Ethical question about child molestors

Posted by joefromchicago

Quote:

To use David Hume's example, when one billiard ball strikes another, and the second ball, previously stationary, moves, I would contend that the first ball striking the second ball caused the second ball to move.

You might contend that but I don't think Hume did or would.

Quote:

Posted by joefromchicago

rufio wrote:
And wasn't it Hume who said that things that appeared to be caused were actually just highly probable?

Quote:
No.

I think the point that Hume made was that we don't perceive causes and effects, but rather construct those notions from memory.

Excerpt

The Problem of Causation
When one event causes another, most people think that the first event makes the second one happen; not only are there the two events, but there is also some connection between the two. Hume challenged this belief, noting that whereas we do perceive the two events, we don't perceive any connection between the two. And how else but perception could we gain knowledge of this mysterious connection? Abandoning the notion of a causal connection, Hume said that causation all boils down to the following: when we see that two events always occur together, we tend to form an expectation that when the first occurs, the second is soon to follow. This constant conjunction and the expectation thereof is all there is to causation, so far as we can know. Such a lean conception robs causation of all its force and some later Humeans like Bertrand Russell have dismissed the notion of causation as something akin to superstition. But this violates common sense, thereby creating the problem of causation -- what justifies our belief in a causal connection and what kind of connection could we have knowledge of? -- a problem which has no accepted solution. For relevant contemporary work, see Wesley Salmon's Hume and the Problem of Causation and Causality and Explanation.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Posted by joefromchicago

Quote:
To use David Hume's example, when one billiard ball strikes another, and the second ball, previously stationary, moves, I would contend that the first ball striking the second ball caused the second ball to move.

You might contend that but I don't think Hume did or would.

Which is why I made it a point to say that I would contend that the first ball striking the second ball caused the second ball to move. I did not assert that my position was the same as Hume's; I merely used his famous example.

0 Replies

It's extremely improbable that a person's genotype could cause somebody to commit violent crimes, it can only predispose people to commit them. Also, it doesn't seem possible that you could alter an adult's genes in such a way, and if you wanted to alter an outcome by altering a person's genes, you would have to go right back to the beginning, preferably within the first few weeks of embryolgical development when the brain is forming.

IT seems likely that the best you could do is to fix a neurochemical imbalance, and even that is likely to completely the behavioural aspects of sex crimes.

A lot of children (especially disabled children) get molested because they are vulnerable, attainable and easy to influence.

ONe important determining factor for a person becoming a paedophile is childhood experiences of sexual abuse (including in Foster homes) . This isn't carried on any gene.

Also, the completely ignores the preventitive aspects of punishing sex criminals. There's this famous survey that says that, if they could avoid getting caught, sixty percent of men would rape a woman. If this has any accuracy (and indeed, more rape occurs in war time when when the soldiers do not feel accountable than does at home) , perhaps the best way to prevent rape is to provide "gene therapy" to remove the Y chromosome and reproduce through cloning. Such an extreme measure wouldn't because it doesn't consider social pressures and the other factors which make a person a rapist. Most men aren't rapists, because other factors are involved. Given the right situation, "normal" people become war criminals. This occurs over and over again, and a great deal of psychological research supports this idea.

It is legal to discriminate against a child born with Down's syndrome, by aborting it, and not allowing it the chance to live at all, although people with down's syndrome can lead purposeful, albeit short, lives.

0 Replies

Eccles wrote:

It's extremely improbable that a person's genotype could cause somebody to commit violent crimes, it can only predispose people to commit them. Also, it doesn't seem possible that you could alter an adult's genes in such a way, and if you wanted to alter an outcome by altering a person's genes, you would have to go right back to the beginning, preferably within the first few weeks of embryolgical development when the brain is forming.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the nature of hypothetical questions.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yet another person who doesn't understand the nature of hypothetical questions

Thank you. We finally have another of the very few people who seem to understand what that means. When I gave my opinion on this subject, I didn't sit and think of a million more hypothetical scenarios based on this one and then proceed to answer them, but it seems like that's what most people are doing. I was asked if a certain gene would without fail make someone molest a child but there was a treatment for it, should we make anyone who carries the gene undergo treatment even before they've actually committed any crime. Based on the situation presented, it seems like it would be unethical to put a known child molester on the street (and by "known" I'm referring to the hypothetical fact that if you have the gene you will molest).
One other thing, Eccles, if you want to start a debate on abortion you might want to start up a new posting. I have a feeling that one could get really interesting and really long, and it's a completely different subject. I'll be watching for it.

Quote:

It is legal to discriminate against a child born with Down's syndrome, by aborting it, and not allowing it the chance to live at all, although people with down's syndrome can lead purposeful, albeit short, lives.

0 Replies

I don't have an opinion on abortion. I don't care, only to say that people discriminate against people with Down's syndrome, so whoever mentioned it . The time you would have to implement gene therapy for individuals with down's syndrome would have to be earlier than the time which you would have to abort.

It isn't even a decent hypothetical question because you didn't supply enough information for an answer to be given. There are too many factors to consider that you haven't even supplied. As well as making no sense and defying all medical logic, you don't supply sufficient information. Would it occur at such a time in the future that all medical risks would be removed? Would it involve destroying an essential aspect of the patient's self awareness, life experience and knowledge? Would it change their individuality and temperament? More or less than, say, taking an anti-depressant or ritalin?

I think what you are really asking is whether it is acceptable to treat people who behave in socially unacceptable ways in a way which does not hurt them and will ensure that they won't behave in that way again. They already have developed behavior-altering programmes in prisons for sex offenders which do that. It's a lot kinder than a lot of other things which occur in prison ( beatings, rape, etc) so I don't see what's wrong with that.

There are a lot more pertinent and ethically ambiguous uses of genetics. For example, determining ,whether it is morally acceptable for insurance companies to use genetic tests to find markers for illnesses, using genetic markers to predict violent tendencies and traits such as intelligence, which also have environmental factors. Some of these have been used shamefully in the past , and maybe used shamefully in the future.

Razz

Generating scenarios is an effective way to work through ethical problems. You need to define the question before you can find the answer.

Laughing

That said, don't you think that Newton and empirical research might just possibly be a more reliable source to consult about the movements of a billiard ball? And as for the original question, you'd be better to consider ethics, the nature and formation of identity and actual psychological research, rather than about causation. Isn't arguing about causation just straying from you point about the genes definitely causing paedophilia , as sweet little Rochelle put it, anyhow?

0 Replies

Eccles wrote:

It isn't even a decent hypothetical question because you didn't supply enough information for an answer to be given. There are too many factors to consider that you haven't even supplied. As well as making no sense and defying all medical logic, you don't supply sufficient information. Would it occur at such a time in the future that all medical risks would be removed? Would it involve destroying an essential aspect of the patient's self awareness, life experience and knowledge? Would it change their individuality and temperament? More or less than, say, taking an anti-depressant or ritalin?

Those questions have already been answered. The procedure would have no other consequences.

Eccles wrote:

There are a lot more pertinent and ethically ambiguous uses of genetics. For example, determining ,whether it is morally acceptable for insurance companies to use genetic tests to find markers for illnesses, using genetic markers to predict violent tendencies and traits such as intelligence, which also have environmental factors. Some of these have been used shamefully in the past , and maybe used shamefully in the future.

Those are all good topics for separate threads. Here, however, they are irrelevant.

Eccles wrote:

Generating scenarios is an effective way to work through ethical problems. You need to define the question before you can find the answer.

I agree. Of course, once the question has been defined, then it is time to formulate an answer.

Eccles wrote:

That said, don't you think that Newton and empirical research might just possibly be a more reliable source to consult about the movements of a billiard ball? And as for the original question, you'd be better to consider ethics, the nature and formation of identity and actual psychological research, rather than about causation. Isn't arguing about causation just straying from you point about the genes definitely causing paedophilia , as sweet little Rochelle put it, anyhow?

To whom are you addressing these remarks?

0 Replies

If you accept Cereal killer's answers (and you assume that the individual's identity is not destroyed at all) , I don't see how the problem proposes any more of an ethical dilemma than rushing to rescue a baby that has crawled into the middle of the road.

