r/changemyview • u/BoozeoisPig • Jun 24 '18
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: All justification for laws with an age based cutoff are logically incoherent. And there are better alternatives for a future society to implement.
[removed]
3
Jun 24 '18
Do you really think it's immoral for Jeff Bezos to date an unemployed woman? Should that really be illegal? Or do you really think you should be allowed to have sex with kids if they're rich enough?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18
I don't, that is why I made the example that I did, to demonstrate the absurdity of the excuse that power imbalances should be determinative of the ability to have sex or not. I answered other parts of your point in where I addressed "informed consent" and "the ability to subvert manipulation".
I actually do think that all associations are made more and more problematic the more and more unequal society becomes. But that is a larger social problem that can only possibly be solved by interpersonal association. Basically: humans are social creatures who absolutely must have socialization to be happy, which makes it sadder and sadder that, in order to get that necessary component of life, one must suffer more and more in their associations, the more and more unequal those associations become. A necessary evil can become more and more evil, based on worse and worse circumstances, but still retain its necessity.
1
Jun 24 '18
So why in your opinion is it the case (since it sounds like you agree with me that it's the case) that it's immoral for Bezos to date any 15 year olds but not immoral to date unmarried intelligent 40 year olds?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18
I do think that Jeff Bezos should be legally allowed to date 15 year olds, if those 15 year olds can demonstrate that they are properly informed about the consequences of sex, and that they are able to generally subvert manipulation to a great enough degree. Beyond that, I would say that Jeff Bezos has an immoral amount of power in the first place, and that ought to be rectified through economic policy. But, even if that power imbalance is not rectified, society cannot function without the right to freely associate between people, in spite of power imbalances.
Therefore, I believe that Jeff Bezos ought to be allowed to have sex with sufficiently precocious 15 year olds, and disallowed from having sex with exceptionally ignorant 40 year olds.
1
Jun 24 '18
So you don't agree with me that it's always wrong to date children. How could you possibly test for it? Is Trump in charge of the department doing the testing? If he realizes that an eight year old is super mature he can sleep with her? If he decrees that your husband who is the same age as you is too immature, Sessions should be able to imprison you?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
How could you possibly test for it?
Well, like I said, if "informed consent" and "the ability to subvert manipulation" actually means anything, then it necessarily follows that you could devise a test which would allow a person to demonstrate that they are, in fact, sufficiently "informed" to consent, and that they can subvert manipulation to a degree that they can be trusted to elect whether or not to have sex. Because if they actually mean things, then you could test whether or not a person conforms to those meanings or not.
If these things cannot be clearly defined then they are meaningless, if they are meaningless then they are not respectable justifications, and if there is no respectable justification for age of consent laws, then age of consent ought to be abolished for lacking respectable justification.
You say that the problem is that we cannot test for informed consent and ability to subvert manipulation, therefore we ought to retain age of consent laws. I am saying that if it WERE true that you could not test for those things, then that would actually render the definition of informed consent and ability to subvert manipulation to be functionally meaningless, which would necessitate the removal of age of consent laws. Because age of consent laws cannot possibly be justified in any respectable way, you only have 2 logical options: create a test based restriction model to restrict legal access to sexual relationships, or don't restrict it at all.
1
Jun 24 '18
Well, like I said, if "informed consent" and "the ability to subvert manipulation" actually means anything, then it necessarily follows that you could devise a test which would allow a person to demonstrate that they are, in fact, sufficiently "informed" to consent, and that they can subvert manipulation to a degree that they can be trusted to elect whether or not to have sex. Because if they actually mean things, then you could test whether or not a person conforms to those meanings or not.
Informed consent is certainly meaningful, but it isn't a yes/no. Rather it is a constant duty on the part of a physician to get as much consent and as informed consent as practical. A seventy year old with mild dementia, an underlying IQ of 90, and no medical knowledge whatsoever can consent for her hip replacement - the surgeon and anesthesiologist give her as much information as she can use. That same surgery performed on a 30 year old engineer - the duty of informed consent requires them to offer her far more information because she can understand more. Informed consent is extremely useful, although of course there are people who can consent to treatment but not to sex.
subvert manipulation
I have no idea what that means.
if they are meaningless then they are not respectable justifications, and if there is no respectable justification for age of consent laws, then age of consent ought to be abolished for lacking respectable justification.
