February 26, 2010
Pedophiles who never do anything are exercising a virtue that borders on the saintly
Megan McArdle in The Atlantic:
A couple of years back, I learned that an adult I had grown up around was a pedophile. He had never, to anyone's knowledge, done anything about it. Certainly he was never anything but decent to me, and I babysat his kids when I was a pretty young kid myself. Rather, a technician mucking around on his work computer had discovered a stash of child porn. He went to jail for a while. His life was destroyed.
This changed a lot of the way that I think about pedophiles. I used to use the kind of hyperbole one often hears--that people who look at child porn "should be shot" and so forth. I don't say those things any more.
Obviously, I am not going to defend the use of child porn at all; it's despicable, and jail is the appropriate sentence, because the man who purchases child pornography is encouraging its manufacture. But it made me think of them for the first time with sympathy. They didn't choose to be like this--God, who would? Sex is one of the most powerful drives we have, and as Dan Savage's columns testify every week, we have little control whether it focuses on something relatively normal, or something . . . um . . . extremely statistically unlikely.
What do you do when your sex drive is channeled towards something so utterly morally wrong--something it is socially taboo to even think about, that you can't help thinking about?
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:47 AM | Permalink



















Comments
Link is broken, furthermore when you search that site, you find the story listed 3 times -- but those links are broken too.
What happened ? Anything that is more nuansed than "kill 'em all" is so 'controversial' that it can't be allowed ?
Posted by: Eivind Kjørstad | Feb 26, 2010 7:23:19 AM
Link works for me.
There is a rather amazing conversation going on in the comment thread on Dan Savage's post on the same subject.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Feb 26, 2010 9:03:48 AM
This debate (generalized away from the specific issue of pedophilic desires) is as old as the hills, and the position in the article is just a re-statement of the Kantian side: true morality consists in acting against inclination when you must, not in being so lucky as to have pro-social inclinations.
It's a powerful intuition, for sure, but it rests on the idea that we are always free to act against inclination.
Consider: is it possible for the "good pedophile" in the article to suddenly be assailed by a desire so strong that he cannot possibly resist it? If so, we can only see him as "lucky" in a different sort of way: he's just lucky enough to not have had this happen to him.
If we deny this possibility and assert that we are always free to act against our desires, then we have waded into the free-will hornet's nest.
Better, perhaps, to deny the Kantian intuition and to simply lock these folks up.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Feb 26, 2010 3:48:57 PM
Since it is impossible to measure the strength of any person's evil inclinations and the corresponding strength of his or her resistance to them, we can only judge them by their acts, not their internal psychological state or character.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Feb 26, 2010 4:07:31 PM
Nick and others,
As I understand it, pedophilia is not an inclination -- as you might call a very, very strong sexual preference an inclination. This article carries the suggestion pedophilia is rather like a temptation to which one need not give in, and that will is the answer to the difficulty of resisting it. I want to be careful not to romanticize pedophilia by observing it's in a class by itself, but I think "compulsion" is the word we are looking for. If someone's criminal compulsions are not treatable, then society needs to be made safe from that person, whether we define him as sick or just sickening. Where would Kant have come down on compulsivity?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 26, 2010 4:33:42 PM
Hmm. Moral luck is a very interesting topic. The moral status of the abstaining pedophile is also quite interesting (though to *my* mind the answer - that of course being such a pedophile is morally neutral - is pretty clear). I do find it hard to see anything distinctively interesting about the intersection of those two questions though.
Shall we distinguish between urges, tendencies, desires and temptations the subject has in himself the power to resist and those that he doesn't? Or, if we think that distinction is too hard to draw, that any difficulty likely to come up is generic, having nothing specific to do with pedophilia itself?
Posted by: prasad | Feb 26, 2010 5:15:31 PM
Hawkins: it's pretty clear that we can measure people's character, desires and willpower. See psychology for examples.
Elatia: sorry, I am so tragically soaked in the terminology of the philosophical debate that I forget to use more obvious terms. For Kant, any desire counts as an "inclination". The terminology isn't important, anything non-rational that motivates us counts. The Kantian position is clear: the pedophile who recognizes (through rational deliberation) that acting on his desire is wrong and who suppresses the desire is the most morally laudable person.
You can see the power of it. After all, most of us are just (by sheer luck) not inhabited by such troublesome desires. Why should WE get to be the more laudable ones, when the "good pedophile" is doing all the hard work?
THE CRUCIAL thing, however, is that the Good Pedophile isn't just abstaining out of fear: that's just another inclination, not morally laudable at all.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Feb 26, 2010 7:06:02 PM
Post a comment