| | All good questions, Vera. I'll see if I can address some of them. You write - consenting adults: Where do you place the age of adulthood? According to some neurologists, the human brain doesn't reach full maturity until around the age of 23, but people are granted adult rights and responsibilities before then. We have to draw lines, obviously. We don't allow five-year olds to drive cars or pilot planes. Nor do we allow them to consume recreational drugs or be used by adults for sexual purposes. Parents who permit such conduct can properly be charged with child neglect or endangerment. Few people I know waited to explore their sexuality (whether moral or immoral) until they were 18! And I'm not talking about legislature this time, but about the morality of the act. And why do certain acts only become moral after we've matured some more? Not to mention that some people grow faster than others: does Suzy have to wait until Mary is old enough to have sex? The limit would be somewhere around 100yo :D So what's the moral age of consent - and for which act? Full maturity confers full autonomy; less maturity, less autonomy. Since parents are responsible for the welfare of their dependents, they must govern their activities within certain reasonable limits. Should parents allow their 12-year old daughter to have sex with an 18-year old boy? Or even with a 14-year old? What are the likely consequences? Some reasonable standards have to be set and enforced, based on these considerations. Just because borderline cases arise and precise standards are difficult to pinpoint does not mean that we throw up our hands and abandon all attempts to define appropriate behavior, sexual or otherwise. - consenting damage: If I consent risking being a quadriplegic when playing pro football would that also be immoral? And not just half our fun activities would be immoral by such standards (e.g. I love free-climbing), but also most of the work I've done to earn a living. And I'm not talking any high-risk job: I'm sitting all day in front of a computer while my back degenerates into sth resembling a fetus in it's early stages because I'm not allowed to bring my own back-supporting chair into my customers' computer-rooms. All life involves risk; you have to balance the risk against the rewards. Foolish risks are immoral, e.g., spending beyond one's means, drunk driving, promiscuous or irresponsible sex, neglecting one's health for the sake of some physical addiction like drugs or alcohol, etc. Playing professional football? Not so clear. It may depend on the player and his physical condition. Professional boxing? Probably not a good idea, considering the brain damage that often results (e.g., Muhammad Ali). You'd probably (and rightfully) point out that we are responsible for ourselves to protect ourselves in fun and work, so why not in our sexuality as well? Why is one moral, the other immoral? Why am I allowed to deem such risks worth the values I gain in work but not in play? Well, it's not entirely subjective, as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, you're entitled to deem such risks worth the values that you gain, but that doesn't mean that your judgment can't be mistaken or distorted by emotional bias. I hate the assumption that any so-called 'deviant' sexuality is based on lack of maturity, introspection, ego, whatever: most of them are even more mature, selfaware and have a much stronger ego or they would not be able to engage in such sexuality for long! Doesn't follow. A sexual practice can be neurotic or developmentally retarded and still be sustained because it is so strong and compelling. This has nothing to do with ego strength or mature self-esteem. - moral evasion: If I'm forced into an immoral situation where my moral behavior would lead to more immorality, it would be immoral of me to support it. If an act of immorality on my part would stop or at least hinder that immorality to continue, whithout inflicting my immorality on other innocents, then I would consider myself morally justified in commiting it. Whoa! Moral behavior cannot, by definition, lead to more immorality; if it did, it wouldn't be moral. . . . few people are open enough to rationally, objectively, investigate other peoples 'morality'. Thus a football-player or a soldier is a hero when he get's hit, a masochist is a depraved weakling. Getting hit by itself is not the issue. It makes all the difference in the world why one is getting hit. Unlike the football player or the soldier, the masochist seeks to be demeaned and humiliated; his participation is neurotic and is based on low self-esteem. Of course you don't have to do an indepth investigation of each and every sexuality. Some aspects you wouldn't even be able to understand because not everyone has the same premises, values, motives. But if you want to label it moral or immoral you should do them the justice of not evading their values.
Unless of course you say it's immoral for me, based on your own standards, your own values, premises, etc. :) Are you saying that values are subjective and cannot be judged by an objective standard of morality?
- Bill
|
|