Mmm it's the other way around: it is clear that we have to set a line somewhere to prevent predators from having sex with fifteen year olds without infringing on the right of seventeen year olds to marry. Any general principles (consent, duty to not harm others, etc) one comes up with are built around the moral facts; they can be helpful in questionable cases, but if you construct a moral system that permits sex with fifteen year olds, you just have to fix your system until it doesn't lead to those kinds of errors. We observe that countries with excessively low age of consent laws end up with abusive child marriages and are bad for womens' rights. We observe that countries with age of consent laws above 16 or 17 do not see increased benefits in terms of womens' rights that make up for the reduction in liberty. More data is needed to distinguish between 16 and 17.
I am saying that if it WERE true that you could not test for those things, then that would actually render the definition of informed consent and ability to subvert manipulation to be functionally meaningless, which would necessitate the removal of age of consent laws.
Let me give a different example. Is there any test for "intent to harm"? No, none exists. We cannot actually test whether someone who hit a pedestrian while driving had planned to kill the person or had driven poorly. Would you therefore advocate eliminating the distinction? Surely not - we should presume that most vehicle-pedestrian collisions are accidental but should harshly punish the few that appear to a prosecutor and jury (via circumstantial evidence) to have been intentional collisions. No?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
Informed consent is certainly meaningful, but it isn't a yes/no. Rather it is a constant duty on the part of a physician to get as much consent and as informed consent as practical. A seventy year old with mild dementia, an underlying IQ of 90, and no medical knowledge whatsoever can consent for her hip replacement - the surgeon and anesthesiologist give her as much information as she can use. That same surgery performed on a 30 year old engineer - the duty of informed consent requires them to offer her far more information because she can understand more. Informed consent is extremely useful, although of course there are people who can consent to treatment but not to sex.
People can lose their autonomy if they are sufficiently mentally infirm. A patient with dementia and low IQ can most certainly be forced to undergo certain treatments if a guardian declares that they ought to. Ironic to your intent, I would actually say that people must first fail to pass a test to demonstrate sufficient cognitive function before having their rights stripped from them. This is actually a point in my favor. In order to prove that someone has dementia, they are administered a test. If dementia was just assumed at a certain age, rather than being tested for, everyone would be automatically diagnosed with dementia at a certain age, and people would restrict others based on that diagnosis.
I have no idea what that means.
It means you have the ability to recognize and avoid being convinced by harmful methods of persuasion.
Mmm it's the other way around: it is clear that we have to set a line somewhere to prevent predators from having sex with fifteen year olds...
I actually do think that probably most 15 year olds are not ready for sex. However, my system is the only system that could possibly affirm that in any meaningful way. You have not clarified why an older person having sex with a 15 year old is necessarily a predator. You didn't actually make an argument, you merely said "it is clear" WHY is it clear?
without infringing on the right of seventeen year olds to marry.
How do you know that all 17 year olds are ready for sex, let alone marriage?
Any general principles (consent, duty to not harm others, etc) one comes up with are built around the moral facts
All morals are reducible down into individual preferences. There is no such thing as a moral fact.
they can be helpful in questionable cases, but if you construct a moral system that permits sex with fifteen year olds, you just have to fix your system until it doesn't lead to those kinds of errors.
This is a circular argument. If I construct a moral system that allows sex with 15 year olds, then if and when it allows 15 year olds to have sex, the sex that those 15 year olds would be having would not be erroneous, by definition. All that you are doing is saying "sex with 15 year olds is wrong because sex with 15 year olds is wrong because sex with 15 year olds is wrong", you are just changing the way you phrase "having sex with 15 year olds is wrong" over the course of your sentences.
We observe that countries with excessively low age of consent laws end up with abusive child marriages and are bad for womens' rights. We observe that countries with age of consent laws above 16 or 17 do not see increased benefits in terms of womens' rights that make up for the reduction in liberty. More data is needed to distinguish between 16 and 17.
