A volunteer minister at New Temple Christ Holy Sanctified Church (Jesus Christ, what a name!) was arrested for possession of child pornography:
Mark Briggs, 44, was charged with one count of being in possession of child pornography and one count of being in receipt of and distributing child pornography….
“All I can tell you is I’ve been knowing the young man since he was a baby and I’ve never known him to be anything like that,” the Rev. Fredrick Joubert, the church’s pastor, told The Enterprise by phone.
Joubert said Briggs has been active in the church for years and has always seemed like a nice person.
“This is a real nice guy, as far as I know about him, I can’t say nothing bad about the guy,” Joubert said. “This was really a shock.”
These kinds of things are always a shock. Don’t they wonder how many other nice, normal Christians are exactly like this?
I’ve known many Christians throughout my life, and they all seem perfect until you really get to know them. Then they’re just like everyone else, with the same old struggles, afraid to tell anyone or seek help.
By the way, do you think people should be put in jail for possession of child pornography even though they have not hurt anyone or their property?
Absofrakkinlutely he should go to jail.
First of all, peeps have their fetishes, and that’s fine. As long as they’re not hurting someone. I once had a guy that would call me just to find out what shoes I was wearing….
..but child porn does hurt someone, the child that was forced to make it. To watch a heinous crime be committed against another and not do anything about it is criminal in my mind. To watch a heinous crime be committed and be aroused by the images is sick.
I don’t believe that all porn leads to violent crime. I think there also have to be circumstances in a person’s life that would edge them to do so, but in the case of child porn, I wouldn’t want to take the chance that I’m wrong.
Daniel: “do you think people should be put in jail for possession of child pornography even though they have not hurt anyone or their property?”
-YES. The production of such pictures did hurt someone. Child porn is a photographic record of abuse commited to innocent defenseless children.
-If someone has such a sick mind to enjoy the abuse of children on digital form, i have no doubt it will be a matter of time before the virtual will not satisfy anymore.
Wikipedia entry on child pornography:
According to the New York Times, “At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one child sex offender serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires – exactly the opposite: ‘Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it.’ he said.”[33] According to the National District Attorneys Association of America, “In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”
-Trading, receiving and perpetuating such pictures does qualify as hurting someone, even if the individual did not produce them.
“By the way, do you think people should be put in jail for possession of child pornography even though they have not hurt anyone or their property?”
If I read something as stupid as that again, you may lose a reader.
I agree. Child porn is not a victimless crime. A child was victimized while the image was made. People who trade in child porn trade in the suffering of children.
I knew a police detective who specialized in child porn. He knew the histories and life stories of the kids in many of the commonly found images. None of them had happy endings. Lives ruined so that someone could make a few bucks.
Really child pornography is undoubtedly child abuse. But I have a problem with sending a person to prison for committing non-violent crimes. I’m still not sure that the mere possession of such images should be grounds for jail time. I don’t think it implies the probable commission of a crime any more than the possession of ‘rape’ porn implies that the owner will be a rapist. The problem is that the production of child pornography can never be done with a consenting adult, so the production of child pornography is certainly a jailable offense, I don’t feel that possession alone should be. To be fair though its rare that the person caught in these situations is ONLY in possession of child porn, generally thats found as part of an investigation into actual child molestation.
OTOH I have a big problem with the recent SCOTUS decision that stated anyone possessing an artificial image of someone appearing to be under the age of consent can be treated as violating child pornography laws.
That means drawings and 3D poser images of fictional characters can earn someone a penalty equal to that of real images of child pornography. The ‘appears’ to part is what worries me the most, if we are talking about fictional characters there is no victim, much less a way to confirm the victims age.
Demand creates supply. Ownership must be considered an offence.
My opinion is that someone who has reached the point that they obtain and consume child pornography is maladjusted, and could be redeemable if given the right help. The problems are, first, that person may not feel they actually need any help: they may believe that although their urges are not normal, they are harmless as long as they themselves are not hurting any children. Second, even if they do realize they have a problem, there is a huge stigma associated with child porn, which may make them feel it is preferable to stay quiet and hope they are never discovered rather than go through the embarrassment of revealing themselves. (This is almost certainly the category where most people associated with the church who have this problem would fall.)
You can argue that punishing someone caught with child pornography with jail time will remove them from society so that they cannot go on to become actual child molesters, but that does not fix the problem: it does not address the underlying issue of how they came to be so maladjusted in the first place. What I feel we need to do is look at our society’s attitudes toward sexuality, and come up with healthier ways of dealing with deviations, like therapy and support groups, rather than declaring them crimes and shunting people off to prison, believing that will somehow make the problem go away.
If a possessor of child pornography pays for it, then he is complicit in the abuse.
However, if a possessor of child pornography did not pay for it, then he has not enabled the abuser, nor is he creating demand that was not already there (i.e. the abuser must have had another motive to create it). This argument has merit only if the abuser committed the act to satisfy future possessors. (This may be the case; I have no knowledge of the child pornography underworld, but I do know there are many like-minded people if there are enough people to form organizations like NAMBLA).
Put another way, if you were successful in actually making it impossible to distribute child pornography, you would not have stopped the abuser that creates it, and this is the real criminal.
It is also patently absurd to convict a person in advance for a crime he is “certain” to commit because he possesses an image depicting it.
For the record, I feel dirty defending creepy behavior like this – and defending it isn’t my intent. My intent is to point out failures in these arguments.
