| The René Guyon Society (or, why is paedophilia wrong?) I don't know if any of you have heard of this society already, but I only read about it today on a philosophy journal and found it interesting - I hasten to add that I don't mean by this I found their ideas convincing - so I thought I'd share. They basically say that giving children a good start in life involves introducing them to sex too, through incest (e.g. a father giving his daughter a good sexual experience gives her a good start in this aspect life, without involving exploitation or sexual disease.)
Obviously our intuitive response to this is that it's abhorrent, presumably one of the first reasons you think of is that it is because it lacks consent. But then, children haven't consented to any aspect of their upbringing; their food preferences, their moral codes, I'm sure you can think of lots more. So why do we still find this particular kind of "initiation" so repugnant? What is it about the particular sexual quality of the experience that makes it worse? And is this worse than normal child abuse?
I ask that because Alan Goldman would say it wasn't, as sex should (according to him, and numerous other philosophers) be judged according to normal moral codes. "Just as the fact that an act is sexual in itself never renders it wrong or adds to its wrongness if it is wrong on other grounds." (From "Plain Sex") |