I’m not sure that it’s wrong. Even without her continued consent. I don’t see the moral problem here.

I can see how there is something here that a person may dislike, but disliking something, and something being morally problematic are not the same thing.

Jeremy,
So, he’s going to look at and hopefully enjoy the photos. The (now) woman knows nothing of this and might not even remember them. What about it is immoral? If he decided to share the photos with others, then there is a question of morality.
Is it possible to behave immorally if no one else is involved in any way?

If he was 18 and she was 17 at the time the photos were taken then he was an adult and she was not. That makes it illegal. And him looking at the photos when he’s old well makes him in possession of child pornography - at least that’s how the legal system would see it…..

When I was a kid in the 70s it was pretty normal to run round naked and my parents took pictures of me doing just that. They look at the photos today sometimes, maybe they might think it would be funny to put the photos on the web. Does that make them paedophiles or child pornographers? According to the law - probably?

So the question of the morality, immorality, innocence or evil of the situation you describe can’t be objectively discussed when the world stigmatises such actions and subjectively places them out of context. If morality is socially formulated, then the actions of your young-old man are indeed immoral according to today’s standards. Put in context and against supposedly objective criteria, I suppose they are not. But who cares what I think….

At the end of the day it is not moral philosophy that will answer, judge or make a difference to our protagonists fate, but the law. If you think it is socially acceptable what he is doing go and try to change the law, and if you don’t, track him down and report him to the police.

“If he was 18 and she was 17 at the time the photos were taken then he was an adult and she was not. That makes it illegal. And him looking at the photos when he’s old well makes him in possession of child pornography - at least that’s how the legal system would see it…..”

They’re both over the age of consent (in the UK, at least) - no legal issues I can discern.

I think the morality of the action can only be evaluated in the context of the time in which it happened. If he was not immoral in possessing the photos at the age of 18, then he is no more morally culpable for owning and viewing them now.

As to the morality of the situation at any period in time, I think that’s a subjective matter. Clearly there was natural mutual attraction between the two persons at ages 17 and 18, which is perfectly normal. I would contend that the biological drive inherent in human nature outweighs the moral significance of a specific law in a specific culture. Of course that doesn’t mean the action becomes less illegal, but that’s another matter.

This question would probably not even be asked in a tribal culture where people are married in their early teens. Why? Because, biologically speaking, that’s a normal time in the life of a human being to become sexually active and begin reproducing. In fact, it often leads to healthier offspring than those of older couples. Of course, many modern cultures do not approve of sexual activity at such a young age, but I think it’s reasonable to say that that’s due to our cultural sanctions rather than something that actually goes against nature. So his pictures of her are a healthy expression of desire, now as well as back then.

As to the legality of the matter, that’s a separate issue. As we all know the law is such a gray area that it would be difficult to find a jury, if this should be an issue to be tried by a jury, to agree openly that they think any picture of a 17 year old girl would be ok.

I believe the photos were not immoral then, they are not immoral now, but probably would have been held to be illegal if he were tried for owning them at age 18 or age 45

Guys - The legal thing. Don’t spend your time on it. You don’t know what country the person lives in, so…

I don’t see anything wrong with looking at the photos.
Now, if he were to publish them in internet or even show them to friends, that would be wrong. Here’s another case: he has no photos, but at age 45, he has sexual fantasies of his naked 17 year old girl friend whose body he recalls perfectly. Let’s imagine that he has a photographic memory. Is that wrong? I think not.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with him looking at the photos and even being aroused by them - he still remembers what it was like to be that 18-year-old, I suppose, after all.

How about this then (sorry Jeremy, I might be pre-empting you here):
He didn’t break up with the girl; in fact, he married her. Now they have a daughter, who at 17 looks remarkably like his wife. Now how should we feel about him looking at photos of his wife when she was the same age as his daughter?

Obviously, the answer is: awkward. To say the least. I have no idea.
I am entirely certain, though, that young people who have sexual relationships with other young people aren’t morally culpable in the same way as older people who have sex with young people are. The problem with pedophilia is the abuse of power, to me. And obviously the power/trust dynamic in a parent-child relationship causes even more problems than those already inherent in any adult/child relationship…

My Responses are in all CAPS.

