Yes, Pedophlia is Immoral

Given that pedophilia is being defended in woke academia, let’s consider their arguments.  So far, I have seen two arguments that attempt to deny the immorality of pedophilia.  First, it is claimed that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation and we cannot morally blame someone for a desire they cannot help.  Second, it is argued that pedophile thoughts are not immoral since no one is harmed by mere thoughts.  I find both arguments to be quite unconvincing.

Consider the claim that pedophilia is innate.  My response is simple – so what?  Just because a behavior is innate does not excuse it from being morally wrong.  For example, I think that selfishness is innate in most humans.  I also think violence is innate in most humans.  If someone behaves violently for purely selfish reasons, I don’t excuse such behavior because it is innate. Violent selfishness is wrong.  Period.  That moral truth should instead act as a brake on those innate desires to hurt others for selfish reasons.

Next, what about the notion that thoughts alone cannot be immoral since they do not hurt anyone?  This position denies the existence of immoral thoughts, yet I believe immoral thoughts can and do exist.  For example, if someone spends a lot of time fantasizing about and writing stories about torturing and killing young children, I think that is immoral.  It is wrong to spend time focusing on such thoughts.  Now, I’m confident almost everyone would agree with me because of what I will call the Partner Test.  Imagine you discover that your partner has a very rich and extensive fantasy life built around torturing and killing kittens and young children.  Would you not suddenly think less of your partner’s moral character, such that you now know he/she has a “dark and depraved side”?  Or would you think there is no problem here as long as your partner does not act on the thoughts?  I don’t think there is a person alive who, in real life, would choose the “no problem here” response. 

If, for some reason, the pedophile defender is not convinced, we can simply change the examples to better fit their “woke” sensitivities.  For example, what if, for many people, racism and homophobia are innate?  Is the woke professor willing to morally excuse racism and homophobia because it is innate?  I think not. And what if your partner had an extensive fantasy life about torturing and killing black or gay people?  That is, they write stories about lynchings and fantasize about doing it, but never act on those thoughts.  Is there any woke professor out there willing to publicly say it’s okay to have violently racist and homophobic thoughts as long as you don’t act on them?  Or would they agree with me that thoughts can be immoral?

This entry was posted in Morality, pedophiles and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Yes, Pedophlia is Immoral

  1. It’s sad that calling somebody a nasty name, which is what most “racism” amounts to, is now a more serious crime than sexually abusing a child.

  2. Nuke1776 says:

    Given that for the leftist, all morality is a “social construct”, then there are no grounds for rejecting racism or “homophobia” (such a ridiculous term) any more than rejecting any other pet morality. It’s all mere preference.

    I have a modest recommendation for these posts. I can understand the apologetic of using your opponents’ own words and definitions to ensure common understanding and to not be off-putting when conversing with them. But can we not use the word “pedophilia” when we’re talking frankly about it? Given that its construction means “love of children”, I think it’s rather grotesque, as nothing could be more unloving than to subject a child to sexualization. I think “child molestation and rape” is more appropriate as that is all it can ever be, and it connotes the proper repulsiveness that is due to these monsters.

  3. dpmonahan says:

    The theory of innate sex attractions is fast becoming a reductio ad absurdam.

  4. TFBW says:

    I don’t think there is a person alive who, in real life, would choose the “no problem here” response.

    I’m pretty sure I can find one for you.

  5. Dhay says:

    TFBW > I’m pretty sure I can find one for you.

    With like dry humour, so can I, There’s several that Michael himself has pointed out, so I’m confident that Michael’s ‘no person alive’ will be the the vernacular ‘no person alive’, otherwise known as the minimisation variant of ‘semitic exaggeration’ — example: If you had faith the size of a mustard seed (over-the-top minimisation) you would say to this mountain… cast the mountain into the sea (over-the-top exaggeration.)

    There’s Ole Moen and Allyn Walker:
    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2022/06/21/queer-professor-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/

    There’s the two San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus leaders who wrote and produced the “The Boy Who Danced on Air” musical celebrating the Afghani traditional practice (Bacha Bazi) of selling boys into buggery:
    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/gay-men-who-wrote-well-convert-your-children-song-now-claim-to-be-victims/

    Add in (from the Responses to that thread) those six or more Chorus members who are alleged to be registered child-sex offenders.

    I’ll add the audiences who were entertained by that musical during its run — that’s potentially a lot of people.

    Add in, too, those activists promoting and using the teaching aid, “The Gender Unicorn”, who expect to, and presumably do, ask kiddies — because of the power imbalance, that’s tell kiddies — of an age young enough to think a “Gender Unicorn” isn’t just a silly idea aimed at kids much younger than they are to give answers to the question, “On these three sliding scales, mark how physically attracted you are to a) Women, b) Men, c) Other Gender(s). Although it could be apologetically argued by the Unicorn’s creators and users that it is possible for the kiddies to mark answers of Zero, the worked example shown shows — see where the dots are placed on the smaller bottom diagram — three model answers of 50% each.
    https://transstudent.org/gender/

    This exercise for kiddies refers not to physical (sexual) attraction to ‘boys, girls and other gender(s)’ but to physical (sexual) attraction to adults. This looks like the classic paedophile self-delusion that their kiddie victims want sex with them; or perhaps it’s an attempt to ‘nudge’ kiddies that physical (sexual) attraction to adults is normal, ditto that sex with adults is normal.

    Contrast those three model answers of 50% with the model answers of 10% each for the next question, “On these three sliding scales, mark how emotionally attracted you are to a) Women, b) Men, c) Other Gender(s). Clearly these nutters expect (or are urging) children to have fairly strong physical (sexual) attraction towards adults despite expected low levels of emotional attraction. Someone’s living in a fantasy world, I judge.

    So yes, I have no hesitation in adding the promoters and users of the Gender Unicorn to the already long list of people who, in real life, would choose the “no problem here” response.

  6. Dhay says:

    > So far, I have seen two arguments that attempt to deny the immorality of pedophilia. First, it is claimed that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation and we cannot morally blame someone for a desire they cannot help.

    I observe that Jerry Coyne is absolutely convinced (because we are, he claims, mere puppets danging without free will on the strings of genes and environment and cannot possibly ever have done otherwise than we did, however horrible) that we cannot morally blame anyone for anything whatsoever. But even Coyne acknowledges there is a place for regulation of socially unacceptable behaviour by means of laws, a police force to enforce those laws, and a justice system including prosecution, judgment and punishment. That is, even a no-blame extremist like Coyne just talks no-blame, he talks the talk rather than walks the walk; he would, I confidently expect, be quick to act (or urge others) to prevent acts of paedophilia, and to punish to discourage the offender and other paedophiles from further acts.

    I also think he would be as quick to personally condemn acts of paedophilia as he was a few years back to condemn a teenager who persecuted albatrosses; I don’t see how his condemnation would, beyond words of denial, differ from what everyone else calls blame.

    > Second, it is argued that pedophile thoughts are not immoral since no one is harmed by mere thoughts.

    Let’s ask an ancient sage. Thus have I heard:

    “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts.”
    (Dhammapada 1:1)

    https://chaplaincyinstitute.org/portfolio-items/20-sayings-of-the-buddha/

    The which I take to mean that the Buddha and his millions of followers in the last two and a half thousand years or so all reckon that our thoughts are very important indeed in determining what we each are.

    If Ole Moen (who I presume is in view here) objects along the lines of, ‘What do the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, etc, etc, know about morality?’ I can always add in a certain Jesus of Nazareth and his billions of followers:

    You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    And
    For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A27-28%3B+15%3A19&version=ESVUK

    The which plainly rank evil thoughts alongside evil acts: or, generalising, rank paedophilic thoughts alongside actual paedophilia.

