By this same logic, it is not inherently harmful for a pedophile to entice a child into a sexual relationship as long as the adult in the relationship provides support and proper “counseling” so the child does not suffer adverse psychological effects. The fact that the culture does frown on such behaviour does not demonstrate inherent harm. If the culture can be persuaded over time to buy into your sexual ethics, pedophilia should not be considered inherently wrong, since every “couple” should be free to map out their own path.
And the fact that you seem to genuinely believe a child can be “counselled” and “supported” through a coercive and abusive sexual relationship such that they suffer no physical or psychological harm demonstrates that the “sex is bad unless God gives permission” approach to sexual morality is immature and hyperbolic.
Yes I understand the consent rebuttal
No, you don’t - as your attempt to circumvent it demonstrates.
but a strong case can be made that children are often more capable of informed consent in many aspects of life than adults are.
Such as…?
What you’ll find is that experience tells when it comes to informed consent. How can a child consent to something that might scar them for life? Your argument is a bit like saying that children are ultimately responsible for behaviours like underage drinking or overindulgence in junk food - both of which lead to demonstrable and potentially long-term harm, regardless of whether consent is involved or not. Adults can give informed consent to self-harm; children cannot.
Once the principal function of sex is removed from procreation and assigned merely to gratification, the slope becomes logically slippery indeed, precisely because your logic leads to accepting conclusions that are otherwise morally reprehensible; at least, to anyone with a solid moral foundation.
It’s good to have a simplisitc criterion like procreative capacity upon which to judge the worth of a relationship, isn’t it? Makes self-righteous judgement a much easier process. Never mind the happiness and autonomy of the individuals involved - as long as they’re popping out the offspring, all’s well that ends well.
The reason your entire line of argument is a slippery slope but not a fallacy (more like an argumentum ad absurdum) is because your premises and conclusions remove any retaining wall that prevents you from sliding to the bottom of a moral abyss created by your own ethical position.
You’re the one who’s removing the “retaining wall” by trying to gloss over and diminish the importance of informed consent - not to mention the right to bodily integrity and individual autonomy…
Following the presumption that “I should be free to do whatever I concoct in this little brain of mine,” as the first principle of ethics leads logically to the complete erosion of morality.
Who’s doing that? The people who cite “divine command” as a justification for abominable actions? Because the only evidence for this supposedly divine command is the will of the individual. Religious tenets can be used - and have been used - to justify a remarkable range of monstrous behaviour on the part of people who have believed they weren’t acting upon their own proclivities. Human rights count for nothing in the face of “God’s” will. I think you’ll find that nothing erodes morality as effectively as religion.
Of course, that is not YOUR first principle. Yours has a qualifier. "I should be free to do whatever I concoct in this little brain of mine, provided I do no physical or measurable harm to others.
Sure - although you left out psychological harm (measurable in physical terms also, if you know what to look for). The kind of psychological harm that might result from, say, convincing a child that her body is inherently dirty and that she is sinful by nature and destined for hell if she doesn’t toe the line - the standard outcome of a “proper” Catholic upbringing.
Might I suggest you think through the repercussions of this underlying tenet of your ethics. It is highly problematic. Your constricted view of harm is not only too narrow to suffice, but is also subject to revision simply by denying or modifying the view of the moral agent that may or may not underpin it.
Right. So actual, demonstrable harm is not an adequate criterion under your “superior” moral system? Prescribed “spiritual” harm is a much more reliable indicator, right?
Simply denying that humans are anything but physical beings radically constrains the concept of harm to the physical. That is highly problematic even for you.
Humans are physical beings. The brain is a physical organ, behaviour is physically manifested. You contstrain your own perception of morality by your limited concept of the physical.
Considering that you claim even physical attributes such as body plumbing are irrelevant, there is not much left to base moral principles concerning harm upon, since you also deny anything supernatural (soulish) about humans.
Where’s your evidence of anything supernatural?
.
The demand for equality and “free” love has taken on a new and sinister meaning…