And, also, not all the questions have been answered. Would it be possible to change the genes without without changing a part of their identity? IF that wasn't the original question ( and I'm not saying it was, necessarily) , what would be so bad about changing the genetic marker that requires all this debate? Again, I think the question needs to be more clearly defined.

0 Replies

Aarrrgghhhhhh!!!!!! Surprised

Please tell me what the gist of the original question is, Cereal Killer. since nobody appears to know. What would the negative side effects of this procedure, that make it an ethical dilemma? Is it just technophobia, or would it have the same risks as any untested and new treatment? Would it interfere with the patient's identity or sense of self?

0 Replies

Eccles: Exactly what part of "no side effects" are you having trouble with?

0 Replies

Originally posted by joefromchicago

Quote:

Which is why I made it a point to say that I would contend that the first ball striking the second ball caused the second ball to move. I did not assert that my position was the same as Hume's; I merely used his famous example.

So you use an example (Hume) that doesn't support your contention.

Fair enough, I guessrufio's question is dubious at best.

0 Replies

Eccles wrote:

Aarrrgghhhhhh!!!!!!

Please tell me what the gist of the original question is, Cereal Killer. since nobody appears to know. What would the negative side effects of this procedure, that make it an ethical dilemma? Is it just technophobia, or would it have the same risks as any untested and new treatment? Would it interfere with the patient's identity or sense of self?

The gist of the original question is -- do we(society) have the right to monkey around with the gene pool if we absolutely know it could prevent child molestation.

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical question and assumes we can make the change with a simple procedure with no negative side effects.

Why this is an ethical question to me is because we would be doing it against the patients will. The patients choice vs. the good of society. Who wins ?

I hope this clears things up for you.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Eccles: Exactly what part of "no side effects" are you having trouble with?

The part where it became an ethical dilemma to do something harmless.

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

The gist of the original question is -- do we(society) have the right to monkey around with the gene pool if we absolutely know it could prevent child molestation.

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical question and assumes we can make the change with a simple procedure with no negative side effects.

Why this is an ethical question to me is because we would be doing it against the patients will. The patients choice vs. the good of society. Who wins ?

I hope this clears things up for you.

Yes, that makes more sense than most of the posters beforehand.

YOu could probably manipulate things so that the patient would want to do it. For instance, he could be offered benefits in exchange for his cooperation. If you did that (and the benefits were tempting enough to make say, 95 % of child molestors agree to it, you'd have no qualms about giving the "simple harmless procedure" . If following the criminal's will was really a concern of the lawgivers. In a lot of people's minds, the paed has already violated social norms so badly that he would be forced to accept certain punishments ( like a gaol term) against his will. What's one more negative reinforcer? As a society we don't consider it amoral to force people in to gaol against their will for much less severe crimes. To me, gaol seems much worse than something with "no side effects", were such a thing possible.

Laughing

iF we could locate such a gene, why not just spay them all? For the good of society, that is.

0 Replies

That said, free will is an illusion. All we really get a chance to experience in everyday life is the ability to choose the mildly less aversive stimulus and the choice which we have been conditioned to make.

Sad

My life is nothing more than a series of choices between undesirable outcomes, anyhow. Why should criminals get more freedom?

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Quote:

The gist of the original question is -- do we(society) have the right to monkey around with the gene pool if we absolutely know it could prevent child molestation.

Keep in mind this is a hypothetical question and assumes we can make the change with a simple procedure with no negative side effects.

Why this is an ethical question to me is because we would be doing it against the patients will. The patients choice vs. the good of society. Who wins ?

Absolute knowledge of its success.
No negative side effects.

Well we all comprimise our desires and needs to conform to society, so I don't see a problem with a judge ordering such a procedure as one aspect of a sentence, as Eccles says we don't have a problem with sentencing people to gaol, or jail.

Course we probably cannot have absolute knowledge. And negative side effects can be a long time emerging, and simple procedures can go wrong, and often innocent people are convicted, but hey, this is a hypothetical.

But then how could an innocent person be convicted and have the procedure if they don't possess that molestation gene? And has not the understanding of what constitutes molestation changed over time? If so has the gene also changed?

