Timeline for It is oppressive for youths to have laws that prohibit something exclusive to them? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 21:11 | history | edited | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Meaning clarified and grammar and style revised.
|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 20:39 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jul 19, 2018 at 3:04 | |||||
| Jul 13, 2018 at 20:24 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 20:21 | comment | added | rus9384 | @Keelan, can you, please, explain, why is the question "What philosophy school [in academia] states X? How is it called?" is pushing a personal philosophy? I changed the wording but the meaning is the same. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 13:12 | history | closed |
Swami Vishwananda virmaior Frank Hubeny user2953 |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 12:23 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2018 at 11:51 | vote | accept | rus9384 | ||
| Jul 11, 2018 at 9:50 | comment | added | rus9384 | @virmaior, but are there better arguments than "society merely decided to do so" or "because there is no better alternative"? It would be implausible that philosophy does not recognize the topic. So, there must be better arguments. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 9:48 | comment | added | rus9384 | @virmaior, "what justifies" question alone is meaningless question, as there are too many opinions, this is too broad and doesn't belong to philosophy. Upvoted answer is upvoted not because I like it or somehow it gives agreement with my thoughts, but it provides useful information. I'm pretty sure, given enough power, arguments and the quality of wording of those arguments many things are justifiable (except some topics like right to kill just for fun). | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 9:12 | comment | added | virmaior | If that's all, then I don't think it's a good fit here because the justification would vary depending on the social and political philosophy. Are we supposed to find one you like and then get upvoted for writing that way? | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 9:10 | comment | added | virmaior | In a single sentence, what is the question you have about philosophy here? It seems like the question is "what justifies having laws (as a proxy for moral standards) apply differently to people of different ages?" | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 8:54 | comment | added | rus9384 | @virmaior, this question is not asking to do philosophy, but rather search it. This is the reason, why upvoted answer is upvoted and others - not. I can create own philosophy myself, it's not what I want from other people. I am asking about what already exists. Indeed, this is somewhat personal philosophy, but the question asks if there is accepted philosophy stating this. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 8:44 | comment | added | virmaior | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this appears to be asking us to do philosophy (or perhaps respond to a personal philosophy?) rather than answer a question about philosophy | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 8:33 | comment | added | MichaelK | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 8:32 | comment | added | MichaelK | @rus9384 We are having a constant discussion about what things are allowed and under what circumstances they allowed, and what and when they are not. But you are extremely late to the party in that the ethics that say "You need to be qualified to do something things; age may be a qualifier" are established and universally accepted since thousands of years. The concept of "coming of age", i.e. transitioning from being a child to being an adult, with the privileges and responsibilities that entails, is an integral part of global human culture and society. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 8:14 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MichaelK, then any question like "I think X, is there any philosophy stating X?" is a justification for a personal agenda, say, when X is solipsism. It is never late to the party: drugs were prohibited in all the western world, but now they are allowed in some of them. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 7:50 | comment | added | MichaelK | @rus9384 I have a problem with your question then. This is because you say "It seems as oppresion to me." and then "What ethics do state they are oppression?". That is dangerously close to asking for justification for a personal agenda. And in any case it does not change the fact that you are very late to the party. We know(!) that you feel this way. All youths, over all the world, over all the epochs, have always felt this way. We know that! Still we have made the judgement call: sorry, you have to be qualified to do some things, in spite of your feelings. See my answer below. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 7:44 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MichaelK, you misunderstood my thought. People are ready to act against the law, that's what matters. The same people are not ready to murder someone (even if they knew it wouldn't result in their punishment). So, completely healthy people act against the law. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 11, 2018 at 13:13 | |||||
| Jul 11, 2018 at 7:03 | answer | added | MichaelK | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 6:46 | comment | added | MichaelK | @rus9384 "I would say they felt like...". So what? That you have a feeling about something is not an argument for very much. And it certainly is not much of an objection to something that has already gone through the public discourse, the legislative process and been codified since hundreds of years. Your feeling is recognised but other concerns have been deemed to be of higher priority than just your feeling. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:33 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MishaR, the question is why age even is used for it? E.g. why driving test alone is not enough? Why not make somewhat exam about the awareness of consequences of drinking, having sex, etc, instead of using age? Of course, it is possible to find an analogy for adults: what would it be to replace illegality of heroine usage by exam about ones' awareness of consequnces of heroine usage? In my view, if a person knows about the consequences of heroine usage and still wants to use it, why not? Euthanasia should not be forbidden. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:28 | comment | added | Misha R | @rus9384 Well, ok, it doesn't have to be about sex, it's just that it forces a person to respond carefully :) What I'm saying is that the reason behind age restriction (driving, drinking, weapons, etc) tends to be rooted in the individuals decision-making ability. I would say that your argument might essentially boil down to this: at what age are our decision-making abilities good enough, and why are current ages too old. It might sound like a pain-in-the-ass argument, but, unless you include "9 is a valid age for consent / drinking" as part of your argument, you gotta deal with that. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:15 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MishaR, but 16 years? Come on, it's awkward. I have sexual desire since 11 and know of girls who had it since 9. And 4 year old can't understand consequences of sex, that's why [s]he can't give informed consent. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:13 | comment | added | Misha R | @rus9384 Whether a child can give informed consent is another thing - I disagree that it's another thing. It is a major part of the reasoning behind age restrictions. It is probably one of the main points you would need to argue against. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:13 | comment | added | rus9384 | @Hurkyl, so, what do you mean? Are adults unjustifiably permitted to have sex? To drive after passing the test? To watch porn (not in the islamic countries)? So, who decides what is justifiable and what's not? People who are in power, who occasionally are adults. This situation is somehow resembling the situation when women didn't have many of mens rights exactly because they did not have power. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:10 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MishaR, I am not avoiding it: I am just stading in the position of realism. Cars are not designed for the child height. You may assume some kind of "4-year-old" who looks and acts like adult, but this is awkward. Anyway then I must argue that age is irrelevant. Whether a child can give informed consent is another thing, but hypothetically, if yes, then I must argue it's not wrong (if such a consent is given, which is implausible). | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:05 | comment | added | user6559 | For some things, I think you are actually looking at it backwards -- the problem with age cutoffs are not that youths are being unjustifiably obstructed, but that adults are being unjustifiably permitted. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 1:01 | comment | added | Misha R | @rus9384 Why should the reason (such as sexual drive) matter? Perhaps it's merely curiosity. You seem to be avoiding the question, rather than giving a direct answer. In a situation where a small child expressed consent / wish to have sex, do you draw the line? And if a child of 6 passes a diving test, do you forbid them to drive? If yes, what is your cut-off point, and why. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 0:03 | comment | added | rus9384 | @MishaR, don't you assume 4-year-old can pass driving test or have sexual drive, right? Then, out of given examples only drinking and watching porn are left. Such a kid would not intentionally seek porn as lacking sexual drive. Regarding drinking, no one argues here alcoholism is good. I should say that all the purposes (except of alcoholism) of drinking cannot be applied to such small children, they are not socialized enough. Maybe, 10-year-olds, but this is diff. story. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 22:53 | comment | added | Misha R | Could you clarify whether your argument extends universally (i.e., if you are including four-year-olds in it), or whether "youths" implies an age bracket (and, if so, what is it and why). | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 19:46 | answer | added | Greg S | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 2:22 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 304 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 1:38 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 1:03 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 686 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:55 | answer | added | elliot svensson | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:41 | comment | added | Conifold | Writing more comments won't improve your post, focus on that instead, and the last one reads more like a rant. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:24 | comment | added | rus9384 | @Conifold, have you read next sentence after I said it's the matter of debate? Do you assume I'm ignoring psychological and physiological differences between males and females? Indeed, there are such on average as well as in the case of youths compared to adults. But average does not mean universal. There are exceptions. But even then, how is brain development relevant to the right of drinking? Or how is it relevant to the right of having sex with anyone? The reason why age of consent exists is completely different: it is brought by feminists. Except in the case of Britain. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:20 | comment | added | Conifold | It is not a matter of debate, there are multiple empirical studies on it, here is a survey Brain Development, Impulsivity, Risky Decision Making, and Cognitive Control. As before, you need to do some prior research to come up with a good question rather than just channel what comes to mind. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:18 | history | edited | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:14 | comment | added | rus9384 | @Conifold, have you read my last paragraph? These two questions should really be answered, others are somewhat rhetorical. Whether or not I'm mistaken is a matter of debate. You can also talk about the irrelevance of gender to particular kinds of labor, this does not mean feminism is wrong. Also, you ignore the premises: if one drives well, age is irrelevant - driving well includes driving as rules prescribe. Regarding sex - what do you suggest? It is intrinsic for humans. Also, if it is protected, what are the issues? | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:07 | comment | added | Conifold | Could you try to phrase questions differently than "is it ok for me to call something X and who else does it?", whether X is "oppression" or "natural". And you are factually mistaken about irrelevance of age to sex, drinking and driving due to risk taking/impulse control differences in children and adolescents. | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 23:41 | history | asked | rus9384 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |