Alternative ethics

[dgs49]

Yes, Tyro, that is exactly what I meant. More so for children than for adults, but it is what it is.

The carrot and the stick. The Pie in the Sky.

Though it may pain you to acknowledge it, there can be no doubt whatsoever that many children who are quite "good" and agreeable when in the presence of an authority figure become dramatically less so when there is no fear of detection and/or punishment. And the same is true of adults.

How many "good" adults regularly cheat on their income taxes, or take advantage when there is an opportunity to fudge on an insurance claim? Is it ethical to drive a 5,000 pound SUV for the simple reason that if you are involved in accident, you want to be in the vehicle that survives (meaning, of course that the family in the Corolla becomes roadkill)?

Take away the possibility of getting caught and if you do not have a belief in the supernatural, all bets are off.

Consider: Let's say there is a family with a large number of children, and all of the children are brought up to believe that their parents have implanted in their brains a tracking device that allows the parents to see everything that the children are up to at all times of the day or night. The parents use the occasional surreptitious snooping to reinforce this fear in the kids' minds from time to time. Good behavior is rewarded regularly, and the occasional bad or questionable behavior is met with appropriate sanctions. The kids are so utterly convinced of the presence of this device that they accept it without question until they go off to college at 18.

Will the kids be "good"? You bet your ass they will.

Now change the scenario. The kids are taught that God sees everything they do - even if the parents do not - and that they will be rewarded for virtuous conduct and punished for "sinful" conduct in the afterlife. Furthermore, although they have the opportunity to get foregiveness for their sins from time to time from "god," if they would happen to die (e.g., in an accident) without having had the opportunity to request and gain god's forgiveness, they might spend all eternity burning in "hell."

Will the kids be "good"? You decide.

But as they grow up and mentally mature, they have the opportunity to question their beliefs, decide whether they can be supported or not, and when they do go off to college at 18, decide whether or not they want to continue with a virtuous life. This is the way it works now in most God-centered families.

By an unfortunate quirk of human nature, however, kids between the ages of 18-25 think they know everything and that their parents are idiots. They naturally rebel against what they have been taught, and often abandon their religious beliefs (such as they were), never to regain them again.

Still, children do not have the intelligence, temperament, perspective, or experience to lead ethical lives for the sake of being good. Some reinforcement is required, until such time as they are able to make those value judgments with a little more perspective.

Unless they live in the U.S., when the perspective is skewed to hell and back by the culture. Such as it is.

I understand Miley Cyrus turns 18 today.

[oldr_n_wsr]

dgs49 does bring up a pertinent point though. It has to do with consequences of ones actions. Just look around the CSB (or many other web sites) where there are no consequences for whatever you say. Kids have been driven to suicide by some hateful comments on their facebook pages and twitter thingies. (forgot what they call them).

I never believed in teaching my kids "God is watching you" but I did tell them that we (the wife and I) are watching and even if you get away with whatever, we usually will find out about it. parents usually have a way of finding out Sometimes it's a look they give you, or their manorisms or just investigative work, but we usually find out what they have been up to. Kids are not the best at covering their tracks.

So while the "fear of God" may not be in them, the "fear of Dad" is.

Taking responisibility (and consequences) for their actions is paramount teaching for parents.

[loCAtek]

So, teaching consequences isn't teaching them fear but responsibility for oneself because your authority is comes from a position of love. They can trust that instruction.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So, teaching consequences isn't teaching them fear but responsibility for oneself because your authority is comes from a position of love. They can trust that instruction.

I'm not sure what you are getting at LoCAtek?
Teaching kisd rewards/consequences is the only way I know of. Yes, corporal punishment was used (once on the daughter, twice on the son) while they were growing up. I believe it was before they really understood "reasoning" and at the time it was something hazardous. Usually no TV or sit in the corner worked for most problems.

[loCAtek]

D'oh, I thought I was agreeing with you One of those days...

[dgs49]

The rewards/consequences paradigm does not work for those unethical behaviors for which there is no (or minimal) threat of discovery or punishment. Every criminologist knows that "deterrence" only works if the would-be perpetrator believes there is a chance of discovery & prosecution.

