Arguments from antis on animal ethics of pedophilia, rebuttals

[bnkywuv]

The most common one I've heard is: if pedophilia is so natural in the animal kingdom then so is murder, rape, and cannibalism! So we should legalize all of that too!

Not necessarily. Bonobos have never had any documented accounts of murder, infanticide, rape, or warfare. They will only resort to cannibalism in desperate situations, and is quite rare. There have been no reports of a bonobo in captivity or in the wild killing another bonobo. Obviously other animals have these same morals, but copulating with offspring isn't one of them. it's actually encouraged, and the only form that is discouraged is mother/son incest. Guess that makes motherfucker the oldest word that predates spoken language!

In case you aren't aware, bonobos are equally related to us as the common chimpanzee, which could explain why we're so different in politics, ideals, morals, etc.

What have you heard and what rebuttals do you have?

[John_Doe]

I think the point might be that it makes no sense for humans to normalize child-adult sex on the rationale that other animals engage in it if we're going to maintain that other animal behaviors are undesirable. There's no reason why we should necessarily hold non-human animals up as role models. We are moral agents and they are not. I might be nitpicking your wording but that's why I don't think we can talk about 'their morals.' Bonobos might not engage in the kind of behaviors you have in mind but other animals who mate with the young in their species might and from the standpoint that juvenile-adult sexual intimacy is inherently bad that could be the one thing bonobos get wrong, so I don't think their lack of murder, rape, warfare, etc. demonstrates that child-adult sex is benign.

It's possible I misunderstand what you're saying but the closest I can come to agreeing with you is that they (the antis) don't necessarily see it as inherently bad or harmful when other animals engage in it. A behavior can still be bad even if no one can be held morally culpable for it so why isn't bonobos having sex across generational lines not something to be troubled by (I can recall one narrator of a documentary or something saying in a lighthearted way, about bonobo sexual practices, something like 'even the young ones are included')?

The most common anti arguments seem to be:

-Children can't consent. My rebuttal: they can, they're just less likely to make prudent or wise choices. What they supposedly can't understand about sex is the cultural meaning that adults project on to it (it's strange because, again, a recording of elephants having sex is not 'pornography,' but human sex exists in its own special category).

The single biggest flaw in anti-AMSC argument, the one that the whole concept of statutory rape seems to center around, is the idea that if children can't meaningfully consent to sex then sex with them is tantamount to rape. Autonomy requires the ability to make rational choices, without that the argument against AMSC would have to be that it's inherently inappropriate or will harm them for whatever reasons/in whatever ways (e.g. they might come to regret it), but framing it as a matter of protecting their sexual autonomy is incoherent because if they can't make an informed choice to have sex then they can't make an informed choice to avoid it either. I have harped on about this for years and it doesn't seem to impress people but it really sets the nail in the coffin about the idea of statutory rape. The irony is that preventing sexual autonomy actually inhibits children's autonomy, which I don't think is inherently immoral but it might be the exact opposite of what anti-statutory rape laws set out to do. The problem is that people treat avoiding sexual intimacy as the default choice which I can understand because inaction is default but a choice to avoid is as much of a choice as a choice to pursue or act. The bottom line is that the absence of 'true' consent does not mean that something is against one's will, it would not mean that one necessarily has a desire to avoid sexual intimacy so trying to equate it to holding someone down and raping them as they scream and struggle to get away, or even fraud where someone has sex with someone who would otherwise not consent if aware of certain information the fraudster is withholding because they're capable of making rational informed choices when properly informed, is incoherent.

-There is a power imbalance that makes it exploitation. My rebuttal: there is no necessary power imbalance between children and all adults who aren't teachers or parents or in a formal position of authority over them. Secondly, there is nothing inherently wrong with power imbalances. They are unavoidable because people always have different strengths and weaknesses, that's a consequence of natural human diversity. If exploitation is 'use' then we exploit people for friendship, we exploit them when we ask them to open the door, employers exploit their labor of their employees, you exploit someone's services when you pay them to fix your toilet, give you a medical examination, cook for you, etc. I'm probably covering two different points here but 'exploitation' is largely meaningless, if it has some concrete meaning (like 'use' or literally taking advantage of someone) the question remains, why is exploitation bad if it doesn't harm people and it's not done without consideration for their welfare? Some people also seem to think that you can't consent to a power imbalance because you shouldn't which seems incoherent because the capacity to consent is determined by cognitive development, not the desirability of the thing you're consenting to. I could go in different directions with the exploitation and consenting out of impulsivity, desperation etc. angles but I'll avoid detailed rebuttals in general, I'll probably only do one more.

-Child-adult sex is traumatizing. My rebuttal: it is not categorically traumatizing. It is circumstantially so, I don't think age would be a factor in that in a society where there is no child-adult sex stigma to internalize and especially or at least not when we're talking about adolescents whose bodies are physiologically wired to be sexual. What people would have to demonstrate to me is that there's an age-related reason to think that children or minors will suffer more than adults would if allowed sexual autonomy and opposing it on that basis, out of risk aversion, still wouldn't capture the intuition that AMSC is inherently bad. That a thing causes pain circumstantially can't be used to support the idea that the thing itself is inherently bad. What's inherently immoral is a disregard for the suffering and happiness (including sexual pleasure or pleasurable emotional intimacy) that children feel or could feel, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a desire to be sexually or romantically intimate with children in some fantasy scenario where the intimacy would be mutually pleasurable and harmless.

At the end of the day, what I care about is suffering/happiness. I'm ok with and actively support AMSC in scenarios where the child or minor doesn't suffer from it and it would be a source of pleasure for them even if they factually cannot 'consent,' there is a power imbalance, etc. (although if they have a desire to avoid sexual intimacy then the frustration of that desire will be painful, at the very least the realized non-fulfillment of a desire will prime a negative emotional response in them, but people have come to understand 'true consent' in a way that has little to nothing to do with children's actual desires). If AMSC causes children pain then yes, it would be bad for that reason, because it causes them pain.

[FairBlueLove]

I think that we must distinguish between behaviors that disrupt survival (murder/war) and those that are simply part of reproductive biology. Comparing pedophilia to murder is a false equivalence; while murder is an active, violent disruption of a group's stability, mating with juveniles in primates shows an innocuous effect on the social structure. In many species, these interactions are integrated into the natural cycle of growth and maturation without the catastrophic social fallout of warfare. Maybe we shouldn't hold up animals as "role models", but they serve as vital biological benchmarks to show that certain impulses aren't inherently "evil" or “wrong” – they are simply part of a diverse spectrum of life.

We are moral agents and they are not.

Modern science tells a different story about that. I recently read the book "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals", by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce. They argue that many species possess the building blocks of morality – such as fairness, empathy, and justice. If animals possess these proto-moral traits, then they aren't just "mindless" actors; they are social beings with their own complex ethics. By studying them, we don't lose our human moral agency; rather, we gain a clearer understanding of the biological roots of our own impulses.

Understanding how nature handles different stages of life can help us better define where human social structures should begin and end.

[Bookshelf]

"Pedophilia is natural, it's seen in [...]" isn't typically used to explain that it's okay or moral. They are two separate arguments. We usually make this argument to combat the active assumption that pedophilia isn't natural, which is still a common belief among antis and a basis for certain perspectives' opinions on why it shouldn't be allowed.

You aren't going to argue that pedophilia is natural in the context of discussing whether or not minors are traumatized through consensual acts of sex. Instead you might bring it up in response to someone arguing something along the lines of: "Sex with minors is wrong because it's not normal" or some such.

Therefore the comparison to rape or murder doesn't really apply. If someone is trying to offer that as a rebuttal either you've used the argument in an incorrect context, or they're shifting the goalpost and not properly engaging.

[TheHamilplexOfficial]

rape is never defensible in any case (CNC doesnt count as rape). canibalism depends on context. murder also depends on context.

like for example if someone is starving w/ no food and the other ppl are dead, then sure canilbaism is fine, or if the person consented to being caniblized sure

murder is only defensible if it was in self defence

[bnkywuv]

It's possible I misunderstand what you're saying but the closest I can come to agreeing with you is that they (the antis) don't necessarily see it as inherently bad or harmful when other animals engage in it. A behavior can still be bad even if no one can be held morally culpable for it so why isn't bonobos having sex across generational lines not something to be troubled by (I can recall one narrator of a documentary or something saying in a lighthearted way, about bonobo sexual practices, something like 'even the young ones are included')?

I know which documentary you're referring to.

[bnkywuv]

I think that we must distinguish between behaviors that disrupt survival (murder/war) and those that are simply part of reproductive biology. Comparing pedophilia to murder is a false equivalence; while murder is an active, violent disruption of a group's stability, mating with juveniles in primates shows an innocuous effect on the social structure. In many species, these interactions are integrated into the natural cycle of growth and maturation without the catastrophic social fallout of warfare. Maybe we shouldn't hold up animals as "role models", but they serve as vital biological benchmarks to show that certain impulses aren't inherently "evil" or “wrong” – they are simply part of a diverse spectrum of life.

We are moral agents and they are not.

Modern science tells a different story about that. I recently read the book "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals", by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce. They argue that many species possess the building blocks of morality – such as fairness, empathy, and justice. If animals possess these proto-moral traits, then they aren't just "mindless" actors; they are social beings with their own complex ethics. By studying them, we don't lose our human moral agency; rather, we gain a clearer understanding of the biological roots of our own impulses.

Understanding how nature handles different stages of life can help us better define where human social structures should begin and end.

Social animals tend to have morals which are necessary as a social species that rely on each other. I've even heard some suggesting that some social animals may even have spirituality or religion. I'll post the link if you're interested.

I tend to think we're more like other animals than we want to believe. When we've cut ourselves off from the natural world it's easier to suggest they're over there, we're over here, we're not them. People who live amongst nature seem to see more similarity.

[John_Doe]

I think that we must distinguish between behaviors that disrupt survival (murder/war) and those that are simply part of reproductive biology. Comparing pedophilia to murder is a false equivalence; while murder is an active, violent disruption of a group's stability, mating with juveniles in primates shows an innocuous effect on the social structure. In many species, these interactions are integrated into the natural cycle of growth and maturation without the catastrophic social fallout of warfare. Maybe we shouldn't hold up animals as "role models", but they serve as vital biological benchmarks to show that certain impulses aren't inherently "evil" or “wrong” – they are simply part of a diverse spectrum of life.

If the argument is that pedophilia is bad because it's unnatural then I can see how non-human animals engaging in sexual intimacy with the young of their species could counter that but it's not acceptable just because it's natural or practiced by non-human animals.

Modern science tells a different story about that. I recently read the book "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals", by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce. They argue that many species possess the building blocks of morality – such as fairness, empathy, and justice. If animals possess these proto-moral traits, then they aren't just "mindless" actors; they are social beings with their own complex ethics. By studying them, we don't lose our human moral agency; rather, we gain a clearer understanding of the biological roots of our own impulses.

Understanding how nature handles different stages of life can help us better define where human social structures should begin and end.

Social animals tend to have morals which are necessary as a social species that rely on each other. I've even heard some suggesting that some social animals may even have spirituality or religion. I'll post the link if you're interested.

I tend to think we're more like other animals than we want to believe. When we've cut ourselves off from the natural world it's easier to suggest they're over there, we're over here, we're not them. People who live amongst nature seem to see more similarity.

I could definitely be wrong about non-human animal cognition but my point wasn't that we are above them or fundamentally unrelated to them, they are my brothers, it was that morality requires reflection (an ability to explicitly conceptualize various alternatives and, through deliberation, select one in contrast with the others, to ponder what makes a choice good or bad or rational and explicitly think about how your behavior affects other minds that are different than your own etc.) that most non-human animals probably lack (chimpanzees, elephants, rats, dolphins, myrmica ants and members of some other species might have this to some degree, since they've passed mirror self-recognition tests, but at most it wouldn't imply a greater moral agency than what we ascribe to toddlers or small children which is why we can't hold them accountable for behavior that would be unjust, not just harmful and undesirable, if carried out by cognitively normal human adults), even with some of the instincts and emotional wiring that are the basis for our own morality. Altruism, pro-social behaviors, emotional bonding and the various tendencies (like non-human primates being upset by 'unfairness') you have in mind that are the emotional basis for many of our moral concepts don't imply morality anymore than aggression and violence imply immorality. You're moral or immoral because of the choices that you make, not the instincts that you have.

In some ways we can admire and should emulate non-human animals, but we can't commend them for their instincts anymore than we can condemn them. They can't coherently be thought of as deserving reward or punishment, they deserve happiness but that's by virtue of being sentient beings (not because they've earned it through their choices).