We're roughly in agreeance. However, you seemed to be implying that if you were to allow a child to race motorbikes "just for the thrill" you were somewhow obliged to allow a child to take heroin "just for the thrill" to maintain some form of consistency. I don't believe this is the case.
My whole argument is that some debates are NOT logical. As you state, morals, mores, whatever, are not logical yet it is a moral question (should a 13 year old be racing bikes) we are debating. Again, I (and I assume rpatrese) see nothing wrong in allowing a child to race a motorbike just for the thrills, but do see something wrong in allowing a child to take heroin just for the thrills.
Using "thrills" is fine for justifying some things and not others and I don't see why this cannot be the case, as you seem to be arguing.
|
|