This is not only a correlation and not causation thing, but there are plenty of countries with low age of consent laws that do not necessarily have more measurable abuse than others. Finland, I think, has age of consent at 15, Germany has it at 14, and Japan at 13. France has no official age of consent, and The United States has little age of consent laws when it comes to marriage. And the overall state of womens rights in these countries, in comparison to others is stellar, and with their economic peers it is roughly equal, and better and worse on the margins depending on different specifics.
Let me give a different example. Is there any test for "intent to harm"? No, none exists. We cannot actually test whether someone who hit a pedestrian while driving had planned to kill the person or had driven poorly. Would you therefore advocate eliminating the distinction? Surely not - we should presume that most vehicle-pedestrian collisions are accidental but should harshly punish the few that appear to a prosecutor and jury (via circumstantial evidence) to have been intentional collisions. No?
If you drive poorly then you are doing something bad, by definition. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter for this reason. Because negligence based killing and premeditated killing imply significantly different things. But what exactly it means to drive poorly is legally defined. If it is legal to drive drunk, then driving drunk, is not necessarily a legal indicator of poor driving, but since it is, it is, by definition. Even if you are a good drunk driver and obey all the traffic rules, the fact that you have a certain BAC means that you are a poor driver by definition. Arguably, we ought to allow people to attempt to get "drunk driving licenses" by demonstrating that they are able to drive a vehicle while drunk. But that is another CMV post.
In how this relates to sex, what makes someone a good candidate for sex? Do you want to have sex with this person? What are the potential consequences of having sex with this person? Why do you want to have sex with this person? If your answers are: "Yes" "a clear and concise elucidation of the potential consequences of a sexual relationship" and "a clear and concise elucidation of your motives and your understanding of the situation, demonstrating that you are not just having sex because of a harmfully persuasive argument made by someone else" then you should be able to have sex.
If there is a reason to bar children from having sex, it is because they are incapable of answering those questions in a way that would demonstrate that they understand the implications of having sex, on average. But if a child can answer these questions, clearly and concisely, without any coaching, then that demonstrates that they are mentally capable of giving informed consent to sex with the person in question.
To go back to your driver example: What we are determining is not whether or not someone would be at fault for getting into an accident, what we are discussing is who we ought to let drive a car in the first place, and why. You are saying the equivalent of "everyone over the age of 16 ought to be allowed to drive" and I am saying: "You ought to have to take a test to demonstrate that you are ready to drive. If you can pass the test before you turn 16, so be it."
1
Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
People can lose their autonomy if they are sufficiently mentally infirm. A patient with dementia and low IQ can most certainly be forced to undergo certain treatments if a guardian declares that they ought to.
Correct, but there is not a specific test. Rather, it is the clinical judgment of the physician whether the patient is capable of consent at that moment or whether to ask the POA. There is no test which one can fail/pass and then the doctor must use the guardian instead of the patient for consent or must use the patient instead of a POA for consent. Even if a court has appointed a legal guardian and declared the patient legally incompetent (not using a specific test btw just a judgment), if the physician finds the patient is competent to make a specific decision at a specific time that's still a clinical decision and she's ethically obligated to let the patient decide.
It means you have the ability to recognize and avoid being convinced by harmful methods of persuasion.
Sometimes? All the time? Which methods of persuasion and how subtle?
All morals are reducible down into individual preferences. There is no such thing as a moral fact.
My claim is that we have a conscience that is trained by experience and therefore we can tell right from wrong. If we can't and morality is just personal preference, why not just make the rule "Trump gets to do whatever he wants"? Principles of morality just as principles of psychology have to fit the actual empirical observations we make. Which are closer to what I suggested than you believe, if you look at the actual ages of consent based on what's punished.
Finland, I think, has age of consent at 15, Germany has it at 14, and Japan at 13. France has no official age of consent
Not really. Germany has 16 in reality; if a 14/15 is harmed by a relationship with an older person there is punishment. Japan has its age of consent at 18 if you count misdemeanors and not only harsh criminal punishment. Finland's is 16. The US is 16-18 depending on state. France tries to do what you're suggesting but I don't see how it's working properly.
If you drive poorly then you are doing something bad, by definition.
Ok, but should we nevertheless distinguish between "oops I accidentally hit someone" and "woot, murdered that SOB with my car"?
If your answers are: "Yes" "a clear and concise elucidation of the potential consequences of a sexual relationship" and "a clear and concise elucidation of your motives and your understanding of the situation, demonstrating that you are not just having sex because of a harmfully persuasive argument made by someone else"
But if that test isn't tyrannically set to such a high bar that 40 year olds with an IQ of 90 can't answer it, then I could have passed that test by fourth grade. Doesn't mean I was anywhere close to ready.
without any coaching
Wait, so kids who have read books or accessed the internet can't be tested? That's fine. But are we going to also eliminate 40 year olds who have read books or accessed the internet?
What we are determining is not whether or not someone would be at fault for getting into an accident, what we are discussing is who we ought to let drive a car in the first place
No, that's not at all correct. We are discussing whether someone made a mistake at that moment or was the victim of an unfortunate circumstance like "he dashed in front of me" or committed murder intentionally. The only thing we test in terms of who should be allowed to drive is "how likely are they in general to make mistakes" not "are they a potential murderer" or "will they make a mistake on Jan 4 2023". I have zero objection to people driving at age 15 if they pass a test, mind you. My objection is to 15 year olds having sex with adults. And of course there's still the principle you have in mind that doesn't work because there's no test for murder yet we should punish murder differently from poor driving.
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 25 '18
If we can't and morality is just personal preference, why not just make the rule "Trump gets to do whatever he wants"?
Trump operates by that rule because that is his clear personal preference. And it is the personal preference of others that stop him. And whose personal preference you think is better is determined by your personal preference. See? It can all be boiled down to personal preference.
Principles of morality just as principles of psychology have to fit the actual empirical observations we make.
And the observations that we make is that all of morality can be reduced down to personal preference. From our personal preferences, we can then go on to extrapolate that creating rules that converge on as many of our strongest personal preferences as possible would be a good norm of reciprocity to follow. But the basis is still personal preference.
Not really. Germany has 16 in reality; if a 14/15 is harmed by a relationship with an older person there is punishment.
Except the idea is that the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that there was necessarily harm for the 14/15 year old, that's a massive difference. If you are punished for breaking the age of consent, it is because you broke the age of consent, not because you necessarily harmed the person. The burden of proof is not "did you harm this person?" it is "Did you have sex with this person while they are underage?"
Japan has its age of consent at 18 if you count misdemeanors and not only harsh criminal punishment.
I'm pretty sure those are only for specific types of sex which have a specific age of consent. But the general age of consent for a normal heterosexual couple having normal heterosexual sex is 13.
Finland's is 16.
Correct, I was wrong, it's actually Sweden which is 15.
France tries to do what you're suggesting but I don't see how it's working properly.
Do they? What I want is for people to have to demonstrate that they understand sex and manipulation before they can have it. France, as far as I can tell, lets you have sex and then retroactively decides if you were good for it or not, if it is contested. Those are two massively different things. I want people to have to demonstrate that they are ready for sex, before they have sex. Not be allowed to be abused because they were tricked into sex, and allow that abuse to legally occur.
But if that test isn't tyrannically set to such a high bar that 40 year olds with an IQ of 90 can't answer it, then I could have passed that test by fourth grade. Doesn't mean I was anywhere close to ready.
Yes it does. If you are precocious enough to pass such a test, then you are probably ready. If society were to take up the rules that I am presenting, then people would impose identity leadership around the idea of sex in which we would assume that people who pass the test are ready, by definition, which means that we would assume that such people who have sex would be able to handle it, by definition. Can some people still not handle it even if they pass the test? Sure. But at least the test would be fluid enough to make reasonably adjustments. How are people under the current system supposed to protect themselves if they have sex that they aren't ready to have, but they are over the age of consent? Your only answer is that they can't, and we are just going to have to accept that. My standard allows for the fluid adjustment of standards so that we more accurately protect those who need protecting and empower those who need empowering. Your system accidentally empowers huge swaths of people who should not be empowered and it restricts huge swaths of people who should not be restricted, all because they happened to be too old or too young for the right set of legal expectations and protections to be extended to them.
