86place
Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
10 votes Vote

If a victim of child molestation doesn't feel harmed were his rights still violated?

Recently, Richard Dawkins spoke of an incident in which an adult supervising him sexually molested him. Dawkins said that, at the time, he didn't understand what happened, and that he didn't physically struggle against the molester. Nor did he feel particularly afraid or intimidated at the time. Then, most controversially, Dawkins added that he didn't think any real violation of his rights occurred given those circumstances. Is that right? I think that Dawkins' rights were violated, but I have trouble explaining exactly why.

legendre007, 14.11.2013, 19:21
Idea status: under consideration

Comments

DianaHsieh, 19.11.2013, 20:30
Here's the full version of the original question:

Recently, Richard Dawkins said that, looking back on his childhood, he recalls an incident in which an adult supervising him had sexually molested him. Dawkins relates that, at the time, he didn't understand what happened, and that he didn't physically struggle against the molester. Nor did he feel particularly afraid or intimidated at the time. Then, most controversially, Dawkins added that because he doesn't think this was that big a deal, and because he doesn't hold a grudge over it, no real violation of his rights had occurred. That, of course, sparked outrage among both those who have been sexually molested, and those who have not been. Many adults who were victims of child molestation say that, looking back on the incidents, they feel manipulated, betrayed, and ashamed. I think a minority of people might say, though, that the victims feel ashamed mostly because of the social stigma attached to child molestation -- that if there were no social stigma attached to child molestation, the victims of child molestation who "consented" (who were not badly beaten or intimidated, but simply confused) would not feel as though they were victimized. I disagree. My thinking is: even if, for some strange reason, everyone in society approved of murder, and there was no social stigma against murder, murder would still be an objective violation of rights. Likewise, even if, for some strange reason, everyone in society approved of child molestation, and there was no social stigma attached to the victims, it would still be an objective violation of rights. I believe that even if Dawkins feels the molestation was no big deal, and he doesn't hold a grudge, his rights were still violated. But I must concede that I have a difficult time articulating how Dawkins's rights were still violated; I don't feel confident making an intellectual argument about this. Even if Dawkins doesn't feel that his rights were violated, and he did not feel intimidated by the molester, is it correct to say his rights were still violated? If so, is there an articulate case to be made that his rights were violated?
Pim Zijlstra, 16.12.2013, 04:48
Yes, it is very straightforward. It is even layed down in the law. A child is not capable of acting in a legal sense ( I am from the Netherlands, age here is set for most cases at 18 years [in some cases it is 16]).
The rationale behind it is that children below the age of 18 are not in a position to make good judgments in their own self interest.

In philosophical terms. A child is considered not to have (complete) free will. Therefore, he/she is not a moral agent, but the child has rights (as compared to animals). The child can't decide in respect of his/her rational self interest whether he/she wants to have sex. An adult is a moral agent and should be able to weigh the values involved.

Conclusion: Dawkins rights as a child were violated.

Leave a comment