The ethic of choice for the individual over the moral imposed upon it?

[Amorphos]

The ethic of choice for the individual over the moral imposed upon it?

Often as we define what is good and right for society and people, the fundamental anarchist tenet where the individual has the say over themselves, is overshadowed. Yet individuals cannot do whatever they want or it usually means that they tread on the toes of other individuals.

So how about this as the fundamental ethic; ‘do as though wilt, given that others may do so too’.

Sounds easy, but what if…

your 13 [or younger] yr old daughter wants to have sex with people? Let us say she has the intelligence of a given other 18 yr old, and indeed, some 18 yr olds have less intelligence than an average 13 yr old. Clearly we cannot derive a universal from the intellectual value as related to maturity. So can she do as she wants?

Someone is dying of cancer and they want to die rather than suffer, should they have the choice? Perhaps their loved ones want to be with them for as long as possible, so suicide would be selfish.

What if someone says they think the removal of suffering is greater than the continuance of it, and that life is always such a continuance. May they commit suicide?

In short, do we have the fundamental rights over our own body and mind?

[Phier]

In short, do we have the fundamental rights over our own body and mind?

Children do not because they are idiots. We have chosen 18 as the cut off for childhood, in part (see drinking age discrepancies) and for some perhaps it should be lower and for others it should be higher, but its as good as any put forth so far.

Children are idiots in that most, even the most intelligent, lack foresight to the long term consequences of their acts, likewise their lack of experience leads them to poor decision making, finally they are more prone to extreme idiocy due to hormone changes which are at their worst which they don't understand yet.

I think the children which perhaps have no need for this cut off are the ones you will rarely hear complaining about it as they know enough to understand why its there and have no plans to do the stupid that the rules are in place for.

[Amorphos]

Children do not because they are idiots. We have chosen 18 as the cut off for childhood, in part (see drinking age discrepancies) and for some perhaps it should be lower and for others it should be higher, but its as good as any put forth so far.

Haha, quite true, AOC is 14 in some countries which I think is more realistic [16 in Britain]. I don’t think teenagers of 16 or 18 are much better tbh, some are some arent.

Children are idiots in that most, even the most intelligent, lack foresight to the long term consequences of their acts, likewise their lack of experience leads them to poor decision making,

I think much of maturity is about learning to deal with adult issues, which is mainly societal and educational. The age they make such decision surely decides their leaning experience, so if they start younger they learn younger. Kids seam to be more mature these days ~ or I am just old, but I don’t think its just that as I can compare the age my kids get into music and fashion, and having simple relationships, with the age kids did when I were young, and it does seam to have got younger.

I think the children which perhaps have no need for this cut off are the ones you will rarely hear complaining about it as they know enough to understand why its there and have no plans to do the stupid that the rules are in place for.

Educational?

[Phier]

I think much of maturity is about learning to deal with adult issues, which is mainly societal and educational. The age they make such decision surely decides their leaning experience, so if they start younger they learn younger. Kids seam to be more mature these days ~ or I am just old, but I don’t think its just that as I can compare the age my kids get into music and fashion, and having simple relationships, with the age kids did when I were young, and it does seam to have got younger.

Twenty+ years ago when I was a child everyone was saying the same thing about MY generation. I work with a lot of highschool age kids in my practice, and kids are still the same. I'd expect some sexual activities are higher, but only because the internet takes the 'how does that work' fear out of it, something we needed to find in our parents back closets.

Educational?

I think some children are just more 'grown up'. They think like an adult earlier. Those types tend to not do the stupid stuff which we have the rules in place for.

[Amorphos]

Twenty+ years ago when I was a child everyone was saying the same thing about MY generation.

90% of girls in my class at school [late 70’s] had lost their virginity by 14, many at 13, some at 12. From what I gather it seams most kids these days wait until they are 16, and yet they seam more mature generally. I feel that sexual education is what has achieved this ~ in my day kids learned by doing it I suppose, but now girls especially know that it can mean kids and ‘no life‘ [as they put it]. I don’t think that alone would stop them, but all the diseases certainly do ~ something they are made very aware of.

for the ethic, i see no reason why the AOC is not far lower, for the world we live in right now, i agree it should be as it is.