Cheating on taxes. Cruelty to the weak. Selfishness generally. Theft by stealth. Safe, but promiscuous, sexual activities. Casual drug or alcohol abuse. Plagiarism and other academic cheating (done carefully). Adultery. Cruelty to animals. Elder abuse. Driving an SUV.

Who's to know?

[tyro]

The rewards/consequences paradigm does not work for those unethical behaviors for which there is no (or minimal) threat of discovery or punishment. Every criminologist knows that "deterrence" only works if the would-be perpetrator believes there is a chance of discovery & prosecution.

That most likely IS true, but I don’t think a conviction that God is watching is any sort of a factor.

Look at what is happening in the church today. In so many countries, the realization is evident, those most “devout” and fearful of their God, were in reality pedophiles.

If those who were entrusted to teach the connection between God and ethics were so numerous, then maybe the link doesn’t exist.



-------------------------------
Edited to en-quote the opening paragraph

[dgs49]

tyro, the existence of pedophiles in the RC church should not be taken as proof that belief in God (and his "just punishments") does not have a measurable affect on behavior. By even the most cynical counts, the pedophiles were a small percentage of the overall population of priests, with the vast majority being exemplary in their conduct - which is the norm.

Still, as a result of the devolving culture, the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers is shrinking rapidly. Rationalizing immoral and unethical behavior has become the intellectual equivalent of a "sport."

When I hear people say, "I don't actually go to any church, but I believe in god and I'm a good person - and that's enough," I want to vomit. It's like saying, "I never actually read a book or engage in any serious discussion about anything, but I do consider myself an intellectual."

Right.

[Gob]

Dave, you may think that;

The team reported that 10,667 people in the US had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002 against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study). One-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003, and another third between 1993 and 2001. "Thus, prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to church officials," says the report.

is a "small percentage", most would think that a huge and devastating amount. These are only the admitted/known cases.

[dgs49]

Yes, 4% is a small percentage. Small enough that the vast, vast, vast majority of Catholics have never had a parish priest who was even accused. And given the fact that this activity was centered around large urban areas, unless you lived in one of those it would be surprising indeed if you had had any personal knowledge of anyone involved either as victim or victimizer. I've been a Catholic for 61 years (12 years of catholic schooling) and have never personally heard of anyone in any of my schools or parishes being involved in any way. Maybe I'm just a statistical fluke.

Eleven thousand complaints out of more than fifty million Catholics. The number should have been zero, but most rational humans would call it a "small percentage."

Given how the Church selected and trained its parish priests it is not the least bit surprising that this large number of homosexual pedophiles saw the priesthood as their own personal, perverted Disneyland.

[loCAtek]

Gob, that statistic reflects the same percentage of the general population that are known to molest children;

• Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.
-CNN Specials Transcript #454-Thieves of Childhood.

That's not a figure that illustrates anything about the clergy that makes it more or less involved in this crime.

[Scooter]

It's clearly at the high range of the estimate, and it was arrived at only by assuming that every priest who had died before investigations could be completed was innocent (meaning the actual rate is something closer to 6%).

[Gob]

Given how the Church selected and trained its parish priests it is not the least bit surprising that this large number of homosexual pedophiles saw the priesthood as their own personal, perverted Disneyland.

Again we see Dave's perverse attitude to pedophiles and cathoilicism.

First it was priest "pleasuring" children, now they are "homosexual pedophiles."

In the case of the priest scandal, boys were the victims of sexual misconduct much more often than girls, by a factor of about four to one, says Margaret Leland Smith of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But what has gotten scant attention is the fact that the female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, including Smith, shows that even though there were many more boy victims than girls overall, the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age. Specifically, between 1950 and 2002, there were 246 girls younger than 8 who were sexually abused by priests (representing 14 percent of all girl victims), compared with 236 boys (3 percent of all boy victims). However, the most likely age of victims—for girls and boys—was between 11 and 14.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/14/what ... girls.html

I wonder why Dave is so supportive of pedophiles?

