Morality

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

As for the puberty and childbirth issue, that is easy... In most societies and times, puberty for women was around 15-18 years old. Not that bad of an age for marriage, if the culture prepares people to hit adulthood at that time. In our contemporary America, due to the wonders of high-fat foods and hormone-laden products, our girls are hitting puberty at 9-10 years old. Um, there's a problem. Because there's no way to make a 10-year-old capable of adult judgement- their brains aren't finished with construction yet. Not to mention 10 year olds typically can't survive childbirth without a lot of assistance..

We added adolescence to the mix about 80 years ago and over time moved the age of consent up and what was normal 100 years ago, kids finishing school ready to work around 13 years old moved up. The recent change has happenned in the past couple decades with man messing with the female cylce. Jesus mother Mary was 13, not called out as unusual during that day, just as it wouldn't have been unusual here 100 years ago. But now it is immoral and a crime. Have we evolved, raised our standard, or actually lowered the standard for all by lowering expectation of when adulthood starts?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by wil

The recent change has happenned in the past couple decades with man messing with the female cylce. Jesus mother Mary was 13, not called out as unusual during that day, just as it wouldn't have been unusual here 100 years ago. But now it is immoral and a crime. Have we evolved, raised our standard, or actually lowered the standard for all by lowering expectation of when adulthood starts?

2000 years ago, life expectency was much lower, too. So 13 made sense if you only live until 45.

13 was still pretty unusual and young 100 years ago. Most people were closer to 16.

So far as I know, 13 has never made for particularly good parents or even good rates of surviving childbirth. The body needs some time to prepare itself for pregnancy and to develop full-fledged decision-making skills. By 15/16 though, if people are trained to be an adult by that time rather than a big kid, they are fine. Most people are fully developed by that time and also the brain has made its final leap into full decision-making capacity.

Piaget was (I think) the sort-of "founding father" of this information. Here's some more info:
Stages of Intellectual Development In Children and Teenagers

[greymare]

ok,ok,ok,
Look, if you want to really know what is moral and what isnt. Just ask me, Ill tell you and all of you can follow my directions, OK? good. Now, get back to work............

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Codifying a moral standard often has the effect of legitimizing all sorts of unethical activities which now become technically moral under the definition. Having rules creates the possibility of loopholes. In that sense establishing a moral standard can have the effect of actually lowering the bar of what is ethically allowable.

Hi Chris, I see what you mean. But I think the theoretical connection we tend to make beween law and morality does not always hold up in actual practice. In fact, I can see where they would be quite far apart at a functional level of analysis.

I see laws as regulating self interest, in large part by means of deterrence i.e., the threat of being throw in jail or having to pay fines. I suspect people whose behavior's do not benefit from deterrence would do whatever they please regardless of the impact on others' well-being and regardless of the legal threshold for actionable conduct.

Morals can serve to protect and empower abusers.

Unlike morality, laws do not to encourage a sense of moral duty. Laws are not part of the socialization process by which a culture tries to shape its members' values and motivations. The legal side of things also does not usually deal with issues like how to make the world better than it otherwise have been, at least not in any positive or proactive sense.

[seattlegal]

Is morality the result of the pleasure we humans get from solving problems?

[seattlegal]

Here's an interesting article from the NY Times regarding the socio-biological approach towards the origins of morality, with empathy being associated with social behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

Regarding the socio-biological approach: one can observe social behavior amongst animals that does not involve empathy (such as among reptiles that will eat their young without empathy.) Such social behavior seems to be hierarchially based, whereas empathy seems to cut acrossed hierarchial constructs (in a counter-intuitive manner?)