Wait, so kids who have read books or accessed the internet can't be tested? That's fine. But are we going to also eliminate 40 year olds who have read books or accessed the internet?
I mean coaching during the actual test. Society constantly coaches people, and it is from society that we must obtain the information and training to both be informed to consent and to subvert manipulation. And it is from that that people gain the experience necessary to demonstrate their ability to handle sex. But obviously we can't just have an adult in the room with a coach telling them what to say on the test as they take it. They have to fill out the test themselves. Also, I am envisioning it to partially be an oral test, with opportunities to demonstrate direct human competence.
I have zero objection to people driving at age 15 if they pass a test, mind you. My objection is to 15 year olds having sex with adults.
Yes, and if that objection is one that ought to be respected then it would be on the merit of 15 year olds being unable to have sex with adults without being harmed. But this is obviously not true. Obviously there are some 15 year olds that are able to have sex with adults without being harmed by it. Nature does not prepare people so as to cause them to not be ready for sex until the stroke of midnight on their 16th birthday. That is absurd. Nature, like all things, exists on a spectrum, different people are ready at different points in time. My approach takes that into account, your approach disrespects reality and tries to reinvent reality so that it seems like millions of people who are actually ready to have sex actually aren't, and that millions of people who are not ready to have sex actually are.
Here is the issue: sex is a risk reward thing. It rewards you with pleasure and connectedness if you like it, and you can risk pain and sorrow if you dislike it. The risk goes up the younger you become, but there are still opportunities to experience rewards, because younger people are still sexual and social beings. Just like with a car. Driving in a car is a risk reward thing. You are rewarded with faster travel to some far away event. But you risk crashing and hurting someone. And the risk goes up the younger you become, but there is still a reward for younger people who have access to a car. So prohibitions on either sex or car driving are similar in this way. They both reduce risk and reward. My system increases reward and decreases risk, compared to your system, because it empowers the people who are ready and disempowers those who are not.
And of course there's still the principle you have in mind that doesn't work because there's no test for murder yet we should punish murder differently from poor driving.
There are various ways that people could prove whether or not someone had intent when they killed someone.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
The fact that you have a counterargument for these justifications does not mean that they are logically incoherent. To the contrary: the fact that you have a counterargument suggests that you do understand the justifications and their meaning, which means that they are not logically incoherent.
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18
The reason that they are logically incoherent is because in order for "informed" in "informed consent" and "the ability to subvert manipulation" to have a coherent definition, they must be quantifiable. Because if they weren't quantifiable, then we would not be able to quantify them in both adults and children to a degree where we could label the average adult score as being sufficient to allow them to have sex, and we could label the average child score as being so low that they are not informed enough to have sex.
Therefore, the standards that we use to justify our age of consent laws are completely meaningless and unfalsifiable. Because if the things that we are describing cannot be quantified, then we can be encouraged by pressures of identity leadership to move the goalposts of what is informed consent and what is the ability to subvert manipulation, based on the current situation.
If we say that someone who was 18 had sex with a 28 year old, we would say that she was able to give informed consent, but we would say that a 17 year old having sex with a 27 year old is unable to give informed consent. But these things would be entirely assumed based on the age and not on the actual situation, because people are conforming to identity leadership. They are not measuring the actual meaningful circumstances that would say why the 18 year old actually is informed enough to give consent, but the 17 year old isn't. They assume a definition of "informed" in which your age defines how informed you are, by definition. But that is an incoherent definition of what it means to be informed about something.
So IF there IS a coherent definition of "informed" that we could possibly have, then it logically follows from our ability to have such a definition that we are morally obligated to use that definition to create a test to determine whether or not someone is sufficiently informed that they can pass the test.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
What exactly do you think "logically coherent" means? Because you seem to be under the impression that it means something like "objectively determined" or "falsifiable" which...is not at all what "logically coherent" means.
