Check out this story here.
Here.
What do you think?
For those of you who tend to think that we can't say that morality is objective -- I'm curious if you'll defend the actions described in this story as merely subjectively right or wrong.
Would you say that to call the situation described in the story below "wrong" is just describing how we feel about it – but certainly such a claim (that it is wrong) is not saying anything that can be considered "true" or "false"? Or is there a true position to hold in regards to this situation and a false one (that is, a position that says it is wrong is correct, and vice versa)?
It is tough to play the relativist game when faced with stories of such disgust... but I'm curious if anyone is willing to try. It is easy to play the game on an issue such as, say, abortion. Many of you would hate to claim that one person is "right" and one person is "wrong" in such a case, and so you'll default to your moral subjectivism. But in a case such as this... let's say there are two people: Jim and Bob. Jim thinks that child sex slavery is morally justifiable. Bob thinks it is morally wrong. Are you willing to say that Bob is right? Or are you going to stick to your guns and claim that they are "both right"?
Just curious...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I really can't find a way to argue that this is right. I tend to think that I'm pretty good at seeing things from different perspectives, but not this.
I believe there is a higher, objective truth to all things. Sometimes it's beyond our abilities to find the right answer, which is when I find it easy to see things from both sides, regardless of my own opinion.
But like I said, I just can't see the other side on this. That's a very interesting thought, that one could argue this is "right." It's disturbing and something I haven't really considered, even though it makes sense that it physically could be said...
I refuse to actually say I believe in what I say, but I always like a challenge and will try and defend child sex slaves.
First, let us define a "slave." It is someone or something (not relevant here) that is the property of and wholly subject to another - bond servant. Wow seems to me that an upperclassman may fall under this definition - we are now the property of the government, if we WANT to leave or better yet if we want to sleep in, date underclassmen, experiment with herbs; we will be forced to pay an amount of money, which to some would result in an intolerable sort of life where he/she is in such a debt that he/she is forced to live a life they have been raised to believe is unacceptable and would rather not live that sort of life...at least morally. If my history servers correctly, "slaves" were able to purchase their freedom, which can be correlated to a cadet drudging through this decision they accidently made with their head high to only look to the future.
Now, let us define a child. "A person between birth and full growth." But this would define an adult as someone...in full growth which would mean mental handicapped are adults...no I like the second definition more, "a person who behaves in a childish manner." Well, this one is better but, shoot most people with alcohol in their systems act like "children" and I am one to say I do not even need alcohol and I act like a child, plenty times enough. Okay, that has been beaten to death, so let us discuss the issue on if it is okay if "children" have sex. People may argue that they are to young, too inexperienced in this world, to immature to make this decision on their own...some may even go as far as argue it is against their religion for those unmarried to engage in sexual activities. However, if the child knows and understands what action they are getting themselves into who can say it is our right as "adults" to stop them, to persecute them, to chastise them? So children should be allowed to engage in such activities which I Know they do.
Another point on "slavery/prostitution" is this. How can anyone argue that prostitution is normatively WRONG, it is wrong to tell someone how they cannot make a living, force them to live by Your standards. A less severe parallel may be cleaning or maid work - we call them servants and pay them to do the work we rather not do ourselves - it is our right to do so. Now, what is stopping people from actually paying for sexual favors? It settles their nerves and gives them that ultimate feeling of "ectasy." And it maybe that those prostitutes are actually slaves to their "pimps" I am sure most of us have all seen "Kiss of the Dragon." I would consider her a slave.
Now it is time for the combination...if a child is rescued by some unforeseen drastic life and feels their life now belongs to their savor, it is fine for the savor to use his/her new child's life as he/she sees fit, even if this means sex.
ya...I cannot go on with this, but instead of deleting it I left it up.
Using a child as a sex slave is completely wrong and I believe that is the only side of the issue you can stand on that is morally justifiable (or "correct").
