Debate Guide: Legal pragmatism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A number of issues come to mind, all having a bearing on the viability of this argument: | A number of issues come to mind, all having a bearing on the viability of this argument: | ||
*How '''common''' are predatory relationships, really? [[Research]] may help us here, and would tend to suggest that we need a far more sensitive legal tool for separating abuse of minors from voluntary relations. Arguments such as the proponent's tend to be based on lazy, chauvinistic, moralistic generational assumptions about "consensual crime", such as believing male-student relationships with female teachers are invariably the "only exceptions to the rule". Ultimately, lived experience is subjective, and thus objective legal criteria such as age and presumed authority can only judge | *How '''common''' are predatory relationships, really? [[Research]] may help us here, and would tend to suggest that we need a far more sensitive legal tool for separating abuse of minors from voluntary relations. Arguments such as the proponent's tend to be based on lazy, chauvinistic, moralistic generational assumptions about "consensual crime", such as believing male-student relationships with female teachers are invariably the "only exceptions to the rule". Ultimately, lived experience is subjective, and thus objective legal criteria such as age and presumed authority can only judge lived experiences ''inefficiently'' when compared to subjective criteria. | ||
*What ethical system are we using? [[Debate Guide: If we could only save one child|Negative utilitarianism]] (prioritizing the reduction of harms/suffering) is usually applied in defense of consent laws. Yet the same ethical system may well contradict our proponent's argument, as he is causing considerable suffering for what he believes to be a "greater good" of harm-reduction. Under a negative utilitarian model, do the collateral [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|harms caused]] by a broad-sweeping and punitive legal scheme have adequate offsets in that suffering among abuse victims is reduced, above and beyond laws that entertain the possibility of consensual relations? | *What ethical system are we using? [[Debate Guide: If we could only save one child|Negative utilitarianism]] (prioritizing the reduction of harms/suffering) is usually applied in defense of consent laws. Yet the same ethical system may well contradict our proponent's argument, as he is causing considerable suffering for what he believes to be a "greater good" of harm-reduction. Under a negative utilitarian model, do the collateral [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|harms caused]] by a broad-sweeping and punitive legal scheme have adequate offsets in that suffering among abuse victims is reduced, above and beyond laws that entertain the possibility of consensual relations? | ||
:*Further, are we not bringing about further harms, by establishing a [[Self-fulfilling prophecy|causal loop]] in which puritanical attitudes bring about the same results puritanical laws seek to avoid? [[Research]] appears to suggest that self-perception, shame and stigma are very strongly associated with psychological harms. | :*Further, are we not bringing about further harms, by establishing a [[Self-fulfilling prophecy|causal loop]] in which puritanical attitudes bring about the same results puritanical laws seek to avoid? [[Research]] appears to suggest that self-perception, shame and stigma are very strongly associated with psychological harms. | ||
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | [[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | ||
Revision as of 18:22, 3 April 2024
Here, so-called "legal pragmatism" refers to an argument that concedes the possibility of consensual crime and unjust convictions, but remains in favor of maintaining Age of Consent laws above 16 or 18.
A legal age provides a fine line in the sand, where society needs it. In court, objective, simple legislation cuts out the need for subjective interpretations, which can be easily manipulated by defense lawyers. A few unsafe, or unfair convictions are no loss, when it allows us to show zero tolerance to the predators.
A number of issues come to mind, all having a bearing on the viability of this argument:
- How common are predatory relationships, really? Research may help us here, and would tend to suggest that we need a far more sensitive legal tool for separating abuse of minors from voluntary relations. Arguments such as the proponent's tend to be based on lazy, chauvinistic, moralistic generational assumptions about "consensual crime", such as believing male-student relationships with female teachers are invariably the "only exceptions to the rule". Ultimately, lived experience is subjective, and thus objective legal criteria such as age and presumed authority can only judge lived experiences inefficiently when compared to subjective criteria.
- What ethical system are we using? Negative utilitarianism (prioritizing the reduction of harms/suffering) is usually applied in defense of consent laws. Yet the same ethical system may well contradict our proponent's argument, as he is causing considerable suffering for what he believes to be a "greater good" of harm-reduction. Under a negative utilitarian model, do the collateral harms caused by a broad-sweeping and punitive legal scheme have adequate offsets in that suffering among abuse victims is reduced, above and beyond laws that entertain the possibility of consensual relations?
- Further, are we not bringing about further harms, by establishing a causal loop in which puritanical attitudes bring about the same results puritanical laws seek to avoid? Research appears to suggest that self-perception, shame and stigma are very strongly associated with psychological harms.