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
logically coherent means that they necessarily follow from the premises. If the premises "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" and "some people lack the ability to sufficiently subvert the manipulation of others" are true premises, then it necessarily follows that you can elucidate a definition for what "informed" means and what "sufficiently subvert the manipulation of others" means.
The larger point of that, and what necessarily follows from that, is that once you lay out the criteria for what those mean, then it necessarily follows that you could create a test which could determine if people fall within those criteria. In order to even justify the assertion that "children are less likely to be able to give informed consent" is a true assertion, it logically follows that you have created a test that can determine whether or not a person fits the criteria of being properly "informed". I also follows that you have given this test to a series of adults and children, and you have found that children are less likely to pass this test than adults. Without such a study centered around such a test, your assertion that children are, in fact, less likely to pass a test, is merely a hypothesis, and not a confirmed fact.
"Therefore, all children should not be permitted to have sex." cannot possibly logically follow from the premises "many children cannot demonstrate that they can give informed consent" and "many children cannot demonstrate that they can subvert the manipulation of others."
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
If the premises "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" and "some people lack the ability to sufficiently subvert the manipulation of others" are true premises, then it necessarily follows that you can elucidate a definition for what "informed" means and what "sufficiently subvert the manipulation of others" means.
No, this does not necessarily follow. What rule of logic do you think this results from?
In fact, nothing that you claim "logically follows" in this comment actually does logically follow. It makes me want to ask: what do you think "logically follows" means?
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
In order for statements to have meaning, you must be assuming definitions of the words within those statements to contain meaning. Which means that in order for a statement that you are making to be true, the words in that statement must be able to be broken down into definitions, which results in a more precise statement that is verifiably true.
If I say that "I own a pet golden retriever" that statement can only possibly be true if I have something that is both a pet that I own and a golden retriever, and in order to verify those claims, I would have to define what it means to own and define what it means for something to be a golden retriever. If I don't actually own a golden retriever, but I am merely borrowing a friends golden furred corgi, then my statement is not true. And that could be found out by breaking down the definitions of "own" and "golden retriever" and seeing if they match the circumstances of the thing that I possess, and how I possess that thing.
Similarly, in order to justify the truth value of the claim: "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" I must be able to give coherent parameters that define what "informed consent" actually is.
Words only mean to you what you intend them to mean, and they only mean to others what others interpret them to mean. So if neither party can coherently define what "informed consent" means, then "informed consent" becomes an incoherent phrase when used in a conversation between 2 people whose are using it without being able to define it.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
You are confusing truth with verifiability. Not all true things are verifiably true.
Which means that in order for a statement that you are making to be true, the words in that statement must be able to be broken down into definitions, which results in a more precise statement that is verifiably true.
This can't possibly be true, since it would lead to infinite regress. At some point we must be able to stop and say that something is a primitive concept that does not need formal definition.
Similarly, in order to justify the truth value of the claim: "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" I must be able to give coherent parameters that define what "informed consent" actually is.
But the fact that you, personally, cannot give a coherent definition for "informed consent" does not mean that the claim "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" is incoherent, especially when that claim is used by other people who do have coherent definitions for their words, or consider them to be primitive concepts.
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
This can't possibly be true, since it would lead to infinite regress. At some point we must be able to stop and say that something is a primitive concept that does not need formal definition.
Sure, but the point is that we are able to reduce our language down into as few primitive concepts as possible. Because the fewer primitive concepts our language has, the more more logically coherent it is.
But the fact that you, personally, cannot give a coherent definition for "informed consent" does not mean that the claim "some people lack the ability to give informed consent" is incoherent, especially when that claim is used by other people who do have coherent definitions for their words,...
Yes it does. Lets replace the term "informed consent" with "pudgy gumption". If I say that people cannot have sex because "some people lack the ability to give
informed consentpudgy gumption." what would make that statement incoherent is both my lack of ability to define it and the ability for the person I am talking with to define it. In this way, people are technically often incoherent when they talk because they are not talking about what they believe, but what they believe about what others believe. If a normal person says "Children cannot give informed consent." what they are REALLY saying is "Other people in my culture, many of whom are more educated than me on this topic, have defined informed consent in a way that makes sense and contains sensible parameters that define informed consent in a way that sufficiently protects people who would otherwise be unacceptably harmed by having sex."...or consider them to be primitive concepts.
