Get Religion has gathered some interesting stories on research on possible physical and genetic causes for pedophilia, that is, for a desire to have sex with children.
This is a scientific question, and I am unqualified to make any pronouncement on it.
But if pedophilia is genetically determined, and therefore “natural,” those who argue that any genetically determined sexual desire (for example, homosexuality) is therefore natural are going to be in a difficult position.
But philosophers have long known, and Christianity concurs, that our desires are more or less disordered. Some people have an inordinate craving for recognition, food, money, sex, inordinate both in the strength of desire and inordinate in directing the desire to the wrong object. Some criminals commit their crimes so that they will become famous.
Desire is not self-validating. Many of the arguments about “following one’s conscience” sound suspiciously like “I really, really want to do this, so it can’t be wrong.”
Good post Leon, you’re right on the mark. Human nature was damaged by the fall and that means the brain does not function as it should, and is as susceptible to disfunction as any other organ. There is evidence, for example, that psychopathy is rooted in faulty brain function.
Such conditions may lessen the subjective culpability of those who commit acts these give rise to, but the acts themselves remain disordered and dangerous. The innocent must be protected
So now we have pedophilia genetically determined as though it is a sexual attraction, like being straight or gay. Grown men raping children is not genetically determined unless criminal cruelty is inherited, and should not be mentioned in the same discussion as same sex attraction.
And “following one’s conscience” is not that which allows one to do what one wishes, but propels us to do the right thing, unlike roman catholic hierarchy and their minions who have lost their ability, despite all their sacraments, to distinguish right from wrong.
AW
AW
You’re right. “Genetically disposed to X” does not mean “it’s morally okay to do X.”
In fact, the idea is such transparent nonsense it’s hard to believe anybody would fall for it. But, of course, they do.
The sociopath feels absolutely no guilt or shame for anything he does. He has an exagerated sense of sense and entitlement and an inablity to empathize or experience any real bond with another human being. A professor I know told me she thinks they operate out of the most primitive (the so called “repitilian”) part of the brain. Brain scans show large areas of their brains (those associated with higher emotions and conscience) as inactive. Is that a result of choice or nurture? Given how dangerous these folksare, does it really matter?