[Phier]

90% of girls in my class at school [late 70’s] had lost their virginity by 14, many at 13, some at 12. From what I gather it seams most kids these days wait until they are 16, and yet they seam more mature generally. I feel that sexual education is what has achieved this ~ in my day kids learned by doing it I suppose, but now girls especially know that it can mean kids and ‘no life‘ [as they put it]. I don’t think that alone would stop them, but all the diseases certainly do ~ something they are made very aware of.

for the ethic, i see no reason why the AOC is not far lower, for the world we live in right now, i agree it should be as it is.

Ah I read you wrong. I thought you meant they were doing it LATER when you were younger.

I don't know if the kids being more mature about it, more education, or just a cultural thing like flared pants and bad hair was back then for us.

[Morkonan]

...So how about this as the fundamental ethic; ‘do as though wilt, given that others may do so too’.

Sounds exactly like Satanism.

...In short, do we have the fundamental rights over our own body and mind?

Yes but, only in as much as such choices only effect yourself. Those that potentially effect others are not to be based on your right to personal freedom alone.

[Boyar Son]

In short, do we have the fundamental rights over our own body and mind?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, who gave you 'rights' lol. Might makes right, it's what stops people from raping in a civilized nation, the might of the police.

[dogukan]

Answering philosophy with deepened philosophy.

Since there is not a standarized life style and culture, the answer will vary greatly. And we can not decide which is true. Because that is how humans are. Most will be how they are raised in the end.

I as an existancialist try to break this and create my own way. I do the most neutral things possible. Of course, according to myself.

note:I'm not even sure I got the question right

[Amorphos]

Since there is not a standarized life style and culture, the answer will vary greatly.

There are standards like that we are all humans, and we are individual people, the variants come afterwards ~ and I think we need to make this distinction, hence the main thrust of the thread.


'all things are different all things are the same'.

[gambit]

Not really. I understand what you mean, but its not the only way. Another way is for people to stop being s to eachother, stopping us from having to use any might in the first place. I've seen it happen, it works.

[Boyar Son]

yea that isn't the only way to do it, but more often than not 'might makes right' happens more frequently then just being nice.

[Morkonan]

On "might makes right."

Strictly speaking in a moral sense, "might" does not make "right." Consensus makes right. However, if might affords one the opportunity to eventually create a consensus.. well, there ya go...

[Silver Guard]

your 13 [or younger] yr old daughter wants to have sex with people? Let us say she has the intelligence of a given other 18 yr old, and indeed, some 18 yr olds have less intelligence than an average 13 yr old. Clearly we cannot derive a universal from the intellectual value as related to maturity. So can she do as she wants?

No, there is good reason that parents have control over their children until the ages of 16/18/21 depending on government standing on individual rights. This is because until these ages, regardless of maturity, they are not capable of responsibly acting upon such actions. Sex before the age of 16 for example, can result in pregnancy. A child of that age simply cannot support another child without support of parents, therfore by having a child they are infringing upon the rights of their parents to choose when they are subject to raising another child.

Someone is dying of cancer and they want to die rather than suffer, should they have the choice? Perhaps their loved ones want to be with them for as long as possible, so suicide would be selfish.

Suicide would be selfish yes, it almost always is, but that does not mean that the act is unethical, the vast majority of our acts are selfish. The person still has control over their own life.

What if someone says they think the removal of suffering is greater than the continuance of it, and that life is always such a continuance. May they commit suicide?

Same as above

[Amorphos]

Hi silver guard

Firstly I agree with most of what you say, but we must pursue the ethical basis.

This is because until these ages, regardless of maturity, they are not capable of responsibly acting upon such actions.

1. The AOC is 14 in many countries.
2. How do they become responsible? …via experience!
3. In ancient times 12 was an acceptable age for marriage and they coped ok.
4. Getting humans to be adults earlier increases the resource of working manpower. It also allows people to have a longer period of let us say ‘youthful activities’ ~ life is short we need to make the most of it.
5. there is such a thing as contraception.