Molestation is a judgement call, an evaluation, it's an interpretation of behavior in which each case is evaluated on its own terms. Which means the same person exhibiting the same (similar) behavior may go free in one case and not in another.

Do we test everyone for the presence of the molestation gene, or only those who exhibit a behavior that is indicative of its presence? Some people after all may have the gene but not the behavior and some may have the behavior and not the gene. Oh then, so much for that theory.

It's an ethical issue then, not so much because it goes against a persons will, but because it sets a precedent by manipulating their genes.

Altering a persons genes is the ethical issue.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

So you use an example (Hume) that doesn't support your contention.

Fair enough, I guess.

Still guessing, twyvel? I'm glad to see that some things don't change.

twyvel wrote:

rufio's question is dubious at best.

If you knew anything about Hume's views of probability, you would know that my answer was correct.

0 Replies

Joe - let's parse this phrase, shall we?

"are caused by some other effect"

"are" is the verb "to be", in the plural simple present.
"caused" is a passive participle, from the verb "to cause"
"by" preposition indicating an agent
"some other effect" is a noun phrase where:
"some" is an article, indicating generality
"other" is an adjective, meaning that the object is different from the subject, depite thier similarities
"effect" meaning something that is caused by something else, in this case, the word "effect" is used, instead of one of the 1000s of other words that could have been used, to emphasize the fact that everything is an effect of something else.

COMPRENDE?

Why is it that you always dither into semantics whenever we get started talking about something real?

To address the rest of your post, my point is that the "causal link" that you claim is not a reality, it's a perception. It can't be ascertained because to link some general occurance to some other general occurance is purely human. If you wanted to talk about objective cause, you would have to be talking about individual molecules of matter passing force to other individual molecules of matter, and factor all the things I just mentioned. If you want it to be objective, than it has to be in the real world, where there are no flat billiard tables, and you have to do it case by case, not on a vast deductive conclusion about the nature of the universe.

Not having flat billiard tables is fine while we're still in the realm of philosophy. We can still say that in theory, if we had a flat billiard table, the ball would do thus, and then derive a general understanding the real world from that. But we're no longer in that realm. We are now talking about real live child molesters, real people, real genes. If you're going to try and guess where the shooter was standing based on which hole the ball fell into, you have to go down to the molecular, objective, microscopic-incination-measuring realm in order to be absolutely certain.

And if we're going to be playing around in the gene pool, we better well be damned sure we know what we're doing. Don't you think?

My original point about quantum mechanics was that I don't need to bring it up to prove my point. A little slow on the reading comprehension, are we?

And for the record, you've taken Hume way out of context.

0 Replies

In any case, if we could manipulate a person's biology to change their behavior, the world would end. Someone would "discover" a cure to a genetic disorder and "fix" people's genes to "cure" it, and then we would all become their zombie army of doom. End of story.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

fishin' wrote:
Thanks! I still say forcing anything on the person would be unethical (reminds me of the eugenics movement!).

Apart from its putative similarity to the eugenics movement, why would you find the compulsory genetic manipulation in this case to be unethical?

Sorry to take so long to reply Joe.

Aside from the similarity to eugenics I still have a hard time accepting that the proposal would even be possible.

There are two issues here. We have the "genetic trait" and "child molestation". For there to be a cause and effect both items have to be fixed. The proposal here fixes that there is a specific genetic trait but I'd question what that trait really means. "Child molestation" is a socially derived term. We've created a system where the law enforces a system based on physical age of the people involved that was determined by a social norm. There is no physiological definition that seperates "child" from "adult" 100% of the time.

But social norms shift over time (I'd wager that most of us have a grandparent or great-grandparent that would be considered a child molestor by todays standards.) so how can a fixed genetic trait determine how someone will respond to a socially dervied rule?

If 30 year old "John" has a genetic trait that controls his will and causes him to have sex with a 14 year old he'd be a child molestor today. If it caused him to have sex with a 21 year old he'd be fine. What happens to "John" if society decides to change the rules and make the legal age of consent 12? Or 25?

So is it ethical to force someone to undergo a genetic change because their genetics will cause them to do something that may be illegal today but might or might not be when the actual act occurs? I can't see how it can be.

0 Replies

Ethical question about child molestors

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know