If we can anticipate what the morality of the future would be, should we try to live by it now?
Not if it’s actually the same morality, but depends on technology. For example, strong prohibitions on promiscuity are very sensible in a world without cheap and effective contraceptives. Anyone who tried to live by 2012 sexual standards in 1912 would soon find they couldn’t feed their large horde of kids. Likewise, if robots are doing all the work, fine; but right now if you just redistribute all money, no work gets done.
Right idea, not a great example. People used to have lots more kids then now, most dying in childhood. Majority of women of childbearing age (gay or straight) were married and having children as often as their body allowed, so promiscuity would not have changed much. Maybe a minor correction for male infertility and sexual boredom in a standard marriage.
You seem to have rather a different idea of what I meant by “2012 standards”. Even now we do not really approve of married people sleeping around. We do, however, approve of people not getting married until age 25 or 30 or so, but sleeping with whoever they like before that. Try that pattern without contraception.
We do, however, approve of people not getting married until age 25 or 30 or so, but sleeping with whoever they like before that.
You might. I don’t. This is most probably a cultural difference. There are people in the world to day who see nothing wrong with having multiple wives, given the ability to support them (example: Jacob Zuma)
Strong norms against promiscuity out of wedlock still made sense though, since having lots of children without a committed partner to help care for them would usually have been impractical.
We’re talking about morality that is based around technology. There is no technological advance that allows us to not criminalize homosexuality now where we couldn’t have in the past.
I didn’t specify promiscuous homosexuality. Monogamously inclined gay people are as protected from STDs as anyone else at a comparable tech level—maybe more so among lesbians.
Neither did I, but would rather refrain from explaining in detail why I didn’t assume promiscuity.
It’s really annoying that you jumped to that conclusion, though. Further, I’m confused why the existence of some minority of a minority of the population that doesn’t satisfy the ancestor’s hypothetical matters.
Homosexuality was common/accepted/expected in many societies without leading to any negative consequences, so technology is not an enabler of morality here.
Not if it’s actually the same morality, but depends on technology. For example, strong prohibitions on promiscuity are very sensible in a world without cheap and effective contraceptives. Anyone who tried to live by 2012 sexual standards in 1912 would soon find they couldn’t feed their large horde of kids. Likewise, if robots are doing all the work, fine; but right now if you just redistribute all money, no work gets done.
Lack of technology was not the reason condoms weren’t as widely available in 1912.
Right idea, not a great example. People used to have lots more kids then now, most dying in childhood. Majority of women of childbearing age (gay or straight) were married and having children as often as their body allowed, so promiscuity would not have changed much. Maybe a minor correction for male infertility and sexual boredom in a standard marriage.
You seem to have rather a different idea of what I meant by “2012 standards”. Even now we do not really approve of married people sleeping around. We do, however, approve of people not getting married until age 25 or 30 or so, but sleeping with whoever they like before that. Try that pattern without contraception.
You might. I don’t. This is most probably a cultural difference. There are people in the world to day who see nothing wrong with having multiple wives, given the ability to support them (example: Jacob Zuma)
Strong norms against promiscuity out of wedlock still made sense though, since having lots of children without a committed partner to help care for them would usually have been impractical.
Not if they were gay.
Then they’d just be dead, or imprisoned.
We’re talking about morality that is based around technology. There is no technological advance that allows us to not criminalize homosexuality now where we couldn’t have in the past.
Naming three:
Condoms.
Widespread circumcision.
Antibiotics.
What?
Didn’t the Jews have that back in the years BC? It’s sort of cultural, but it’s been around for a while in some cultures...
Condoms may be older than you think.
I didn’t specify promiscuous homosexuality. Monogamously inclined gay people are as protected from STDs as anyone else at a comparable tech level—maybe more so among lesbians.
Neither did I, but would rather refrain from explaining in detail why I didn’t assume promiscuity.
It’s really annoying that you jumped to that conclusion, though. Further, I’m confused why the existence of some minority of a minority of the population that doesn’t satisfy the ancestor’s hypothetical matters.
Homosexuality was common/accepted/expected in many societies without leading to any negative consequences, so technology is not an enabler of morality here.
Homosexuality has certainly been present in many societies.
However, your link does not state, nor even suggest, that it did not lead to any negative consequences.