A child of that age simply cannot support another child without support of parents

Unless they begin work earlier, are married earlier etc, this would increase the working life time and increase a nations GDP. also they could take over parental duties of other children so that the parents would actually be more free of them and could work more ~ also increasing the income base.

Suicide would be selfish yes, it almost always is, but that does not mean that the act is unethical, the vast majority of our acts are selfish. The person still has control over their own life.

So we agree that the individual should have basic rights over their very lives, and maybe other areas of life. We disagree on at what age.

[Silver Guard]

1. The AOC is 14 in many countries.
2. How do they become responsible? …via experience!
3. In ancient times 12 was an acceptable age for marriage and they coped ok.
4. Getting humans to be adults earlier increases the resource of working manpower. It also allows people to have a longer period of let us say ‘youthful activities’ ~ life is short we need to make the most of it.
5. there is such a thing as contraception.

1. Regardless, there is an AOC, showing the universal concept of need for ability of self-management
2. Which is very little at that age, they have only just learnt basic maths and social skills
3. We differ on what we think of as "ok"
4. Actually a much shorter period of these activities, the longer a person subsists on the support of parents the longer a focus can be placed on study and development of social skills, if this is removed too early people lack both
5. Which is never completely efficient.

Unless they begin work earlier, are married earlier etc, this would increase the working life time and increase a nations GDP. also they could take over parental duties of other children so that the parents would actually be more free of them and could work more ~ also increasing the income base.

But not processivity. When forced into work early you create a very large labour force but serverly limit the size of management and scientific forces. Also you create a society which is very odd socially, which could cause a boom in mental health difficulties and social pressures.

So we agree that the individual should have basic rights over their very lives, and maybe other areas of life. We disagree on at what age.

Wrong, we agree a person should have control over their own life. I disagree on almost everything else, people should not have complete control over the contents of their lives.

[Amorphos]

nice reply!

1. Regardless, there is an AOC, showing the universal concept of need for ability of self-management

There is a need but at what point? certainly it would be better if this was universally agreed upon.

2. Which is very little at that age, they have only just learnt basic maths and social skills

They are taught a higher level of math at 10 than when I was 14, so that part is comparative. Social skills come via social interactions, a 16 year old has no more parenting skills than a 12 or 14 year old.

3. We differ on what we think of as "ok"

We don’t, I actually think the AOC should be 18 or even 21, but on point of ethic I feel it is cultural, there is no reason why younger people shouldn’t have children earlier other than that.

4. Actually a much shorter period of these activities, the longer a person subsists on the support of parents the longer a focus can be placed on study and development of social skills, if this is removed too early people lack both

Do we not gain more social skills when not living with our parents? The ‘activities’ I referred to were to do with love and sex etc, life is very short and our youth is very short.

5. Which is never completely efficient.

Abortion is! However a combined approach is very effective, and we cannot make a universal rule upon a tiny minority of accidents.

When forced into work early you create a very large labour force but serverly limit the size of management and scientific forces.

Forced or a choice? Why does it limit management and scientific abilities? Education can [and probably should be anyway] continued at work. Consider the average doctor, they learn so much and for a long period, yet in practice their knowledge is specialised in specific fields, so a lesser amount of general training followed by more specific to area training is more efficient. This would give them a lanoger working period and the govt could pay them a smaller wage [because it would be effectively the same over a longer period but with more productivity] so that healthcare doesn’t cost as much.

Wrong, we agree a person should have control over their own life. I disagree on almost everything else, people should not have complete control over the contents of their lives.

Not complete control, but more freedom is better than less. There comes a point when we can also ask why others should have control over ones lives!!

[Silver Guard]

1.There is a need but at what point? certainly it would be better if this was universally agreed upon.
2. They are taught a higher level of math at 10 than when I was 14, so that part is comparative. Social skills come via social interactions, a 16 year old has no more parenting skills than a 12 or 14 year old.
3. We don’t, I actually think the AOC should be 18 or even 21, but on point of ethic I feel it is cultural, there is no reason why younger people shouldn’t have children earlier other than that.
4. Do we not gain more social skills when not living with our parents? The ‘activities’ I referred to were to do with love and sex etc, life is very short and our youth is very short.
5. Abortion is! However a combined approach is very effective, and we cannot make a universal rule upon a tiny minority of accidents.

