PDF file - Ipce

Part_5_2
be able to dig deeper, I believe, if we cut into a broader patch of philosophical ground (and
with less chance of the sides caving in on us!)
About ethics
[See the Whiteboard]
My starting point for this broader approach is essentially this book [indicate Peter Singer (ed)
Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994)] , which has not a single word in it about
paedophilia but does suggest features we should be looking for and analyzing in any ethical
proposition. So, forgive me if I start first with some very abstract points which I hope we can all
apply later in the discussion, or at least begin to think about, with regard to paedophilia. These
abstractions necessarily take us into a very deep labyrinth of thought, the passages and tunnels
dug over more than two millennia since the days of Plato. I might well get lost in them. You
might help me find a way out. But I would not even begin this hazardous exploration without
being pretty sure there are great riches to be mined.
However, the essential concepts I feel it necessary to introduce are mercifully few in number.
Just two.
Firstly, if we want to know whether this or that behaviour is ethically sound we need a
clear idea of what we want for society and the people in it, and indeed for animals, the
environment and so forth. We need to be clear about what we think is good.
Secondly, we need to assess whether particular actions are or are not consistent with our
sense of what is good. By this stage things are already very tricky - we may have more
trouble than we suppose in agreeing what is good, but the going gets even tougher
when we try to judge the merit of particular actions.
The most important thing to be aware of when judging the merit of particular actions is that
there is a great divide in ethics between those who
(a) judge actions right or wrong according to the consequences of the action and
(b) those who judge not by the consequences but whether the behaviour is in accord
with a set of rules or principles of behaviour.
Those who judge acts by their consequences are now known as consequentialists. They used to
be called utilitarians but that term became confusing because it referred to only one type of
consequentialist, namely those who judge all acts by the net amount of pleasure or happiness
they produce. Referring back to our first essential concept, because there is a variety of
arguably good things to aim for besides happiness - the service of God, for instance, is another -
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/newsletters/nl_e_12/part_5_2.htm (2 of 13) [10/16/2002 5:35:14 PM]