Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Funny that you would single out Denmark when it had age of consent set at 12 when most of the US had it at 10 or even as low as 7 for Delaware[1].

Many 'developed' countries had age of consent set at 12 until recently (for example Spain raised it to 13 in 1999 then to 16 in 2015).

By your comment all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles, when it's actually a matter of the legal and moral compass and context evolving with time.

I'd argue that we should have a look at what happened in the last 2 centuries in our societies because caring for our children is clearly not the reason here or else we would have done something 40 years ago about the climate, pollution, smoking, fast food, access to water and food, lack of sustainable way of life, teaching them skills we collectively had 100-150 years ago and countless others things that are making sure they will have no future and suffer horribly in the process of experiencing the global collapse.

[1]: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...

> all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles

I mean, yes? Not sure what you’re getting at. I understand that social norms change over time and remain relative, but if a man in a society of any time period married 7-year-olds or barely teens, then they were morally wrong, even if they were clueless as to the wrongness. I’d hoped this was obvious, but apparently many people on HN have no concept of ethics and see absolutely (ironically) everything as relative.

Think about what you are saying - that given the correct historical context, you would have no qualms with child marriage? That’s not just a lack of a moral compass, that’s a psychopathic perspective.

It's just moral relativism. While not usually the most popular of philosophical schools of though, it's hardly new, either. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

But, fine, let us suppose that morality is objective --- we can even go so far as to say that it is entirely so, and not at all a moving target. That doesn't necessarily mean that your moral compass, or even the compass of society at any given time, is correct --- even if you strongly feel that it should be. Ethics involves the careful and systematic study and consideration of morality. Words like "obvious" don't really have a place in ethics.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact