4 de abril de 2018

Notes on “Ethics and Intimacy in Intergenerational Relationships.”

“Ethics and Intimacy in Intergenerational Relationships: first do no harm” was written by Frans Gieles. Below are some paraphrased statements made in his text. They may or may not reflect my opinion on the subject.

  1. Since 1993, ethics is a recurring theme in Ipce meetings.
  2. For those who don’t know, Ipce is a forum of scholarly discussion that focus on relationships between adults and minors.
  3. The purpose of the author is to record all opinions he has heard on the ethics topic, while he was an active forum member from 1993 to 2004.
  4. No opinion is final: people change their opinions over time, even when it comes to ethical statements once held.
  5. Choosing and building relationships, saying “no” as well as “yes”, is a human right which minors also have.
  6. A harmful relationship is not healthy.
  7. There can’t be rules for every possible situation.
  8. Even general principles aren’t absolute, as they change with time and vary from place to place.
  9. Ethics is no exception: it also changes over time.
  10. Ethical reflection always have a source.
  11. The author points human rights and reasonable thinking as his sources.
  12. The ethical sources that exist in our current society are, the author says, fear of sexuality and the concept of safe distance.
  13. Now, moving onto the ethical guidelines that he wanted to record and show us.
  14. Freedom of choice: neither side of the relationship should feel dependant or regulated by the other side.
  15. The self-determination of both sides must be kept.
  16. Both sides should be able to withdraw from the other person at any given time.
  17. Relationships between parent and child, boss and employee, teacher and student and any others in which either party can not withdraw from the other or in which the hierarchy is a core component in the acquisition of a goal do not conform to the ethical principle of freedom of choice, thus being unethical according to such principle.
  18. Openness: even if relationships between adults and minors weren’t taboo, parents would still have to monitor the relationship.
  19. If the relationship must be kept as secret, both the adult and the minor would suffer the consequences if found out.
  20. Do no harm: the relationship must not fail in a risk-benefit analysis.
  21. Every relationship between adult and minor, in the current society, fails in a risk-benefit analysis.
  22. Because of that, unless society changes, an erotic relationship between an adult and a minor under age of consent is unethical and should be avoided by both parties.

6 de fevereiro de 2018

Notes on “Circular arguments and category errors in the rejection of voluntary intimate relationships between adults and children.”

Filed under: Passatempos, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yurinho @ 15:46

“Circular arguments and category errors in the rejection of voluntary intimate  relationships between adults and children” was written by T. Rivas. Below are some paraphrased (not quoted) thoughts found in that text. They not necessarely reflect my own opinion on a given subject.

  1. Sexual abuse does exist.
  2. But the existence of abuse isn’t a proof in favor of the inexistence of non-abusive relationships.
  3. Saying that the existence of child sexual abuse invalidates the existence of positive relationships between adults and minors is like saying that the existence of rape invalidates the existence of positive relationships between men and women.
  4. Many people realize that such line of thought is invalid if you kindly explain them it’s implications.
  5. The author’s goal is to call attention to some logical problems that are harming a honest debate about relationships between adults and minors.
  6. An argument against those relationships is that “no minor is capable of any kind of love other than the love they feel for their parents”.
  7. Meaning that any friendship or romance between an adult and a minor is always built on the adult’s interest, never on the minor’s interest.
  8. But that argument is easily dismissed by our own memories, as many of us, as children, had friendly or amorous feelings towards adults as persons, rather than adults as authorities.
  9. Some minors, even as children, do have erotic feelings towards adults and they are not as rare as people often think.
  10. Those feelings are different from those we expect to have in a parent/child relationship.
  11. That means that a minor is capable of other kinds of love.
  12. Denying the existence of child sexuality is unrealistic.
  13. While some deny the existence of child sexuality, others admit it’s existence as a problem to be solved.
  14. Some sustain that a minor who loves an adult doesn’t “really” love them (implying that the minor is either confused or lying).
  15. If that kind of relationship is wrong, then the adult is supposed to decline advances done by minors.
  16. But why is it wrong?
  17. If we say that a voluntary relationship isn’t “truly” voluntary, we are implying that voluntary relationships do not exist.
  18. That allows the argument to be taken for obvious, not needing proof.
  19. But what makes one say that it’s not “truly” voluntary?
  20. Is it because we don’t want it to be?
  21. It’s like saying “just because” when asked “why are they never voluntary?”.
  22. A lot of those relationships have no sex whatsoever anyway.
  23. Most of the good relationships don’t have sex as goal anyway.
  24. Kids fantasize.
  25. Repressing child sexuality does lead to sexual frustration.
  26. Children do fall in love with each other.
  27. Breaking a moral code doesn’t imply psychological harm.
  28. No moral code is self-evident, so much that Christians often disagree in moral matters, despite their morals being supposedly absolute.
  29. It should be immoral if it’s harmful, but it’s never the other way around.
  30. “It’s harmful because it’s immoral” makes no sense.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: