| |
Many people think that proclaiming the message of Virtuous Pedophiles is wrong. Some have launched determined attacks on us, with the result that the VP site is offline temporarily. Ethan Edwards is the co-founder of Virtuous Pedophiles. Blog posts reflect his personal views, and are not statements from the organization. Many people think that proclaiming the message of Virtuous Pedophiles is wrong. Some have launched determined attacks on us, with the result that the VP site is offline temporarily.I always try to understand my opponents.
One sort of opponent objects on the grounds of the actual consequences. They believe that spreading the Virtuous Pedophiles message will result in net harm to children. The mechanism they have in mind isn't totally clear to me, but they may imagine harm from pedophiles who see a site that urges society to accept them, ignore the (key, central) part of the message that adult-child sex is wrong, and abuse children. Or perhaps they imagine that people will develop an attraction to children after hearing it described as something that (as a thought) might not be so bad. I think they are wrong, and at least in principle we can talk about facts. If we agreed on facts, we would end up agreeing on whether VP is OK because our shared value is reducing harm to children.
I wonder if there is a second kind of opponent. What makes me consider this possibility is Jonathan Haidt's [Moral Foundations Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory). The basic idea is that while social liberals base their judgments of morality on "care" and "fairness", social conservatives honor those values but have additional foundations that they feel sometimes take precedence, notably "loyalty", "authority", and "sanctity/purity".
For present purposes, the key foundations are "care" for the welfare of children, and "sanctity/purity". Pedophilia — meaning just the thoughts and not any actions — is certainly something that violates most people's ideas of sanctity and purity. Perhaps these opponents feel that talking about pedophilia or accepting its existence violates sanctity and purity so much that it takes precedence over care for the welfare of children. Valuing sanctity and purity requires a uniform condemnation. And in fairness we cannot prove that Virtuous Pedophiles has a large effect on the welfare of children, even if we are confident that any effect is positive.
As for pedophiles themselves, we care for them (us) and we argue that there is no need to feel bad about something we did not choose and cannot change. But if sanctity/purity is your overriding value, then you might feel that such people indeed should feel terrible about themselves.
One parallel case might be parents who are opposed to sex education in schools, as it violates sanctity and purity, even if it results in more unintended pregnancies and STIs. Another might be those who think homosexuality is wrong, even if it is not a choice. I believe some Catholic priests came out as gay, while emphasizing that they honored their vow of chastity. But the Church decided that was fundamentally not OK — the attraction itself was wrong.
If these opponents exist, it will be much harder to convince them. But at least we could understand each other and I could offer them a grudging respect for holding true to what they value.
This content was taken from Ethan's longstanding blog, Celibate Pedophiles. Some of the titles and taglines have been edited for their inclusion at thepword.
You can see an earlier version of the blog at the wayback machine. | |
