<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
        font-family:Arial;
        color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I agree with Joe’s point on the difference between consent and
non-consent; however, I like to think of emotion as having a kind of ‘rational’
component all on its own as well; much of our moral beliefs are driven by moral
intuition, and not argument, which are informed by our emotions. I suppose this
brings in the issue of epistemic internalism vs externalism again with respect
to moral beliefs. Consider what one of the most prolific judges has to say
about emotion and law; Posner writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>“…sound judicial decision making may
require more emotions that just that that you need for performing any non-algorithmic
task. In particular, it may require indignation and empathy. Indignation is
the normal reaction to a violation of the moral code of one’s society.
More important, it is often the mode by which a violation is identified. As I
suggested in discussing the emotional basis of moral offenses, it is often
difficult to give a persuasive rational account of a moral rule, including a
moral rule to which the law has annexed a sanction for violation. This is true
whether the rule is against urinating or masturbating in public, against public
nudity, against pederasty, against polygamy, against infanticide, for or
against abortion, against involuntary euthanasia, against intercourse with
beasts or human corpses, against mistreating animals, against gladiatorial
combat, against adult nonprocreative incest, against prostitution and
obscenity, against gambling, against self-slavery, against public executions,
against mutilation as a form of criminal punishment, or against some forms of discrimination
(but not others). We “know” that urinating in public is bad because
we have a revulsion against it.” (“Emotion versus Emotionalism,”
The Passions of Law, NYU, 1999)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Clearly there is a
difference between sex with a minor (NAMBLA, Jeffs) and sex between consenting
adults.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Tell me, if I thought that
the idea of you having sex with another person -- man or woman -- was an
"abnormal, twisted, despicable perversion" you would not consider
that to be a good reason for you to restrict your behavior in any way, would you?
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>And good for you, for it is
no real reason at all! My own feelings about your own sex acts are irrelevant.
When it comes to sex with minors, though, there is more than mere feelings.
There is the matter of consent and choice.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Joe Campbell<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>