Older with Younger?

We live in a society that is not open to new concepts.. do you agree? Is to morally wrong to be in a relationship where there is a huge age difference?

A women whos a teacher ends up having a relationship with a student, but waits till he graduates to take it public? Is that morally wrong?

Is it acceptable or do you find it gross in pervert territory?

What are your thoughts?

Lets take the same situation but with a gay couple... is that morally wrong?

In ancient Greece men use to have their wives then their mistress, then their slave boy.. Was that morally wrong? Who calls the rules to society and now that people are more open to their sexuality is it wrong to judge?

Originally posted by rudester
Is to morally wrong

Originally posted by rudester
Is that morally wrong?

Originally posted by rudester

Is it acceptable

Originally posted by rudester
is that morally wrong?

Originally posted by rudester

Was that morally wrong?

Originally posted by rudester
is it wrong to judge?

Originally posted by rudester
Who calls the rules to society

I guess it all comes down to - what informs your morality?

For most people its just what they think is right - for all their intellectual babble, that's all it really is. For some others they subscribe to "societal values" of their period. Fortunately or unfortunately, that means society is shaped by the popular opinion - moral or immoral. Whatever way determines your relative moral compass, it is fragile at its foundations.

So again - what informs your morality?

I think that's probably less true for atheists than it is for believers, who have it is easy in finding an absolute source of morality, at least on certain issues.

Really, I think moral relativism's a bit of a lazy response to ethical questions. It's avoiding trying to find the difficult answers, and frankly feels entirely counter-intuitive to how humans function. No one can actually live in a way in which they are really tolerant of all ethical viewpoints, and there's no point in trying. I still find it female circumcision, or genocide, or whatever, wholly reprehensible even if another culture could justify those from their own cultural perspective.

As to the question: why on Earth would it be wrong, as long as both participants can fully consent, and the relationship isn't exploitative. Adults have to be trusted to be able to make their own mature choices in terms of who they have a relationship with- otherwise you're veering into quite sinister, authoritarian territory.

A relationship with a student or sex slave is very much morally wrong because of the inherent exploitation involved, the second more than the first.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
as long as both participants can fully consent, and the relationship isn't exploitative. Adults have to be trusted to be able to make their own mature choices in terms of who they have a relationship with- otherwise you're veering into quite sinister, authoritarian territory.

Age disparity in sexual relationships refers to sexual relations between people with a significant difference in age. older men often seek younger women. Older women sometimes date younger men as well, and in both cases wealth and physical attractiveness are often relevant.

I tend to agree with you on this, unless both parties and they dont have to face the age of consent, then they have nothing to worry about.

Society does have definite lines as to what's deemed moral through media television, the way a family is portrayed. It is in are nature to to be carried away by fantasy and desire; this is the driving force as to why we engage into an adventurous romance. It is when we face religion that it's deemed as wrong, but I guess its different for every culture; where you often hear of little girls being married to old men.

When we do see weird couples we tend to laugh and take it comically or frown down at what's not desirable.

The term for males is called, Pederasty or Paederasty. Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. The status of pederasty has changed over the course of history, at times considered an ideal and at other times a crime; due to child abuse issues.

Females are called Cougar Woman, and
within recent years the term cougar women and the cougar women trend has become somewhat of a phenomenon. Older women find that younger men have more energy and drive than most men their age, and that their 'zeal' for life is intoxicating because it parallels theirs.

When middle-aged women reach a certain point in their life, many of them start to feel an underlying sense of renewal that makes them want to be adventurous and young-spirited once again.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
I think that's probably less true for atheists than it is for believers, who have it is easy in finding an absolute source of morality, at least on certain issues.

I find it easier to answer ethical questions as an atheist than when I was religious. I no longer have to weigh what seems intrinsically right to me with what is prescribed by my chosen religion. Your opinion takes a lopsided view of how people arrive at a moral conclusion.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
Really, I think moral relativism's a bit of a lazy response to ethical questions. It's avoiding trying to find the difficult answers, and frankly feels entirely counter-intuitive to how humans function.

Or it's admitting that we don't have a clear-cut answer in all situations. Claiming an answer when no sufficient one exists is just another form of ignorance.

But many reasonable stances are counter-intuitive to how humans function, so I agree there.

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
No one can actually live in a way in which they are really tolerant of all ethical viewpoints, and there's no point in trying.

That's not moral relativism at all.

You know what's awesome? Moral nihilism.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You know what's awesome? Moral nihilism.

I think this sounds more like what ArabianDrums was describing moral relativism as.

You might actually be able to justify moral nihilism without sounding fatalistic, emo, satanic, etc. by appealing to a wholistic or reincarnating universe. I'm thinking specifically on some of the more all-encompassing teachings of Taoism. Though I don't think even most Taoists would go this far if pressed.

I justify moral nihilism via existential nihilism. Life is very simple and straight forward with those two.

Morals manifest the ten worlds. Couldn't be simpler...

Originally posted by rudester
We live in a society that is not open to new concepts.. do you agree? Is to morally wrong to be in a relationship where there is a huge age difference?

A women whos a teacher ends up having a relationship with a student, but waits till he graduates to take it public? Is that morally wrong?

