Identity : From WP admire thread

Post Reply New Topic

Fnord stated these things.

One issue that I have is not what and how but why and exactly what one has to give up. From what I understand, in America there exists a social veener that one has to follow. By attempting to follow this veener do we give up the essences of who we are? Does one have give up his very identity and metaphorically his very soul?

It is promoted that one is supposed to be true to himself. Should one always do this or is it to only a certain extent? How much of the extent is allowed? If this is so then why isn't pedophila acceptable if they're being true to themselves?

By our societal standards how is it possible to always adapt and always be true to himself? What is the essence of the self? Is it possible for one to have a true self to be?

Pedophilia is unacceptable because it is objectively immoral. It is wrong. If you are being true to yourself, then you have to reconcile flawed human nature with morality. You cannot be both a pedophile and a good person. If being true to yourself means being a good person, you cannot be a pedophile.

Oxymoron alert

Pedophiles have sex with children.

I don't imagine there are many acts much more disgusting than that one.

Maybe... I dunno, does the existence of an objective morality directly imply an objective immorality?

Regardless, I have yet to hear or read a convincing explanation otherwise. Why is anything at all considered wrong? Because of subjective opinion? Then there is no such thing as murder because I should be able to shoot dead anyone who slaps me in the face or even so much as bullies me through internet social media. Or maybe I developed a taste for prepubescent girls in my tween years that never went away. Maybe I was "born this way." So I'm justified for seeking otherwise forbidden relationships with kids. After all, homosexuality was eliminated from DSM for political reasons. Why shouldn't I think or hope that this may one day happen for closet pedophiles? Why should I be demonized for deciding to seek help for my "little problem"? Because "society" says so? How does "society" know what to do? Why should I care? Societies get overthrown all the time, laws get rewritten, other laws get tougher. So why have things that have been taboo for centuries if not millennia remain taboo? Are we backwards in holding to some archaic subjective opinion about how to treat children?

Ultimately it all boils down to things like pedophilia and murder being "just wrong." And there are a number of conscientious walls that many of just can't seem to break down. Without a firm objective standard for morality, we should feel free to do what we want, no matter how perverse, and we can't hold people accountable for their actions. If morality is only subjective, then we should explore why we even bother holding to a moral code at all. You can't say it's "just the right thing to do." We either infer that there is some objective standard to which we adhere as a part of our own natural order, or we simply just don't know.

You are what you choose to be, and what you don't choose to be. You don't choose all that you are because people affect you, and you do as they do because we are social creatures. You didn't have a choice in the matter when you were born, matter of fact, most things you choose to be is largely within the confines of societal constructs of behavior and what they deem is acceptable... so you are choosing from a very limited range of choices to begin with.

I don't think pedophiles choose their orientation, and that is unfortunate. However, even if we are 100% nature, we are also 100% nurture. But even then, I don't fully know of any, and whether any of them go on to have successful adult-relationships with other adults.

There is nothing beautiful with the way humans naturally are. We are naturally selfish. The battle in life is to tame the certain aspects of ones self that limits one from behaving ethically. Being an ethical person is what the human should strive to be... not being true to ones natural state which may or may not be ethical to begin with. A premium is placed on being true to ones self, I come from a theological tradition that holds that ones self isn't a great place to source ethics from because of the fallible nature of man.

Cubi, you're over-analyzing it again.

Yea I am curious what they will answer to that. Nothing is objectively wrong in the final analysis if there is not an objective source above us, and makes the moral demands that they do.

You hate rape? That's your opinion. Everything is boiled down to opinion if there is no transcendent source whose ethics apply to everyone everywhere.

Yes. Welcome to the world of science.