1. Is it morally wrong for a man in his mid-40s to be looking at naked photos of his 17 year old ex-girlfriend taken 25 years previously? (I’m not interested in whether it is ’sad’, ‘pathetic’, etc).

- WOULD IT BE MORALLY WRONG FOR A 40 Y.O. MAN TO LOOK AT NUDE PICTURES HE HAD TAKEN WHEN THEY WERE TEENAGERS (18/17)? IS THE AGE DIFFERENCE THE “MORAL THING” QUESTIONED? IF SO, THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE THE “MORAL THING” RELATIVE TO VARIOUS ERAS OF HISTORY AND VARIOUS CULTURES. MY OPINION IS THAT IT IS NOT MORALLY WRONG UNLESS THE FEMALE MAKES CONTACT, KNOWS ABOUT THE PHOTOS AND ASKS HIM TO RID OF THEM AND HE REFUSES. OTHERWISE, HE ISN’T BEING IMMORAL.

2. If it is morally wrong, was it wrong when he was 18?

NO. UNLESS YOU CONSIDER THE MAN-MADE LAW (WHICH IS RELATIVE TO A HOST OF DIFFERENT THINGS) AS THE “MORAL THING” YOU ARE JUDGING BY. AGAIN, IF SO, THIS MEANS THAT MORALITY IS RELATIVE TO WHO IS IN POWER.

3. If not, is it the age difference that makes it morally wrong? If it is the age difference, how old was he when he started to behave immorally?

IS IT? I WOULD SAY NOT. HOWEVER, IT GOES RIGHT BACK TO WHAT YOU ARE USING AS A MORAL COMPASS.

4. If not (2 or 3), is it the fact that he can no longer assume her consent? If so, suppose he contacts her, and finds out that she doesn’t mind. Is it okay then?

IF HE DOESN’T CONTACT HER AND SHE DOESN’T CONTACT HIM, IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED SHE STILL DOESN’T MIND. IF SHE IS CONTACTED AND DOESN’T MIND, IT IS OK, UNLESS YOU ARE USING THE RELATIVE NATURE OF MAN-MADE LAW AS YOUR MORAL COMPASS.

5. If it still wrong, and it isn’t the age difference, is it because she is not now able to consent for her 17 year old self? (So the thought here is that her 17 year old self would not have consented to the 45 year old version of her boyfriend looking at the photos.)

? I THINK THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND OUT, THUS I WOULD CONSIDER IT IRRELEVANT.

Generally, what should he do with the photographs? Destroy them? (I’m not interested in the legal status of said photographs. Just the moral question.)

HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM (AS LONG AS SHE DOES NOT PROTEST), AS LONG AS HE KEEPS THEM PRIVATE. THIS IS MY OPINION, OBVIOUSLY.

This post shows clearly to me some very strong cultural differences: I assume this is a ‘progressist’ blog, and hence it is totally obscure for me why the moral question can arise in the first place. In contemporary Europe this question might put something like a moral dilemma to a fistful of Christian fundamentalists, but not even to non-extreme-right conservatives… but for most of the people it is so OBVIOUS that there is no moral problem here (save in cases of privacy or public image violation) that it is strange for me to think what kind of mental process has lead the author of the post to think there could be something wrong.

Jesus: Jeremy can speak for himself, but since he possesses a subtle mind, I suspect that he is concerned not with nude photos, but with one’s relation to one’s former self (the relation that one has today with one’s self of 25 years ago), a question that came up in a previous post and that Jeremy is looking for a way to trap us in an inconsistency about the subject of the relation of one’s self today and one’s self in previous periods of one’s life. However, he still doesn’t have his check-mate move fully thought out. What’s more, there may be no way to check-mate us on this issue.

Yes, what Amos says. I’m not really looking for a checkmate here. But it does involve the same constellation of issues, I think. (Plus, there are additional issues - also interesting - which have to do with virtue ethics, etc).

Jeremy:
I imagine women might take a different view of this. If the subject of your post has a partner she might well object to images of another woman being pored over particularly one from the distant past. She might consider it symbolic of a certain lack of commitment and a colonising of fantasy space that she had hoped to reign unchallenged in. Is this a moral question? I think it is.

By making the guy 18 years of age I assume you did so to say that he was an adult.

I think the problem would be even more interesting if both were 17. Is it OK when they were kids but not when they are adults looking back at their lives as kids?

