"Mild Pedophilia" and Richard Dawkins' Ethical Blind Spot - Ethics Alarms PDF

Mild Pedophilia and Richard Dawkins Ethical Blind Spot |...
http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/09/12/mild-pedophilia-and-richa...
Ethics Alarms
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 1:15 PM
Mild Pedophilia and Richard Dawkins

Ethical Blind Spot
Bobby, do you think theres anything wrong with mild pedophilia?
When you are a public intellectual and your primary mission is using reason and scholarship to
enlighten the public, you have an obligation to guard scrupulously against making careless,
irresponsible or easily misunderstood statements that will be accepted as inspired wisdom by the less
analytically able. Or to be more direct, if you are Richard Dawkins and because of some serious neural
malfunction you really think that there is such a thing as mild pedophilia, you want to ever to be
taken seriously again, shut up about it.
Dawkins, for reasons only known to himself, used a wide-ranging interview to airily wax on about
what he regards as his contact with a harmless child-molester. Reminiscing about his days at a
boarding school, he recounted how one of his schoolmasters pulled me on his knee and put his hand
inside my shorts. Noting that other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same
teacher, he concluded: I dont think he did any of us lasting harm.
The worlds most famous atheist explained, I am very conscious that you cant condemn people of an
earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we dont look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and
condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look
back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and cant find it in
me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.
What (in the name of Holy Hell) is mild pedophilia? Dawkins went on to say that the most notorious
1 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called
just mild touching up.
Mild pedophilia? Just mild touching up? This from one of the most respected minds in the cosmos?
Apparently, yes. The problem with that, of course, is that a man respected as philosopher, ethicist and
public intellectual has just given ample justification for child predators to excuse their conduct as
harmless and no big deal, thus placing targets on the genital areas of millions of helpless children.
Nor has he applied his characteristic intellectual rigor to his ethically indefensible conclusions:
1. How does he know that none of the fellow students molested by this or other schoolmasters in
his school were harmed? He doesnt.
2. He doesnt even know that he wasnt harmed. If, in fact, his experience of being molested as a
boy led, through coping with shame and guilt, for him to minimize the utter wrongness of what
was done to him, then Dawkins was harmed, and significantly so. If Dawkins regards just mild
touching up as a minor vice, like, say, passing wind in an elevator, does he indulge in it himself?
Well, why not? After all, it isnt all that wrongnobodys hurt by it.
3. His initial rationalization of the act is shockingly flawed. We should apply different standards
to judging the character of those who engaged in acts long ago before the culture learned how
wrong they werethe male chauvinist pigs of the Victorian age didnt know, and couldnt know,
they were male chauvinist pigsbut if the conduct was the same, it was equally wrong whenever
it was done. Vlad the Impaler thought that using live peasants as slowly dying scarecrows was a
legitimate tactic of war. It wasnt then, and it isnt now. Peter Watt, director of child protection at
the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children correctly said, in response to
Dawkins remarks, Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time
ago we should judge it in a different way. But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the
same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.
Dawkins inexplicably uses the need to not judge people of the past by todays standards to
rationalize, in the case of child molesting at least, their conductthe acts themselves. Then he
engages in the breath-taking bootstrapping exercise of arguing that since what was done wasnt
so bad then, its not so bad now.
4. Dawkins goes on to use other rationalizations like there are worse things and no harm, no
foul to forgive the unforgivable.
Child molestation, be it touching uptalk about despicable euphemisms!or outright rape, is not
merely wrong, but terribly wrong. There is not and never was such a thing as mild pedophilia. An
adult engaging in the sexual touching of a child is battery, it is abuse of power, and it is a betrayal of an
adults obligation to protect and care for societys young.
Dawkins statements on this subject undermine his credibility and authority on any matter, as far as I
can see. He has forfeited societys trust. He no longer can be trusted to be arguing on the basis of
objective and rational analysis on any controversy, if he can not only come to such an outrageous
conclusion on what should be, for anyone with half his intelligence and
education, the easiest of topics,
Follow
but also be so arrogant and full of hubris that he doesnt realize the damage such an assertion from
2 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
someone with his reputation can cause. He has just given the seal of approval to mild pederasts all
over the world.
A smart and wise man would never do that. Atheists need to find a new champion, one without such a
gaping, ugly ethical blind spot, and who knows how many others.
Richard Dawkins has proved, one again, that one can be an intellectual and also a fool.
____________________________
Sources: Atlantic, Huffington Post
Share this:
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
34
Reddit
Print
Email
Related
Culture, Truthteller
Ethics, And Richard
Dawkins' Tweet
Ethics Hero: Richard

