tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post3443539517081179749..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Enforcing Morality through Criminal Law (Part Two)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-86726992744634473612020-07-14T22:43:18.284+01:002020-07-14T22:43:18.284+01:00What do you think that Steven Wall's view abou...What do you think that Steven Wall's view about the use of child sex dolls/child sex robots for people with pedophilic inclinations is? On the one hand, having sex with such dolls/robots would be simulating a forbidden act (albeit with this simulation itself being harmless), but on the other hand, if people with pedophilic inclinations are denied access to such dolls/robots and are thus denied *any* opportunity to have a satisfactory sex life and are also possibly compelled to seek some form of castration (since if they can't satisfy their sex drive in any way at all, castration to significantly reduce their sex drive might be the only thing that would actually work for them), then this would be a case of people with pedophilic inclinations being compelled to endure significant harm (specifically having no sex life at all with which they can actually be satisfied and possibly getting castrated in some form as well) in an attempt to appease people's moral sensibilities. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to expect pedophiles to make such a sacrifice if they're only attracted to actual children and not to child sex dolls/child sex robots (since obviously children cannot consent to sex, thus making it prudent for such pedophiles to get castrated), but it does seem incredibly cruel to compel people with pedophilic inclinations to give up their sex lives and sex drives and to get castrated if there is some harm-free outlet (such as child sex dolls/child sex robots) that could indeed satisfy their sexual desires. I mean, some people (such as philosopher Tim Hsiao) might consider homosexual sex to be immoral, but we would rightfully balk at any system of morality that prevents gay people from having any satisfactory sex live and that compels gay people to get castrated in some form, would we not?<br /><br />I also don't buy the idea that a simulation of an evil act is anywhere near comparable to the actual evil act itself. For instance, please compare two consenting adults engaging in BSDM rape role-playing as opposed to someone actually raping another person. The first act simulates the second but unlike the second is nevertheless done with the full consent of all of the parties. One could nevertheless try making a moral argument that engaging in such BSDM rape role-playing implies bad moral character on the part of the person who is playing the rapist, but still, if--purely hypothetically--this is literally the only way that such a person can actually have a satisfactory sex life, then it would obviously be extremely cruel to deny this person a satisfactory sex life--especially considering that he's not actually harming anyone--simply because some people might have moral scruples with what he does.<br /><br />This would be similar to some video game that simulated the Holocaust. I'd find such a video game highly distasteful, but I wouldn't actually want people prosecuted over this video game. I might aim to push to prohibit the sale and/or possession of such a video game--but, if, purely hypothetically, some people derived extreme sexual pleasure as a result of playing this video game that they could not get from *any* other source, then I would probably support having the sale and possession of this hypothetical Holocaust video game indeed be legal since in such a scenario denying people access to this game would result in significant harm for some people. Does that make sense?Coyotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184822261811827197noreply@blogger.com