Can we not say that someone who is aroused by children is clearly suffering a mental illness and treat it as that?
I’m fully in the corner of Lisa S and Brigno on this one. Possessing something means you are part of the market for that product. In this case, creation of this product causes untold grief and abuse and even leads to murder. Therefore everything must be done to stop this market from existing, and criminalizing possession is one of the means of doing so.
I’m a firm believer that zero tolerance is rarely correct. In this particular situation I believe jail time is certainly warranted, as the person in question is/was in a position where he more likely than not was trusted with children, so as far as I’m concerned that makes it a more serious offense.
The problem is that we always hear this side of things from the groups pushing for stricter sex offender laws while they like to ignore the fact that people get caught in their nets who may have been in violation of the letter of the law but had no ill intents. If I’m 18 and have a 17 year old girlfriend who gets a bit excited and sends me a few nude pictures, I would then technically be in possession of child pornography.
There was also a case mentioned on a local morning show recently where a man picked up a girl at a bar who claimed to be 22 and apparently had a good enough fake ID to fool the bar. The radio station found her MySpace page where she also claimed to be 22 and at least in the opinion of the hosts she could pass for it. Of course it turned out she was somewhere between 13 and 15, I don’t remember the specifics. When the guy found this out, he cut off the relationship and told her father, who then had him arrested for statutory rape. The real kicker was that this was the second time someone had been charged with statutory due to this girl. When a man can pick up a girl who looks of age in a bar where you should be able to safely assume anyone drinking is of age and then get tossed in jail because she’s a liar with a history of lying on the same thing something is horribly wrong with the system.
Again I’m not saying that this minister shouldn’t be thrown in jail, I think he should be given the information I have available to me. I’m just saying that the topics of child porn and underage sex are not as clear cut black-and-white as some groups like to claim they are. For a 22 year old like myself, that age border is still close enough that it’s an issue on my mind.
That’s right folks, this is Sunday School and some questions aren’t allowed to be asked, and some thoughts aren’t allowed to be had. Now excuse me while I go burn some books with jedipunk.
@jedipunk:
Perhaps you could enlighten us why this question is stupid. I’ve enjoyed the responses so far (except for yours), and have found them interesting and challenging. I encourage skepticism and rationality in all things, and I they should be applied it to this issue as well.
If you were a lawmaker and this issue came up, would you be the one saying, “It’s stupid to even ask this question. Don’t ask it. Don’t. Even. Mention. It. Or I may leave!”? Can you not even discuss the issue?
Why not explain why the question is stupid and/or why this issue is so black and white to you, instead of attacking me?
Just found this link on digg that goes along quite well with my post: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090114-teens-send-nude-pics-to-one-other-face-kiddie-porn-charges.html
All parties involved are underage, all parties are doing something I wouldn’t consider unusual for hormone-laden teens, all are being charged with child porn related offenses. That is absolutely wrong in my opinion. They’re in the wrong by the letter of the law, but shouldn’t be lumped in with those like the minister in the OP.
I got to agree with Sean Harlow on this one. It is not a black and white issue. As adults we naturally envision an 8yo when we discuss the word child but by the letter of the law the definition is substantially higher and don’t always take into account deception it seems. Cases such as the recent one in Newark, OH where a 15yo girl is being charge with distributing child porn for sending pics of herself to her 15 yo friends is ludicrous in my book. Teens will be teens and they will use technology.
BTW I thought this was an atheist blog. Why are we discussing a moral issue, I thought atheists didn’t have any morals. *tounge in cheek*
Most statistics and surveys shows little or no difference between christians and nonbelievers when it comes to morality. What do you expect when God will just forgive you if you do something terrible if you ask him. Just remember not to make the crazy mistake of questioning god’s existence. Then you’re destine for a “lake of fire” someday.
I think one area that makes this a bit grey to me is I don’t know what kind of images they are talking about. Is it just nude children? If so, I don’t think anyone should go to jail for simply possessing nude imagery.
But if it’s actual pornography — softcore or hardcore — involving children, I do think there should be a punishment. Not years, though, because you get the same punishment for molesting a child. If the punishment is the same, that will encourage molesting. For a first offense, maybe 60 days and a $100,000 fine (I’m assuming a simple consumer, not a producer).
To take the issue off children, many men are interested in rape porn. Whether real or faked, they get a rush from it. But I’d much rather they sit in their home jacking off to that crap than raping women. Or should men who look at rape porn be arrested, too? The same logic should apply: (1) producing the porn might be hurting women and (2) it might encourage men to rape women.
* * *
Bringo said:
Maybe. But I could also imagine the reverse — someone using the porn as a substitute for unwholesome desires. But maybe it doesn’t work like that, I don’t know.
* * *
As others have mentioned, it becomes very tricky with the law. I’m thinking 5-10yr olds in my mind, but according to the law, a 16yr or 17yr old nude picture could be considered child pornography. Personally I don’t see much difference between a 17.9 yr old and an 18 yr old, but the law does. I don’t think jail is appropriate for that kind of imagery.
On a related note, in the church I worked at there was a weekly “accountability form” for pastors, and one of the questions were if they thought any impure thoughts or looked at porn that week.
Right — like any of the pastors would have admitted they looked at porn and been fired!
Daniel, would they have been fired for impure thoughts? (Serious question, btw.)
@spence-bob: If there were stupid enough each week to say they had impure thoughts, and got specific, I’m sure they would have been sent to counseling and if it didn’t stop, then yes, they would have been fired.
