"I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity."It's hard to disagree with that statement.
(Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf pg. 62)
On this and other blogs people often debate "objective" vs. "subjective" morality. Theists generally argue that morality is objective and has been handed to us by god in the Torah while atheists (generally) argue for some sort of universal, subjective, morality that most rational humans agree to.
I think everyone reading this blog would agree with Justice Alito and myself that child rape is immoral. But what is our basis for that judgment? Personally, I would make the argument that sex is wrong without consent, that children are unable to give their consent, and that the horror of the crime is compounded by the fact that it is being done to a helpless child.
I think the theist arguing for objective (Torah based) morality has a harder case to make. God doesn't weigh in on the issue of child molestation. There doesn't appear to be an "age of consent" in the Torah. If anything in the Torah a woman of any age doesn't really seem to have such a right. In the event that a woman is raped the rapist pays her father 50 shekels of silver and he has to marry her and, according to the Torah, stay married forever. [Devarim 22:29] There is no serious condemnation of the act in the Torah. Certainly the Torah frowns upon this rape as implied by the biblical requirement that the man stay married to the woman forever. Compared to issues like consensual gay sex, or eating shellfish, (abominations!) the Torah is relatively silent on rape, let alone child rape.
If you believe that child rape is immoral but you base your morality solely on the Torah than on what basis do you say that child molestation is immoral?
58 comments:
>Personally, I would make the argument that sex is wrong without consent, that children are unable to give their consent.
What about a 12 year old?
Also, there is a thread like this going on Dovbears site, where many people have been bringing up that the punishment is on the man. He has to stay married to her, but she does not have to remain since she was the victim.
I'm not sure what you mean by no condemnation. As in all societies, there is a punishment. We stick them in jail, they had to pay and/or marry.
To add to your point, if you would be appalled to hear that some father was paid $200 bucks by some stranger to marry his daughter, you should be outraged that this is quite normal in the Talmud. That a father would marry off his daughter before the age of 12 was the rule, not the exception.
On the other hand, everyone married much younger and died younger, so maybe people matured (emotionally) faster back then. Think about how Rivka married at age 3.
Rape is condemned with the story of Tamar being raped by Amnon or Dinah by Shechem. There is no dificulty. It is even easier in Judaism than condemning consensual sex between unmarried adults. That's just considered lewd in comparison. The rapist had to marry because of the shame such is not the case with consensual sex partners.
Moshe said...
"To add to your point, if you would be appalled to hear that some father was paid $200 bucks by some stranger to marry his daughter, you should be outraged that this is quite normal in the Talmud. That a father would marry off his daughter before the age of 12 was the rule, not the exception."
Actually the fine was paid whether there was marriage or not. As for child marriage from the standpoint of the Talmud marriage according to the Torah below the age of twelve has no standing. The Talmud only gives it Rabbinical standing for her protection and therefore upon maturity was able to be annulled by her.
HH,
> What about a 12 year old?
I don't think a 12 year old is old enough to give consent either.
> Also, there is a thread like this going on Dovbears site,
DovBear has two good posts on this subject up already. Here are the links to them:
Questions on Kennedy v. Louisiana
Marying your rapist continued.
> I'm not sure what you mean by no condemnation. As in all societies, there is a punishment. We stick them in jail, they had to pay and/or marry.
I acknowledged that the Torah frowns upon rape but halacha's approach to the sexual violation of a woman is essentially "you break it, you buy it". It's viewed more like an irregular acquisition, not a criminal offense. Similarly, if you break a TV at Best Buy they make you pay for it, they don't call the cops. Being forced to pay for and marry the woman is not a condemnation.
>That a father would marry off his daughter before the age of 12 was the rule, not the exception.
Yup
My wifes grandmother
>I don't think a 12 year old is old enough to give consent either.
Why not?
12 year olds loose their virgnity all the time to other 12 year olds. Why can't they consent to a 25 year old?
HH,
> 12 year olds loose their virgnity all the time to other 12 year olds. Why can't they consent to a 25 year old?
You've been reading too many NAMBLA press releases.
You can't prosecute two 12 year olds for having sex with each other, that doesn't mean they should be having sex. A 12 year old doesn't fully comprehend meaning, value, and potential outcomes from having sex. Therefore they can not consent to what they don't understand. The age of their partner doesn't matter.
Do you oppose statutory rape laws?
Was I presumptive when I claimed "I think everyone reading this blog would agree child rape is immoral"???
Ofcourse I consider RAPE immoral.
My question was to you about consent (the opposite of rape). And its quite irrelevant of consequences and values. You have 20 year yeshiva girls that don't know consequences either.
If anything, 18 year old is just as arbitrary as 12 year olds were back 1000 years ago. Or, like my wifes family, till even more recent times.
LNM,
"Personally, I would make the argument that sex is wrong without consent, that children are unable to give their consent, and that the horror of the crime is compounded by the fact that it is being done to a helpless child.
I think the theist arguing for objective (Torah based) morality has a harder case to make."
Clearly you're making a false dilemma. I don't know any Jew who claims that the Torah text, simply stated, is the be all and end all of morality.
But that's only one thing. Don't see the extreme weakness in your own position? Somehow your preferences magically turn into moral precepts. How does "I [don't] like" turn into "you should[n't]"?
So you don't like children having sex. Ok - so don't have sex with children. Where do you get the authority to tell the NAMBLA people what to do?
