product associated with bodily functions often considered disgusting touching 'nice' products in a shopping cart 'contaminate' the 'nice' products:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625167,00.html

...

The idea that negative qualities can be passed by a touch has become hardwired, says Fitzsimons. (That applies to good qualities too, which is why touching a holy object or person is considered a way of acquiring a little holiness for oneself.) So he and Morales set out to see whether toilet paper and other products could psychologically contaminate food in a shopping basket. They used real shopping baskets, though they did not conduct their tests in a real supermarket, and told subjects that the study had to do only with product preference.

Strong preferences were just what the subjects exhibited. Any food that touched something perceived to be disgusting became immediately less desirable itself, though all of the products were in their original wrapping. The appeal of the food fell even if the two products were merely close together; an inch seemed to be the critical distance. "It makes no sense if you think about it," says Fitzsimons. More irrationally still, the subjects were less comfortable with a transparent package than an opaque one, as if it somehow had greater power to leak contamination. Whatever the severity of the taint, the result was predictable.

"We'd take cookies out of the basket and offer them to the subjects," says Fitzsimons, "and we had some really tempting-looking cookies." No takers. Moreover, he says, "everything we did suggested that these feelings were below the level of awareness. If we told someone, 'You didn't take the cookie because it touched the kitty litter,' they would say, 'That's ridiculous.'"

...

Perhaps behaviours which inspire disgust in others act in a similar way, such that those people who engage in such behaviours are contaminated with the disgust.

For example, it's not unheard of for people to split up after one of them is raped. Similarly prostitutes and homosexuals are still widely discriminated against, no matter how clean they are.

Does the disgust others feel about otherwise harmless behaviours actually make those behaviours harmful and/or magnify the harm of harmful behaviours?

Perhaps we all need to undergo desensitization therapy to better calibrate our disgust response and so treat other people and ourselves better?

 

[slingblade]

Does the disgust others feel about otherwise harmless behaviours actually make those behaviours harmful and/or magnify the harm of harmful behaviours?

In a sanitized Hollywood version of some events, perhaps.

I wonder what happens inside the mind when an authority figure blames you for what they're doing to you? Or what happens in the mind when you are unaware you could refuse something, and authority threatens you if you don't accept it? Do you think societal disgust is one of your concerns at that moment?

Perhaps adding in the smells, the tastes, the sounds, and the physical sensations might make the "harm" crystal clear.

I wonder what happens when a six inch by four inch steel pipe is forcefully inserted into a one inch wide marshmallow coupling? Do you think societal disgust or disapproval would affect that outcome for the marshmallow?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In a sanitized Hollywood version of some events, perhaps.

I wonder what happens inside the mind when an authority figure blames you for what they're doing to you? Or what happens in the mind when you are unaware you could refuse something, and authority threatens you if you don't accept it? Do you think societal disgust is one of your concerns at that moment?

Perhaps adding in the smells, the tastes, the sounds, and the physical sensations might make the "harm" crystal clear.

I wonder what happens when a six inch by four inch steel pipe is forcefully inserted into a one inch wide marshmallow coupling? Do you think societal disgust or disapproval would affect that outcome for the marshmallow?

Why do you keep on providing examples of verbally, physically and emotionally harmful behaviour when I'm explicitly talking about behaviour that in and of itself has none of those characteristics?

 

[slingblade]

Why do you keep on providing examples of verbally, physically and emotionally harmful behaviour when I'm explicitly talking about behaviour that in and of itself has none of those characteristics?

Because you keep trying to boil it down to being totally harmless without considering all possible forms of harm. You keep trying to sanitize it, and then present it as reality.

The issue is far too complicated for that, but you refuse to see that what you're trying to force us to conclude can only be concluded in a world completely divorced from reality.

If you won't deal with the reality, there's no point in your argument. The sanitized version doesn't exist.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because you keep trying to boil it down to being totally harmless without considering all possible forms of harm. You keep trying to sanitize it, and then present it as reality.