Thus ministers who are extremely honest don’t last long. :)
You never know. The church I grew up in went through this mad confession fad where it became spiritually cool to confess your sins in front of the whole church. Lots of people confessed all kinds of things until one pastor admitted he has a problem with porn. He was immediately forced to resign. (Mind you, not child porn). Turns out some sins are just not forgivable.
As far as the age of the child, I don’t think it matters much if they’re a little older (teens). Clearly someone in a position of authority over the child has abused their power and the child’s trust, and even adults who are put in abusive situations like this can suffer for the rest of their lives (sexual harrassment at work, for instance).
There was a case here in Oregon of mayor and later governor who assaulted a 14-yr-old. You can read what she continues to suffer more than 30 years later here Willamette Week
@Warren: Yep, it can be very cool to confess certain sins — “I’m just not loving God so much”; “I’ve been eating a bit too much when we go out to eat after church”; “I have an unspoken sin”; “I’m not reading my Bible as much as I should”; “I’m not praying as much as I used to”
But be too honest — “I just got out of an affair”; “I’m having homosexual desires”; “I look at porn”; “I’m lusting after a friend’s wife”; etc and YOOOOOU’RE OUT!
By the way, do you think people should be put in jail for possession of child pornography even though they have not hurt anyone or their property?
Yes, they should go to jail; and they have hurt someone.
It is illegal to possess child pornography. Why is it illegal? Because children deserve to be protected from the harm of abuse.
I think the question should read: Do you think people should be put in jail for being an accomplice to or contributing to the abuse of a child?
@ Daniel: Interesting isn’t it, that the bulk of completely unacceptable behaviors in the church center around one’s genitaila. Of the the seven deadly sins only Lust is not plainly displayed if you look around and listen at church. At least that is the way it was where I was raised
I agree with andyb. (“Demand creates supply. Ownership must be considered an offence.”) — but let’s get more interesting; what about digitally created child pornography? In this case, arguably, there’s no victim.. yet.
@RobG
I think you have an interesting point but I think there could be great benefits to having such a maladjusted individual jailed. They would have the time and help to seek the psychological counceling that they really needed. They would also be in a situation were there would be few temptation and distractions that could pull them away from continuing their treatment. I know the services offered in prison aren’t the same in quality as the ones that can be sought in the private sector but it’s still something to help them.
Also unfortunately, it can sometime take something like having your life completely changed (like being jailed) for someone to admit that they have a problem and actually willfully seek to change their habits and thinking. However, this can also be a very slippery slope since I’m sure there that’s the same thinking that was used for the early asylums and we know how bad those were for patients.
The thing that always amazes me is the quote that shows up on this articles about how nice the person was an no one would ever think they could do such things…. well duh, you don’t engage in well known illegal activities and then publilcize it to the world. You try to hide it and make it seem like you fit in with everyone else.
No member of the clergy should be seen as infallible.
Many clergy have a self-imposed celibacy/modesty fetishes that pervert the normal desires of human sexuality.
Why are we surprised when they come out to have some sort of deviant maladjusted expression of their pent up desires?
“By the way, do you think people should be put in jail for possession of child pornography even though they have not hurt anyone or their property?”
No.
Some cavets: Obviously, if the pornography has *real* children in it, it fails your “not hurt anyone” classification.
So, by the default of your question, we’d *only* be talking writings, drawings, etc., here.
That doesn’t actually hurt anyone (other than the owner, but that’s *their* problem). It may even help others, slightly – if they’re home reading child-porn or looking at a drawing of a six-year-old in a Marilyn Monroe pose, they’re *not* out on the street, bothering real children – though that’s debatable. And it’s not really money-making enough to support a black-market “industry,” so that’s good.
You can argue that it’s sort of a “gateway drug,” where using it leads to other things that *do* hurt children.
But I doubt that banning it (even if it was a successful ban – and it obviously isn’t, or what did he have on his computer?*) will actually do any good: The people who are into child porn will *still* be into having sex with kids, child porn or no. Child porn is an *effect* of having those people, not a cause. Besides, I don’t even believe in the “gateway drug” concept for actual drugs.
So, no, it shouldn’t be banned – again, unless there are actual, real children involved.
I hope I’m being clear here, but I’ll probably *still* hit someone’s buttons on this. In general (and practice), I’m against *all* vice bans, as they do nothing but provide a new source of income for criminals…and such bans *always* end up being abused by governments.
Mind you, people who actually try sex with *real* children should be shot, on sight, right there, above the nose, but…
David
* “Johnson’s Law: If you can successfully ban something,
you didn’t need to.”
@David:
You said:
So if some guy downloads a real child porn pic for free off the internet, then is arrested a few hours afterwards, how does this hurt a child? It seems to me he still hasn’t hurt anyone or their property.
I think many have answered for me.
Why is it a stupid question? Because your premise “even though they have not hurt anyone” is completely false. So false, that I cannot fathom how you could think it. Maybe you can better explain to me how it is that someone own such content is not causing the harm.
Should a person that knowingly rents out the room for filming to child pornographer be held accountable. He didn’t do anything, after all if he didn’t rent it out to them they would just go somewhere else… as a matter of fact the person filming is only breaking the law because it is against the law to film it. Why not ask why it is illegal to photograph such a crime?
How far from the committing of the original offense does one have to be to not be accountable?
Should person owning some of the content be punished as harshly as those doing the deed or filming? No.