I don't like mustard on my hot dog therefore it is immoral for people to put mustard on their hot dogs. Does this make sense?
In order to have meaningful morality or any moral authority you must refer to an objective ideal. That doesn't necessarily need to be the God of the Torah or any sort of God per se, but without some objective moral conception then it's all just a battle of wills and might.
> My question was to you about consent (the opposite of rape). And its quite irrelevant of consequences and values. You have 20 year yeshiva girls that don't know consequences either.
Since statutory rape is consensual sex with a minor my question still stands. "Do you oppose statutory rape laws?"
What 20 year old yeshiva girl doesn't know that sex is important and that it can lead to babies?
>Since statutory rape is consensual sex with a minor my question still stands. "Do you oppose statutory rape laws?"
You are still not answering my question. Why are they not able to give consent? Who are you to take away someones right to give consent? Values????? Thats not an answer.
I realize what statutory rape is, but you realize its just something totally subjective. An 18 year old is ok but a 171/2 is not?
"I acknowledged that the Torah frowns upon rape but halacha's approach to the sexual violation of a woman is essentially "you break it, you buy it". It's viewed more like an irregular acquisition, not a criminal offense. Similarly, if you break a TV at Best Buy they make you pay for it, they don't call the cops. Being forced to pay for and marry the woman is not a condemnation."
That statement is not an objective statement of fact. He is not paying for her. He is paying a fine. If she agrees he has to marry her and never divorce her. The Torah makes clear its reasons here. It is because of the shame and ruin on her. What more do you want? Him to be flogged? That in a system where flogging was for minor offenses, fines were bigger and death was the ultimate.
In order to have meaningful morality or any moral authority you must refer to an objective ideal. That doesn't necessarily need to be the God of the Torah or any sort of God per se, but without some objective moral conception then it's all just a battle of wills and might.
How about settling for a community consensus instead of an objective moral standard (which no one has ever produced)? And isn't it always just a battle of wills and might?
OP,
I don't know any Jew who claims that the Torah text, simply stated, is the be all and end all of morality.
Are you kidding? I would say most of the Jews I know believe the Torah to be the final authority on morality. If the Torah isn't the final word on morality then what is? And why can't atheists draw on that same authority?
I can't think of any Rabbinical moral laws. (If you know one I would like to hear it). On the other hand, homosexuality is declared immoral by the poshut pshat of the Torah and that's the end of the story. The Torah is very clear about morality and states the law plainly. e.g. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc. Halacha teases out some of the details but it doesn't rewrite what is written.
Somehow your preferences magically turn into moral precepts. How does "I [don't] like" turn into "you should[n't]"?
Easy. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." It is about interpersonal relations. Not about personal preferences.
I don't like mustard on my hot dog therefore it is immoral for people to put mustard on their hot dogs. Does this make sense?
A straw man if I ever heard one.
In order to have meaningful morality or any moral authority you must refer to an objective ideal. That doesn't necessarily need to be the God of the Torah or any sort of God per se
What, to you, is an objective ideal that doesn't include some sort of god?
> without some objective moral conception then it's all just a battle of wills and might.
Maybe that's all it is, or maybe there is some hard-wired instinct. I don't know. But relying on a document or questionable origin isn't going to provide better answers.
>Halacha teases out some of the details but it doesn't rewrite what is written.
Ben sorer umorer?
ayin tachat ayin?
HH,
> You are still not answering my question. Why are they not able to give consent?
I did answer your question. You just refuse to recognize that immature children are unable to comprehend the full scope of what sex is about.
> statutory rape is... just something totally subjective. An 18 year old is ok but a 171/2 is not?
Like with everything in life there is a gray area. A 40 year old having sex with a 16 year old is clearly different from an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old. Thoughtful states have laws that take this into account. But just because some people write bad law doesn't mean it is OK to rape 12 year olds.
>I did answer your question. You just refuse to recognize that immature children are unable to comprehend the full scope of what sex is about.
You are speaking from a western notion of what sex is about.
>Like with everything in life there is a gray area. A 40 year old having sex with a 16 year old is clearly different from an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old. Thoughtful states have laws that take this into account. But just because some people write bad law doesn't mean it is OK to rape 12 year olds.
But the law clearly sees no problem with a 40 year old having sex with an 18 year old. This all has nothing to do with values or understanding what sex is. In some cultures, a 15 year can know what sex is all about. My wife's grandmother at 12 already knew what sex was about.
Sensiblities obviously change. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is in any means objective.
> Ben sorer umorer?ayin tachat ayin?
These are punishments. What do they have to do with objective/subjective morals?
These examples do serve to illustraite that the Rabbanim will reinterpret the Torah to meet newer social standards. Whichs begs the question: Why would they change the Torah's meaning to fit society's subjective will?
HH,
> My wife's grandmother at 12 already knew what sex was about. Sensiblities obviously change. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is in any means objective
From the outset I've stated that I'm on the subjective morality side. What's interesting is that I don't see anyone addressing my question from the post about the Torah and molestation.
You've mentioned your grandmother-in-law who got married at 12 a few times. What are your feelings about kids younger than 12? Can they consent to sex? If a 3 year old consents to sex is it OK? If not why not?
>Can they consent to sex? If a 3 year old consents to sex is it OK? If not why not?
For the same reason you don't think so. I think in most cultures, it was at the time of puberty.
>What's interesting is that I don't see anyone addressing my question from the post about the Torah and molestation.
