Steven wrote, and you quoted, <<<I don't see why a child molester should take any comfort the notion that people should decide whether acts are permissible or not based
on the logically projected or empirically verified consequences of those acts>>>
Let me take a stab at replying your question to Steven, since it seems to me you misunderstood.
You seem to think Steven's words above imply this:
<<<"the logically projected or empirically verified consequences of those acts," Are that you don't get caught, then you can do whatever you want and it's not wrong.>>>
But that's not at all what he said or implied.
The point is that certain acts, like child molestation, will be concluded by the law-makers of society to be wrong whether for secular ("logically projected or empirically justified") reasons or religiously-framed reasons.
Society will condemn, and punish if they can catch, any molesting pedophile. This is done in mainly-secular Sweden and in religious Italy. There are plenty of reasons a society as a whole should decide that child molesting is vile and destructive behavior and forbid it. It is bizarre to think that only a stipulated God-rule counts. The Bible says a father may kill a disobedient child. Society figured out that was a vile and destructive behavior and forbade it, quite effectively for the most part.
Steven's point is that child molesters are going to end up in prison if caught whether the society is religious or secular. This is because child molestation is destructive to the society, the family, and children. So the molester can take no comfort in a secular assessment of his behavior. |