1. True, but this is impossible to achieve
2. Completely disagree, a sixteen year old is far more able to deal with younger children, due to the age gap they understand far more easily the difference between them and those younger. They have gained experience in this way.
3. So you would agree, if it were possible, to a six year old having a child? Don't be rediculous, a child of this age is completely physically, socially and materially incapable of having a child. I know I am extrapolating to younger ages but the points still stand, to a lesser extent to say thirteen year olds.
4. Love and sex are not youthful activities, they are mature ones. Youthful activities are playing with lego and in the playground, taking classes and living off the material wealth of your parents.
5. One of my friends recently had a child having misdiagnosed her symptoms of pregnancy until seven months in, beyond the limit to have an abortion. She had taken precautions but they didn't work. Are you saying we should permit these rare cases to occur to children, only just past infancy?

Forced or a choice? Why does it limit management and scientific abilities? Education can [and probably should be anyway] continued at work. Consider the average doctor, they learn so much and for a long period, yet in practice their knowledge is specialised in specific fields, so a lesser amount of general training followed by more specific to area training is more efficient. This would give them a lanoger working period and the govt could pay them a smaller wage [because it would be effectively the same over a longer period but with more productivity] so that healthcare doesn’t cost as much.

Placing children in work? No, they are neither socially, intelectually or physically developed enough to engage in the same workforce as adults. Think of jobs like shelf-stackers and paperboys, these are the kind of jobs people get in their teens and these are the kind of jobs which are suitable to earn a little hard cash indepentantly. I would never place a teen in an office or in labour.

Not complete control, but more freedom is better than less. There comes a point when we can also ask why others should have control over ones lives!!

That is going into a different topic, which I want to avoid doing, as I am an authoritarian right-wing in politcs, and I think you are a libitarian, so it will detract from the present debate.

[Amorphos]

For me this is an important topic, some of the anarchist sites I go to strongly believe in all this, and they seam to have allied themselves with various other extreme groups [Islamic fundamentalists for example], so I need to be able to make good arguments against it ~ so thanks for your replies!

1. True, but this is impossible to achieve

Indeed due to cultural differences, you could at least have it the same in western countries and pressure put on others. in america for example it is different from state to state which is absurd.

2. Completely disagree, a sixteen year old is far more able to deal with younger children, due to the age gap they understand far more easily the difference between them and those younger. They have gained experience in this way.

True though as an example I know a catholic family where the older children care for the younger ones, feed the babies change nappies etc. the age gap is equally detrimental as the nearer the ages are the more they relate to each other e.g. like brothers of say 8 and 10 would get on better than brothers of 8 and 16.

3. So you would agree, if it were possible, to a six year old having a child? Don't be rediculous, a child of this age is completely physically, socially and materially incapable of having a child. I know I am extrapolating to younger ages but the points still stand, to a lesser extent to say thirteen year olds

not at all, a 6 year old cant have kids, many 12 year olds cant, so it seams that nature sets the limit.

4. Love and sex are not youthful activities, they are mature ones, Youthful activities are playing with lego and in the playground, taking classes and living off the material wealth of your parents.

Something of semantics, those are what I would call childish activities. Surely we can simply class a child as not of potential parent age, again nature sets the limit. On this note I feel there should be differences in law and labels put on people, e.g. a paedophile is someone who has sex with ‘children’, hence you can have an AOC of 16/18 and another age of unlawful sex with ‘children’. many people have underage sex, but surely it is wrong to classify them all as monsters!

5. One of my friends recently had a child having misdiagnosed her symptoms of pregnancy until seven months in, beyond the limit to have an abortion. She had taken precautions but they didn't work. Are you saying we should permit these rare cases to occur to children, only just past infancy?

No I am saying that is unfortunate and very rare, we cannot have a universal rule to cover such things. She could have taken pregnancy tests! We can have secondary rules for them, but we have a high proportion of teenage pregnancy in Britain anyway, so a distinction in law is necessary.