As I’ve pointed out in a previous post on a different topic, I’m relatively new to philosophy, so I need some help.
Strictly working with what’s given what of any of this is immoral?
I asked earlier, can you act immorally if it has no bearing on anyone else? No one answered. Is the question too naive?
As far as his being 18 and she being 17, since girls supposedly mature a lot earlier than boys, surely there can’t be anything immoral as to the age difference.
There are probably reasons I might get rid of the pictures but definitely not because of moral issues.

Ralph

The question isn’t naive, it’s just very difficult to answer. Basically it depends how you see ethics. For example, some people think that thoughts alone can be morally suspect. I have some sympathy with that view (but only some). If a person enjoyed fantasising about the rape of their daughter, for example, it would give me pause for thought (even if they insisted that it was just a fantasy).

One thought about this scenario has to do with informed consent. So the issue is whether or not the 17 year old girlfriend has consented to the pictures being viewed by her 45 year old ex boyfriend. This is actually a very complex question - I think - for the reasons that Amos indicates above. Not least, I’m not sure it is possible for somebody to consent to something that is going to happen a long-time in the future. (And in this case there is an equivalent thing going the other direction: is the ex-girlfriend in the present day able to withdraw consent on behalf of her 17 year old self? (Which is not to claim that her views are only relevent if she can.))

Anyway, it’s those kinds of thoughts that I think are suggested here.

If you’re interested in the question of whether it is possible to be immoral in the absence of harm, you should have a go at an online activity I put together.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

Thank you Jeremy.
I’ll look at the online link you have tomorrow.

I think it’s interesting that the photos are of the female and are being viewed by a male. Does that make a difference? If the girl had taken photos of her boyfriend and she were now looking at them 20-odd years down the line, does that alter the scenario for anyone?

Taking the photographs out of the equation entirely, would it be immortal for the now 40-something man to fantasize about the girlfriend that he had when he was 18 and she was 17? This eliminates the legal question, but not necessarily the moral one.

Dear Jeremy,

It seems like somewhere in a back of your head you know it’s morally wrong to keep these pictures and yet, you need a philosophical reason to convince yourself otherwise.

Or perhaps, Mim, it’s the other way around: that I will find the photographs all the more arousing if I can tell myself I’m a naughty boy for peeking at them.

Not that there’s any reason to believe that these photographs actually exist…

Or perhaps, it doesn’t matter if these pictures exist or not. Human brain is wired to tell you what’s wrong from right, if you see a small trace of immorality in any issue, then there is something immoral with that issue and why do it?

If the human brain is wired to tell wrong from right, as it is to tell sweet from bitter, why even bother to discuss ethical issues? Or maybe some of us have hardware problems.

“then there is something immoral with that issue and why do it?”

Well, even accepting your premises - which I don’t - presumably because some human brains are also wired up to find pictures of 17 year old girls arousing, and the arousal trumps the intuition of immorality.

“Is it morally wrong for a man in his mid-40s to be looking at naked photos of his 17 year old ex-girlfriend taken 25 years previously?”

I’m not sure I understand what exactly would be morally wrong with this scenario - can somebody explain it to me?

:(

Paul C,
I’m with you. Jeremy suggested
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
which possibly could help us see the light.
While I’m here, would someone please tell me how to post a blog (not a response?)

Guys

I don’t see that it is difficult to see why it might be wrong. Just the issue of consent, for example. It isn’t possible to assume that the 17 year old was consenting to her pictures being used as fantasy material 25 years after they were taken by somebody she no longer knows (i.e., her ex-boyfriend).

That doesn’t mean it is wrong for the man to look at the pictures. But it is certainly a reason to think that it might be.

(If you think consent is unimportant then presumably you’re committed to the view that it is okay to take pictures of people secretly, etc).

It isn’t possible to assume that the 17 year old was consenting to her pictures being used as fantasy material 25 years after they were taken by somebody she no longer knows (i.e., her ex-boyfriend).

The only way that this could possibly be wrong is if you don’t believe that there’s any continuity between the younger and older selves of these people. Both morally and legally there is an assumption of continuity, and consent given 25 years ago is still consent. Personally I’m a sceptic about that continuity - but even I still fail to see where the moral wrong could be.