Is it acceptable or do you find it gross in pervert territory?

What are your thoughts?

Lets take the same situation but with a gay couple... is that morally wrong?

In ancient Greece men use to have their wives then their mistress, then their slave boy.. Was that morally wrong? Who calls the rules to society and now that people are more open to their sexuality is it wrong to judge?

Disgusting.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I justify moral nihilism via existential nihilism. Life is very simple and straight forward with those two.

Fair enough, it's a valid philosophical outlook. However, most don't determine such outlooks based on how straightforward something is.

I wonder...

WHEN we create virtually immortal sentient consciousness, will things like existential nihilism still hold? At that point, a person with near infinite life-span would HAVE to find meaning. Even if that meaning is that they should not focus on any meaning???

That does play into our morals. I think we will need to closely look into our morals as we explore technology more. Morals all seem relative. I watched a speech from a particularly compelling atheist that morals can be objective. But he ended up making too many logical fallacies: makes me wish he was right, though.

A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student.

Originally posted by BackFire
A teacher waiting till a student graduates is tragic. Personally, I couldn't stand waiting 15+ years to announce my loving relationship with a student.

pained

Originally posted by dadudemon
WHEN we create virtually immortal sentient consciousness, will things like existential nihilism still hold? At that point, a person with near infinite life-span would HAVE to find meaning. Even if that meaning is that they should not focus on any meaning???

Existential nihilism doesn't claim that one should not or cannot find meaning in life, though, only that there is not intrinsic meaning. Inventing a meaning of your own is perfectly consistent with that idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Existential nihilism doesn't claim that one should not or cannot find meaning in life, though, only that there is not intrinsic meaning. Inventing a meaning of your own is perfectly consistent with that idea.

The problem is not that I do not know what existential nihilism is. You misunderstood the implications of my post.

Because an immortal sentient consciousness will live, basically, forever, existential nihilism would not be a valid philosophical approach. Mostly because I think so but partly because it would be an eternity of no point for that sentient consciousness. Meaning would have to be created in order to justify any sort of existence. This is a different problem compared to a temporal being: the eternal being has not choice but to justify existence or cease to exist. Mortal beings have not choice in the matter.

Additionally, a conscious and sentient being would most likely create a reason for existence. Lastly, and this is the most important reason, philosophically, for why an eternal being would not be able to be existentially nihilistic: they would make an impact on the "point of existence" with an eternity to do so. An infinite amount of time creates an infinite amount of opportunity and probability that the point of existence (objectively) is influenced.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The problem is not that I do not know what existential nihilism is. You misunderstood the implications of my post.

Because an immortal sentient consciousness will live, basically, forever, existential nihilism would not be a valid philosophical approach. Mostly because I think so but partly because it would be an eternity of no point for that sentient consciousness. Meaning would have to be created in order to justify any sort of existence. This is a different problem compared to a temporal being: the eternal being has not choice but to justify existence or cease to exist. Mortal beings have not choice in the matter.

Additionally, a conscious and sentient being would most likely create a reason for existence. Lastly, and this is the most important reason, philosophically, for why an eternal being would not be able to be existentially nihilistic: they would make an impact on the "point of existence" with an eternity to do so. An infinite amount of time creates an infinite amount of opportunity and probability that the point of existence (objectively) is influenced.

The most the AI could do is come up with a separate philosophy or switch to a more comforting one--which is exactly what a human would do. And is that your question? That an AI would do that for the sake of comfort?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Isn't that what existential nihilism is? Regardless of whether or not an immortal entity creates its own reason, there was not inherent reason to begin with, and simply designing one yourself doesn't change that. People (and future things, apparently) have been coming up with their own reasons forever--just because the type of person (thing) that's doing the creating has an eternal lifespan, doesn't change the philosophy's defining viewpoint: no inherent (eternal/cosmic/divine), objective meaning.

I thought the most basic point of existential nihilism is there is no meaning to life other than the subjective small meanings you give it because you cannot change, objective (big, "O"😉, the point of existence.

If you can live for eternity, then you can literally change the objective point of existence.

Yes, I am referring to a transcendent objective meaning of existence: not a localized individual one.

Eternity is quite a bit of time.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The most the AI could do is come up with a separate philosophy or switch to a more comforting one--which is exactly what a human would do. And is that your question? That an AI would do that for the sake of comfort?

I disagree: with an infinite amount of time, the universe could be transcended for all we can account. Transcended into an objective truth or existence. Eliminating the entire point of existential nihilism.

You're thinking too limited about existence. With eternity, you could potentially become a god with a capital G. Existential nihilism loses it's sting/purpose when you consider an infinite lifespan, imo. Also, it doesn't just have to be an AI. It could be the old school archaic transcending of the spirit. Or a technological boost to the mind. Or biological immortality. Or brain uploading and then conquering of entropy.

That's assuming that such transcendence will happen. Assuming it doesn't (which is my outlook), and heat death pushes our AI (or immortal human[!!]) in to black holes and photons, what will it have to work with other than switching philosophies or making up its own subjective purpose?

Assuming it survives long enough to do so.