    *

    I don’t move in moral philosopher and ethicist circles, so I don’t know how many there are like Moen and Allyn Walker; my bet would be, suchlike are few and far between, they are as much outliers and as tiny in number as Jesus Mythicists are; if paedophile apologists are, as appears, as dismissed and ignored by the Ethics community as Mythers are by historians, I have no need or duty to so much as consider — let alone a duty to refute — their arguments.

    Much as being a Jesus Myth fan correlates strongly (as I observe, if anecdotally) with being an anti-theist, so are the Myther fans’ convictions likely to be based on other than the Jesus Mythicist arguments as put, their stated reasons just hooks on which to hang convictions based on unrelated reasons such as antipathy to Christianity — likewise the reasons for being a fan (if any) of pro-paedophile ethicists fan are likely to be be unrelated to the ethical philosophical reasoning and instead be unethical.

  7. Dhay says:

    I see that Reduxx quotes Ole Moen:

    “In this paper it is argued that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally alright [sic],” reads the abstract.

    https://reduxx.info/queer-academic-recommends-pedophilia-be-taught-in-schools-as-an-innate-sexuality/

    That “[sic]” was added by reduxx. My initial thought was the “alright” misuse was just the casual mistake of someone to whom English is a second language; but on reflection, Moen is a university Ethics professor, teaching philosophy – where clear definitions and distinctions are important — and specifically teaching Ethics – where, as is common, the bulk of the literature will be in the academic Lingua Franca, namely English.

    “Morally right”, a term in binary opposition to “morally wrong”, is very different from “morally alright”. “Alright” has the meaning of “OK”, as the lyrics to “Jumping Jack Flash” attest; Googling ‘define alright’ throws back, “of a satisfactory or acceptable quality (‘the tea was all right’)”. Moen should have a thorough grasp of the distinction and the difference, it’s his Ethicist job to know.

    I am led to the conclusion that Moen does not himself know the difference between what is right and what is morally acceptable – presumably, to himself.

    Or perhaps he does know, but is using his blurred usage as a rhetorical device to blur the distinction in the minds of his readers.

    Now to the main point: –

    *

    > If, for some reason, the pedophile defender is not convinced, we can simply change the examples to better fit their “woke” sensitivities. For example, what if, for many people, racism and homophobia are innate? Is the woke professor willing to morally excuse racism and homophobia because it is innate? I think not. And what if your partner had an extensive fantasy life about torturing and killing black or gay people? That is, they write stories about lynchings and fantasize about doing it, but never act on those thoughts. Is there any woke professor out there willing to publicly say it’s okay to have violently racist and homophobic thoughts as long as you don’t act on them?

    Let’s change that Moen quote, retaining its structure but replacing words typical of Moen with words typical of Ibram Kendi:

    “In this paper it is argued that [racism] is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to [those races], and that [racism] itself, as well as [racist] expressions and practices that do not cause harm to [those races], are morally alright.”

    No, I don’t think Moen’s argument form would be accepted for a moment by Ibram Kendi, or by Robin DiAngelo or by the many Woke individuals and Woke organisations that support antiracism.

    Now let’s swap positions, changing Kendi’s views (as quoted in Michael’s 09 July 2021 OP, “Time to Be Anti-Pedophile”) by replacing some of his words with words typical of Moen:

    But as [Moen] also notes, it’s not enough to simply be “not [paedophile].” “The opposite of ‘[paedophile]’ isn’t ‘not [paedophile]’,’” he writes. “It is ‘[antipaedophile]’.’”

    “There is no in-between safe space of ‘not [paedophile],’” [Moen] continues. “The claim of ‘not [paedophile]’ neutrality is a mask for [paedophilia].”

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/07/09/time-to-be-anti-pedophile/

    The altered quote seems to nicely summarise the logic of Michael’s July OP.

    *

    That neither altered quote would be acceptable to the person quoted tells us that the logical form of both is defective, not only as altered but also as original.

  8. TFBW says:

    … it’s his Ethicist job to know.

    Based on performance (rather than title) I was under the impression that the job of an Ethicist was akin to to “devil’s advocate”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.