Or you could just say they are the population of the UK in the seventeenth century. Because that was the law then.
Morals are not science. Laws are culturally specific to fit in with the dominant culture (the rulers) of any particular time. There is no 'universal law'.
Of course there is a universal right and wrong. It's just for a human right and wrong become a matter of recognition, and as it becomes more complex it becomes harder to recognise and we become divided.
Yes, I guess you could say there is a "science" behind morals - some kind of formula; a structure: Does it upset anyone? how much so? Does it violate someones rights? Is the amount of suffering caused to some worth the benefits reaped by another?
The civil law is nothing but a human depiction of right and wrong, subject to corruption.
But there is a universal right and wrong and as individuals we differ in how closely we recognise it. A small percentage of peeps will violate it completely if it means they're gaining in some way - and that means the suffering of innocent children for some. Hence the fact we consider them scum, disgusting people - and this isn't applicable to opiate addicts, jews and other people who have falsely been hated.
Using our scientific formula, we can see that the peado's are causing more suffering to others than the jews.
This is why you can justifiably resent peadophiles more than jews and opiate addicts, and why it's completely unfair to compare them, as they have been previously.
Shambles said:
That doesn't really answer the question though. If there is a universal law which all people "know in their heart" presumably that has always been the case, yes? Or certainly since whenever it is you believe humanity was made aware of such a thing. If people have always known this on some level why did they not enshrine these things in laws and societal norms from the start? Why is there so much variation from one country to the next, one culture to the next, one time to the next? Have people been aware of this universal law but just not mentioning it or following it? Or were people not aware of this fact (although it existed in some other sense) and at some point they did become aware of it but also chose to ignore it? Why would that be the case?
Conformity and influence of others. Interest lies in the acceptance of others, rather than absolute truth. For instance our current government sanction many unethical practices, because not enough people complain about them. Party's that stand for what they deem absolute ethical truth, don't tend to get so many votes.
I see your point though, what we feel right in our hearts, may not necessarily coalesce with absolute truth due to our own ignorance and misunderstanding.
Think this discussion has gone far too elaborate.
Essentially children are beautiful and there existence precious. If a person has the incentive to disturb or ruin this, just for some kind of gratification... and reason to themselves they are ok in doing so, it really suggests something about that person. You are right to consider them wicked in heart, a negative energy, a complete cunt, or whatever expression you deem suitable.
How to deal with that wicked person, is the controversial issue...
-see you in theo)