Should they be labeled predators? No, but part of their release should be rehab.
While I find illustrated versions and digital versions offensive, I am not of the mind that it is a crime… at least I don’t have enough evidence to believe it a crime, but I also would not want to live next to the person that had drawings of six year-olds being molested hanging in his garage covering his pin-up calendar.
Ok a lot of people are throwing the term maladjusted and mental illness around. Its one thing to say that child pornography is inappropriate, its another thing to call it a mental illness. Our biology has not exactly advanced at the same rate as our modern sensibilities. Not too long ago (historically speaking less than 200 years is short span of time) 13 year old, and younger brides and mothers were not that uncommon even in first world countries. They are still common in “less civilized” parts of the world today.
Most of what we consider inappropriate by today’s standards are not based on biological, or even religious grounds, its an entirely legal concept that has developed independently of human sexuality.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADULTS & CHILDREN. I’m simply pointing out that our concept of inappropriate sexual feelings is somewhat divorced from biological reality.
It wasn’t all that long ago that homosexuality was considered a maladjustment and mental illness. Homosexuals have the advantage in that they want to pursue mutually consenting relationships, which is why the winds have changed on that issue. A pedophile will never have that ability because the partners they want will always be legal defined as non-consenting. People do not consciously control who they are sexually attracted to, at least I have yet to meet the person who claims they do.
All I’m saying is that in the same way that a percentage of the population are homosexual because of genetic and hormonal factors. It would make sense that for biological reasons some people feel compelled to seek out younger mates. A few centuries ago this trait may have had a reproductive advantage, in modern times its no longer appropriate due to legal concepts.
And now i silently await the avalanche of angry responses for voicing a different opinion.
@jedipunk: I tried to explain what I meant in this comment and this one.
@random guy
I agree with you. I have argued with my father over his complaints about unwed mothers or teen pregnancies, etc. I basically use your argument with a twist: kids are not having sex earlier, society is just telling them marry later.
Elaborating on my earlier post, I don’t think possession of child pornography should be punished as severely as creating it. Nor do I think possessing virtual imagery (drawings, CGI) of child porn should be an offense. Not only doesn’t virtual porn not involve anyone but its creator, making this illegal also limits artistic freedom and may allow pedophiles to satisfy their urges virtually instead of on real children.
I also make a distinction between ‘child porn’ and consenting teenagers. I suppose here in the Netherlands we’re a bit more casual about it compared to prudish America where a 17-year old boy can go to jail for decades for getting a (fully consensual) blowjob from his 15-year old girlfriend.
I do truly stand by my earlier point – possession of actual, real child pornography should be an offense punishable by prison time. I don’t think extreme prison sentences are required (I tend to be against long prison sentences anyway in most cases) and I do agree with some others here that have said offenders should receive therapy as well. Although I understand random guy’s point of view and agree somewhat with it.
Nonetheless as a society we need to draw lines, lines that affect everyone. We don’t have the luxury of making up laws and judgments on a case by case basis, and when it comes to child abuse I’m squarely in favor on erring on the side of caution.
@Daniel
You explanation on what child porn is was not in your post nor in your original comment to me.
I agree with you and I get extremely upset when some grandma gets arrested for having picture of her grandkids playing in the tub developed at walgreens.
regarding this: So if some guy downloads a real child porn pic for free off the internet, then is arrested a few hours afterwards, how does this hurt a child?
I have never been in the “know” on this but while some goof may inadvertently download some crap like this it is my understanding that if someone possess a lot then they are part of the problem. They are paying for it in some way.
Just to be fair, I thought I would include that it also depends on what the content is. If it is a 15-17 yr old girl and there was little to no way to tell she is a minor, I have a hard time saying someone is guilty of anything there except for those directly connected to the original deed. Those downloading the content may not know the age, unless they are part of a ring.
Correction: “and may allow pedophiles” should read “and may NOT allow pedophiles”
Another addition: I agree with Daniel that nudity and pornography aren’t the same things, regardless of what Fox News tells you. Pictures of your grandkids playing in a tub is not pornography, nor do I think that for example the cover of the Scorpions’ Virgin Killer album is pornography. I don’t think I need to elaborate here on what we should consider porn.
Part of the problem is that in the popular mind, the term “Christian” has become so inflated and distorted that it is almost meaningless. No one agrees what really defines someone as “Christian”. Frankly, the thousands of denominations and sects within Protestant Christianity is evidence enough of that.
Today, when someone tells me that they are a “Christian” I usually assume that they are anything but. So it is never a surprise to me when pastors or others in the church are revealed as being child abusers, child molestors, rapists, etc. There is something about the negative, punitive worldview held by many Christians that seems to attract the self-deluded and self-hating. If sexual shaming weren’t so integral to the worldview of Christians, would we have people like poor, self-loathing Ted Haggard or the legions of child-molesting Catholic priests?
True “Christians” are not the ones who self-promote at every opportunity or pepper their speech with never-ending references to the divine. In fact, most real “Christians” never even mention anything about their faith but instead simply live by the values of their faith.
If more so-called “Christians” really and trully cared about what Jesus would do, then perhaps there would be fewer homeless people, fewer people going hungry, fewer people suffering and dying without medical treatment, etc. The values of Jesus social teachings are wonderful and worthy of emulation; the values of those who conflate their religious organization with the divinity of Jesus however are not.
