That's interesting. The cure I heard in a presentation (the presenter was talking about the beliefs of others, not suggesting that this was a cure) a few years ago was that you should have sex with a virgin. The cure had no requirement that the virgin was a baby nor was it necessary that the virgin was unwilling (though a well-informed virgin would likely be unwilling).
Stormraven
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Messages
- 75
From what I recall of reading about that belief, it doesn't have to be a baby - but many do rape babies in following that belief.
I suppose the idea is that babies are guaranteed virgins.
I suppose the idea is that babies are guaranteed virgins.
I'm not a moral relativist, but you need to consider that those are YOUR sociocultural norms, and that they are not necessarily shared by other cultures.hodgy said:
So saying that they "stoop so low" is forcing your moral framework upon them. A Kaluli person might just as well say, "Americans talk in baby-talk to their kids? I would rather not talk to my kids at all! Is it not telling that a culture/society should stoop so low as to consider this an option?"
They think differently. That's all. They somehow think that raping a baby can be a moral good.
I'm not saying that this is automatically right because they think it. Like I said, I'm not a moral relativist. But if you think that what comes obvious to you must necessarily come obvious to everyone else on the planet, you're sorely mistaken.
I fail to see how believing raping a baby cures aids is the same as believing it is morally acceptable to do so. That people believe this is a cure demonstrates ignorance but provides no information on morals. Of course, if people acted on this belief, it could be construed as selfish. But even then, it is questionable whether it could be considered a moral low. Having sex with a baby might seem cruel, but keep in mind that the rapist thinks it will save his/her life, and might not even realize it is hurting the baby.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
reefpip said:
I think that unless the society these people are in considers raping babies as a normal or acceptable practice anyway - that is, if we assume that raping babies is not ordinarily considered morally acceptable, then doing it to save your life does provide information on morals.
What if you thought eating the baby would save your life?
The last part seems a bit far fetched. I mean, I've never raped a baby, so I can't be 100% certain, but but I have some experience as the parent of a few, and I'm willing to bet that it hurts, and that the baby would let you know.
edit: I do agree with the first sentence - the belief and the action are separate. But if you do have the belief, it forces a moral choice on you either way, doesn't it?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: African Cures for Aids
PC carried to its ultimate !
You sound like those kids, when educated about the Holcost, determined that we shouldn't Judge Hitler too harsly...
Judging is what we do. OT is being human. And if there is any human who believes that rape, in any form, can ever be a moral act, or If any human believes that harming a living, breathing child for self-serving purposes is a moral act, I would like to take a look at him.
In the crosshairs of a rifle scope would be my preference...
edited for spelling
Drostie said:
PC carried to its ultimate !
You sound like those kids, when educated about the Holcost, determined that we shouldn't Judge Hitler too harsly...
Judging is what we do. OT is being human. And if there is any human who believes that rape, in any form, can ever be a moral act, or If any human believes that harming a living, breathing child for self-serving purposes is a moral act, I would like to take a look at him.
In the crosshairs of a rifle scope would be my preference...
edited for spelling
BillyJoe said:
Didn't I just say I'm not? Twice even. What are you, deaf?
To wit, I don't view intuitions as the source of morality. Hence, my noting that people don't have the same intuitions as you doesn't imply that they have a different morality than you.
If you really must know all the details of my stance on morality, first, I'm largely a contractarian; contractarianism is the correct normative ethical theory.
Second, I believe that a moral code is necessarily non-absolute and non-relative. There are absolute counterexamples which defy a relative conception of morality, and within any valuation standard, a relative counterexample can be concocted to defy an absolutist conception of morality.
Morals are necessarily neither. I am not a moral relativist, because there are crosscultural moral norms that agree universally. I'm not an absolutist, because in any moral valuation system, an example can be constructed where both are similarly evaluated. (And, let's face it, nonvaluative moral systems are laughable.)
Other cultures will value moral codes differently, even if only contractarian theory is correct. A culture might value the raping of children even though it's morally incorrect. I don't think that you need to *accept* their moral valuation. But suggesting that they're stooping is suggesting that they believe something is bad and they're doing it anyway. The first part is incorrect.
