3 ms·

Well, certainly this case in particular is one of morals in so far as I understand the concept of morality. To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it

by lldbg 6y ago

Well, certainly this case in particular is one of morals in so far as I understand the concept of morality. To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it is not proper behaviour in which an adult should partake. Foucault seemed to think it was, if not proper behaviour, then at least not-unproper. That is a moral judgement. To suggest that Foucault was above the entire concept of morals as I understand you to do, well I can't agree on that and I don't think he would either. Of course he was trying to be a moral authority, remember that this whole thing was about him (and others) attempting to legalize sexual relations with children. If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? And barring that, it is clear that he was and maybe is an authority, because here we are half a century later or so still discussing his position. His experiences does not excuse him in my eyes. Neither does it impact to the slightest degree the truth-value of his position on this issue, nor of his philosophy overall.

claudiawerner 6y ago
>To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it is not proper behaviour in which an adult should partake. It may be a moral issue, but there are pragmatic or non-moral reasons one may argue as Foucault did. You may find those reasons detestable and disgusting. That doesn't mean he was making any appeal to moral sentiment - he was just acting on what he finds beneficial or detrimental. Whether on behalf of sympathy for prisoners against the carceral state, or another reason. >If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? He can do so not speaking on moral authority, but on a variety of authorities - the authority of a public intellectual, for instance. I don't think he was being a moral leader, or attempting to be. The people who would listen to him, the public at large, would not do so because of his moral position in their eyes. An authority as an enduring public intellectual with a strong grasp on philosophy and sociology within his tradition, for sure. A moral authority? Nobody has ever quoted Foucault in such a way. His experiences would not excuse him (in your view; in mine, there is little to need an excuse if you examine his intentions), but they would provide a rational explanation for why he would forgo morality to expound his own opinions in pragmatic or non-moral reasons. He may have just not cared about morality (the same system that troubled him, I don't know) and reasoned on his feelings and pragmatism alone. I'm not trying to excuse him, I'm trying to explain him, though I'm really just speculating.

by lldbg 6y ago

claudiawerner 6y ago

>To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it is not proper behaviour in which an adult should partake. It may be a moral issue, but there are pragmatic or non-moral reasons one may argue as Foucault did. You may find those reasons detestable and disgusting. That doesn't mean he was making any appeal to moral sentiment - he was just acting on what he finds beneficial or detrimental. Whether on behalf of sympathy for prisoners against the carceral state, or another reason. >If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? He can do so not speaking on moral authority, but on a variety of authorities - the authority of a public intellectual, for instance. I don't think he was being a moral leader, or attempting to be. The people who would listen to him, the public at large, would not do so because of his moral position in their eyes. An authority as an enduring public intellectual with a strong grasp on philosophy and sociology within his tradition, for sure. A moral authority? Nobody has ever quoted Foucault in such a way. His experiences would not excuse him (in your view; in mine, there is little to need an excuse if you examine his intentions), but they would provide a rational explanation for why he would forgo morality to expound his own opinions in pragmatic or non-moral reasons. He may have just not cared about morality (the same system that troubled him, I don't know) and reasoned on his feelings and pragmatism alone. I'm not trying to excuse him, I'm trying to explain him, though I'm really just speculating.