Ethical question about child molestors

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.

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.

Sure there is. You're focusing on the grey areas, but there is black and white at either end of the continuum. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that a two-year old is, in any sense, an "adult," would you?

Let's say that the gene causes someone to attempt sexual relations with children under the age of six. Is that too "socially derived" for you?

As I had mentioned before, I think we can be fairly certain that some acts, such as attempting sexual relations with children under the age of six, will never be socially acceptable. Now, I can't be absolutely certain about that, but I think we can satisfy ourselves, and our ethical reservations, with something less than absolute certainty.

Remember, we place restrictions on sex offenders now, and we have far less than absolute certainty that they will commit sex offenses in the future.

joefromchicago wrote:

Sure there is. You're focusing on the grey areas, but there is black and white at either end of the continuum. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that a two-year old is, in any sense, an "adult," would you?

Not normally. But then I wouldn't consider a 2 year old to be a sex offender either.

Yup. You can pick any age you want but it's still socially derived.

Depending on the qualifcations made I'd be inclined to agree but those weren't posited in the opening post which left the entire question of the "child" in "child molestor" wide open.

Yes, we do. Can you name any that are placed on anyone BEFORE they ever acted though?

The person in this scenario ISN'T a "sex offender". One isn't an offender until they at least attempt to offend. Since all of this would be based on a genetic test it's entirely plausible the determination could be made while this person is still in the womb. Or are you suggesting we confine the mother because she's pregnant with a future child molestor too?

Also, if all of this technology were available wouldn't it make more sense to identify all of the possible genetic traits that would lead to a child being born with this specific trait and do something to prevent the parents from ever conceiving a child with the trait to begin with?