Random guy has some insight into this discussion. Attitudes of society change over time and therefore so do the laws in a democracy. Once you divorce yourself from any obligation to a transcendent morality all you are really left with is your biological drives, and one can’t be faulted for having something beyond your control. All we are are products of our enviroment. So in a sense I would also disagree with Random, who’s to say that in 25, 50, or a 100 years adult-child sexual relations won’t be seen as viable relationships and will be no longer criminals acts. It’s definitely possible. Many wouldn’t hold up the Marquis de Sade as role model of a healthy life, but outside a transcendent moral precept, who among you can say what he did or what this minister did was “morally” wrong. Without that aforementioned precept to argue from all you have is your opinion or the current society’s opinion and no assurance that either of those won’t ever change.
If it’s actual child porn (a real child being sexually exploited in pictures or video) then yes, I think they deserve to go to jail. Possessing that sort of child porn ~does~ hurt someone – that child.
@ Barry
Maybe I am missing some sarcasm here but……
“Once you divorce yourself from any obligation to a transcendent morality all you are really left with is your biological drives, and one can’t be faulted for having something beyond your control”
This implies that morality can only exist within the confines of belief in a diety. I do not believe this to be the case. Right and wrong are not strictly reserved for those who blame thier interpretations of such on a derived “trancendent morality”. The morality of the believer is still no more than an opinion designed by either the individual or the “society” of church at that time. Morals are subject to change regarless of the underlying basis for them.
Sam
No you’ve picked up the implication i am making. Yes sarcasm is one of my spiritual gifts but as I’ve come to realize it may be avenue to the dark side, lol. Actually I may need to clarify my position on morality. By no means am I implying that someone who doesn’t believe in a god or God can’t be moral or have system of morality. My contention is that the system can never be more than subjective. That’s why I think that a transcendent standard must be looked to. I’m not arguing what that standard may or may not look like in this post, but obviously there are more than one opionion. I’ll deal with the most common God. With heChristian God, I would argue that his standards have not changed though the way his followers have interpreted their sacred texts often have. A atheist can feel at home in some system of morality but it must be one in which the values chosen are in the end subjective. Nietzche lays to bare systems such as utiltarianism and their inherent weaknesses. A lot of people recoil, including atheists, at the outworkings of his thought and philosophy and many have tried to find a way out of the pit of nihlism. So all that said,once you are willing to realize that morality based on anything other than a transcendent standard must be fluid, you face a decision. Thisis the moment that you accept a relative ethic and all its consequences or run for the hills and keep an irrational view that “right” and “wrong” aren’t merely social conventions.
Pingback: News From Around The Blogosphere 01.15.09 « Skepacabra
Here’s another twist: One tactic used by people who produce porn is to take an 18+ woman who LOOKS young (i.e., a 19-year-old who looks like a 12-year-old). They then market the porn as if it is underage porn, although the small print and the legal stuff indicate that the “model” is actually over 18.
If a person downloads porn of a 19-year-old but THINKS it’s a 12-year-old, should they go to jail?
Sam–
I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more. You’re attempting to say that a non believer can be subjective about what is moral since it is undefined. But morality is clearly defined for christians in the bible. Unfortunately the bible is full of of contradictions and evil laws.
If the bible was clearly defined, people wouldn’t interpret it in so many ways to suit there own agendas. A christian must pick and choose what is moral based off the parts of the bible they decide to read. Am I to believe that it is moral to:
• Kill “false prophets” (Zechariah 13:3)
• Kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
• Burn a woman to death for having sex before marriage (Leviticus 21:9)
• Stone a woman to death who was raped because she didn’t scream for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
• To sell your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7)
• Kill your child for not honoring you (Exodus 21:17) (Proverbs 20:2) (Deuteronomy 21:20-21) (Leviticus 20:9) (Matthew 15:4) (Mark 7:10)
• To slaughter “evil” men, women, children, and babies but keep virgins as plunder for you sexual enjoyment. (Numbers 31) (Judges 21:15-24)
I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.
Sorry, my last post was in reference to Barry’s comment, not Sam’s.
I want to point out that there is a clear conventional concept of morality used in everyday conversation. A thing is morally positive if it has the effect of increasing human well-being and is negative if it has the opposite effect. The only quibbles appear to be in who gets to be “human” and what exactly well-being means.
Morality is then only as confusing as are these terms, and since these terms are not open for much debate, most of morality can be determined objectively as opposed to subjectively. (I emphasize “most”). For example it is trivial to see that exploiting the innocence of a child for sexual gain is bad for human well-being. (Let me know if you disagree).
The gray areas lie in what do we include in humanity, and what exactly does well-being mean. (e.g. are Jews human? only lunatics think not, but what about a fetus? and does well-being mean happiness, euphoria, or a feeling of meaning? etc.)
So the only subjectivity of morality is in answering these questions, and the problem with the Bible is that it gives no added clarity. In fact, its depiction of slavery and killing of innocent children is such that it muddies the water considerably.
I think we can also easily see that the subjugation of women by both Christianity and Islam has not been good for humanity. In the past hundred years, Christianity seems to have realized this and marginalized this behavior, but it wasn’t from a closer reading of the scripture or a closer study of God.
