WALT:
Now now, you have not answered the biggest question of ethics. Why is
molesting a little child wrong? I would love to hear what you think?
ROBSON:
Well, I hope this isn't the biggest ethical question you can think of.
The post was criticising the argument and its use of emotional manipulation,
which is nasty stuff... you didn't read the stockbroker bit, I thought that
explained what I meant. Why not ask "why is molesting a stockbroker wrong ?"
(BTW Some of my best friends are stockbrokers :) )
I'd be interested in what YOU think about this. I'd actually like to see some
concrete arguments rather than bait & deflect tactics from you. Your post
responding to my "other priest reasons" message didn't actually say
anything, just used standard defensive tactics.
[BTW: I've worked with these kids. I know the emotional games that goes
on about them. (irrelevant argument)]
If I had to bang something quick down it would be something like...
(i) It's contrary to the ethics which I was taught by my parents and other
people.
(non religious parents but not atheist by the way,and other people does
include one CoE priest in particular and a couple of others as well)
(ii) It's contrary to the prevailing ethics in society
(which are more secular than in the US I think)
(iii) I find it personally repugnant.
(related to i and ii I suppose)
This isn't great but it's not far off.
What you are trying to argue is that because I cannot give a mathematically
valid proof of why 'x' is right or why 'y' is wrong beyond this there must be
a
reason 'beyond' this. (or this is what I assume,tell me if I'm wrong).
I always thought this landed you in a debate about whether right & wrong
is independent of God, and if it was what does "God is good" actually
mean. In fact, as often seems to be the case adding "God" to the
argument leads to infinite regression.
This I view as an extension of the 'anything I can't explain, God did it'
scenario.
What I actually object to is the unpleasant unsubstantiated slur implicit
in this sort of argument that "because you don't accept that there is an
objective right or wrong from God you think Child Abuse can't be wrong".
(which is why child abuse is used as opposed to stealing to heighten the
emotional impact)
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)
PS: Are you the chap who mails to the Infidels as Walt Jr ?
PPS : Certainly in my country there are endless cases of Priestly child
abuse (Child Abusers love positions of trust - doctors,police, social
services,
teachers,priest etc because it gives them access and the job has the trust
built in) so believing in God doesn't seem to stop them. I know this is a
emotional argument but it's a rebound to the above. NO JERRY I DIDN'T SAY
ALL PREACHERS ARE CHILD MOLESTERS READ IT AGAIN. I suppose
they aren't 'true' christians eh ?