>>>Better question: If (neither) this God, nor any other
>>exists, what's
>>>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.
>>
>>It forces children to do things they seriously don't want to
>>do. Simple as that.
>
>
>1) You can't account for why one SHOULD NOT force them to do
>that .

Not try'n to.

>2) What if child consents? Is it right to prostitute them?

Not necessarily. The view that's generally held these days is that most children have too little understanding of these matters to make a properly informed decision; that even if they might claim to consent, they do not understand what they're consenting to. On those grounds, even a "consenting" child should not be put into that situation.


>As per #1, you cannot account for the origin of the moral law
>you espouse. You can say it comes from "right reason", but
>you cannot explain why it is "right".

Again, I'm not trying to. And I'll point out as I have before that you can't say why God's will is "right."

>You cannot explain why someone "should be moral". The best
>you can do is appeal to the "society" factor, which is true,
>but then what of the uber-person? If I can dominate others in
>all necessary areas, why should I be moral?

I'm not trying to explain "why" you should be ethical. Nobody's ever given a solid, coherent, all-encompassing explanation of this question (even from a religious perspective).

Luckily, I don't need one. Morality does not require external justification.

>You'll probably say "fine, don't then, but they'll rise up and
>destroy you eventually"... to which I would ask "on what moral
>basis would they do that?".

Would they need one?

>If you say because "you were wrong for dominating them", we're
>right back to "why should I adhere to your standard of
>right/wrong?"

Good thing I would never make such a simple-minded argument!

>If you say they would do it on "no moral basis, put purely on
>the basis of what's pracical for the majority"... I would then
>ask you if your moral code's only origin is that of what's
>practical for the majority?

Not necessarily, but the best (admittedly incomplete and unnecessary) justification I've found for it is (very loosely) along those lines.

>As per #2, well, I'd like to hear your answer to that as
>well.

What, you trying to set up a little trap there? Are you waiting to point out that children sold into prostitution hardly constitute a majority? Then we would see why I wouldn't use the word "majority" in such an argument. Instead, I would use the word "society."