Context sensitivity of Ethics, and a Question of Rape.

[mshidden]

Something I feel strongly about, and I put it in my introduction post, is the idea the Ethics is context sensitive. To lie is a bad idea, but if you lie to protect someone it maybe the best idea. Actions are not moral, reasons are.  The question of morality and ethics is why? We can ask who did what,  we can ask where it happened, but if we don’t ask why, then we are not asking the moral question.  “So in a chat Yesterday someone asked does it matter why your wife was raped?  She want be unraped. “ Yes it matters,  and, yes she maybe unraped”  The difference between rape, and making love is context:  

A)  A 30 year old woman have intercourse with a 13 year old boy is Rape by definition.  What if they were in love?  

B) A 30 year old man is having intercourse with a 13 year old girl,  is Rape by definition.  But what if they were in love?

 

If you are being honest with yourself most people feel differently about those to situations.  Should we? Well that is a question of Harm.  Rape is ultimately a question of harm, we can be harmed stepping off the sidewalk. Now we can sue the engineer for following specifications of how sidewalks should be constructed, or we can take responsibility for talking on are cell phone and not paying attention.

 

“A wife that is having an affair and then claimed she was raped, when she ends up pregnant, is not a wife raped.”  

 

The rape of a woman is some culture is  seen as a harm to a Husband or a Father, and the woman is held accountable for getting into the situation.

 

Your first instinct maybe as is mine is that this is crazy, as crazy as it is, to ignore the context of culture could result in more harm.

 

But saying you were raped and being raped can be a matter of semantics,  it is also a matter of legal definition in the above cases.  

 

A person that is raped, may have no physical damaged to them, yet they may also be extremely emotionally traumatized.  The worse thing we can do with rape is make it worse then it  is.

 

We make matters far worse when we assume that a 13 year old girl will be traumatized by her experience with an old man and vise a versa. Harm should never be assumed, and not doing more harm should be the response of a free society.  If we value marriage their maybe harm in having too many premarital partners. However, if you don’t value the concept of monogamous marriage then it’s a different question.

There is harm in allowing adults to have sex with children.  However, Harm is contextual to values, and perceptions, and too often  we try to project our values and perceptions onto children, causing them more harm.

 

Projecting are emotions on children only causes emotional confusion.  It is not a question of how you think they should feel it is only a question of how they feel.

 

[dsayers]

Something I feel strongly about, and I put it in my introduction post, is the idea the Ethics is context sensitive. To lie is a bad idea, but if you lie to protect someone it maybe the best idea. Actions are not moral, reasons are.

 

Your honesty is your property that you are free to share and withhold as you see fit. No arguments there.

 

However, before I continue reading, I could use some clarification. I interpret the above as saying that ethics is subjective and behaviors are not eligible for moral consideration. What value would ethics have if they were subjective? Also, can you think of a reason to steal, assault, rape, or murder (behaviors) that would make them moral? I want to specify that those terms, to me, mean the initiation of the use of force. Meaning that if somebody steals your bike and you take it back, your behavior isn't theft.

[mshidden]

It's interesting how you are looking at this... I was not thinking about objectivity or subjectivity at all.  I am looking at it from the perspective of harms and I am suggesting you can not measure the harm out of context. So harms I would argue are measurable and objective.

[dsayers]

can you think of a reason to steal, assault, rape, or murder (behaviors) that would make them moral?

 

I don't feel as if this question was even acknowledged.

 

It's interesting how you are looking at this... I was not thinking about objectivity or subjectivity at all.

 

What then do you consider ethics to be? I don't see how somebody could use the word "preference" for example and be oblivious to the fact that they're talking about something subjective.

[Kevin Beal]

How are harms objective and measurable? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

[mick_towe]

One would have to be omniscient or think themselves to be in order to objectively measure harms. How a person "feels" can be completely irrelevant to their situation. For example a common occurence on the call in show is a person describes their childhood, professes to Stef that they love their parents, their parents love them, and then Stef points out why neither of these things are true, in spite of the way that the person may feel.

 

So to answer your question about adults having sex with children, I would have to say that the way the child feels about the situation is irrelevant because they are incapable of seeing the situation they are in with the same clarity as an adult. The child may enjoy the sex, and be in love, but it doesn't change the fact that the adult is using a huge emotional and intellectual advantage to influence the behavior of the child, which by the way IS harm.

[mshidden]

How are harms objective and measurable? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

Yes, I am thinking of harms in mundane terms.  We can even think in terms of time if it will help, any amount of time you have to spend doing something you do not want to do is harm to your freedom, and this also translates into money if you prefer.  Suffering is a little harder to measure but it can be measured.  Their is a theory in ethics that people stay away from and that is of moral accounting, but I am not convinced that is a bad idea, I am trying to infer it here.

