You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Age of Consent (Part One)
I don't think "well-being" is the test that matters. Morality is. For example, I could improve some people's "well-being" by coercing them into eating healthier and exercising more, but I have no such right, even if it WOULD help them.
I'd argue your coercion would be more psychologically damaging than the health benefits. Morality only exists within conscious creatures capable of well-being (and pain/suffering). Morality is given meaning because of well-being, which is a very individual thing.
When @adamkokesh came through Nashville, we had a great time hanging out and he invited me to lunch and later dinner with his team. When I challenged him with this question, he gave a great answer in that well-being can't actually be a thing unless someone has the freedom to decide what it is. Some people, as an example, are into S&M and for them being whipped increases their well-being. For others, the same activity is horrific. Voluntary consent is key because they are making free choices about their own well-being.