<snip>

What 'it' am I trying to boil down to being totally harmless?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Are you being purposely obtuse ?

If so, it is trollish behavior ..

 

[Cainkane1]

Interesting thread. It sort of reminds of college bull sessions, only back then we did not call the guy who brought it up a troll or a pedophile nor did we suggest less controversial topics.

The 9 year old driving case is not really relevant since that is about risk assessment more than anything else. The hypothetical incest eliminated any risk by the dual use of birth control. The point would be the same if both parties had been rendered sterile via surgery.

Someone claimed that the rational basis for child molestation was the lack of consent. I assume the term molestation was broadly used to also includes those situations where had the minor been an adult, there would be no doubt whatsoever about consent. While a lack of consent is a rational basis, it still requires a rational basis to declare that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult.

I have recently seen several arguments for this presumed lack of consent that I consider weak at best. I write this knowing full well I may likely be accused of being a pedophile or otherwise promoting it, but I know in my heart that this is a mental exercise and not a reflection of my proclivities, which are a far cry away from that.

David Finkelhor makes a fairly decent argument stating that consent is not possible (ht tp :// newgon . com /prd/lib/Finkelhor1984/c2.html) after knocking down a few of the common arguments about why adult sex with children is wrong. The referenced article is a good example of what Ivor brought up because before Finkelhor addresses consent, he compares it to slavery in the sense that we would not condone slavery even if slaves were shown to be better off. In other words we just know it is wrong from a moral sense rather than empirical. Apparently he equates empirical with evidence of physical well-being.

His arguments for lack of consent as I understand them are directed at prepubescent children and do not necessarily apply to those who have reached puberty. Taken in that context I can see where he is coming from stating that children have no free will (his term). Any teacher will tell you that they have too damned much free will at times. I can see how a parent can severely restrict free will, but that power diminishes at the next level of authority (teachers) and diminishes greatly with other adults and with age. It is still a reasonable point, though.

He also argues that they lack an understanding of what is involved even though they may grasp the mechanics and how it feels. He argues that they do not understand the social implications including how other people will react. This argument only works if you accept his initial premise that adult sex with minors is wrong. If society did not already believe that, then the social implications would not matter. It is hard to wrap my brain around that last part since it is so ingrained in American/Western culture that it is wrong, but as a mental exercise it is intriguing.

I read elsewhere (cannot find the link right now) that Finkelhor was reminded that children quite often make uninformed consent. Gymnastics has one of the highest injury rates, but we allow children to choose that sport. We actually reward those children who get up at 5 AM to practice before school and practice several hours each day of the weekend to win competitions that require them to do things the body does not do naturally or even have a practical use outside of the competition. Do they really understand what they are missing in their childhood? There are many other examples, religion being a fantastic example of something that has life-long effects and for which the child has no free will or concept.

Finkelhor argues that sexual activity is different because it is harmful. Unfortunately, this again relies on us accepting his initial premise that adult sex with children is inherently wrong. If it is inherently wrong, why make an empirical argument in the first place?

As a society we decide upon certain values and construct laws accordingly. We mostly agree on adults and children not having sex. When it comes to privacy and security, we often disagree. Some are willing to give up privacy and grant more power to the police so that we get all the bad guys while others are willing to have a system where some bad guys get away with it because they value privacy and not locking up innocents to be more important. National health care is another issue where differing values come into play.

I think a lot of it comes down to what we personally *feel* is acceptable. I do not want my son to end up in a shower with Sandusky. If when he is in his early teens Mrs. Robinson next door decides to show him the ropes, I probably will not be all that upset because I lusted after several Mrs. Robinsons at that age. If, however, my 14 year old daughter dives into the sack with her 30 year old swimming coach, I am not going to be a happy camper.