Nobody should have the right to infringe on another's will unless for some reason that person's will seeks to harm others in some way. Although I can't exactly know for sure, I can almost guarantee that this child's will in no way was to be injected with drugs, given STD's, and be used as a sex toy.
I'm with daniel.bret, I just find it impossible to comprehend the other side of this argument.
What is wrong with these parents who sell their kids to brothels???
hmmm how about that then...maybe one child (person) suffering as a "sex slave" versus the many people that would go without a "joy" because something is twisted in their mind and then can only enjoy the pleasures of sexual experiences with someone they know is too young - and dont say it isnt possible because everyone is different and I know I have dated someone that always wanted to be "raped" ... so go figure.
Looking at this situation from the Virtue Theory of ethics, we must investigate the moral character of the individuals involved and determine if their actions seek to be “good” or not. “Good” can be agreed upon as helping society in some way or building people up.
To be “good” can be considered to be encouraging and uplifting such that society or a person is better off after the “good” than before the “good.”
In this case, the girl is clearly worse off because she will have disastrous physical and emotional scars for life. Therefore, on this account alone, their act is not “good.” Furthermore, however, isolating the perpetrators themselves still results in a lack of “good.” They have not engaged in sexual relations outside of natural human constraints. It is out of lust and greed that they raped the small girl. Such an act fuels these self-gratifying desires which are not “good” by themselves. Also, their actions have a negative impact on society; therefore, their actions are again classified as “not good.” Therefore, the one side experiences extremely detrimental terror while the other side fuels behavior which is “not good.” Hence, the overall value is extremely negative. These acts show extreme moral degradation and should be stopped immediately.
Okay, let's look at this "good" and "not good."
One person is suffering so that many creeps wilst not suffer the simple joy of sex...but what about this, what if that one little girl did not know of a life any better, what if her life as a "sex slave" was better than her life on the street eating scraps from the McDs on the side of the road, what if those using her would have been Raping young individuals that would then cause a ripple effect in society.
For example, instead of paying some Pimp for this experience, he stalks the neighborhood schoolgirl home everyday, finds a way into her life as the lawnmower man, then rapes her every tuesday to get his fill, thus ruining her life - she becomes a crack-whore when she grows of age, disgraces her family, they go broke paying for her re-hab and criminial activities, she then cannot afford medical insurance and becomes a prostitute and soon has a child of her own, bringing that child into this new life that she did not chose for herself either...
Now if there was just ONE sex slave child out there that handled 10-15 of these creeps a week, this would stop 10-15 of these sad little stories from coming true...correct. Utilitarian..hmm?
So if you weigh the "good" versus the "non-good" The pimp is naturally a savior of 10-15 young children, their parents, and the children they soon might have too against the one child that was raised into a world they knew no better of...
And if you think it is better to just rid the world of these "creeps" are you no better than Hitler yourself??
How do most of the successful rehabs for herion/crack work - dont they find a very similar drug then administer it in smaller and smaller dosages to wheen them off? Could not one child sex slave be used this way? Or is there someone out there that looks young that wants to take this job upon themselves?
Some of the points made by ser loras reminds me of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," a short story by Ursula Le Guin.
In a nutshell: the society called Omelas, from the outside, seems perfect. Everyone is happy in every way and no one is offended by others' actions. But the reason Omelas seems so perfect is because one child (gender not identified) is kept in a dirt-floor closet with no light or human contact, except for the occasional viewing by the Omelans and a beating or two.
Everyone is so happy because they have seen this child and know what their life could be like, instead of what they really have. There is a minority, though, that can't accept that their life is so good based on just one child having to suffer for it, so they just walk away.
Who's right? The multitudes that gain from this child's suffering or those that leave it all behind? I for one agree with those that walk away, but remembering this story kind of gave me a segway to thinking about the "other" side of our "child sex slaves" discussion. I can see it, but there is no way I could ever agree with it.