Warren
I would agree with much of what you say, you at least see the some of the problems that you run into with any area of morality being subjective. Hitler didn’t think the Jews were human; same for slaves in america, or in some areas they were 3/5′s human. You and I may disagree with them, and consider those positions as lunacy but if all I have is my own “moral” intuition that’s not much of a basis for condemnation. Some might say that the majority of people feel as we do and that gives us a consensus, but the majority has been wrong before hasn’t it. You also have an unproven assumption in your claim that whatever increases human well-being is how we determine morality, but that’s not any easy task either. Is that an individual’s well-being or society’s, and how do we define society by race, nation, or maybe at a certain income level? Many philosophers who weren’t Christian would disagree with your statement or at least heavily qualify it, ex. Rand. The last thing is that your right and there are many interpretations of the Bible and many horrible things such as the subjugation of women, but this brings me back to my original point. If I believed in the subjugation of women a Christian would at least have a basis to argue with me, Galatians 3:28, but an atheist is going to have to point to a basis of their disagreement that is in the end a human’s opionion. I mentioned the Marquis de Sade famous for his penchant for pain and abuse, what would you say to him? “Mr. de Sade, your not contributing to the well-being of that woman your sodomizing against her will”, he’d laugh at you. And I quote:
“Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear”: de Sade
Alex
I need a little clarification, is morality clearly defined for Christians or is the Bible full of contradictions. It’s one or the other so I don’t know which one to defend. One other thing, can you tell me 100% without a shadow of a doubt that had you been born in times where these Scriptures quotations happened that you wouldn’t have approved? Food for thought.
Barry that is exactly the point.
If I was born in the times of Scriptures I might have approved, I hope not but you never know. Morals are fluid and are subject to change based on the evolution of the culture in which they reside. If morality was associated only with faith then this would not be the case. Christians tout the fact that God is unchanging therefore, his definition of moral is unchanging and cannot evolve.
This then is evidence, that the quotes Alex uses above, are constructs of the morality of humans and not God. Just as today’s morality is a construct of humans not God. Since it is a construct of humans it does not require a higher power and I can choose to be a moral person with out the influence of a deity to “guide my way” or create fears of eternal damnation when I don’t abide by them. Social norms and laws are dictated by this construct.
If you lived in the times of the Bible you would be going to hell right now according to those laws. I don’t know you but you live in this society in 2009 and I have no doubt that many of your daily activities would have been punishable by death 6000 years ago, or even 1000 years ago.
Without the unbeliever we would still be a society practicing the morals of the Bible. For it is the unbeliever who stands up and says:
“This is not the right thing to do”
Barry,
There appear to be two predominate definitions of morality. 1) the conventional definition (that which positively affects well-being of mankind) and 2) the authoritative kind (that which is moral is so because he says so). No Christian I’ve ever talked to (to include me before my illumination) recognizes a distinction, but if you step back, the distinction is clear. Christians care about the second only after the first is taken care of. (That is, if child molestation were legal, Christians would not spend much time battling homosexual practice despite that only the latter is listed by God as an abomination – they would fear for the well-being of their children instead).
Once you accept that when we discuss morality, we’re really discussing how to improve the well-being of humans (and this is not hard to accept), then morality becomes only as subjective as these terms. There is some subjectivity here, as I’ve said, but very little room to wiggle without being an obvious loon (as Hitler would have been seen had people been taught to be even mildly critical/skeptical in their thinking).
If there is a human well-being, then moral intuition is much like a chess game, in which you can predict several possible moves in advance and objectively say some moves are clearly better than others. And this is all I’m saying.
If we simply discuss the well-being of mankind, we can stop worrying about whether same sex couples can file joint tax returns.
With regard to the de Sade quote, I would ask him what he means by “greatest actions”. Regardless, consider that he is talking about “law” which in the past has nearly always been made theocratic by people who, after their baser freedoms are taken care of, become more afraid that God might be scandalized by the use of some utterances than that their freedom to utter them be removed.
The last thing I want to say is that Muslims can declare that suicide bombing is wrong because the Koran says not to destroy yourself. The Koran says kill the infidel at ever opportunity, however, also. Holy books are made moral by deciding which parts are “good” and ignoring the rest, which is why Gal 3:28 wasn’t convincing people 200 years ago.
Sam
I have to say your statement, without the unbeliever we would still be a society practicing the morals of the Bible. For it is the unbeliever who stands up and says: “This is not the right thing to do”, has to be one of the best and most accurate I have seen lately.
Sam and Warren
I appreciate the attitude and responses you both gave.
Sam
What I see as the problem with what your saying is simple. If we all agree that morality is a human construct and is fluid, with what base or what right can anyone claim that something is immoral. It would seem to make the one arrogant, wouldn’t it. For example if I came to your house and saw you eating dinner in front of the T.V. and then proceeded to tell you that you were acting immorally, i’d probably get a fat lip. That’s because i wouldn’t have any grounds to make such a claim. Beyond that how do I know if I’m a moral person when morality is fluid, maybe I’m okay today and then I’m bad tommorrow though I haven’t changed positions.
Warren
I agree that there is a distinction that can be made. If we stick with what you deem as the most convential, well-being, and then try to increase well-being we still end up with a problem. Whose well-being and who gets to define it. Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan would disagree on how to increase well-being and some of their positions are called immoral by their opposition. Who’s right? Everyone is going to agree, so they all end up trying to resort in the end to an ideal that they feel is the goal. But again we still don’t agree on those, never have, never will. So we’re left with majority rule or might is right and i’m sure you’d agree that those extremes have produced results that you would consider immoral.
As for de Sade, he wasn’t living in the bastion of theocratic society, but in the middle of a very liberal one. And he wasn’t fighting merely religion alone but also any morality or law that would limit his pursuit of pleasure.