Placing children in work? Think of jobs like shelf-stackers and paperboys, these are the kind of jobs people get in their teens and these are the kind of jobs which are suitable to earn a little hard cash indepentantly. I would never place a teen in an office or in labour.

Not children but youths, there is a difference. The introduction should be incremental if this was applied, we all live under too much of an umbrella. Not labour no, I don’t think office jobs are so much harder though. It is the level/amount of work and responsibility that counts here, it may be a good thing to bring people slowly into the workplace rather than dumping them head first straight into it at 16.

That is going into a different topic, which I want to avoid doing, as I am an authoritarian right-wing in politcs, and I think you are a libitarian, so it will detract from the present debate.

its a direct comparative, I think it would add an important element, though I don’t expect we would agree on how much power the state should have over an individual ~ although I personally think the states power should be severely limited, so maybe we are not so far away from each other in that respect.

Really it comes down to two spheres of being, the individual and the collective, then it’s a case of degrees in which each are empowered. I would think it has to be somewhat balanced, but you probably don’t.

[Silver Guard]

1. Indeed due to cultural differences, you could at least have it the same in western countries and pressure put on others. in america for example it is different from state to state which is absurd.
2. True though as an example I know a catholic family where the older children care for the younger ones, feed the babies change nappies etc. the age gap is equally detrimental as the nearer the ages are the more they relate to each other e.g. like brothers of say 8 and 10 would get on better than brothers of 8 and 16.
3. not at all, a 6 year old cant have kids, many 12 year olds cant, so it seams that nature sets the limit.
4. Something of semantics, those are what I would call childish activities. Surely we can simply class a child as not of potential parent age, again nature sets the limit. On this note I feel there should be differences in law and labels put on people, e.g. a paedophile is someone who has sex with ‘children’, hence you can have an AOC of 16/18 and another age of unlawful sex with ‘children’. many people have underage sex, but surely it is wrong to classify them all as monsters!
5. No I am saying that is unfortunate and very rare, we cannot have a universal rule to cover such things. She could have taken pregnancy tests! We can have secondary rules for them, but we have a high proportion of teenage pregnancy in Britain anyway, so a distinction in law is necessary.

1. Why so? These values are put in place by cultural norms, you have to bear in mind both culture and ethnicity have a strong influence on when children reach maturity.
2. Get on as friends yes, but this is very different to a parent/sibling difference. Brothers of 16/8 have more of an authority and respect interchange then 8/10, age brings with it such values, and this is vital for a family dynamic.
3. It does place a limit, but it can be very young. Puberty in girls can onset fertility as young as 9, and pregnancies have occured earlier. In addition through time puberty in girls is becoming steadily earlier and this may be an additional problem later.
4. Underage with other underage children is not paedophilia, also paedophilia tends to refer to those with a preference to pre-pubescent children, not those below the AOC.
5. She could have done, but she had no idea she was pregant, you don't take a test if you don't think there's a possibility. Would you not agree teenage pregancies are a bad thing? And no, problems with contraception are not rare, they happen a lot. There will be multiple scares in the average teenage relationship.

Not children but youths, there is a difference. The introduction should be incremental if this was applied, we all live under too much of an umbrella. Not labour no, I don’t think office jobs are so much harder though. It is the level/amount of work and responsibility that counts here, it may be a good thing to bring people slowly into the workplace rather than dumping them head first straight into it at 16.

That is exactly what does happen. People are not dumped in head first at 16, they enter the lowest rung of the ladder, and most have experienced work to lesser extents prior to this.

its a direct comparative, I think it would add an important element, though I don’t expect we would agree on how much power the state should have over an individual ~ although I personally think the states power should be severely limited, so maybe we are not so far away from each other in that respect.

Really it comes down to two spheres of being, the individual and the collective, then it’s a case of degrees in which each are empowered. I would think it has to be somewhat balanced, but you probably don’t.

I'm authoritarian and right-wing, I think the power of the state should be extended, so no we would not be close in that respect. The collective is always more important then the individual, absolute freedoms should only exist where it only effects the individual.