Dawkins
The Power To Ignore
46 responses to Mild Pedophilia and

Richard Dawkins Ethical Blind Spot
Follow
3 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
Eeyoure
September 12, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Aww, Jack, Dawkins is just mildly touching up the Golden Rule. You see, its enough to have the
14-Karat, Gold-Plated Rule, for no one to be harmed.
Reply
texagg04
Maybe Emilio Chavez should have used a phone book on Dylan Maho or maybe just given a series
of semi-vigorous Indian burns (sorry if that isnt PC) or a playgroud noogie; you know nothing that
would have left permanent damage. Then he could have used well, it was only mild assault as a
defense.
Reply
texagg04
Bobby, do you like movies about gladiators?
I think the scene where Kareem Abdul Jabar finally loses his cool with Bobby is hilarious amongst
ALL the other comic gold that is AIRPLANE!!!
Reply
Jj
I was a lot more impressed by Airplane before I saw Zero Hour!
Still a laugh a lot movie that probably would not get made today because of the all politically
incorrect jokes (The Beavers mom talking Jive? HEHE)
Reply
texagg04
He has additionally invoked Consequentialism his supposedly turning out ok clears his former
teacher of any wrongdoing.
Reply
4 / 15
Follow
14.2.2016 17.51
Beth
He needs to stick to physics.
But you got one thing wrong Jack, sexual abuse arguably was WORSE in decades past, because
victims didnt have as many options, support groups, etc. I know were comparing different levels
of Hell here, but Dawkins is wrong.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Yes, terrific point, Beth. Youre absolutely correct.
Reply
Michael R.
Please no! Dawkins is a biologist. He should leave physics alone. There is no place in physics
for Dawkins.
Reply
Jj
When someone like Richard Dawkins speaks about mild child abuse not affecting him or his peers,
can only think of 3 reasons:
1. HEs victimizing children and forgiving himself indirectly.
2. His ego is so large, even as a child, that nothing can affect him.. Hes too smart to let a little child
abuse lower his self esteem.
3. Hes broken into some vintage Brandy and has no idea what hes saying.
Reply
hank moody
i find it strange that you posted a picture from Airplane, which included the memorable scene
where the 9 year old girl says that she likes her coffee the way she likes her menstrong and black,
in a post about pedophilia .
Follow
i agree that Dawkins can not know if his classmates or any other children were abused to a greater
5 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
extent by the schoolmaster. But i cant see attacking Dawkins because he doesnt feel deeply
impacted by his own victimization. Of course there are different levels of abuse, which does not
excuse the predator.
i read similar criticisms when one of Ariel Castros victims went to a music concert shortly after
being saved.talking heads where saying its too soon, she should be taking it slow who are
THEY to tell the victim how to deal with the trauma that they went through?
Reply
Jack Marshall
1. Huh? Theres also a gag about having sex with an inflatable man, and a woman in bed with a
horse. So what?
2. He didnt say only that he didnt feel affected. He said that it wasnt a big deal. Read the post.
3. i read similar criticisms when one of Ariel Castros victims went to a music concert shortly
after being saved.talking heads where saying its too soon, she should be taking it slow who
are THEY to tell the victim how to deal with the trauma that they went through? I dont know
what you are talking about. They are not remotely the same thing, nor is this relevant.
Reply
Jj
Hank, what are you looking at? Its the cockpit scene with the little kid, just like in the movie
Zero Hour (original, serious version of Airplane).
Reply
garlicfriesandbaseball
All Ive ever known about Dawkins is that hes an atheist and without God there would be no
atheists, so all I know is this reaffirms the thoughts Ive always had about this fellow. I never
trusted him as a person or cared what he thought as an atheist.
Reply
HANK MOODY
September 13, 2013 at 12:28 am
1. Dawkins statements on this subject undermine his credibility and authority on any matter, as
far as I can see
Follow can you say that he is

this is my problem,. Dawkins was the victim and discussing the
abuse.how
he is minimizing his feelings, about HIS OWN abuse???
6 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
2. i DO agree that Dawkins CAN NOT speak to any other victims.