[rubato]

As someone who spent 10 years as a 'behavior modification specialist' I can state with certainty that while punishment for negative behaviors is an effective and neccessary tool it is a very weak inducement and a method of last, not first, resort. Only misanthropes filled with hatred for themselves, like dgs49, do not see that the far more powerful social mechanisms of education, and supporting the inherent desire of the majority of the population to do the right thing are the reason that some communities have lower crime and higher levels of achievement.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Gob, again I ask, what is it exactly that you are disagreeing with? I pointed out that a large number of homosexual pedophiles went to the Catholic Seminary because they saw it as a means to an end: being in responsible charge of large numbers of school-age boys throughout their adult lives. This is a fact. It is, in fact, incontrovertible. The fact that some other perferts in Roman collars were abusing girls has NO BEARING on my point. Doesn't make any less true or contradict it in any way.

Or you one of those flat-earthers who deny that homosexuality has anything to do with this scandal? They were all just Normal Guys who happened to be molesting boys.

Rube, I shudder to think that you were counseling any humans on anything. Were you literate you would have noticed that I never said anything about punishment as a behavior modification technique, rather the knowledge within the subject that there is a likelihood of detection and the possibility of punishment. Further, "punishment" can take many, many forms, which mature adults can tailor to the person and the circumstances.

As for "education" and its place in behavior modification, I would point out the phenomenon of smoking in the U.S. Our kids have been taught since they were in the womb that smoking is bad, unhealthy, and stupid. Yet it persists, doesn't it? The only thing causing it to trend downward among school children is the fact that it is becoming un-cool.

[Gob]

You are attempting to smear homosexuality by linking it with pedophilia. Par for the course for a man who makes excuses for child abuse within the Catholic church.

They were pedophiles who were molesting children.

Most people are aware that pedophiles who molest children, do it not for homosexual love, but for pedophile reasons.

The fact that you use this to foster your own prejudices is unremarkable.

There again, your past and present attempts to mitigate the devastating effects of pedophilia, and your support of the medieval views of the catholic church are a reflection on you as person.

The distinction between pedophilia as a perversion and homosexuality as a normal human condition has long been recognised, (except by bigots)

The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that "Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children" or that "Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner."1

By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.

Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.

Even though most Americans don't regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.

One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.

A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

[Scooter]

Homosexuality bears the same relationship to sexual abuse by priests as it does to prison rape i.e. almost none.

Prisoners do not rape other prisoners of the same sex because they are homosexual; they do so because they don't have the possibility of raping prisoners of the opposite sex.

The same was largely true of sexually abusing priests (particularly in North America). There were a lot of situations in which priests would have had access to boys (sex segregated schools, sports teams, only boys were altar servers, etc.) and relatively few opportunities for priests to find themselves in the position to abuse girls. Thus, most of the victims were boys. In some other countries, such as Italy, where the same level of sex segregation did not exist, the sex of the victims was more evenly distributed.

It's not rocket science. Sexual abuse of children is a crime of opportunity, and thus the sex distribution of the victims is going to depend heavily on the sex of the children that priests would have had the opportunity to abuse. In North America, particularly, that was going to weigh heavily towards male victims.

[Gob]

Back to the OP.

Each of the 10 lessons explored a particular ethical question, such as what made a practice or action fair or unfair, and students had to discuss their reasoning.

Other topics included lying, ethical principles, graffiti, the use and abuse of animals, interfering with nature, virtues and vices, and children’s rights.

Now, for the life of me, I cannot see one topic there where referrence to the sky fairy would be necessary for debate to occur.

[dgs49]

Scooter, if it makes you comfortable to believe that, be my guest.

Gob, homosexuality as a "normal human condition"? Again, be my guest.

Maybe I just haven't been reading enough, but it seems to me the instances of pedophiles - particularly the priests in question - molesting both males and females are exceedingly rare. The overwhelming majority of cases are men on boys. If that ain't homosexual, then throw out the fucking dictionary. It is meaningless.

[loCAtek]

Now, for the life of me, I cannot see one topic there where referrence to the sky fairy would be necessary for debate to occur.

Leading an ethical life, is a step to leading a spiritual life.