You mean child molestation (rape) or a woman getting raped?
What IS a 20 year old yeshiva girl anyway? Yentl?
>What IS a 20 year old yeshiva girl anyway? Yentl?
:)
JB,
"How about settling for a community consensus instead of an objective moral standard"
That may be what we simply have to settle for practically, but we should try to achieve the objective ideal.
"And isn't it always just a battle of wills and might?"
Only if you're including the will to be moral.
LNM,
"Are you kidding? I would say most of the Jews I know believe the Torah to be the final authority on morality. If the Torah isn't the final word on morality then what is?"
I think the point was already made. Subsequent rabbinic interpretations and expansions have collectively opened up a lot and changed quite a bit of what was previously just the Torah text.
"And why can't atheists draw on that same authority?"
Who said they can't?
"I can't think of any Rabbinical moral laws. (If you know one I would like to hear it)."
Ok, now are you the one who's kidding? Where it comes to things like marital relations, abortion, execution, medical ethics and heck the whole mussar movement - you have concepts that the Torah barely touches on.
"Easy. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." It is about interpersonal relations. Not about personal preferences."
How is that easy? Justify that personal preference of yours of not doing to others what is hateful to you. You can do what you want, but you have no authority over Mr. Cannibal.
"A straw man if I ever heard one."
I disagree. You just don't realize that your moral foundation is built on straw.
"What, to you, is an objective ideal that doesn't include some sort of god?"
That, for example, moral ideals are built-in to the structure of the universe without a necessary intelligence, per se. Think dharma. Or perhaps intrinsic to the collective human condition there is an ideal course of behavior that leads to an ideal collective goal.
Now, I think these make more sense in a global sense with a kind of deity involved, but people are free to disagree with me and still find themselves a sense of morality's necessary objectivity.
"Maybe that's all it is, or maybe there is some hard-wired instinct. I don't know. But relying on a document or questionable origin isn't going to provide better answers."
You're right and you shouldn't. But relying on baseless personal preferences doesn't seem like a great course of action either.
"Easy. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." It is about interpersonal relations. Not about personal preferences."
Those are just words. What they mean is different things to different people. When was the last time you didn't feel free to tell someone off at your discretion despite the fact that if done to you you would hate it? Just by that you have given an interpretation.
HH,
> For the same reason you don't think so.
You know what happens when you assume?
> I think in most cultures, it was at the time of puberty.
I don't think that the moment a tween sprouts their first pube they suddenly are psychology mature enough to choose sex partners. The onset of puberty is an important moment in a persons sexual life, there's no denying that. But just because a kid possesses child bearing organs doesn't mean they are psychologically mature enough to decide who they should reproduce with.
You also mentioned that I'm talking about a "western notion of sex". This is true. Again, I'm not arguing for "objective morality" I'm arguing that you can't say pedophilia is objectively immoral.
Getting back to the West. I don't know about ancient cultures and their notions of sex but sex in modern Western culture is an ever-present topic. Kids today know more about sex by the time they reach puberty than my parents ever did when they came of age. But this only reinforces my point. If someone knows the mechanics of sex (or even the many variations on the basic method of having sex) it doesn't make them ready to begin selecting partners. In your grandmother-in-law's case I'm guessing her husband was selected for her. Even in other cultures where kids get married at puberty (to the best of my understanding) the parents arrange the union. As was the case in the Torah where (according to Rashi: Bereishis 25:20) three-year-old Rivkah got married to 40-year-old Yitzchak.
>> What's interesting is that I don't see anyone addressing my question from the post about the Torah and molestation.
> You mean child molestation (rape) or a woman getting raped?
As in my post, I'm referring to child molestation.
OP,
I like this thread, and I will respond, I'm just having a busy weekend. I'll catch you later.
>You know what happens when you assume?
Of course I do. What?
>But just because a kid possesses child bearing organs doesn't mean they are psychologically mature enough to decide who they should reproduce with.
I think in our neck of the woods, you are right. But I believe this might be more of a recent phenomenan in the history of humanity. I don't think children were as 'cuddled' as they are today. Your parents didn't know much about sex probably because society progressed, things like this were not being discussed anymore. The way kids find out about today, IMO is horrendous because it glorifies and makes it sleazy, which I do not believe was around for prior centuries. When a child reached a certain age, they knew and understood it as a responsiblity and part of their life.
>As in my post, I'm referring to child molestation.
I think you should ask someone more familiar with the laws. I think molestation might be similar to any civil case of assualt
Lots of male voices on this post. Interesting.
From a less-observant but feminist point of view, I'm a bit surprised by the Louisiana approach to this crime. Not that I am in any way "for" the rape of a child, but I really don't see much difference between rapes according to age. Rape is a terrible crime no matter what.
If an 85 year-old granny is raped by a nursing-home attendant, is that less evil than a child being violated and hurt as well? Or is it ok for a college student to have her drink drugged at a party and ends up being raped by a bunch of frat guys, who record the whole thing on their cell phones?
Of course, if someone was to harm my child, I would have to be physically restrained from killing them in return - even if my kid was 25, 37, or 53. There would be no opportunity for a defense lawyer to imply that my child in any way invited the rape.
As I don't believe in capital punishment, I don't support the Louisiana sentence. But I believe that the distinction of "child" rape is there because American, and indeed all of Western society, is struggling with issues of sex. Violent sex is one area of sexuality that appears to be clean of any interpretation. Except, of course, that there is discomfort with adult women's sexuality and so the rape of adults is not given the same weight.