Every person is an individual and can react to differently to trauma, (even the same trauma).
3. Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, called Dawkins remarks a terrible slight on those who have been abused and suffered
the effects for decades.
DAWKINS WAS THE VICTIMi am sorry that MR.Watkins believes in absolutes, there is no one
size gits all reaction to being abused and there are many different types of abuse. i do think its
possible Dawkins meant :mild abuse when he was quoted as saying mild pedophilia. I think he
was trying to get across the fact that he had been touched and not raped. Which might have
changed his views on the subject.
4 He has just given the seal of approval to mild pederasts all over the world.
When did he do that?
Reply
Jack Marshall
What?
1. Hank, I have no patience with commenters who cant read. His own feelings about his abuse
are not sufficient support for saying, as he does, that the kind of pederasty he survived is
minor. That was the point of the post. If it was no big deal to HIM, thats his business, and Im
not interested in questioning that. He reaches a generalization based on no legitimate evidence
and a bunch of rationalizations.
2. If you agree, then you are engaging in a dishonest argument. My comments about his
experiences and their relevance to his conclusions are inseparable from the whole discussion in
the post, which includes his unjustified presumptions.
3. Like me, Watts is NOT discussing Dawkins comment about his own experience!!! He was
criticizing the outrageous generalization Dawkins, supposedly a bright man, made on
insufficient evidence and faulty logic.
4. He gave his seal of approval by providing a rationalization for them and arguing that mild
pedophilia is a minor offense at most. Obviously.
Im sorry, but this is a shockingly obtuse comment. If you cant understand a post better than
this, dont comment on it. I mean it. It pollutes the site.
Reply
wyogranny
Sometimes very smart people have no particular advantage when itFollow
comes to understanding
human nature or emotions. Maybe thats another generalization made on insufficient evidence, but
7 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
its true of Dawkins at least.