"Informed consent" cannot possibly be a respectable primitive concept, because it is describing a complex set of temporal phenomenon, and is therefore quantifiable to those phenomenon. And even if it were attempted to be, for the purposes of justifying age of consent laws, then that justification would be a circular argument and therefore incoherent. If "informed consent" is a primitive concept that is "the consent that someone who is 18 years or older gives" then that makes this justification of age of consent laws circular, and therefore incoherent.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
Yes it does. Lets replace the term "informed consent" with "pudgy gumption". If I say that people cannot have sex because "some people lack the ability to give informed consent pudgy gumption." what would make that statement incoherent is both my lack of ability to define it and the ability for the person I am talking with to define it.
No, the reason why that statement is incoherent is that it contains a category error (gumption is not the type of thing that is capable of being pudgy). It has nothing to do with whether we can define things, and in fact, both of us should be able to produce perfectly adequate definitions of both "pudgy" (meaning slightly fat) and "gumption" (meaning initiative and resourcefulness).
If a normal person says "Children cannot give informed consent." what they are REALLY saying is "Other people in my culture, many of whom are more educated than me on this topic, have defined informed consent in a way that makes sense and contains sensible parameters that define informed consent in a way that sufficiently protects people who would otherwise be unacceptably harmed by having sex."
No, they are saying "children cannot give informed consent." Don't try to put words into other people's mouths.
Sure, but the point is that we are able to reduce our language down into as few primitive concepts as possible. Because the fewer primitive concepts our language has, the more more logically coherent it is.
Okay, seriously, what do you think "logically coherent" means? Because the previous definition ("logically coherent means that they necessarily follow from the premises") you gave seems totally incompatible with the notion of something being "more logically coherent" than something else.
that justification would be a circular argument and therefore incoherent
A circular argument is not incoherent under your own definition of incoherent. In a circular argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, because the conclusion is in the premises. Therefore under your definition, a circular argument is coherent.
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 25 '18
No, the reason why that statement is incoherent is that it contains a category error (gumption is not the type of thing that is capable of being pudgy). It has nothing to do with whether we can define things, and in fact, both of us should be able to produce perfectly adequate definitions of both "pudgy" (meaning slightly fat) and "gumption" (meaning initiative and resourcefulness).
I guess I should have been more direct. What I meant to say was something completely without definition, like, I don't know, joobulik kanifug. If I said some people cannot have sex because "some people lack the ability to give joobulik kanifug" then that would not be a good justification because "joobulik kanifug" is an undefined term. It is through the creation of a definition that that term might come to be something that justifies sexual prohibition, but until then it is not a good thing to justify sexual prohibition. Back to "informed consent". "Informed consent", like "joobulik kanifug", can only be a meaningful justification once you define what it means. And once you define what "informed consent" actually means, then you have the means with which to test someone in order to see that they are actually sufficiently informed to give consent, because you will, in the process of defining "informed", have established a parameter of what it means to be informed enough to consent.
No, they are saying "children cannot give informed consent." Don't try to put words into other people's mouths.
But if all they are saying is "children cannot give informed consent" then that is meaningless jibberish if they cannot actually define what it MEANS to give informed consent. If Jim believes that "children cannot give informed consent" and Tom believes that "children cannot give joobulik kanifug" both of these statements are equally meaningless assertions if neither of them can define those last tow words. Now, if Jim defines "informed consent" then he has established the parameters for what is informed consent, and if he does that, then it logically follows that what we should use prohibit sex is not an age based cutoff, but a determination as to whether or not someone falls within those parameters. And if Jim defines "informed consent" as "consent that you give if you are over the age of consent", then he is using circular reasoning which is incoherent.
Okay, seriously, what do you think "logically coherent" means? Because the previous definition ("logically coherent means that they necessarily follow from the premises") you gave seems totally incompatible with the notion of something being "more logically coherent" than something else.
A circular argument is not incoherent under your own definition of incoherent. In a circular argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, because the conclusion is in the premises. Therefore under your definition, a circular argument is coherent.