As for the Torah, I am actually a believer in God, and I do observe some mitzvot (but certainly am not even MO). But it seems pretty clear to me that Jewish law views sexual intercourse as an act of possession. He lies with her, he possesses her. Therefore, he is stuck with that choice. And as for her, well, she is a thing to be possessed. That's why male homosexuality is viewed with such definitive negativity - because then a men could possess another man. And maybe that's why female homosexuality is barely even seen. Who cares what two possessions do together? The ownership can't change!
Moral, like sin, is a religious term. From the point of an atheist, child rape is illegal, nothing more or less.
From the point of view of a Jew, you would have to ask a rabbi if you can force a little girl to have sex, can you force a big girl to have sex, actually can you force your wife to have sex. The answers are no, no and no.
OP,
> Subsequent rabbinic interpretations and expansions have collectively opened up a lot and changed quite a bit of what was previously just the Torah text.
To the best of my knowledge, not with regard to basic moral principals.
> Where it comes to things like marital relations, abortion, execution, medical ethics and heck the whole mussar movement - you have concepts that the Torah barely touches on.
I think we need to separate between "morals" and "ethics". Abortion and execution might be considered moral issues, and nidda, medical ethics and mussar are ethical issues. The definitions of "morals" and "ethics" are very similar but I would make the distinction this way: it is immoral to kill someone and it is unethical to steal music off the internet. If you switch the usage and say it is immoral to steal mp3s and unethical to kill people I think you see what I mean.
The morality of when abortion or execution are allowed are debated by Chazzal but they don't create new fundamental moral laws. The issues you've cited here (with maybe the exception of mussar which is literally ethics) grow out of explicit root commandments in the Torah.
> You can do what you want, but you have no authority over Mr. Cannibal.
Individuals have a right to defend themselves. And collectively individuals, or "society", has a right to defend itself. This is a basic element of civilization that has no need for intellectual support from a supernatural source.
> You just don't realize that your moral foundation is built on straw.
If I based all of my moral decisions on texts and logic I might agree with you. But the fact of the matter is my moral foundation is built on nature and nurture, intellect and instinct. For the average person killing is a very difficult thing and can leave lasting psychological trauma on the killer. On the other hand stealing may be difficult for an ethical person but resistance to stealing can be easily overcome (relative to murder). Stealing also doesn't create a massive, lasting emotional impact. Most people are moral beings and base their morality on something more than logic. What that "more" is (instinct? nurture? soul?) is up for debate but the suggestion of a cold, calculating moralist is far-fetched.
>> "What, to you, is an objective ideal that doesn't include some sort of god?"
> That, for example, moral ideals are built-in to the structure of the universe without a necessary intelligence, per se.
Survival of the fittest could fit into this definition. Kill or be killed could too. Then again I could be wrong. Unless "The Universe" explicitly tells you which moral ideals are built-in then you are no better off then the subjective morality of your gut and the mob.
> morality's necessary objectivity
Morality only has to be objective if you believe that humans are somehow more special than other animals in the eyes of god, or the all-knowing universe (or whatever). If you are committed to the idea of some deity, and you believe that deity cares about humanity, than maybe there is an objective morality. Or maybe we're nothing but molecules bouncing around and there is no objective morality. Ultimately, we don't know for sure one way or the other. And either way we still have Hitler and Saddam and Robert Mugabe.
Whether you are part of the 0.25% of the world's population (Jews) that possess the one True moral document or not, life is still "just a battle of wills and might" (to paraphrase Johnathan Blake).
From a practical standpoint it doesn't seem to matter if morality is objective or subjective.
HH,
> I think molestation might be similar to any civil case of assualt
And are you OK with that? Personally, I expect The moral authority to come down much harder on sexual predators.
Sharon,
> If an 85 year-old granny is raped by a nursing-home attendant, is that less evil than a child being violated and hurt as well?
The real horror of child rape is that the child probably isn't even aware of the possible threat. A granny may be as defenseless as a child, or maybe not. Children are almost universally defensless. Another factor is that people almost universally try to defend children. It's probably a human instinct. So someone who is preying on children is that much more aborhent.
> Jewish law views sexual intercourse as an act of possession. He lies with her, he possesses her. Therefore, he is stuck with that choice. And as for her, well, she is a thing to be possessed. That's why male homosexuality is viewed with such definitive negativity - because then a men could possess another man. And maybe that's why female homosexuality is barely even seen. Who cares what two possessions do together? The ownership can't change!
Fascinating analysis. I have heard this approach applied to society's acceptance (or not) of homosexulaity in gereral and found it lacking. But when applied to halacha in particular, and the codified issue of possession, I think it is particularly insightful. Thanks for posting.
"From a practical standpoint it doesn't seem to matter if morality is objective or subjective."
It does matter. If it is not objective then you have no right to complain. Also who determines under what circumstances something is moral or not? You like your morality simple but simple with morality is hardly the rule or something to be admired. Are you sulking and spitefull or are you not commenting on what I say because you don't know what to say. If you claim as you did in the past that I make no sense to respond to that's just a made up story because you are upset. If so snap out of it and grow up.
LNM,
"To the best of my knowledge, not with regard to basic moral principals."
