Of course it doesn't, did I say it is okay?? Nope.Even if it was okay being a pedophile back then, it doesn't make it okay today.
If someone massmurdered people 3000 years ago because it was nothing unnormal with killing people for no reason, does that make it okay?
Blowtus did apparentlyOf course it doesn't, did I say it is okay?? Nope.
Blowtus did apparentlyOf course it doesn't, did I say it is okay?? Nope.
Yes but today people pay the price for it.It WAS okay, but it is not okay nowadays, even tho it still happening.
Yes but today people pay the price for it.
Even though it was okay before, it's not now..So we know what happened IS wrong.
What objective structure of right/wrong as you adhering to here?
At absolute best, you can judge actions based on their social context, but even then it's risky to say what's right or wrong.
Still the guy would be considered as guilty coz he's older and more aware of what he is doing.well
in the case of pedophilia, i'd look at whether or not the younger person was sexually enjoying the experience
if a cougar gets impregnated by a teenager, i really don't feel like she commited a crime, cuz the "boy" was getting erections and reaching orgasm, how the hell can you call that a "child molestation"?
i think we've talked about this before but
if a 14 year old girl gets a fake ID, uses it to get into a bar and then has sex with a male that's actually old enough to drink, then me personnally, i would feel like it's actually the girl that's commited the crime, not the guy
That got nowhere near to answering my question.
What objective structure of right/wrong as you adhering to here?
At absolute best, you can judge actions based on their social context, but even then it's risky to say what's right or wrong.
That's a good example.If i understood the example well, their logical "theory" (if it's right to call this a theory) was right in a practical way. So I consider it right. But the fact that it does harm someone it is bad. Otherwise, I misunderstand the true meaning of Right and Good.Logic can sometimes be cold.
The Romans realised that they could, logically, exploit their mines in Rio Tinto to their greatest material advantage only if they employed enormous slave labour. The life expectancy of a slave in Rio Tinto was less than one year, and they recieved small rations and worked 24/7 until they died.
In context that was perfectly reasonable (no ancient writer, that we know of, ever advocated slave emanciptation) and also, in context, quite logical.
Do you, then, consider it right?
So I consider it right. But the fact that it does harm someone it is bad.