PDF file - Ipce

Part_5_2
However, in this case the grown-up eventually decided the risk was too great and put a stop to
the affair, which is exactly what the ethics of caution would suggest as the correct, moral thing
to do. But Heidi recalls in the clearest possible terms that what she found hurtful was the
rejection. As an adult, she looked back saying she wished that more risk had been taken, not
less. She wished the relationship had become fully sexual.
Up to new ethics?
So do we steer clear of emotional involvement as well? On a consequentialist basis, one might
propose a sliding scale of risk: the greater the risk of a bad ultimate outcome, the more one
should refrain. The greater the hope of a good outcome, the more love and lust can be allowed
to come together -- the more love both adult and child can express and enjoy. But is there ever a
point at which we can absolutely say never? Or should do so? In particular cases, yes, of
course. But not for all.
However, the consequentialist "sliding scale" approach leaves one open to arguments about the
"slippery slope" to perdition. If there are no rules then too much is left to the individual to
decide. Answer: moral rules are for the individual to enforce upon himself. An absolute
standard of socially enforceable laws is available to ensure minimum standards are not
breached. Also guidelines and codes of practice -- of which the Four Principles are an example --
are also a good thing in ensuring that people think carefully and they leave individuals with
little excuse for falling short of socially acceptable standards.
But it is an illusion to suppose even these general standards are very fixed and solid. Society at
large fails even the lifeboat test discussed earlier. I mentioned the deliberate sacrifice of
innocent civilians in war. As recently as last month I see the government of Sri Lanka (which
these days has a very vocal policy against so-called child abuse by Western visitors) was calling
on its citizens to produce more babies, with the specific stated purpose of producing soldiers to
fight in its civil war. Children, in other words, brought into the world specifically to be fed to
machine-guns. But no doubt the Sri Lankan government sees the issue as a matter of life and
death for the entire nation, and it is no easy matter to prove them wrong.
Parents, also, sometimes feel justified in exposing their children to considerable risk. What
about the risk of bringing up a child as a Jew in a society where Jews are oppressed? Should the
parents abandon their faith? Why privilege religion in this regard but not love? Note that the
closer and longer we are in contact with a loved child (the more our investment is like that of a
parent) the more entitled we may feel to "mould" the child -- to educate etc. Indeed the longer
we are close the more this becomes inevitable. Thus we move away from Paul's model of free
negotiation with an "equal" hustler. We can even turn the usual assumption about power
imbalance on its head: it is the parent who has most power vis-à-vis the kid, not the sex tourist.
Negative emotions afterwards
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/newsletters/nl_e_12/part_5_2.htm (10 of 13) [10/16/2002 5:35:14 PM]