One would have to be omniscient or think themselves to be in order to objectively measure harms. How a person "feels" can be completely irrelevant to their situation. For example a common occurence on the call in show is a person describes their childhood, professes to Stef that they love their parents, their parents love them, and then Stef points out why neither of these things are true, in spite of the way that the person may feel.

 

So to answer your question about adults having sex with children, I would have to say that the way the child feels about the situation is irrelevant because they are incapable of seeing the situation they are in with the same clarity as an adult. The child may enjoy the sex, and be in love, but it doesn't change the fact that the adult is using a huge emotional and intellectual advantage to influence the behavior of the child, which by the way IS harm.

As I said " There is harm in allowing adults to have sex with children. " So yes I understand your point,  this is more to do with the harm we cause by not handling the specifics of a situation.  A good example would be necessary if this dose not make sense to you.  I can not speak to Stef interpretation of a situation, without specifics of that situation.  Sometimes people say things out of habit, or out of obligation, and you just simply need to call them on it, so I get that. Sometimes Stef is just making matters worse, because he is projecting, it is easy to do.  

[cynicist]

The reasoning does not alter the moral content of an action. If by context you mean the details of a situation then yes, that is important in determining the ethical nature, but context in terms justification is meaningless. If I'm a rapist who says, "She was asking for it! Look at how she was dressed.", it would have no bearing on whether what I did was evil or not.

 

A)  A 30 year old woman have intercourse with a 13 year old boy is Rape by definition.  What if they were in love?  

B) A 30 year old man is having intercourse with a 13 year old girl,  is Rape by definition.  But what if they were in love?

 

That's irrelevant (and not really possible given their emotional maturity) because the power disparity between a 13 year-old and a 30 year-old is far too great for the sex to be consensual. If you start accepting justifications for morally evil behavior then you've turned morality into subjective opinion, since people can come up with justifications for anything.

[mick_towe]

As I said " There is harm in allowing adults to have sex with children. " So yes I understand your point,  this is more to do with the harm we cause by not handling the specifics of a situation.  A good example would be necessary if this dose not make sense to you.

 

This does not make sense to me. Can you give me an example?

[mshidden]

This does not make sense to me. Can you give me an example?

Ok let me paint a picture for you. You are a social worker, working in Arkansas, and and Marry, a mother of 3,  confess to having sex with her 13 year old adopted step son John.  Marry feels horrible about it, and want’s help.  She is living with her brother in lawn Eric and her quadriplegic wife Brandy.  Brandy was in the car accident that killed Mary's husband and left Brandy in a  wheelchair for life,  needing 24 hour care. Eric is a long haul truck driver, and is hardly ever home. You are checking on Brandy, it was Brandy during a private conversation, that asked you to talk to Marry to find out what was wrong.  “Marry is such a wonderful person and she works so hard, I hate to see her in such pain, she takes such good care of me, and the house, I don’t know what I would do without her help.  God has truly blessed me with her, and her 3 kids, I love having them running around the house, laughing, and carrying on, they are such happy kids, please can you talk to her and see if you can help, I know she misses her husband horribly, I am sure it has somthing to do with that.”

So what do you do,  and why?

[mick_towe]

 

Ok let me paint a picture for you. You are a social worker, working in Arkansas, and and Marry, a mother of 3,  confess to having sex with her 13 year old adopted step son John.  Marry feels horrible about it, and want’s help.  She is living with her brother in lawn Eric and her quadriplegic wife Brandy.  Brandy was in the car accident that killed Mary's husband and left Brandy in a  wheelchair for life,  needing 24 hour care. Eric is a long haul truck driver, and is hardly ever home. You are checking on Brandy, it was Brandy during a private conversation, that asked you to talk to Marry to find out what was wrong.  “Marry is such a wonderful person and she works so hard, I hate to see her in such pain, she takes such good care of me, and the house, I don’t know what I would do without her help.  God has truly blessed me with her, and her 3 kids, I love having them running around the house, laughing, and carrying on, they are such happy kids, please can you talk to her and see if you can help, I know she misses her husband horribly, I am sure it has somthing to do with that.”

So what do you do,  and why?

 

 

I am going to go out a limb here and make the claim that a prerequisite for a person being able to care for children is the ability to not have sex with them. I realize this is an example, but I don't think it illustrates anything but an adult female taking advantage of a child, and then his own mother making excuses for Mary's criminal behavior, while igonoring the injustice done to the child.

 

I don't have stats but I can speak anecdotely about boys I know that were abused by adult female caregivers when they were young. They grew up to be not very well adjusted adults, have issues with promiscuity, and struggle with suicidal thoughts 20 years after the fact. When it was happening to them they thought it was great. Now not so much.

 

I am willing to hear more examples, but I have to be honest, I don't think there is one. Your call.

 

As far as what would I do? Change "Mary" to "John" and "step son" to "step daughter" and it becomes pretty clear what needs to be done.

[mshidden]

 

I am willing to hear more examples, but I have to be honest, I don't think there is one. Your call.

 

As far as what would I do? Change "Mary" to "John" and "step son" to "step daughter" and it becomes pretty clear what needs to be done.

Sorry, but your avoiding the question. Everything about this example was purposeful and yes I chose the genders, knowing full well that genders make a difference, in our perceptions,  but I want you to tell me specifically what you would do in this case, for what ever reason.  

[mick_towe]

Sorry, but your avoiding the question. Everything about this example was purposeful and yes I chose the genders, knowing full well that genders make a difference, in our perceptions,  but I want you to tell me specifically what you would do in this case, for what ever reason.  

 

I am going to go out a limb here and make the claim that a prerequisite for a person being able to care for children is the ability to not have sex with them.

As far as what would I do? Change "Mary" to "John" and "step son" to "step daughter" and it becomes pretty clear what needs to be done.

 

 

I would certainly sepearate the child abuser from the children and contact the authorities. She is a criminal abuser of children, and no amount of housework makes up for the fact that she couldn't keep her dick in her pants when it mattered most.

 

Thought that was kind of obvious from my post.

 

P.S. The genders make a difference in YOUR perceptions, not mine.

[mshidden]

I would certainly sepearate the child abuser from the children and contact the authorities. She is a criminal abuser of children, and no amount of housework makes up for the fact that she couldn't keep her dick in her pants when it mattered most.

 

Thought that was kind of obvious from my post.

 

P.S. The genders make a difference in YOUR perceptions, not mine.

 

Thanks for giving me a specific answer.  I am going to answer this question as well, but after others have given their answers.  I hope I can get a few more beside yours.  So I did a new post just about this scenario.

I detected a lot of anger towards me, in your last reply, which I find scary, but also very interesting. I chose the gender primarily because of a general bias not your bias specifically.  Sorry if I offended you.

[Mr. Roth]

Thanks for giving me a specific answer.  I am going to answer this question as well, but after others have given their answers.  I hope I can get a few more beside yours.  So I did a new post just about this scenario.

I detected a lot of anger towards me, in your last reply, which I find scary, but also very interesting. I chose the gender primarily because of a general bias not your bias specifically.  Sorry if I offended you.

Where is the anger, and when is it directed at you?

[dsayers]

Sorry, but your avoiding the question.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39700-context-sensitivity-of-ethics-and-a-question-of-rape/#entry363641

 

You're avoiding a question.

[mick_towe]

Thanks for giving me a specific answer.  I am going to answer this question as well, but after others have given their answers.  I hope I can get a few more beside yours.  So I did a new post just about this scenario.

I detected a lot of anger towards me, in your last reply, which I find scary, but also very interesting. I chose the gender primarily because of a general bias not your bias specifically.  Sorry if I offended you.

 

The "general bias" you are speaking of offends me. Your participation in said bias offends me. People sitting around trying to dream up scenarios in which it might be ok for adults to have sex with children offends me.

 

I feel I have been fairly open minded in this thread considering.

 

Now

 

As I said " There is harm in allowing adults to have sex with children. " So yes I understand your point,  this is more to do with the harm we cause by not handling the specifics of a situation.  A good example would be necessary if this dose not make sense to you.

 

 

I am making the claim that you have NOT provided a good example as of yet. Your example is a vanilla case of an adult abusing their power and the dependency of the children on her to manipulate sex out of the deal.The fact that she is a woman changes nothing. The fact that she feels terrible about it changes nothing. The fact that the boys mother doesn't care that he was abused changes nothing.

 

So either we need a new example, or you could just make your point.

[AustinJames]

I don't think it's useful to construct ethical principles based on who is 'harmed.'  A drug dealer may facilitate the harming of an individual, but not violate their property rights, and a statutory rapist may not technically 'harm' someone, but the property of the victim will have been violated.  Looking at ethics in terms of property and not in terms of harm helps universalize ethical principles.

As far as what I would do, I would remove the child from the environment and file charges against the abuser.  There is no ambiguity in the violation of the boy's personal property, or the evil (or perhaps just malignant incompetence) of the mother.

[KevinP]

The difference between rape, and making love is context:

 

[...]

 

Rape is ultimately a question of harm, [...]

 

No, rape is ultimately a question of consent, a violation of a person's self-ownership.  "Statutory" rape is defined because people below a certain age are considered unable to consent to sex.

[mshidden]

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39778-emotional-labels-and-how-they-do-harm-the-mary-problem/