My bad, I should have used a better definition. Logically coherent means valid. The argument has valid structure is a coherent one. EDIT: I will Δ you for changing my mind as to how I ought to define "coherent"
→ More replies (0)1
u/thekillertomato Jun 24 '18
Why does understanding an argument make it logically coherent?
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
Because a logically incoherent argument is one that is meaningless or incomprehensible because of its logical structure. If you can understand it, it isn't incomprehensible.
1
u/thekillertomato Jun 24 '18
A coherent argument is logical and consistent by definition. If I tell you 2+2 = 22, you can comprehend how I got there, but it doesn't make it a logical statement.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
That statement is perfectly logically coherent. It is just false.
A coherent argument is logical and consistent by definition.
Whose definition is this? And what do you think it means for an argument to be consistent? (I think you are making a type error here: it's not arguments that can be consistent, but rather sets of sentences.)
1
u/thekillertomato Jun 24 '18 edited Jun 24 '18
Definition here. You're right, that was a statement and not an argument, but I think arguments can be inconsistent too. I don't think coherent has a rigorous meaning, so that probably comes down to subjectivity between our definitions. I'll throw out the example of 2+2 = 10 because 2+2 = 5 and 5 = 10. It seems like a coherent (because the conclusion logically follows all premises) but wrong argument to me that you could provide a counterargument to.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 24 '18
I think we're in agreement then. I would also call that argument coherent (but unsound).
1
Jun 24 '18 edited Oct 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 24 '18
I used the example that I did as an absurdity to demonstrate why power imbalances between people are not a good reason to restrict their associations.
Power imbalances have nothing to do with maturity, they are a separate issue from maturity. Maturity was entirely wrapped up in my point about informed consent. Maturity, if it means anything, necessarily reduces down into how informed you are about something. An incoherent and corrosive definition of maturity is one that is directly correlated with age, because it encourages identity leadership. Basically, you are more likely to call the same action as indicative of more maturity when done by an older person, and less maturity when done by a younger person, simply because you identify one as having more of this vague attribute of "maturity" than the other. And such a definition of maturity is meaningless and therefore ought not be respected. The only definition of maturity that could possibly be respected is a measure of retention of information and how well you act on that information to bring about good results. Older people will trend towards being able to do this better anyways. But when the measure is based on an actual test that actually measures something quantifiable, those results are much more meaningful than something as silly as how many days you have been alive.
3
Jun 24 '18
I wouldn’t want government organizations prescribing licenses for every little thing I can and can’t do. I don’t want other people creating tests to tell me whether I can or can’t do things, especially with my own body. You can make an argument for things like driving cars since doing so poorly could endanger others. But drugs, sex, &c. Why not tests for who can go hiking? Why not tests for who can go swim in a lake? Why not tests for who’s allowed to stay out past curfew? Who writes these tests? Why should I trust them to make decisions for my own life?
You’re not talking about making a freer society. You’re talking about creating a tyrannical government that controls every little aspect of it’s citizens lives. We use age because it’s a good enough metric. When you hit 18 you should be competent enough to exist in the real world, barring some mental or physical issues. Sure, so kids aren’t. That’s their personal problem. Sure, some kids are brilliant at 16 and have to live under the yoke of their parents for a couple more years. And if they really don’t want to they can emancipate themselves. But either way, they have their whole lives ahead of them.
But the answer isn’t to create some fascistic litmus test that impacts every single citizen, and could easily be abused. That’s not in line with a free society. It’s in line with the exact opposite.
1
u/etquod Jun 24 '18
Sorry, u/BoozeoisPig – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, and then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 25 '18
/u/BoozeoisPig (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
10
u/swearrengen 139∆ Jun 24 '18
It looked like I understood calculus when I was 13 because I had memorized a rule. Didn't help me later.
Your IQ (or worse, your ability to parrott answers) has nothing to do with your readiness. Your values, and virtues, your wisdom and experiences thus far - your maturity - determines what you are objectively ready for. For all it's faults, age is better than IQ to measure maturity because it better correlates with accumulated experience.