Sarell wrote:PS: Ragorn also knows nothing about child development :P
I took nine credits worth of developmental psych in college, my wife worked as a nanny for ten years, and I have a child of my own. So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is, you fail in every possible way imaginable.
Ragorn wrote:4. Two children, curious about their bodies, experiment sexually. At what age is this behavior considered morally inappropriate? Five? Eight? Fifteen?
4. Seven, because seven is widely considered to be the age when children become self-aware, are familiar with cause and effect, and are aware that their actions carry consequences.
If you know anything about child development or ethics then these statement aren't only wrong they are also irresponsible to be posting with any authoritative claim. Children develop different ranges at different ages. Most children are aware of cause effect and consequence outside their bodies at a toddler range. To claim '7' is THE specific age that is 'widely considered' is absurd and clearly indicates any knowledge of this subject you have is limited. Kohlberg (1985:488) in (Berk, L. (2003). Child Development
. Boston: A&B) identified six stages of moral reasoning and development and found 36 year olds who weren't at stage 4! Children become empathetically aware of their surrounds and effects on others, usually around 4-8.
In relation to how this affects the ethics of your situation, it is different for different cultures. A couple of underage kids seeing what parts of each other are different is pretty normal. A couple of teenagers going a bit further is as well. It isn't 'unethical' in just about any sense of ethical debate, possibly from some moral absolute perspective, which I suggested you guys look up what is, however it would likely be individual specific. It might be considered naughty or wrong by some people or cultures.
Now you were using your example as consistently applying an ethical standpoint? SO as well as being wrong on your point anyway, in 1 you claim weigh up consequences, a utilitarian perspective, in 2 you declare a moral absolute. Two classical opposing standpoints of ethics I suggested you guys look up.
Kifle wrote:Um, wtf are you talking about Sarell? We understand that there are different angles at arguing ethics, we just don't agree, and, at least I, don't find them very well thought out as they provide for too many contradictions.
Different perspectives are thought out differently, and hence contradict, that's what makes them different. For example, an absolute perspective on killing, killing is wrong, never do it
. A utilitarian perspective, shoot down a crazed gunman before they kill a bunch of innocent people is fine
, the greater good. Obviously ethical debates are usually about something a little less clear cut, a dilemma (meaning two problems) that needs to be balanced. You through out some challenge that claimed to prove ethics is subjective, which it is, as is morality, however the challenge didn't really address it. Two people could both argue everything from a nihilist perspective, claiming that nothing exists and it doesn't matter anyway for each question. They would win your challenge, even though you are correct in what you are trying to prove.
PS: I read the thread, it just sucked :P I definitely mustn't be playing enough, I've joined the general discussion forum! :P