Do I have a rational basis for that? My rational basis is based on a similar premise of Finkelhor, which is to say that the way society is today, there will be negative social and psychological consequences. At the same time, though, I can freely admit that I simply find it wrong because I was brought up that way and live in a society where those beliefs are reinforced. Yes, some would object to the Mrs. Robinson scenario, but generally speaking most would not find it a serious problem, which is evidenced by popular press accounts.

I believe it is ALWAYS a good thing to examine our beliefs, especially those to which we have the most visceral reactions and/or believe to be self-evident. Had we not done so, homosexuality would still be suffering far more than it does now. Then again, if we apply the arguments by Finkelhor, we should not allow children to demonstrate homosexuality tendencies. After all, they really do not understand the social implications of their choice to act on their feelings, and the evidence of systemic prejudice against homosexuals is overwhelming. How can a young boy consent to merely kissing another young boy and going with him to a dance when has no concept of how society will react? If his parents are active in certain religions, the guilt may be enormous and cause psychological harm that may manifest itself physically.

Makes you think, eh?

Children being naive and lacking worldly experiences should not do sex with adults. Child psychologists say that children should go through a period of sexual innocence in order to develope other social skills. This is true even if the child is physically unharmed by the adult.

My first cousin was molested by her father from age five to sometime in highschool and she was never able to have a long lasting relationship with a man and was divorced three times. Physically she was never harmed. No penetration. Improper touching only.

While working for a mental hospital I met a woman who was a dried out drug addict and former street hooker. She told me her step father had molested her until her mother found out five years after her mother had married him. Like my cousin she had suffered only improper touching. She said that she felt she was only good for sex so she went the stret hooker route. Sex with a child is a very big no no.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you being purposely obtuse ?

If so, it is trollish behavior ..

No, I'm asking slingblade to be precise about what she's referring to when she claims I'm 'trying to boil it down to being totally harmless'.

Even if for whatever 'it' is referring to, Y% of cases are harmful, there's still 100-Y% of cases which are harmless or beneficial. My argument is only that Y is not ETA: 100% and might be smaller if people were aware of how the irrational emotion of disgust being triggered affects their moral judgement and treatment of those involved in 'it'.

Who are the people trying to boil things down and present them as only having one type of outcome again?

 

[Skwinty]

Ivor, I think the problem people have with this type of debate is that it appears as if moral rationalization is the objective.

Moral rationalization allows people to engage in immoral actions and yet still view themselves as moral.

I have not studied philosophy so I may well be talking twaddle. My moral disgust with certain behaviours stem from my upbringing and natural intuition.

I think I have made it clear what disgusts me in previous posts.

Seeing as I do not participate in activities that disgust me, I feel no need to rationalize about these activities, or find reasons why my moral disgust would be better explained by rational means.

Just my opinion.

 

[Dani]

I don't see where's the problem in asking why a certain moral view is correct, even if we all assume it is. We can only learn from that question.

To tell you the truth, I can't find any justification to condemn casual sexual intercourse between consenting adult siblings.

I've always wondered why do we generally find feces extremely disgusting whereas other animals don't seem so disgusted by it, and what drives coprophilic behavior among humans. To what extent is our behavior towards feces learned? I know this is not necessarily a moral question, but it's similar to what Ivor the Engineer asked in the OP in the sense that sexual intercourse between siblings seems to be not only morally disgusting, but also phisically disgusting to most people.

 

[JJM 777]

A long thread to read, could anyone sum up which activities have been listed here as morally disgusting?

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps behaviours which inspire disgust in others act in a similar way, such that those people who engage in such behaviours are contaminated with the disgust.

For example, it's not unheard of for people to split up after one of them is raped. Similarly prostitutes and homosexuals are still widely discriminated against, no matter how clean they are.

Yeah, it does. Disgust produces negative responses of avoidance, and it is "contageous" and persistent.

 

[Gods Big Toe]

Children being naive and lacking worldly experiences should not do sex with adults. Child psychologists say that children should go through a period of sexual innocence in order to develope other social skills. This is true even if the child is physically unharmed by the adult.