Ok, well that can be spun either way. Certainly the rabbis through time have tried to root all their moral concepts in the Torah, but they're really not all there. To note, Ezekiel explicitly renounces the Torah's concept of collective punishment. I'm not sure where you could find "bettering the world" aka "tikkun olam" in the Torah text. Or concepts like being against cruelty to animals or against suicide or a dozen other ideas that have no true root in any specific Torah verse.
"I think we need to separate between "morals" and "ethics"."
If you say so. Just because "morals" are used more strongly than "ethics" doesn't mean there is a qualitative difference.
"Individuals have a right to defend themselves."
They do? A *right*? How did they get this right?
"And collectively individuals, or "society", has a right to defend itself. This is a basic element of civilization that has no need for intellectual support from a supernatural source."
I didn't say it did require any supernature, but I fail to see how you've established rights anymore than bees have a right to build hives. That's just what they do, but do they have a *right* to it?
Just as you declare rights, the nihilist can declare that each individual has the right to take selfish advantage of society to his own benefit.
"But the fact of the matter is my moral foundation is built on nature and nurture, intellect and instinct. For the average person killing is a very difficult thing and can leave lasting psychological trauma on the killer."
Um...what? So murder is perfectly moral for the sociopath? As long as you don't feel bad then it's ok?
"Unless "The Universe" explicitly tells you which moral ideals are built-in then you are no better off then the subjective morality of your gut and the mob."
I disagree. At the very least, there are basic moral ideas that virtually every rational person agrees to and others which have proven themselves over time and through history. We can be on comfortable standing to accept them as good models for the objective moral ideal.
Certainly where it comes to science, "The Universe" hasn't told us exactly what's what, but we have conceptual models of physical reality that get better all the time. I think we're better off with science rather than relying on our gut or popularity to determine facts about reality.
"Morality only has to be objective if you believe that humans are somehow more special than other animals in the eyes of god, or the all-knowing universe (or whatever)."
I have no clue how you think that follows or even what you think it means. You don't think animals have any moral standing?
"Ultimately, we don't know for sure one way or the other. And either way we still have Hitler and Saddam and Robert Mugabe."
See my science analogy above. We also have the ID folks and flatearthers and all sorts of pseudoscience. So what?
"Whether you are part of the 0.25% of the world's population (Jews) that possess the one True moral document or not, life is still "just a battle of wills and might""
Well, I don't believe the Torah is a epitomy of morality, though I do believe it was a great early effort. But if morality is objective and discernible through history, logic, heuristics and the like, then morality is _not_ just a battle of wills and might, but open to discussion, debate and ultimately a consensus representing the objective moral order.
But if morality is subjective then there's nothing to discern and all moral talk is just shadows and mirrors - simply foundless will battling foundless will.
"But if morality is subjective then there's nothing to discern and all moral talk is just shadows and mirrors - simply foundless will battling foundless will."
True. Morality either exists or not. A subjective existence for it is no real existence for it as it has no binding character. I believe in objective morality. But I simply do not see it as being seculary true. There is no voice deciding what is wrong or right in minute detail that the psychopath ignores. The concept of morality is objective but the details are lacking. I wish I could be believe as I had in the past until shorn of it by people such as XGH in a natural morality.
Are there any absolute standards in art or cooking? So why morality?
"> Jewish law views sexual intercourse as an act of possession."
No that's not true.
"He lies with her, he possesses her. Therefore, he is stuck with that choice."
If he posseses her then why is he stuck with her if he rapes her. If she is his possesion let him give her up. How could a nonrapist man ever divorce a woman if he is stuck with her.
From a purely halachik POV :
1. Male child rape is homosexual sex and an issur deoraisa.
2. Female child rape is a problem in devaluing a potential virgin & shaming the family. Past the age of 3,the gemara suggests that the hymen cannot be repaired and that is when he is obligated to marry the girl or fined if she refuses him. Before the age of three, rape is considered a simple assault as the hymen was assumed to grow back.
Is this adequate? Not for 2008, but you are talking about a society in which children were sold into slavery to repay parental debts. Totally different social norms.
OP,
>> "Individuals have a right to defend themselves."
> They do? A *right*? How did they get this right?
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't strengthen your case. But just for kicks I will respond.
Every sane human on Earth believes in the right to self-defense/self-preservation. Though "believe" is really the wrong word since self-defense/self-preservation is a human instinct. The will to defend oneself is "intrinsic to the collective human condition" (to borrow a phrase). This value/right/moral is literally built into ourselves. In my subjective world this right is desired by all people and granted by all people to each other. Implicit in this "agreement" is that if you violate this right by attacking another you open yourself to attack. This is all subjective.
What I think you are really arguing is your belief that rights and morals can only exist if some higher order of being bestows them on humanity or if there is an inherent objective order to the universe. Therefore, any right or moral created by man is, by your definition, not a right or moral. If I used the term "social contract" (see: Rousseau) instead of "rights" and "morals" would you suddenly be convinced? If so then we probably agree and we're just debating semantics.
> At the very least, there are basic moral ideas that virtually every rational person agrees to and others which have proven themselves over time and through history. We can be on comfortable standing to accept them as good models for the objective moral ideal.
How is this different from humanistic, subjective morality? From a practical standpoint the two are indistinguishable.
> Certainly where it comes to science, "The Universe" hasn't told us exactly what's what, but we have conceptual models of physical reality that get better all the time. I think we're better off with science rather than relying on our gut or popularity to determine facts about reality.
