| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Я очень рад, ведь я, наконец, возвращаюсь домой | Main | “Identity” is a dangerous word »

February 26, 2010

Pedophiles who never do anything are exercising a virtue that borders on the saintly

Megan McArdle in The Atlantic:

ScreenHunter_02 Feb. 26 09.46 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






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Klausi on the defeated

Anjuli on Perceptions

gautam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

VirtualMachine on What goes into making beautiful celestial images?

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Namit on The search for a two-thousand-year-old city

Anjali Kelling on Adagio in Blues

Phil S. on KILL THE CAPS LOCK, And four other modest proposals for improving the contemporary computer keyboard

Adam on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

whatev on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Sara on Superbowl Spleen

Liam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

Anand Manikutty on Adagio in Blues

Sagredo on How To Implode A Myth

Michael Harbour on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Kai Matthews on Superbowl Spleen

Albertan Atheist on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

Kai Matthews on Adagio in Blues

Nick Smyth on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed