Paedophilia is a modern day moral absolute. I believe our judgement of paedophilia is due for a revision. I will try and use logic to analyse questions surrounding paedophilia and attitudes towards it. (I won't use references, but stick to what ordinary people know to be true self-evidently.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) What is a paedophile?
A paedophile is an adult who (for one reason or another) is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. We can distinguish paedophiles from non-paedophiles, which include adults who are sexually attracted to other adults. There are different categories of non-paedophiles: they include heterosexuals (adults sexually attracted to adults of a different gender) and homosexuals (adults sexually attracted to adults of the same gender). While I'm being deliberately simplistic here, I think all right-thinking people can broadly agree with me.
(2) What are the causes of paedophilia?
I don't think there is a self-evident answer to this question and I think different people disagree on this. Some would say that (x) nature is the cause, i.e. because of their genetic make-up, certain people are born that way; others would say that (y) nurture is the cause, i.e. because of their environment and up-bringing, certain people become that way. Of course (x) and (y) are are not mutually exclusive, it might be the case that they both, to greater or lesser extents, are causes.
This article is not an analysis of the causes of paedophilia and I won't consider this question further. Right-thinking people can agree that paedophiles (with perhaps a small minority of exceptions) do not, generally, cause their own paedophilia and therefore they cannot be blamed for their condition. Just as it is not the fault of the heterosexual that he is a heterosexual, so it is not the fault of the homosexual that he is a homosexual and this principle logically extends to the paedophile.
(3) What do paedophiles do?
Self-evidently much of what paedophiles do is the same as what non-paedophiles do: they wake up in the morning and breakfast, they commute to the office and work, they have the usual array of hobbies and interests and leisure activities that the rest of us have, they go about their daily lives. And thus, we cannot tell, simply by looking at someone, whether or not he is a paedophile. So far, so good.
Differently from non-paedophiles, paedophiles (by definition) have sexual impulses towards pre-pubescent children. And here we can of course distinguish between two classes of paedophiles: (i) those who choose to act on these impulses; and (ii) those who choose not to act on these impulses. (We know, from our own sexual experiences, whether we are heterosexuals or whether we are homosexuals, that we sometimes choose to act on our sexual impulses and we sometimes choose not to, and this principle applies equally to paedophiles.)
Unfortunately words and concepts do not always perfectly coincide. Here, (i) paedophiles who act on their impulses and (ii) paedophiles who don't are two quite different concepts but the one word paedophile describes them both. I think this should be remembered when the word is used. And of course, our attitudes towards (i) and (ii) should be very different.
(3) What harm is caused by those paedophiles choosing to act on their sexual impulses?
There are a range of different actions to look at here. On the one hand, some paedophiles choose to engage in sex with pre-pubescent children, while on the other hand some paedophiles choose to fantasize/masturbate about engaging in sex with pre-pubescent children, without actually involving real children. Also, there are those paedophiles who might look at pornography involving pre-pubescent children.
(A) Most people seem to agree that paedophiles who choose to engage in sex with pre-pubescent children cause those children direct harm and for this reason these actions are illegal in the UK today (s10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003). (Parenthetically, notions of "harm" tend to be cultural and change over time and usually some people dissent. There are problems with the idea of an objective, absolute definition of harm, but that is a question for another day.)
(B) Most people seem to agree that paedophiles who choose to fantasize/masturbate about engaging in sex with pre-pubescent children, without actually involving real children do not cause harm to others. That is why this activity is not illegal in the UK today.
(C) Pornography involving pre-pubescent children is more nuanced. Here we can distinguish between (p)indecent photographs involving real children, (q) indecent pseudo-photographs which don't involve real children and (r) indecent drawings of children. Making either (p) or (q) is illegal in the UK today (s1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978) whereas (r) is legal. While (p) should obvioulsy be illegal, how about (q)? It doesn't directly harm any children. Is there evidence that it indirectly harms children? How strong is that evidence? (In my mind that question seems to be fairly analogous to whether pornography involving women, which is legal, indirectly harms women.)
(4) How should paedophiles live?
The general rule of current conventional liberal wisdom is that we should all be able to live just as we please as long as we don't harm others. This general rule also applies to paedophiles: so this means, for our purposes either choosing not to act on their sexual impulses or acting in a way so as to ensure nobody is harmed. In this sense their lives should be quite different from non-paedophiles: the range of sexual acts available to them is extremely limited, which must be a personal tragedy for them.
(Judging by what I have observed of society, admission of this personal tragedy will require a collosal leap of faith for many. But empathy is an important game: try for a moment and imagine yourself as paedophile.)
(5) How should non-paedophiles treat paedophiles?
Here I'm referring to those paedophiles that don't cause harm to others. We should of course treat these people with the respect and dignity that all humans who don't cause harm to others should be afforded. Liberals among us should, on meeting someone new at a party who happened to tell us that he was sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, act just as would act if met someone let us know that he was heterosexual or homosexual. If you don't think this is within you, you should query whether or not you really are a liberal.
In the real world nobody knows when they meet someone who is a paedophile who doesn't cause harm to others, because nobody admits it. And the reason they don't admit it can't really be guilt (guilt makes no sense if you have done nothing wrong) but is instead because of the reaction of a society, which considers them the final pariah. The way society speaks about (or doesn't acknowledge the existence of) these people compounds their personal tragedy: it is the salt in the wound of the personal tragedy mentioned in (4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is why I feel sorry for paedophiles. Please correct errors of logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment