Sex Robots- creating the "perfect" woman

I heard the bit on Weekend Woman's Hour today about these robots.

How anyone thinks they can ban them is beyond a joke. The more you ban them the more people will pay, the more valuable they will become, etc etc.

I think they would hugely reduce the trafficking of women and children for sex so could be a very good thing.

No one knows as yet if use of them might make some people more likely to rape or attack real women (or men or children) but a bit like giving children access to computers and the internet and what the detrimental effects might be, the jury is still out.

Your argument is total nonsense independent. If moral character is 'the way someone is' then nothing can be done about it surely? Unless you propose genetically engineering moral people?

So there are different moral categories? If you're kind you're kind if you're not you're not. Kind of makes the entirety of moral philosophy a bit redundant.

Moral philosophy went wrong with Kant when it started to become a matter of abstract doctrines rather than charectological vices and virtues.

I'll ask again: what if the 1% of rapes attributed to women is Mother Nature's preferred balance that men are strongly deviating from?

Well, if you're talking specifically about rape then that is a gendered issue, undeniably. I should think it has got something to do with the fact that men have increased strength and penetrative appendages. It is quite difficult for a woman to rape a man. Furthermore, woman have been socialised to be meek and passive, while men have been taught to be sexually aggressive and entitled. Put that physical capability and those cultural norms together and you've got a lot of male sexual violence.

But that is completely different from concluding that women don't have equally aggressive or malign drives and motivations that could be manifest in all sorts of different ways, given the opportunity.As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I really don't buy this idea that woman are innately more ethical and humane than men. Men have done huge damage partly because they've had the power and opportunity to do so. Of course, that's putting it very crudely and there all sorts of other historical and systemic factors to patriarchy, but I don't think power or its abuse are innately patriarchal. As I said, the scandalously few senior female politicians we've had so far in the West have not been much different from male ones. Some have been great but others like Thatcher have wielded power in a really brutal way. Clinton is hawkish and Merkel treated the Greeks mercilessly.

dixie

Its bored the shit out of me to be fair

So there are different moral categories? If you're kind you're kind if you're not you're not. Kind of makes the entirety of moral philosophy a bit redundant.

Moral character is just the way someone is. Some people are very selfish. They have predominantly selfish thoughts and feelings. Just like some people have brown eyes.

"That's a good question, but we all know women who are aggressive and violent in nature"

At a MUCH more infrequent rate of men.

I'll ask again: what if the 1% of rapes attributed to women is Mother Nature's preferred balance that men are strongly deviating from?

We all know men who are kind and nonviolent in nature.

Well, is it right for social services to take a GOOD mother's baby from her? Yes or no?

It is wrong because the mother is defined as good and therefore it is wrong to deprive a good mother of her baby. How do we define a good mother? One who is loving and nurturing and empathetic. There you go - that is my moral reasoning.

Define moral character, objectively if you can. Might be worth you taking a swing at kind, bad and good too.

Dervel, people have moral character. Some people are characteristically violent; other people are characteristically kind. There are bad people and there are good people.

Yes you could, and what happens then? Where's the moral order you're so keen on?

What if it's decided that it's 'morally right' to take a teen mother's baby away from her, even if she would be a good mother? Or morally right to put murderers to death?

Tell me, is it morally right to do those things in your opinion? Or is it morally wrong? If you are telling me they are morally wrong (which they are), then I could turn round to you and say "Who are you to tell me that it's wrong to take a good mother's baby away from her or hang people? You don't get to decide the rules"?

What in the spat fackery are you on about independant under what qualification does one have moral character without conforming to that definition i.e. The rules?

Woman12345, thanks for your links. I'm finding them very interesting.

The crux of it seems to be that we should neither treat objects as people nor people as objects.

What if it's decided that it's 'morally right' to take a teen mother's baby away from her, even if she would be a good mother? Or morally right to put murderers to death? It is totally meaningless to claim that there is some self-evident bunch of moral rules. Things like murder may be agreed upon but other issues are much more complex. In general moral rules tend to favour the powerful as much as anything else.

DixieFlatline bingo

Time to tidy one's bedroom or do one's revision I would have thought.

The 'right kind' of feelings?? And who gets to decide what's right? What if men decide it's right for women to be called a slut if they sleep with lots of men?

This is starting to look exceedingly like 'waste the feminists' time' goady fuckery.

Are you saying people should not have morals? This is the problem with the liberal left - they can't recognise moral concepts. They can only think in terms of power. Anything that transcends power means nothing to them.

Yes but you would rather point fingers at sex positive feminists. I'd also like to know which standard of morality you are applying? If you are proposing a set of moral rules you need to establish your reasoning for what precisely they are, and how we implement them.

It's not about moral rules, but moral character. The cultivation of the right kind of feelings, thoughts and an attitudes in a person. One should not refrain from hurting others because it breaks an abstract rule, but one should not want to hurt in the first place.

I'm reading Richardson's paper now. She says 90% of prostituted people are dependent on a procurer.

It's probably a stupid question, but what does she mean by a procurer?

Yes but you would rather point fingers at sex positive feminists. I'd also like to know which standard of morality you are applying? If you are proposing a set of moral rules you need to establish your reasoning for what precisely they are, and how we implement them.

Vaguely waving around these concepts without producing your method is suspicious.

I find it a bit ridiculous that your whole argument seems to centre around parents teaching children some sort of moral code that you won't define.

Most parents already teach their children right from wrong. Regardless, some of those children go on to be destructive. Some parents are criminals themselves.