Barry,
You’ll note that Obama and Reagan agree on way more than they disagree on, and indeed, according to their arguments, their disagreement is not on whether well-being is the goal, but simply how best to achieve it. An example of what we’re left with is arguments such as whether a protection of a right to own a firearm will result in an overall increase in well-being or decrease. The difficulty to know the answer to this in advance, actually testifies to how unlikely it is to make a relatively large difference in the well-being of humanity either way (i.e. if everyone had access to a gun, the deterrent to criminals will balance the ease in procurement. The question is will it outweigh, or be net-negative – we don’t know – it could be neither).
But I think you touch on another problem philosophers just have not yet agreed on, and that is how to measure well-being. I admit, I do not know the answer to this. Is it better to increase the well-being of one hundred at the expense of one, or is equal opportunity to well-being the goal. To that question, our intuition usually answers the latter.
I propose that we can rely on this intuition like we rely on some other intuitions. A very good example (I credit Sam Harris) is that if you ask a person to fold a piece of paper in his mind one hundred times and express how thick the result is, most answer that it is the size of a brick, or it is the size of the room, but mathematics will reveal it to be much larger than the milky way. We “know” to trust the mathematical intuition rather than our spacial estimation. Morality may work the same way.
We see the change in morality over the centuries as “progress” and it is quite difficult to see it any other way. I think that is, perhaps, because there is an objective morality and we can see that we are closer to it now than we were when we were subjugating women, torturing infidels, and burning books.
In case it isn’t clear already, I admit knowing nothing of de Sade. So I’ll read up. However, his statement is worth exploring if it is both true and his definitions of “greatest actions” or “anarchy” actually track our own. My guess is not that he means that human well-being is best advanced in chaos.
Warren
I wish I had more discussions with people like you, rather than the vitriolic responses i often receive.
I think the reason philosophers, educators, and politicians haven’t come to a consensus on the meaning of well-being is that they can’t. There are too many opinions, and on the basis of any type of relativism there is no way to choose. Do we feed the poor and helpless, or do we save our resources for the healthy and productive? Depending on the time and society that question has been answered differently. Therefor I don’t see how well being can be a source for an objective morality when it is undefinable.
I’m a little pessismistic on the idea of progress also. I’m hard pressed to see it from either side, witness the destruction of humanity in Darfur or the oppression of freedoms in China to this very day. Progress is a matter of perspective then isn’t it, and intuition is a dangerous guide too for morality. Russell was stuck with this point in a debate once, when he claimed morality was found by intuition. Specifically he made the comment that he could distinguish good and bad by feeling (intuition). Copleston then made the point that in some cultures people helped their neighbors and in some they ate them, both on the basis of feeling. For the Christian the reason why we all seem to have some need for morality is the idea of imago dei, but for the atheist that need for morality has to be vexing and ultimately deemed to be a survival instinct.
With de Sade and others I could quote, my simple point is that there are atheists who disagree that there is a need to further well-being of society and that’s his main premise. The only well-being de Sade wished to further was his own, and it did not matter who he abused or descrated to achieve that goal.
Barry,
“Vitriolic” is an pretty accurate term. I cannot explain why otherwise reasonable people tend to get indignant if asked to reason about morality, except maybe that the primary problem with the term, “morality” is that it is ambiguous, and that its ambiguity is intentionally exploited by many in order to win debates.
In discussions where the goal is to ascertain useful knowledge, it is not productive to use the term until its definition is known. When people do agree, there are only two predominate definitions, however (as I’ve said). These are that a thing is moral because 1) A deity says so or because 2) its net effect is to improve well-being.
(Since well-being can be understood to be a state which is preferable to alternatives, the second definition could be, effectively stated as follows: an action is moral insofar as its net effect is “good” and its effect is “good” insofar as it is preferable to alternatives). Indeed, the dictionary definition is “a good or satisfactory condition of existence.”
It must therefore be admitted that hindsight is required to *conclusively* judge morality (of the second definition). But such an admission does not make it useless, as it is likewise true of chess games and economics, and we do not thus say it is impossible to objectively estimate the probable outcomes of certain actions in these systems. On the contrary, we have learned that certain things are nearly always bad (give queen for pawn, tax at 90%). This is not unlike our current understandings of morality where we have learned that the net outcome of not stealing is preferable to that of stealing.
We must also admit that the use of the term, “preferable”, requires a set of “preferers”, and this is the stickiest part of morality. This is where I admit relying on intuition, but Christians have no better claim than this as they must affirm one of the following: 1) that their holy book is unreliable, in which case they must rely on their own intuitions or 2) that their holy book is reliable, in which case killing the children of the wicked is OK, slavery is permissible, and making animals suffer is not prohibited.
This is why Christians bait and switch the term, saying that if there is no God, anything goes (first definition) such as killing people for pleasure, which is not at all preferable (second definition).
Regarding de Sade (et. al), consider an anarchy in which each pursues immediate selfish desire with utter disregard for others. Can we not objectively say that the net effect is not preferable to the alternatives? Christians love to claim that there is no basis to declare views like de Sade’s wrong without the Bible, but this is manifestly ridiculous unless we define morality as “whatever God wants”. (which is also manifestly ridiculous as it translates to “whatever Christian authority tells us what God wants” and Christians cannot even agree on the authority)
warren
I agree with separating the definitions of morality in the sense that you have, but let’s for the sake of argument deal with second since the first is out of the question for a non-theist. Let’s apply your second definition to the question of legalizing drugs.