Yes, scientific models can tell us facts about reality. But are you arguing that we can apply the same techniques to morality (by studying the Universe) and learn "truths" about ideal human behavior?
> But if morality is objective and discernible through history, logic, heuristics and the like, then morality is _not_ just a battle of wills and might, but open to discussion, debate and ultimately a consensus representing the objective moral order.
One second you're claiming that humanity can't claim any rights but then the next you're saying morality is discernible through history and logic. It's either one or the other.
But what is the basis for the morality that you are arguing for anyway? The hidden secrets of the Universe, as debated by man through history? Sounds like the same thing as subjective morality to me. But you think it's different because you feel your morality is only valid if there exists some god or "order" out there that gives its stamp of approval.
Your system is basically the same as subjective morality the only difference is that there is a man in the sky (or The Universe) that has the answer key. You are concerned that if there is no "objective ideal" your system of morals can't exist. So to compensate you've invented a theory that fills that gap. ("Morality can't exist unless it is objective. I believe in objective morality. Therefore an objective moral order must exist and god or the Universe supports it! Q.E.D.") This is a very nice idea but it has no more support than the idea that god gave Moses the Torah at Sinai.
In the end, all sane humans agree that morality is important. I think certain base values are tied into instinct (for example: "Do not kill members of your family") and our intellect expands them from there ("don't kill people"). For the most part being a moral person isn't an intellectual exercise. (I don't kill people all the time). If being moral required constant use of intellect then maybe it would require direction from a higher order. Morality is clearly a shared part of the human condition and as such we don't need the support of a man in the sky to make it work.
"Morality is clearly a shared part of the human condition and as such we don't need the support of a man in the sky to make it work."
This is just a variation on the Noble Savage idea, which anthropologists have discredited. Check out Professor Lawrence H. Keeley.
Without Torah, we would eat each other.
"2. Female child rape is a problem in devaluing a potential virgin & shaming the family. Past the age of 3,the gemara suggests that the hymen cannot be repaired and that is when he is obligated to marry the girl or fined if she refuses him. Before the age of three, rape is considered a simple assault as the hymen was assumed to grow back."
He has to pay in any event and t is determined under the circumstances to whom the payment goes. Under some ciircumstances her, under others her family. Further it is not considered simple assault. It is considered a special wrong to the female. It is considered licentious and cruel and shaming.
The Torah condemns Sex before marriage.
12 is that age at which a girl can marry according to the Talmud.
It was a lot easier to be mature at 12 year old, 1000 years ago. Women didn't go to school (Public schools didn't exist), Women didn't work outside the home and the only things that a girl had to do was cook, clean, and make babies (all things 12 year olds had/have the ability to do).
It is not right for such a young girl to get married or even be sexually active, in this day and age, they are to young and not ready for that type of responsibilty. We have to understand that that era in Judaism was completly different than it is today.
Also, It is never acceptable to force a woman to have sex Reguardless of age!!
LNM,
"Therefore, any right or moral created by man is, by your definition, not a right or moral. If I used the term "social contract" (see: Rousseau) instead of "rights" and "morals" would you suddenly be convinced? If so then we probably agree and we're just debating semantics."
How can man create rights? The concept of an "artificial right" is an oxymoron.
See, I agree that the "social contract" model is a good base for extrapolating further good social agreements - but only because it models something objective. If it's just a matter of people agreeing but ultimately based on nothing but common interest, then one people agreeing to persecute a minority is without compelling counterargument. Why shouldn't they? It was in the material interests of white Southern society to maintain a slavery-based black underclass.
"How is this different from humanistic, subjective morality? From a practical standpoint the two are indistinguishable."
Because fundamentally I can still say that atrocities are wrong while you can only say that you don't like them. You have no moral authority and no standing to pass any kind of judgement. Murder isn't wrong to you, it's just not smart because your potential victim is liable to 'believe in self-defense' and fight back.
From a theoretical standpoint, your pov should lead to a nihilistic dog eat dog world. From a practical standpoint, good people act as though morality is objective even if they claim to believe otherwise.
"But are you arguing that we can apply the same techniques to morality (by studying the Universe) and learn "truths" about ideal human behavior?"
Maybe not the *same* techniques per se, but similar ones, yes. By studying human society and history, human physiology and psychology, the material world and human constructs we can approach a level of knowledge where we can better predict what kinds of collective and individual behaviors will lead to the best endpoint for humanity and the individuals of which it is composed.
"One second you're claiming that humanity can't claim any rights but then the next you're saying morality is discernible through history and logic. It's either one or the other."
No, you're just not getting it. How can humanity just claim rights out of nothing? I claim the right for you to be my servant. Oh wait, that doesn't work. I claim the right to 50% of Bill Gates' money. Why doesn't this work?
If what we're doing is *discerning* then we are revealing rights of man truly intrinsic to the human condition - which means they exist objectively. We discover them, not create them.
"But what is the basis for the morality that you are arguing for anyway? The hidden secrets of the Universe, as debated by man through history? Sounds like the same thing as subjective morality to me."
Then maybe you need to pull out a dictionary and figure out what subjective means. If you believe morality is composed of pure subjectivity without any objective reference then there are no, as you put it, "hidden secrets of the Universe." How can there such secrets if morals are just baseless concepts made up by man?
The person who believe it's right to rape children is just as correct as the one who believes the exact opposite. Why? Because you believe there is no right answer.
"But you think it's different because you feel your morality is only valid if there exists some god or "order" out there that gives its stamp of approval."