My first cousin was molested by her father from age five to sometime in highschool and she was never able to have a long lasting relationship with a man and was divorced three times. Physically she was never harmed. No penetration. Improper touching only.

While working for a mental hospital I met a woman who was a dried out drug addict and former street hooker. She told me her step father had molested her until her mother found out five years after her mother had married him. Like my cousin she had suffered only improper touching. She said that she felt she was only good for sex so she went the stret hooker route. Sex with a child is a very big no no.

Finkelhor addresses that in part:
A second argument rejects adult-child sexuality because it entails a premature sexualization of the child. From this point of view, childhood should be a time of relative immunity from sex, where a child enjoys freedom from an often problematic aspect of life. When adults approach children sexually, they draw them into a world for which children are not yet ready. Unfortunately for this argument, children are sexual. Most children are curious about sex. Many explore sexuality with one another. There is increasing professional and scientific agreement that sexual interest and activity among children is healthy and perhaps even salutary to later sexual functioning (Yates, 1978). This argument seems inadequate also.

Look up the Rind et al. controversy controversy in Wikipedia.
The authors\' stated goal was \"...to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?\" Some of the authors\' more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the occurrence of psychological damage depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.

Furthermore, your examples were of generational incest, which involve a high level of direct power over the child in that the adult is in control of so many other aspects of the child\'s life from where she lives to what she eats to what she wears and when she goes to bed. That leaves little room for free will to refuse.

I do find it interesting that you say that someone who was married three times was unable to have long-lasting relationships.

 

[Skwinty]

To tell you the truth, I can't find any justification to condemn casual sexual intercourse between consenting adult siblings.

When I speak of my feelings of disgust with respect to sibling sex I mean that I would be disgusted with myself if I were to indulge.

However, what consenting adults do to each other, well, that really has nothing to do with me.

If this entails the negative response of avoidance, so be it.

As an individual you never get to socialise with or be friends with everyone.

 

[zooterkin]

Yeah, it does. Disgust produces negative responses of avoidance, and it is "contageous" and persistent.

Yes, the way the mechanism of disgust works is fascinating. One aspect is that the things which cause that disgust are not all universal, and are often culturally dependent.

 

[Pup]

Someone claimed that the rational basis for child molestation was the lack of consent. I assume the term molestation was broadly used to also includes those situations where had the minor been an adult, there would be no doubt whatsoever about consent. While a lack of consent is a rational basis, it still requires a rational basis to declare that a minor cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult.

I have recently seen several arguments for this presumed lack of consent that I consider weak at best.

Here's the way I rationalize it.

There are, theoretically, some situations where children could give fully understood, free consent to sex. There are also theoretically some situations where competent adults could be giving coerced, uninformed consent to sex, even though they appear sober, sane, mentally competent, fully informed, etc.

Predicting which these particular cases are, is difficult, and when children are involved, the harm may not even show up till much later.

It's beneficial for society to err on the side of protecting children and giving freedom to adults.

Therefore, since there's no necessity for adults to have sex with children, it's most practical to presume that all children are unable to consent, and all competent adults are free to consent, even if some children would be able to consent and some competent adults will consent to things they regret.

The result makes legal some icky things (subjectively speaking, from my point of view) like gay sex, adult incest if no children can be born, 80-year-old sex, etc., while other non-icky things (again, subjectively speaking), like a 22-year-old with a 16-year-old lover, would be illegal.

It's a practical legal compromise, not a moral or social or scientific or "ickiness" based choice.

 

[Furcifer]

It's a practical legal compromise, not a moral or social or scientific or "ickiness" based choice.

I agree. The odd thing is this thread was born out of the fact that people feel the 16 year old in your example is a "victim" only because they had this "legal compromise" enforced on them (assuming it was consensual).
I'm curious how many people use the laws as a "moral guide"?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If most actually did, then many laws would be unnecessary ..