This a question that is difficult for me, for the simple reason that I think it is dangerous to legislate this type of morality. My fellow believers can’t believe that I would even consider the legalization of drugs to be a thing to be considered, but I do for many reasons not the least of which is futulity of a war on drugs and also the economic toll by funding the DEA and the increase of crime to pay black market prices. Drug laws are often passed though not on the basis of religious prescription but based on you second definition in the sense that drugs are a drain on society. I can’t really argue with that observation having known many people that destroyed their lives and families through abuse. But what ifs and abouts jump out instantly, for example people that are recreational users and don’t seem to harm anybody. I don’t think any further examination of the data is going to show drugs are a positive for society in general, so here comes the dilemna. If an atheist says that well-being is increased by increasing personal freedom and legalizing drugs and we also have an atheist that says well-being of society is increased by eliminating drugs and their pitfalls, how do we decide who is right. In my mind we are left with few options, majority rule or decision by the strongest power. And as I’ve submitted before both of those have spruious results in the past.
Barry,
I do not see how it could possibly be dangerous to measure laws based on their ultimate effect on the well-being of society. What other measure could you possibly propose?
Our existing drug laws make no sense. We are obliged to use but one word, “drug”, for addictive, harmful substances (e.g. heroin, cocaine) and for substance which are hardly addictive, and not particularly harmful (e.g. marijuana, ecstacy, LSD), all the while leaving out other substances that are more addictive and harmful than the latter (e.g. alcohol, tobacco).
So it isn’t an either/or question. Even if it were, I don’t see how you can claim that further examination is not going help us understand how to best deal with the situation. Furthermore, I don’t see what else you propose. Our sacred texts are mute about modern drugs, so what else is there besides aiming for well-being?
Regardless, there is a fundamental problem with your disagreeing atheists scenario:
Consider a chess game in which moves for white are being decided by two people collaborating to checkmate black, but they disagree on which next move is best. Does it therefore follow that checkmating black should not be what drives the next move? No, that’s absurd, it just means they need to develop a way of deciding between the two options.
Does your two atheist scenario suggest that the ultimate advancement of well-being is not the best way to legislate? No, that’s also absurd. It just means we need to find the best way of deciding between multiple options of advancing well-being.
This is a question about what system of government is best, and not about whether well-being is a good indicator for the goodness of a law.
Warren
A couple of things, well-being is obviously what we strive for in making laws or making decisions. It’s not that I think everyone is going to try to live by the sermon on the mount. I guess simply, I just think that moral skepticism is the most logical viewpoint given the assumptions of atheism.
Your observations concerning drugs are one example of my thinking that people ultimately won’t agree on specific issues. I have friends who have tried almost any drug known to man. Some of them would agree with your assessment of drugs and some of them would label all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco as being bad. Both sides are very emotional and try to back up their claims with evidence. We could never make a law that would make both happy, or a law that both would accept as furthering the well-being of society.
I liked your example of the chess game, but in the end chess is zero sum game and there’s not much subjective about check-mate. Some moral decisions can resemble a zero-sum game, but more often than not morality is simply accepted or rejected on the basis of personal preference or standards. This is what happened when slave owners morally justified owning slaves, it was because it improved their well-being. They had no reason to feel altruistic or try to improve society beyond how it affected them.
Ugh, it’s a tough moral ground. I’d consider making possession a misdemeanor with probation that involves a whole lot of therapy. But that would be defined by what it was and how it was obtained. Some laws define child porn very broadly.
Anything is fine between consenting adults (even if it really is bad for them, I’m sure there are some people who are actually harmed mentally and physically in the filming of porn, but hey, they consented). Kids can’t consent and therefore the law is required to protect them differently.
What I’d really like to know is how the police got on to him. He must’ve made some indecent proposal to a child and if that’s the case then he should certainly go to jail.
Barry: Marijuana is harmful, to your lungs and brain chemistry. Ecstasy is absolutely harmful, to your brain. LSD probably the same.
To me it comes down to this: It’s your body. If you want to ruin it, go for it. If you want to ruin it really fast with meth or heroin, hey go for it.
Just don’t bug me about it on the way by stealing my stereo. I wish that everyone who was in jail for possessing *any* drug was replaced by someone who had stolen someone’s car stereo. An actual deterrent to petty theft would be great.
JWC, actually, that’s a misconception. Marijuana smoke is less harmful than cigarette smoke, and LSD is less harmful than alcohol (according to medical professionals). The point I was making was that the laws aren’t consistent, and even pretty stupid.
Barry, I don’t understand your position here. What you are questioning is systems of government, not morality. The question of “who gets to decide what’s law” is not the same as “who gets to decide what’s moral”. In fact, my argument is that the latter doesn’t make sense if morality is objective and would be much like asking “who gets to decide what ‘pi’ equals?”
To put this into context, consider the original example. Watching child porn is not damaging to society in itself. (i.e. a society in which everyone watched child porn but kept it secret could be indistinguishable from one where no one watched it). All cases against it are claims about actual exploitation of children (i.e. “it leads to molestation” or “it enables those exploiting the children”). It might therefore be wise to make it illegal even if the act itself harms nobody.
Just like it should be illegal to own a weapon of mass destruction despite the fact that owning such a weapon isn’t immoral in itself.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html
Conservatives and religious folk are the biggest consumers of online porn.