Reply
HANK MOODY
He was being interviewed and was asked a question pertaining to HIS experiences, He didnt call a
press conference to discuss child abuse or pedophilia in general.
If he doesnt believe that being touched was an earth shattering or life changing incident for
HIMill take him at his word. Of course some abuse is minor.when compared to other cases.
To say what he endured (being touched for ten seconds versus Ariel Castros victims being
kidnapped and held as sex slaves for a decadeone of them is obviously worse. Both predators
deserved to be punished for their actions after a conviction.
I DO have a problem with him speaking for others, unless he has spoken with his former
classmates regarding the incidents,
Dawkins statements on this subject undermine his credibility and authority on any matter, as far
as I can see. He has forfeited societys trust. He no longer can be trusted to be arguing on the basis
of objective and rational analysis on any controversy
this is just an insane statement. i get the impression that you did not believe that Dawkins had
much credibility prior to him granting this interview.
Reply
Jack Marshall
1. The feeling you get is completely incorrect, much like your stubborn and inexplicable
misinterpretation of the situation, the significance of Dawkins remarks, and what he actually
said, and my criticism of it.
2. My statement regarding his credibility is based on the fact that this public critic of the ideas
and beliefs of other rests his credibility on his credentials and the widespread perception that
his conclusions are based on valid, objective, unbiased and sound analysis, and that his public
statement that a school teacher molesting him and others constituted a minor offense showed,
as signature significance, that this belief in his credibility is false, and that he is capable of
reaching ridiculous and biased conclusions on inadequate data and unwarranted assumption,
employing rationalizations like any clod sitting around making pronouncements in the local
pub. THAT follows from the evidence.
3. Virtually everyone else, especially those who actually know something about child
molestation, immediately recognized this, as did his allies in the atheist movement, who are
profoundly embarrassed. You dont, why, I cant begin to say. My speculation would not be
kind.
4. Whether or not he held a press conference couldnt be more irrelevant to the discussion.
Reply
8 / 15
Follow
14.2.2016 17.51
Yardley
Hey Jack, I was wondering what the reaction of the atheist community might be, especially
from his allies. Do you have a specific source (link) for those allies that are profoundly
embarrassed?
Reply
Jack Marshall
Whats your point? The most vocal and most quoted anti-religion spokesmandebater,
profiled everywhere- degrades his credibility and sounds like a callous and foolish
jerk, and you think atheists dont notice that their spokesman just shot himself in the
mouth? Of course theyre embarrassed, or somethings the matter with them. You want
proof that Democrats are embarrassed at the clown act over Syria engineered by the
President and Sec. of State too? Just ask one whos honest. If I sayhell, I willthe
Unites States has been embarrassed by its Presidents waffling, bluffing, and generally
incompetent performance in the current Syria episode.you want documentation? OK,
deny it. Look ridiculous too.
When the standard bearer slips on the peel of his own banana, the parade looks bad.
Reply
Yardley
I was simply asking a question because I am curious what the reaction you
mentioned was. I thought that was pretty clearly worded as a question. For
example, have Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett actually responded to this? Your third
point made it sound as if you had special knowledge about Dawkins allies and their
reactions when you made the statement: Virtually everyone immediate
recognized this, as did his allies in the atheist movement, who are profoundly
embarrassed. They ARE profoundly embarrassed? It sounded like you had seen or
heard something, and knew it to be a fact; it sounded like you had proof. However,
now it sounds as if youre making assumptions, which are probably fair and true
assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. Im just someone asking for
clarification and evidence.
Reply
Jack Marshall
9 / 15
Follow
14.2.2016 17.51
And Im saying its a trollish question. I dont need to prove that assertion,
which obviously follows from experience and what occurred. If you want to
claim that something other than what a reasonable person would expect would
happen when the #1 athiets in the world undermines his authority and
credibility, the burdens on you. If I say, Red Sox fans were devastated by the
play-off loss to the Yankees in 1978, I dont have to prove it. It follows from the
events. So does this. Go ahead, show me Im wrong. Mine is the appropriate
presumptive conclusion.
Reply
Yardley
It was an honest question that you obviously misinterpreted. If you had
made a generalization, the presumptive conclusion may have be on your
side. However, you made a specific claim about Dawkins allies and their
profound embarrassment. It was presumptive, yet stated as a fact.
As someone keenly interested in the positions of the so-called neoatheists, I
was curious to see what comments you may have read or uncovered
regarding their supposed embarrassment. It would have marked an
interesting crack in the alliance. That is why I asked the question.
You could have simply added the word presumably for clarity. As in, they
are presumably profoundly embarrassed. Then I would have seen it as a
presumption on your part. But you stated it as a fact, and then accuse me of
asking a trolling question, when I asked for the link. Ridiculous.
Reply
Jack Marshall
It may have been honest, but it is honestly obnoxious. In such a case,
insisting on presumably is like saying that we have to say that Jack Ruby
allegedly shot Oswald, because he was never convicted.
Yes, I am presuming, also asserting, and stating as fact. I explained why.
When the spokesman whose authority is based on his cold rationality is
per se irrational in a public statement, 1) his authority is damaged and
2) that embarrasses his constituency. If you can cite a single example in
the history of mankind where that has not occurred, then you can say
ridiculous.
Reply
10 / 15
Follow
14.2.2016 17.51
Jack Marshall
Also, note that one can be embarrassed and something can be
profoundly embarrassing without the embarrassed party being
aware of it or acknowledging it. The word means to make (a
person, group, government, etc.) look foolish in public.
Reply
Yardley
Presumptions are not facts. Plain and simple. Cut and dry. A
presumption is something not known for certain.
That aside, youre arguing that his allies are embarrassed. Fine. I
agree that they probably are. Probably. Presumably. Not known for
certain.
Then again, one only needs to look as far as the commentary on a
number of websites addressing the issue to see that many people
have come out to defend what Dawkins has said. The fact that he has
so many defenders, suggests that some of his allies may not be one
bit embarrassed by what Dawkins said. Indeed, it is very possible
that his primary allies may defend Dawkins. No matter the outcome,
you stated as a fact, something that was only probable. Just admit it
and move on.
Reply
Jack Marshall
To the contrary, the fact that they are trying to rehabilitate him
shows that they were embarrassed. And they are now
embarrassing themselves further by defending an ethically and
intellectually indefensible statement. This also typical behavior.
Ulrike
Follow
fellow christians allies, since Im

You might call me an ally in as far as you would call
an avowed atheist. But I cannot say that Im embarrassed by his declaration. I am
11 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
however greatly distressed that someone, whom I thought of as one of the great minds
of our time, would spout something as chillingly deranged as this.
The worst of all: As a public figure he must be aware of the kind of impact his words
have. That makes it doubly condemnable in my eyes because his teachings do influence
people. And someone not used to thinking for him/herself might even give some credit
to that hideous, hideous statement.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Chillingly deranged is exactly right; apt description.
Reply
Ulrike
Wow. And with one sentence my whole regard for Dawkins just took a nosedive.
I guess he did suffer lasting harm after all. Isnt that one of child predators m.o.? Make the
children think its okay.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Exactly, and like you, I have suspicions that the same thing is happening, or has happened,
here.
Now please explain this to Hank Moody for me, because my head already exploded once
yesterday, and his obtuse comments are making whats left tingle.
And thank you, thank you, thank you for flagging my typos!
Reply
Ulrike
Actually, the thought that children might be in Hanks immediate care makes me shudder
And youre welcome its hard not to correct typos even when away from my desk at work.
Reply
12 / 15
Follow
14.2.2016 17.51
Michael R.
Devils advocate position. As an atheist, Dawkins is free to create his own morality. With no
preconceived authority to dictate a set of morals, he is free to view anything acceptable that he can
rationalize.. Nothing is off the table, the fact that traditional morality views it as wrong is
meaningless. He has deemed this particular behavior not that damaging, not that egregious based
on being a victim of it. This is his rational and objective decision on this. You dont know that he
HAS been harmed by this. Maybe he hasnt. Maybe, if you view this as something that just happens
sometimes, and not as a violation, you really ARENT harmed by such an action. Surely, no
physical harm has been done. Perhaps the harm is actually done by telling the child this action is a
terrible and wrong thing. Without people with outdated, puritanical views TELLING the child he is
a victim, perhaps he wont feel he is a victim and it wont be a big deal.
Welcome to the world of moral relativism. I obviously had to sit through way too much of this in
college.
Reply
Yardley
I would like to suggest that not all atheists are moral relativists, nor do they automatically
inherit the freedom to create their own morality simply because they do not God exists.
Reply
Beth
Im confused by all the atheist commentary here what does that have to do with anything? Being
atheist or religious has nothing to do with morality.
Reply
Jack Marshall
No, wrong. Religion is a moral coderead the definitions. All religions posit moral codesthe
10 Commandments is a moral codea code of behavior put forth by and theoretically enforced
by an authority. There are other moral codes, but religious codes are the most prominent ones.
Reply
Beth
Follow
13 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
One can follow the morality code of a particular religion pretty closely and still be an
atheist. Morality predates and informs religious teachings.
Reply
Jack Marshall
True, no doubt. But morality and religion are closely connected.
Reply
Ulrike
But isnt Do no harm kind of a general above-all religions conduct guideline? I
like to think that peoples goodness came through and influenced religions
developement in teaching others to aspire to a greater good.
Reply
Yardley
Well stated.
Reply
Richard
Dawkins statements on this subject undermine his credibility and authority on any matter, as far
as I can see. Well then you cannot see very well can you? Professor Dawkins explanation of his
molesting experience have NO connection whatsoever to his decades of writing and teaching about
evolutionary biology.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Foolish comment #1an inauspicious debut. The issue is judgment. Dawkins authority in
the natter of religion is based on it, as he is arguing from rationality, and is thus supposedly
Follow
has sound analytical ability. The statements about child molesting
show flawed judgment,
seriously so. One cannot rely on the good sense of someone who has shown himself objectively
14 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51
and seriously lacking in it. i dont know why this concept is hard for youits pretty obvious.
Reply
Richard
And your nonsense about religion being a moral code? This would be laughable if religious beliefs
werent used to justify immoral behavior worldwide.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Silly Comment #2and its even sillier than the first. By definition religions are based on
moral codes (I didnt say that religion WAS a moral code) and the fact that a religion is based
on a moral code is irrelevant to whether ones beliefs are used to justify immoral behavior.
Want to go for a hat trick? I have faith in you!
Reply
bwdesmo
Man, I certainly dont want to be seen as defending this but I do have a question. Is there a
question in his nonsense that is legitimate? We do look upon past wrongs with current mores, but
forgive behaviors based on time and era. A 50+ year old man marrying a 13 year old girl would be
repugnant (and prosecuted) but would have been acceptable if not lauded in certain times. It
doesnt make it right, and thats not my intent, but we hold men who married children, owned
slaves etc.
Reply
Jack Marshall
Child sexual abuse has always been just as wrong, and was never tolerated. You can judge the
offender differently, but Dawkins is giving a pass to the conduct, which is something else
entirely. Because Thomas Jefferson thought having sex with his slaves wasnt rape may let us
think a little less badly of him, but it doesnt allow us today to call it Mild rape.
Reply
Follow
15 / 15
14.2.2016 17.51

"Mild Pedophilia" and Richard Dawkins' Ethical Blind Spot - Ethics Alarms PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

"Mild Pedophilia" and Richard Dawkins' Ethical Blind Spot - Ethics Alarms PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mild Pedophilia and Richard Dawkins Ethical Blind Spot |...