Paul - It’s precisely the assumption of continuity that is being questioned here. (Though it isn’t the case that the issue of consent is the only moral issue here.)

If you accept continuity, then there is no moral wrong because she gave her consent. If you don’t accept continuity, there is no moral wrong because he’s not looking at pictures of her. Either way, where do you think the moral wrong might be?

I’ve thought of one way it could be seen as at least morally unfortunate, if not quite wrong, for Mr 45 to be looking at pictures of Ms 17. It perhaps depends on Mr 45’s current relationship status (which may be illegitimate, since you didn’t mention his current relationship status). Is Mr 45 with a woman around his own age? If so - would he be happy for her to find him looking at pictures of Ms 17? Would he worry that she would consider it a reflection on her? Would she consider it a reflection on her? Would it make her feel old, ugly, second-best, an encumbrance?

In other words is there something morally unfortunate about a man of 45 as it were cultivating or fostering a sexual taste for adolescent girls? And if a man of 45 is with a woman around his own age does he have a kind of moral duty to move on? To accept that he is no longer a teenager and to try to abandon sexual longings for very young girls?

Ophelia - I think the age of Mr 45’s partner is irrelevant. Hurt is hurt no matter what the age, so the question is - would she be hurt? However if you introduce a third party into the original thought experiment, it changes the original question so much that I don’t think it’s the same question.

there is no moral wrong because he’s not looking at pictures of her.

That’s not true. The claim here isn’t that he’s looking at pictures of the present-day woman (hence in my 12.08am comment I pointed out that it might not be possible for the 45 old woman to withdraw consent on behalf of her 17 year old self). The claim here is that the 17 year old girlfriend did not consent to the 45 year old her boyfirend looking at her pictures. I don’t want to fill in too many of the details here, but briefly I had two thoughts in particular:

1. Even if she at 17 had said that she would be happy for the 45 year old version of boyfriend to look at the pictures this was not informed consent because she couldn’t have genuinely imagined what that meant (so, for example, the suggestion here is that if the 45 year old went back in time, and turned up waving her pictures around, then there’s a strong chance she would have decided that actually it was only the 18 year old version of her boyfriend she wanted looking at them).

2. She cannot consent on behalf of her older self. This is morally significant not because the 45 year old version of herself is the same person as in the photos (she’s not), but because her consent at the time would be predicated upon certain assumptions about what she would feel in the future (in other words, she would at 17 take the feelings of her future self as being morally relevant). (So my claim here is that she mistakenly thinks she can imagine what she will feel in the future.)

I’m not arguing that any of that is true in this particular instance. I’m arguing that it is these kinds of issues that make the absence of continuity morally interesting.

Paul,

Well I’m not sure the introduction of a third party does change the original question all that much, because the original question didn’t specify hurt to the girlfriend. The original question didn’t specify morally wrong in what sense. In 4 and 5 the girlfriend is specified, but before that she isn’t - so I took the question to be somewhat general. I could be wrong though.

Also - “Hurt is hurt no matter what the age, so the question is - would she be hurt?”

But that’s not true. The hurt is not necessarily identical regardless of the ages, just as it is not identical regardless of the physical appearances. If a man leaves a woman for a roughly comparable (in age and appearance) woman that is one kind of hurt and if he leaves her for a much younger and prettier woman the hurt has an added dimension. I believe this is not a brand-new thought.

(I see that Katie Jarvis raised the same kinds of questions I’m raising. Perhaps they’re beside the point. And yet, why are they…?)

“1. Is it morally wrong for a man in his mid-40s to be looking at naked photos of his 17 year old ex-girlfriend taken 25 years previously? (I’m not interested in whether it is ’sad’, ‘pathetic’, etc).”

I don’t think it is morally wrong. The premise is that: 1) not coerced; 2) no objections to possession; 3) will never show to anyone else; 4) upon breaking up a few years later, had no objections to his keeping the photographs.

“3. If not, is it the age difference that makes it morally wrong? If it is the age difference, how old was he when he started to behave immorally?”

Age difference does not make it morally wrong - unless the facts are changed, e.g., she indicated that he could not look at the photos when certain circumstances occurred, e.g., got married, got a new girlfriend, upon his reaching 40, etc. She put no restrictions on his viewing - all viewing would be in the future.

“Generally, what should he do with the photographs?
Destroy them? (I’m not interested in the legal status of said photographs. Just the moral question.)”

I think he can keep them as long as he abides by the original intended consent she gave him both when the photos were taken and when the subsequently broke up.

Okay, I’ll bite - why not? Why is it solely a contractual agreement between the former boyfriend and the former girlfriend? Why are current relationships not relevant?

Ophelia - because the original question wasn’t about those relationships, it was about this specific relationship. Introducing third parties changes the question - for example, how do her parents feel, his parents, her current husband, his mate who really fancied her at the time, etc, etc. All of these relationships may be considered valid in terms of hurt in the wider sense, but I don’t think they’re the subject of this particular question.

Paul - but the original question wasn’t about this specific relationship in the sense of being limited to it. Look at the questions. The first three questions don’t stipulate anything about the relationship - they don’t ask whether Mr 45 was morally wrong because of what he did to the girlfriend - they just ask whether he was wrong and if so how.

1. Is it morally wrong for a man in his mid-40s to be looking at naked photos of his 17 year old ex-girlfriend taken 25 years previously? (I’m not interested in whether it is ’sad’, ‘pathetic’, etc).

2. If it is morally wrong, was it wrong when he was 18?

3. If not, is it the age difference that makes it morally wrong? If it is the age difference, how old was he when he started to behave immorally?

As far as I can tell those three questions are asking whether he was morally wrong in any way, not whether he was morally wrong in relation to the former girlfriend.

The claim here is that the 17 year old girlfriend did not consent to the 45 year old her boyfirend looking at her pictures.

Let’s say that the 45-year-old is dating the 17-year-old, and is looking at pictures of her right now - presumably you would accept that as morally acceptable? Let’s say that they break up tomorrow, and he still has her pictures - is it still morally acceptable for him to look at them? Assuming that you agree that it is acceptable, we can remove the question of age from the picture. There are then two possibilities:

a. the girlfriend is a complete sceptic about continuity, and her consent lapses as soon as any time has passed.
b. the girlfriend accepts continuity, and her consent lapses because the relationship is over.

A is a radical position - too radical to be realistic, I would argue. B is a reasonable position, but then it stops being a question of continuity and starts being a question of individual preference - and any moral right or wrong rests entirely on whether he respects those wishes, which in turn rests entirely on whether he can reasonably be expected to know what those wishes were if he wasn’t informed at the time.

Both your counters 1 and 2 rely for their force on your assumption that “she couldn’t have genuinely imagined what that meant” and that “she mistakenly thinks she can imagine what she will feel in the future”. I realise that this is your thought experiment, but I don’t believe you have any grounds for making those assumptions. Even if I accept those assumptions, I still don’t see where the moral wrong lies. The 45-year-old boyfriend, having heard his girlfriend of that time tell him that he could keep the photos, can’t now read her mind to find out what she really thinks now. He must proceed on the assumption that the consent still holds regardless.

Ophelia - since it is not specified what the man’s marital or family status is, I assumed that it was irrelevant to this particular question. As far as I can tell, the views of third parties are not relevant at all, otherwise I’ll introduce his parents, who disapprove of pre-marital sex and never really liked her anyway.

18 year old Paul: I love you Paulette. Will I always be able to make love to you!?

17 year old Paulette: Oh yes, darling!

18 year old Paul: Even if I’m 45, bald and ugly!?

17 year old Paulette: Even then!

18 year old Paul: Even if you’re asleep, and I don’t ask you first!

17 year old Paulette: Yes, I love you Paul. I’ll always love you! It’s your soul. I love your soul.

18 year old Paul: I love you too Paulette, snuggle-bum.

****Fast forward 25 years****

Paul remembers conversation, fancies a bit of young flesh, jumps into his time machine, zooms back 25 years.

He’s in 17-year old Paulette’s bedroom. She’s fast asleep… He grins to himself before lowering his brand new Calvin Klein’s…

17-year old Paulette wakes up suddenly:

17-year-old Paulette: Oh Paul - you look much older than I’m used to, but I recognize your soul! Make love to me right now!

******

You might argue that this is unrealistic, but I would remind you that you were the one that introduced a time machine….

