Ethical inclusivist argument - Revision history

The Admins at 21:31, 13 April 2022

2022-04-13T21:31:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 13 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__The '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceived to be '''morally outrageous''' and abhorrent by most people. The argument holds that in a utopian society, even if the results of inter-generational sexual activity in childhood were as negative as commonly claimed ([[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|or variable]], as is in fact the case), the overall net benefit to adult partners would outweigh the negatives on the minor side, and make the acts morally permissible - even ''necessary''.		__NOTOC__The '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceived to be '''morally outrageous''' and abhorrent by most people. The argument holds that in a utopian society, even if the results of inter-generational sexual activity in childhood were as negative as commonly claimed ([[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes\|or variable]], as is in fact the case), the overall net benefit to adult partners would outweigh the negatives on the minor side, and make the acts morally permissible - even ''necessary''.

	*This argument is rhetorically flawed, and thus not recommended as a '''debating strategy''' unless you are engaged in the dark arts of [[trolling]], with no reference to a joined-up '''activist strategy'''.		*This argument is rhetorically flawed, and thus not recommended as a '''debating strategy''' unless you are engaged in the dark arts of [[Debate Guide: Social Media and Trolling\|trolling]], with no reference to a joined-up '''activist strategy'''.
	*This argument could also potentially be used to defend illegalist ethics and some instances of [[rape]] (when discounting the brutalization of moral values it would entail). As such, the argument is banned from sites such as our forum within the illegalist context.		*This argument could also potentially be used to defend illegalist ethics and some instances of [[rape]] (when discounting the brutalization of moral values it would entail). As such, the argument is banned from sites such as our forum within the illegalist context.

JohnHolt: /* Age of consent, 18 - prohibitionist */

2021-10-22T15:06:40Z

Age of consent, 18 - prohibitionist

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 22 October 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Number of 1-on-1 interactions is 1. Average value to minor (1-7) is 2. Average value to adult (1-7) is 6.		Number of 1-on-1 interactions is 1. Average value to minor (1-7) is 2. Average value to adult (1-7) is 6.

	Total value of 8, divided by 2, is 4 (neutral). '''No net benefit'''. Abolition may be necessary.		Total value of 8, divided by 2, is 4 (neutral). '''No net benefit'''. Abolition may be necessary to reduce costs/adverse consequences.

	===Age of consent, abolished - permissivist===		===Age of consent, abolished - permissivist===

JohnHolt: Created page with "NOTOCThe '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceiv..."

2021-10-08T23:37:49Z

Created page with "__NOTOC__The '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceiv..."

New page

__NOTOC__The '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceived to be '''morally outrageous''' and abhorrent by most people. The argument holds that in a utopian society, even if the results of inter-generational sexual activity in childhood were as negative as commonly claimed ([[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|or variable]], as is in fact the case), the overall net benefit to adult partners would outweigh the negatives on the minor side, and make the acts morally permissible - even ''necessary''.

*This argument is rhetorically flawed, and thus not recommended as a '''debating strategy''' unless you are engaged in the dark arts of [[trolling]], with no reference to a joined-up '''activist strategy'''.
*This argument could also potentially be used to defend illegalist ethics and some instances of [[rape]] (when discounting the brutalization of moral values it would entail). As such, the argument is banned from sites such as our forum within the illegalist context.

==Example of an ethical inclusivist calculation==

===Age of consent, 18 - prohibitionist===

Number of 1-on-1 interactions is 1. Average value to minor (1-7) is 2. Average value to adult (1-7) is 6.

Total value of 8, divided by 2, is 4 (neutral). '''No net benefit'''. Abolition may be necessary.

===Age of consent, abolished - permissivist===

Number of 1-on-1 interactions is 2. Average value to minor (1-7) is 2.5. Average value to adult (1-7) is 6.5.

Total value of 18, divided by 4, is 4.5 (positive), with a '''net benefit of 1''' due to higher frequency. Abolition was necessary.

==Soft inclusivist argument==

This argument can be used in its softer form, particularly on mainstream liberals - by pointing to [[Adverse effects of hysteria|adverse consequences]] of various policies and social reactions, and how these costs and consequences would be de-burdened if laws were relaxed.

[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]][[Category:Logic]][[Category:Terminology]][[Category:Terminology: MAP]]

Ethical inclusivist argument - Revision history

The Admins at 21:31, 13 April 2022

JohnHolt: /* Age of consent, 18 - prohibitionist */

JohnHolt: Created page with "__NOTOC__The '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceiv..."

JohnHolt: Created page with "NOTOCThe '''ethical inclusivist argument''' is a debating strategy that applies standard utilitarian/consequentialist ethics to adult-minor sexual activity, but is perceiv..."