To be a bit more precise, I probably would have been mostly okay with, "we really need to get these people some education." The poster didn't say that. The OP was outraged that someone would do such a thing. Outrage is dandy (and debatably fine), but remember that this other culture isn't outraged by it, so getting YOUR panties in a knot doesn't say anything except that you've got a different culture.
The trick is to get THEIR panties in a knot over their moral system.
Is there any evidence that the larger culture in South Africa is not outraged by the rape of infants and children for any reason, including the mistaken belief that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS?
I am not an expert on South Africa. All I know is what I read in the news. That includes reports of South Africans being outraged that infants and young children are being raped.
Does anyone here know what the cultural norm is regarding the sexual use of infants in South Africa?
It has been my impression (which I realize is evidence of nothing) that these acts are making the news because they represent an aberration of the ancient folk belief that sex with a virgin will cure disease.
It appears that there are several levels of irrational behavior and belief going on in South Africa that promote the spread of HIV and death from AIDS ...
1. The ancient folk belief that sexual intercourse with a virgin cures disease.
2. The aberration of this belief by sexually using infants on the chance that it is less likely they have had previous sexual intercourse.
3. The country's failure to educate the populace concerning causes and cures of disease and the failure to provide proper methods of prevention and treatment.
Of course, I may be wrong.
Gayle
edited for werdz
Drosti,
Okay, fair enough, I should have read your post more carefully.
Yes, it is important to understand why people do what they do rather than just take the moral high-ground, especially if we wish to have any effect on changing their behaviour.
Still, in the instance of infant rape, I wonder about the answers to the questions raised in Gayle's post. Is that culture outraged by the behaviour or not?
BJ
Okay, fair enough, I should have read your post more carefully.
Yes, it is important to understand why people do what they do rather than just take the moral high-ground, especially if we wish to have any effect on changing their behaviour.
Still, in the instance of infant rape, I wonder about the answers to the questions raised in Gayle's post. Is that culture outraged by the behaviour or not?
BJ
It's been in the news for several years now...
Here are a couple links to news stories on the subject of raping babies in order to cure AIDS. There appears to be outrage by the larger culture, otherwise, the rapes would not be reported or investigated by police, nor would the perpetrators be sentenced to life in prison by South African courts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2311067.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25806
I got more than 60,000 hits when I googled: "South Africa" AIDS rape virgin baby.
Use different words in a different string and you'll get even more hits. I posted links off the very first page of hits.
What's my point? The suggestions that the other culture isn't outraged by baby rape or that the other culture "thinks differently," were made without supporting evidence.
This small conversation represents, in microcosm, one of the major issues in critical thinking and skepticism.
If Hodgy is to be called on "forcing your moral framework upon" baby rapers, then the entire skeptical community should be called on attempting to force its moral framework upon witch doctors who urge sex with virgins to cure disease, homeopaths, communicators with the dead, fortune tellers, and any other number of scam artists. They just think differently, doncha' know.
I'm surprised these forums didn't stand up and howl.
Gayle
Here are a couple links to news stories on the subject of raping babies in order to cure AIDS. There appears to be outrage by the larger culture, otherwise, the rapes would not be reported or investigated by police, nor would the perpetrators be sentenced to life in prison by South African courts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2311067.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25806
I got more than 60,000 hits when I googled: "South Africa" AIDS rape virgin baby.
Use different words in a different string and you'll get even more hits. I posted links off the very first page of hits.
What's my point? The suggestions that the other culture isn't outraged by baby rape or that the other culture "thinks differently," were made without supporting evidence.
This small conversation represents, in microcosm, one of the major issues in critical thinking and skepticism.
If Hodgy is to be called on "forcing your moral framework upon" baby rapers, then the entire skeptical community should be called on attempting to force its moral framework upon witch doctors who urge sex with virgins to cure disease, homeopaths, communicators with the dead, fortune tellers, and any other number of scam artists. They just think differently, doncha' know.
I'm surprised these forums didn't stand up and howl.
Gayle
Gayle - thanks for that argument, I couldn't have put it better myself.
I have to admit that my OP was a bit of a knee-jerk thing having just read the commentary. I was not thinking about positioning myself for a debate about morality in general.
Interesting thread though.
I have to admit that my OP was a bit of a knee-jerk thing having just read the commentary. I was not thinking about positioning myself for a debate about morality in general.
Interesting thread though.
Re: It's been in the news for several years now...
Gayle,
regards,
BillyJoe
Gayle,
I thought it was, on the surface, an extraordinary statement. So much so that I wondered whether he was using it as a very bad example of a general point of view that he holds. And I think his underlying point is valid (see his second post). But he definitely chose a very poor example. And, as you have demonstrated, an invalid example as well.Gayle said:
regards,
BillyJoe
Billy Joe, I agree with you, partly. Infant rape is a very bad example of cultural/moral relativism.
If one wants to argue cultural or moral relativism, then that's fine. I have no gripe if it's argued in a rational and informed way. But the underlying argument was not valid in this case.
The example of infant rape was ...
1. Invalid as an example of an accepted cultural norm. In South Africa, infant rape is considered a criminal act motivated by criminality, ignorance and desperation.
2. Not shown to be representative of any cultural norm anywhere.
3. An aberration of a local South African folk belief that sex with a virgin will purify sexually transmitted disease. According to news reports, believers in the folk custom do not represent the larger culture.
4. The aberration is a violation of the basic human rights of the victims and their families because it is likely to result in the eventual death of the victim, not to mention the pain and trauma of the initial assault, and long-term suffering and illness.
The argument did not apply to this conversation. Bringing it up demonstrated knowledge of a concept but not knowledge of when to apply it. It demonstrated a lack of critical thinking, something we're probably all guilty of from time to time. I know that I am. When we blunder it's best to know it so that we are less likely to make the same mistake in the future ... especially on a subject as volitile as infant rape.
Gayle
If one wants to argue cultural or moral relativism, then that's fine. I have no gripe if it's argued in a rational and informed way. But the underlying argument was not valid in this case.
The example of infant rape was ...
1. Invalid as an example of an accepted cultural norm. In South Africa, infant rape is considered a criminal act motivated by criminality, ignorance and desperation.
2. Not shown to be representative of any cultural norm anywhere.
3. An aberration of a local South African folk belief that sex with a virgin will purify sexually transmitted disease. According to news reports, believers in the folk custom do not represent the larger culture.
4. The aberration is a violation of the basic human rights of the victims and their families because it is likely to result in the eventual death of the victim, not to mention the pain and trauma of the initial assault, and long-term suffering and illness.
The argument did not apply to this conversation. Bringing it up demonstrated knowledge of a concept but not knowledge of when to apply it. It demonstrated a lack of critical thinking, something we're probably all guilty of from time to time. I know that I am. When we blunder it's best to know it so that we are less likely to make the same mistake in the future ... especially on a subject as volitile as infant rape.
Gayle
It's true, I didn't know about their own outrage. In which case, I guess the rapists are just defying their own social norms. But this also defeats the allegation that a culture is "stooping so low," which is all I really had trouble with in the first place.
And demmit, I don't advocate moral relativism. I just think that, to solve the problem of a culture where rape is tolerated (which, admittedly, I guess this wasn't), it isn't sufficient to say "how dare they?!"; it is necessary to make THEM ask that question of their own practices.
I don't have any good advice on how to solve South Africa's rape problem if they have their own issues with it, though. I guess the only one that comes to mind is mass education -- though I generally dislike solutions that boil down to "throw money at the problem till it goes away."
And demmit, I don't advocate moral relativism. I just think that, to solve the problem of a culture where rape is tolerated (which, admittedly, I guess this wasn't), it isn't sufficient to say "how dare they?!"; it is necessary to make THEM ask that question of their own practices.
I don't have any good advice on how to solve South Africa's rape problem if they have their own issues with it, though. I guess the only one that comes to mind is mass education -- though I generally dislike solutions that boil down to "throw money at the problem till it goes away."