No, not approval. I only think morality can be valid if morality exists in the first place. If morality isn't real (ie. moral realism, the view you're arguing against) then it doesn't exist.
"Your system is basically the same as subjective morality the only difference is that there is a man in the sky (or The Universe) that has the answer key."
Don't be trite. Oh, ha, you believe planes fly - you must believe in magical antigravity angels (or lift based on the angle of attack of the wings).
But to answer your point - the fact that an answer key exists makes my system qualitatively different. That means people can actually look for answers rather than just making stuff up. My morality is founded on getting the answers as right as possible. Your's is kindergarden fingerpainting where everyone gets a gold star no matter how terrible it is.
"So to compensate you've invented a theory that fills that gap."
Yes, well, I'm in good company. Kant, Mills, Benthan - I don't mind the grouping.
"("Morality can't exist unless it is objective. I believe in objective morality. Therefore an objective moral order must exist and god or the Universe supports it! Q.E.D.") This is a very nice idea but it has no more support than the idea that god gave Moses the Torah at Sinai."
Frankly you're right. This is not a concept which can be proven through physical evidence. But I'm willing to be well-founded morally even if it means I take a hit ontologically. That you're willing to sacrifice morality for the sake of ontological purity is an idea that I'll let you consider for yourself.
"I think certain base values are tied into instinct (for example: "Do not kill members of your family") and our intellect expands them from there ("don't kill people")."
And if those instincts interfere with one's material promotion then the smart person would do his best to learn how to suppress destructive drives like altruism, empathy and guilt. Oh wait, that only works when we're talking about those instincts for aggression and sexual intercourse.
"Morality is clearly a shared part of the human condition and as such we don't need the support of a man in the sky to make it work."
"It" what? What is working exactly?
Of course people can cooperate for their common interests without any real sense of right or wrong. So what? That's not morality. People can cooperate for all sorts of devious ends.
I don't want to interrupt, but I'm really enjoying this convo between LNM and OP.
In an attempt to be sure that I'm not just biased and stubbornly believing in moral objectivity...Try as I may I can't see it any other way. Moral objectivity is it. I honestly can't see it any other way.
How about animal rights from an atheistic point of view? Is it moral to kill a dolphin? Or a tuna?
Orthoprax,
> From a theoretical standpoint, your pov should lead to a nihilistic dog eat dog world. From a practical standpoint, good people act as though morality is objective even if they claim to believe otherwise.
EXACTLY! In theory subjective morality should lead to a "nihilistic dog eat dog world". And that does accurately describes some parts of the world. Though it doesn't describe the civilized world. I think the human sense of morality is more complex than our current understanding. Maybe you are right, or maybe there is some human instinct we don't understand, or maybe something else. Whatever the case I don't think either of us has the full picture.
> If what we're doing is *discerning* then we are revealing rights of man truly intrinsic to the human condition - which means they exist objectively. We discover them, not create them.
I think we may agree about "revealing rights of man truly intrinsic to the human condition". Maybe the difference is that you see them as pre-existing and I see them as internal to our common genetic make-up or perhaps simply a law that in practice successfully improves the lives of all people.
> How can there such secrets if morals are just baseless concepts made up by man?
I never claimed that morals are only concepts made up by man. I think our moral compass is set by much more than just human concepts. Like I said earlier, there are clearly some morals that are programmed into our instincts (e.g. Don't kill family members).
> The person who believe it's right to rape children is just as correct as the one who believes the exact opposite. Why? Because you believe there is no right answer.
No sane person thinks it is right to rape children. I think there are correct answers. I just don't think they exist beyond the human experience.
> If morality isn't real (ie. moral realism, the view you're arguing against) then it doesn't exist.
Yep. We're definitely arguing semantics.
>> "So to compensate you've invented a theory that fills that gap."
> Yes, well, I'm in good company. Kant, Mills, Benthan - I don't mind the grouping.
If you want me to start listing brilliant people who have been wrong we can play that game but it won't make either of us right.
> And if those instincts interfere with one's material promotion then the smart person would do his best to learn how to suppress destructive drives like altruism, empathy and guilt. Oh wait, that only works when we're talking about those instincts for aggression and sexual intercourse.
People express their instincts for aggression and sexual intercourse MORE frequently than they express their instinct for altruism. People suppress their empathy and guilt all the time. (Have you ever heard someone announce "I'm not going to feel bad about _X_" when they have reason to feel bad?) It works both ways. Like I said, I think certain base values are tied into instinct. I think evolution has programmed some very useful behaviors into our psyche. But that doesn't mean that evolution is a perfect programmer. I think it's fair for us to use our intellect to craft a fine tuned law from the base instinct we are given. This is similar to your idea that "moral ideals are built-in to the structure of the universe".
>> "Morality is clearly a shared part of the human condition and as such we don't need the support of a man in the sky to make it work."
> What is working exactly?
Morality. A sense of right and wrong. The discernment of good and evil. The creation of civil societies.
People don't act "morally" because there is a really good argument for being moral. Right and wrong speaks to something much deeper than our intellect.
LNM,
"Whatever the case I don't think either of us has the full picture."
Oh, I never claimed I did. But I think it's deeply important to hold a solid conception of morality's necessary objectivity even if people hold different views of how it exists objectively.
"I think we may agree about "revealing rights of man truly intrinsic to the human condition". Maybe the difference is that you see them as pre-existing and I see them as internal to our common genetic make-up.."