Ser Loras seems to be trapped by John Stuart Mill without realizing the obvious philosophical flaw of consequentialsim: namely that every action is also an end unto itself. As a rose is a rose is a rose, child sex slavery is wrong is wrong is wrong; but, let us examine what is going on here.
Consequentialsim presuppoes an objective morality as it needs a mirror with which to examine itself at the "end of a situation". Makes sense, otherwise we wouldn't know if the net "good" outweighed the net "bad" of the decision as well as more important implications that are not the immiedate issue here. But where did that mirror come from and when is the end of the situation so I know when to hold up my looking glass so I can see how "good" I am?
The answer is that every decision must be morally evaluated independently since every action is also an end unto itself. The old maxim that goes follows this thought is "never do evil that good may come". Now, if you believe that raping a child is morally correct, then you have issues. But we digress, that was not the proposed question.
Does anyone want to stand and shout for moral relativism? Does anyone want to actually say that both are right or is it possible to empirically prove that there is a monkey in the hallway?
Let me ask you this - if you were the child in the story, would you not feel a sort of pride for being the reason why your country thrives? Or do you think Gandi was forced to starve himself and nothing good came of it?
How can you even hypothetically be proud of being raped? Sure, some prostitutes may choose that lifestyle, but many are like the lady in the video that needed it to fuel the drug addiction that her 'pimp' forced her into or to simply survive. The connection between Gandhi fasting for the good of his people is not a sound logical progression from human trafficking that satisfies fundamentally evil desires.
It is the same as us giving our life to stop some greater evil from killing our families back at home. The evil thinks they are right, we do not, so we are willing to sacrifice our lives so civilians can live in peace.
I wish I could say I would be willing to sacrifice my body to suffering and rape to stop others from being raped, but I cannot - I am too selfish, but does that make me right?
I believe I’m a moral relativist, believing that both sides of this tragic event are correct. It can be both right and wrong. I need not spend time justifying how it is wrong, I think most agree that side is easy to see, so I will, give a vain attempt to argue how it could be seen as correct.
First we must establish that human rights apply to all people. This I’m sure we can agree on. However, these women in this society are seen as less than human, not as people but as objects. You might ask yourself, how could someone be so dehumanized when it is clear they are a human and a person? I ask in return, do you not remember the Dred Scott Case, when he wasn’t even considered to have rights based on his race. This is a similar case; the girls do not have rights based on their sex. I disagree with this, but I do believe from their perspective they are correct, just as many believed that blacks did not deserve to have rights. Children raised in this time frame of racial segregation were raised to believe blacks did not have rights, and that was not their fault, it was a product of their upbringing, you cannot hold them accountable for that.
Now that it is established that these girls do not have rights as people in their society, and that because of their culture you cannot blame the men for their thoughts because they are based on their upbringing, you must accept their idea of what is acceptable in society. Once we have done this, we can realize how they can commit such atrocities with a clear mind. This clear mind believes it is doing nothing wrong to these girls who have no rights as people.
Because they believe that they are doing nothing wrong, and though my society may disagree and believe they are infringing on basic rights, the difference is nothing more than a societal disconnect in belief. It is impossible to say that one society has beliefs that are more correct than another, simply because it is just that, society determined rights. Therefore, I believe both sides, justified and unjustified are correct. Thought personally, I am disgusted by the thought that these actions are taking place.
It is hard to say if one person is right and another is wrong. Physics shows that due to different frames of reference two different things can be true. I don't think this applies to philosophy. I believe this is biologically wrong and morally wrong.
It is the same as a tribe in South America where the older men, the warriors of the tribe have sex with the young boys in order to give them there warrior strength. I don't this is right either, even if the children are happy to do it because they are led to believe that it helps them to be a stronger warrior.
To argue that this is right is absurd. First the child was drugged so she would not oppose. The men who participate would not be open about and willing accept death if that was the consequence to have a "child sex slave". If the people who do this would not be open about it if the penalty was death i truly i believe they don't think it is right as well.
Post a Comment