Ethical question about child molestors

It would be if it was done with their prior informed consent.

0 Replies

A daunting question. There is a good chance the person was a molestor "in his heart" though he never acted on it. Let's not make genetic changes unless we have to.

0 Replies

How would these individuals be identified, unless universal tests were mandatory?

0 Replies

You need to fill in some details here:

What sort of "technology" are we talking about? Would it be a simple, painless procedure? Or are we looking at something painful, prolonged, and potentially fatal?

Is this procedure done with the person's knowledge and consent?

Will the procedure change only the genetic "marker" or will there be other consequences?

0 Replies

Can the procedure potentially be used to eradicate other negative genetically traceable problems, like left-handedness and dark hair or eyes?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

You need to fill in some details here:

What sort of "technology" are we talking about? Would it be a simple, painless procedure? Or are we looking at something painful, prolonged, and potentially fatal?

Is this procedure done with the person's knowledge and consent?

Will the procedure change only the genetic "marker" or will there be other consequences?

A simple painless procedure.

Lets say "yes" on the person's knowledge of the procedure and "no" with their consent. The person does not want to be forced to do it.

And "no" the procedure won't cause other genetic markers to be altered or any other consequences.

0 Replies

dauer wrote:

Can the procedure potentially be used to eradicate other negative genetically traceable problems, like left-handedness and dark hair or eyes?

Hypothetically I suppose, but I'd rather hear what you have to say on my hypothetical.

0 Replies

You're living in La-la land. We know so little about the functioning of genes now as it is--one thing is becoming clear, however, which is that genes are not dedicated functionaries. With the economy typical of nature, genes are being shown to control more than one function or aspect of the organism. Apart from it being very questionable whether or not one can demonstrate that a particular gene will "cause" someone to be a child molester, we would have no idea how much collateral harm would be done from such tinkering.

Bad idea altogether.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

How would these individuals be identified, unless universal tests were mandatory?

I don't know. Does that make a difference on how you would answer ?

0 Replies

Sure. All of these questions make a big difference. Genetically changing someones behavior is a big thing and raises many ethical issues (which is why this is an interesting question).

First of all is the issue of what you are changing in the personality that will stop a behavior. How the procedure words is very relevant.

Does it remove desire? What disire does it remove-- specifically the desire for chidren?-- the desire to contradict social norms?-- or the general desire for sexual activity?

Conversly, it could increase the level of conscience-- guilt.

If you are talking about removing the desire for sex-- you are messing with a basic part of human nature. If you are making people more likely to conform to society (either by increasing guilt or taking away the willingness to break norms), I would oppose it.

The other issue is what human traits you would eliminate with this type of technology. Fifty years ago, most of society would support the elimination of homosexuality. Ninety years ago most of society would support tweaking genes to make sure people didn't mate with other races.

I find the thought of a society that has this level of control over human personality to be very frightening. It would put individuals at the mercy of whatever society they find themselves.

Human personality is complex. We all have deep desires and drives for anti-social behavior. We deal with them by developing an identity accepting a culture and making choices.

I prefer it that way.

0 Replies

As I have noted elsewhere, the problem with framing a question as a hypothetical is that people will inevitably focus on the technical details rather than the substantive issue. I'm sure that CerealKiller didn't intend to start a discussion about the pitfalls of genetic manipulation, because that is not the point of the hypothetical.

I think we can acknowledge, up front, that this type of genetic re-engineering is not feasible, or even possible -- but then we also need to keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical can be criticized for failing to consider important points, or for asking the wrong question, or for being completely uninteresting, but it cannot be criticized for positing an impossible situation, since practically anything is possible in a hypothetical.

In other words, this is a thought-experiment: a discussion concerning ethics, not about medical technology. Although we may not be able to master the technology here and now, we can always imagine a hypothetical situation where we could. The task, then, is to address the philosophical, rather than the factual, content of the situation.

Now, as to the hypothetical posed by CerealKiller: we have a person with a gene that causes a person to be a child molester. Presumably, we can be assured that the causative link is well-established: in other words, a person with this gene will not simply be predisposed to molesting children, he will molest children. Furthermore, a simple procedure can remove this gene without any side-effects. And finally, this person (for convenience I'll refer to him as "Chester") does not want to have this procedure performed on him.

As I see it, we have a clash between society's interest in being free from child molesters and Chester's interest in maintaining his bodily integrity. The question, then, is whose interest prevails. Consider a similar situation, where Chester has a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease, e.g. smallpox. I think most people would feel comfortable in permitting the state to quarantine Chester, even against Chester's wishes. Likewise, the state, in the interests of public health, is permitted to mandate vaccinations, even though some people might prefer not be vaccinated. Indeed, one's interest in preserving and maintaining one's own body is often limited by the interests of the state.