Well, y'see, the way I see things, our 'common genetic make-up' is intrinsically related to the basic pre-existing state of the world. Likewise, the laws that direct water freezing and boiling pre-existed before even the first subatomic particles.
"I never claimed that morals are only concepts made up by man. I think our moral compass is set by much more than just human concepts."
Then we agree that morality is objective.
"If you want me to start listing brilliant people who have been wrong we can play that game but it won't make either of us right."
Of course I may be wrong, but the fact that I 'made up' a theory to explain a philosophical conundrum is hardly a cause for dismissal. Every theory was made up by someone - many (most?) without first having due evidence.
"I think it's fair for us to use our intellect to craft a fine tuned law from the base instinct we are given. This is similar to your idea that "moral ideals are built-in to the structure of the universe"."
There you go. I think discussion has been productive. Now the two of us can team up against the post-modernists.
OP,
> Well, y'see, the way I see things, our 'common genetic make-up' is intrinsically related to the basic pre-existing state of the world. Likewise, the laws that direct water freezing and boiling pre-existed before even the first subatomic particles.
I think I hear what you are saying about water. (1+1 equaled 2 even before there were things to count.) Can that same principal be applied to complex beings (people)? I don't know. Maybe? (If there is no free will I would say "certainly"). Freezing and boiling are black and white. Very exact. Human morality is much more gray. Also, the human race has changed since we first moved out of the trees, and we continue to evolve today. On the other hand H2O is still the same stuff the dinosaurs drank. I don't think the analogy quite fits, nevertheless you raise an interesting thought.
> There you go. I think discussion has been productive. Now the two of us can team up against the post-modernists.
Good conversation. I suppose we'll just have to agree to agree. :)
"> How can there such secrets if morals are just baseless concepts made up by man?
I never claimed that morals are only concepts made up by man. I think our moral compass is set by much more than just human concepts. Like I said earlier, there are clearly some morals that are programmed into our instincts (e.g. Don't kill family members)."
How do you explain Braillian Amazon tribes that bury children alive? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/06/22/Brazilian_tribes_bury_babies_alive/UPI-82301182561642/
Sorry I missed this thread, but of course you are right, LNM. There's nothing in the Torah against child abuse, and nothing in the vast sea of the Talmud, either.
These kinds of protections -- child abuse, civil rights -- are natural successors to religious morals and values. But religion has no claim on them. Sadly, religion went in another direction.
CandyMan if people were not allowed to abuse anyone how would child abuse be allowed? On the contrary Jews were against child abuse and needed no help from the secular who were not even the ones who made the foundations of our country's ideals. Abuse was also discussed about. Further civil rights were given in ancient times as well. Just as in America you have more rights as a citizen and less as a resident and even less as a visitor so in ancient Israel. It says in the Torah not to oppress the stranger since you know what is like to be a stranger. It also says there should be one law for you and the resident alien. In a society where people married with forieners who took up residence with them there was also lacking ills that were found in the South in the United States into the latter part of the twentieth century.
CandyMan if people were not allowed to abuse anyone how would child abuse be allowed? On the contrary Jews were against child abuse... [quote of Lev. 19:34]
RG, while I agree with you that Lev 19:34 is a great sentiment, there are parts of the Torah that directly contradict this notion. Slavery is a good example. Or the wanton destruction and discrimination against the "indigenous nations" of Canaan. Or the rape of the foreign captive woman.
Note that Saul was punished for taking mercy on the Amalekites and disobeying God's command to wipe them out completely.
it's a complex issue in the Torah, and the Torah does not have one opinion on the subject.
Neither did the founding fathers, of course. The abolitionist statements in the Declaration of Independence were removed, to appease the Southerners you mention. It was a great failing on their part. Our society is hardly perfect, either. I know first hand how easy it is for child molesters to get by without so much as a slap on the wrist.
> I know first hand how easy it is for child molesters to get by without so much as a slap on the wrist.
I know the case you are talking about. Perhaps you want to say that you've "seen first hand".
The word "know" contains all kinds of connotations.
I know the case you are talking about.
We'll have to compare notes. I'm thinking of blogging about it.
"12 year olds loose their virgnity all the time to other 12 year olds. Why can't they consent to a 25 year old?"
---Are you for real!!!! Why can't a 12 year old consent to a 25 year old?? You're joking, right? A 12 year old has the mentality of an adult?? They are CHILDREN. It's like asking, can a 25 year old date a 12 year old....this is so twisted.
"The Candy Man said...
CandyMan if people were not allowed to abuse anyone how would child abuse be allowed? On the contrary Jews were against child abuse... [quote of Lev. 19:34]
RG, while I agree with you that Lev 19:34 is a great sentiment, there are parts of the Torah that directly contradict this notion. Slavery is a good example. Or the wanton destruction and discrimination against the "indigenous nations" of Canaan. Or the rape of the foreign captive woman."
The last point is not accepted by me as it clearly is that she is married before they have relations. As for the indigenous nations of Canaan what discrimination? If they are killled then they are not going to be discriminated against and if alive where was discrimination? Further there wasn't destruction of any nation including Amalek. Shaul was criticized for sparing Agag not for the scores of Amalekites he did not kill. Amalek was in continual war with the Israelites even down to King David's day. As for slavery a slave was considered a human being rather than a tool. A slave had rights whether Jewish or not.
Post a Comment