When weighing the competing interests of state and individual, a minor intrusion into one's body is often permitted, where the interests of the state are deemed to be far greater than the interest of the individual in being free from minor bodily intrusions. Thus the state can say that quarantining a smallpox patient is permissible, even though it is a violation of the patient's liberty. Likewise, a state may mandate vaccinations, even though they are unwanted intrusions into a person's body.

In the same way, I think it would be permissible for the state to compel Chester to undergo the hypothetical procedure, given that the procedure (as outlined by CerealKiller) is minor and has no side-effects. I believe, on the other hand, that ebrown_p raises a valid point about the hazards of controlling for behavior that, in the future, we may actually want to encourage. I am reasonably confident, however, that we can identify some behaviors that will not pass into the realm of social acceptability any time soon, and that includes child molestation.

0 Replies

Quote:

When weighing the competing interests of state and individual, a minor intrusion into one's body is often permitted, where the interests of the state are deemed to be far greater than the interest of the individual in being free from minor bodily intrusions. Thus the state can say that quarantining a smallpox patient is permissible, even though it is a violation of the patient's liberty.

I think this analogy is flawed.

Assuming we could detect but not change this gene, would you support quarantining a person who has it?

There is a big difference between a behavior (i.e. a crime) and a disease. We punish child molesters. We would never think of punishing smallpox victims. Or should we treat victims of this gene as disease sufferers rather than criminals?

If a gene makes a behavior inevitable-- punishing a sufferer for a trait she can not control is inhumane.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I think this analogy is flawed.

Assuming we could detect but not change this gene, would you support quarantining a person who has it?

I would certainly support some sort of safeguards. After all, we already compel convicted sex offenders to register with the state so that their whereabouts can be known to the community, and we place restrictions on them as to where they can live, who they can associate with, and what they can do. And those measures are premised on the assumption that sex offenders will commit other sex offenses in the future. I don't see that it's a big step from erecting safeguards to control the behavior of someone we suspect will commit future crimes (due to his previous behavior) and erecting safeguards to control the behavior of someone we know will commit future crimes (due to a genetic marker).

ebrown_p wrote:

There is a big difference between a behavior (i.e. a crime) and a disease. We punish child molesters. We would never think of punishing smallpox victims. Or should we treat victims of this gene as disease sufferers rather than criminals?

If a gene makes a behavior inevitable-- punishing a sufferer for a trait she can not control is inhumane.

I agree that it is wrong to punish someone for something that is beyond his capability to control. But then why do you characterize the "simple procedure" posited by CerealKiller as a "punishment?" Do you also consider vaccinations to be "punishment?"

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't see that it's a big step from erecting safeguards to control the behavior of someone we suspect will commit future crimes (due to his previous behavior) and erecting safeguards to control the behavior of someone we know will commit future crimes (due to a genetic marker).

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a huge difference.

Our society and its laws are based on the idea that individuals are responsible for their actions. The fact that most people feel that taking away rights from sex offenders is ethical is that they have commited a crime. They chose to do something wrong and must now take the consequences, one of which is that they will be suspected and monitored by society.

[Note the key words "responsibility" and "chose" which are keys to my argument.]

The basic premise of your argument rests on the idea that people are not responsible for their actions. The responsibility rests on a gene.

If this were the case, then punishing sex offenders now (when we don't have a "cure") is immoral. The fact that we will find a cure to a disease doesn't judtify our harsh treatment of people who suffer from this disease before we find it.

Are you willing to argue that sex offenders should be held responsible for their actions? Whether we find a future cure or not is irrelevant to this question.

Taking away rights for future crimes goes against the ideas our society is based on.

Quote:

I agree that it is wrong to punish someone for something that is beyond his capability to control. But then why do you characterize the "simple procedure" posited by CerealKiller as a "punishment?" Do you also consider vaccinations to be "punishment?"

I also see a big difference between a vaccination, which changes my immune system, and the proposed treatment which changes my behavior.

My behavior is very closely linked to my personality and even my identity. I don't want any treatment that is going to mess with the core of who I am.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The basic premise of your argument rests on the idea that people are not responsible for their actions. The responsibility rests on a gene.

If this were the case, then punishing sex offenders now (when we don't have a "cure") is immoral. The fact that we will find a cure to a disease doesn't judtify our harsh treatment of people who suffer from this disease before we find it.

Are you referring to a "Not guilty by reason of genetic abnormality" sort of thing?

0 Replies

fishin'

I personally hate the idea of a "Not guilty by reason of genetic abnormality" sort of thing.

I am just pointing out that Joe's arguments point in this direction. How can someone be held responsible for a behavior that, based on their genetic makeup, they have no choice but to do?

I am arguing is that our current system is based on "responsibility" that assumes that genetics can not force someone to commit a crime. If you make this assumption, a treatment that changes ones personality in response to a crime that hasn't happened is unethical.

0 Replies

Yup. I understood what you've been arguing and it pretty well matches with my own thoughts. My question was more for my own enlightenment.

But yeah, IMO, if we were able to determine that someone was predisposed to be a child molestor but they hadn't acted then forcing them to undergo genetic treatment would be unethical. We're supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". If the issue was brought to the person's attention and they asked for the treatment it'd be ethical though.

I think there is enough of a difference between a genetic trait and a viral disease that I have to disagree with Joe's smallpox analogy.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a huge difference.

Our society and its laws are based on the idea that individuals are responsible for their actions. The fact that most people feel that taking away rights from sex offenders is ethical is that they have commited a crime. They chose to do something wrong and must now take the consequences, one of which is that they will be suspected and monitored by society.

I quite agree. But then that applies to a society where it is impossible to determine if someone will commit a criminal act in the future. And that is not the situation posited by the hypothetical.

Remember, according to the hypothetical the genetic marker causes someone to be a child molester. As I understand it, then, there is a direct causal link between having the marker and being a molester.

ebrown_p wrote:

[Note the key words "responsibility" and "chose" which are keys to my argument.]

Yes, I see that. But your emphasis on "responsibility" and "choice" are misplaced here. We are, after all, dealing with a situation where we know, ahead of time, that someone will commit a crime.

ebrown_p wrote:

The basic premise of your argument rests on the idea that people are not responsible for their actions. The responsibility rests on a gene.

The basic premise of my argument may be found in the hypothetical. I encourage you to look at it again.

ebrown_p wrote:

If this were the case, then punishing sex offenders now (when we don't have a "cure") is immoral. The fact that we will find a cure to a disease doesn't judtify our harsh treatment of people who suffer from this disease before we find it.

In addition to the problem of people dealing only with the technical aspects, rather than the substantive questions, posed by hypotheticals, the other problem that arises when posing hypotheticals is that, sometimes, people will mistake the position one advocates in a hypothetical situation for the position one would advocate in all situations. I offer no opinions regarding the treatment of child molesters now. If you want to have that discussion, I recommend that you start a new thread.

ebrown_p wrote:

Are you willing to argue that sex offenders should be held responsible for their actions? Whether we find a future cure or not is irrelevant to this question.

See my response above.

ebrown_p wrote:

Taking away rights for future crimes goes against the ideas our society is based on.

As I mentioned initially, the hypothetical envisions a society far different from our own, i.e. one in which it is possible, at least in a single case, to predict criminal behavior. My response was based upon what would be a reasonable response for that society. And if you want to address the hypothetical, rather than continuing your assault on a strawman, then I suggest you bear that point in mind.

ebrown_p wrote:

I also see a big difference between a vaccination, which changes my immune system, and the proposed treatment which changes my behavior.

My behavior is very closely linked to my personality and even my identity. I don't want any treatment that is going to mess with the core of who I am.

You are confused. You start by emphasizing "responsibility" and "choice," and yet you now say that you don't want any treatment that is going to change your behavior. Well, either your behavior is caused by choice, in which case you should have no concerns about genetic manipulation changing your behavior, or it is caused by the gene, in which case you should reconsider your claims about choice.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

But yeah, IMO, if we were able to determine that someone was predisposed to be a child molestor but they hadn't acted then forcing them to undergo genetic treatment would be unethical. We're supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". If the issue was brought to the person's attention and they asked for the treatment it'd be ethical though.

The genetic marker does not predispose someone to be a child molester: it causes someone to be a child molester. As I pointed out in a previous post: "Presumably, we can be assured that the causative link is well-established: in other words, a person with this gene will not simply be predisposed to molesting children, he will molest children."

fishin' wrote:

I think there is enough of a difference between a genetic trait and a viral disease that I have to disagree with Joe's smallpox analogy.

According to what you know about genetic traits and viral diseases or according to what you know about the hypothetical situation?

0 Replies

Ethical question about child molestors

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know