More seriously, I think that when Paulette consents to sex with a 45-year-old Paul, she’s working on the reasonable assumption that they’ll still be in a relationship at that point. This is unlikely to be an explicit condition of their current relationship, but in our society, it is assumed, isn’t it?

I’m interested in this idea of making promises that compromise your future self. I (think) I understand this; but isn’t marriage itself such an undertaking?
In fact, you’d get into extreme difficulties if you were to take this line of thinking very far.
What I’m trying to say is that any decision of any consequence (and maybe any decision at all) is invalid, surely, on this basis? But it would be impossible to live in this way.
And if you work that backwards, then surely you could equally argue that any promise you make when you’re 17 could be valid when you’re 70. There’s not much sense either way.

For me, there is no distinction between the possession of the actual photos or remembering the photos in terms of whether it is morally wrong to look at them. Once consent is withdrawn to view, however, the terms have changed - and it would be morally wrong for the former boyfriend to look at the photos - as well as remember them.

Well, if the problem is not about the type of action, but about the temporal identity of of the individual, then we can think of a more interesting case: is it moral to praise in 2008 an institution (e.g., like Real Madrid Futbol Club) for, say, being ‘the most successful club in history”? No player, nor even the managers, continue to be the same even as those winning the last Euro Champions League in 2002, so, WHO is really deserving the praise now?
.
And what the answer to this questions can/cannot be extensible to the case of individuals?

Is it so important that they are nude photos? In various stages of my life, I’ve sent various women ridiculous love letters and even more ridiculous love poetry, which let’s assume that they saved and look at from time to time, perhaps to recall youthful moments, perhaps to laugh at my adolescent sentiments, perhaps to think of the days when an idiot like myself fell madly in love in them. I’m not sure how I feel about them (theoretically) reading my pathetic love poetry, but I certainly would not demand it back (besides, they could always photocopy the original). However, I waver between wanting to
delete my youthful poet self from human history and a feeling of je ne regrette rien. If my present self could advise my youthful poet self, he would tell him that the poems will not win hearts and have zero literary merit, but then again (a factor in the whole problem) my present self is a product of my youthful poet self, as is the 45 year old man a product of the 18 year old one. If I hadn’t written lamentable love poetry at age 20, I wouldn’t be the 62-year old fool I am now.

Okay,say I give a girl friend a paperback book. Twenty years later, long after our relationship is over my friend is in need of money and sells the book. Is that immoral? How about iIf I had given her a Chagall print? Or I’m an artist of some ability and repute and I had given a painting to her? What if the painting is a nude of myself?
Perhaps in all these there might be an unvoiced assumption of some sort on my part if the item can be sold. So?
What I’m getting at is I freely gave the girl friend the item and did not explicitly define conditions of ownership to her.

You might argue that this is unrealistic,

Well it is, but that’s not the point here. The point is he can’t assume consent in this situation.

she’s working on the reasonable assumption that they’ll still be in a relationship at that point.

Maybe they are Paul - i.e., her 45 year old self is still in a relationship with the 45 year old Paul - but I still find the idea that he 45 year old Paul can have sex with 17 year old Paulette without moral qualms incredibly counter-intuitive.

Anyway, your original point was that you couldn’t see how there was a moral issue. I think that I’ve shown there is at least an issue here. I am simply raising this stuff as a topic for debate: I’m not saying there aren’t answers.

Of course, you’re quite entitled to maintain that I haven’t shown there is a moral issue. However, I’m going to bow out of this particular part of the discussion now. (Just a time constraint thing!) :-)

Unfortunately I still don’t see where the moral issue arises in your original scenario (the “actually having sex” scenario is different, however, despite my protests…). Unless you raise a moral objection to 45-yr-old men looking at 17-yr-old girls, there just doesn’t seem to be a problem. Perhaps my moral compass is seriously amiss :(

It’s about consent, Paul. The issue of consent is involved in both scenarios. My argument was that constent across time cannot be assumed in the photo situation because the girl doesn’t really know what it means when she says she’s consenting to the 45 year old version of her boyfriend looking at the picture. You argued that it was reasonable to think that she could know what this means. My sex example shows that it isn’t reasonable. She doesn’t know even if she thinks she does.

This does not mean that she’ll necessarily mind if she did know what it meant in the photo case. Obviously it’s much more likely she won’t mind in the photo case. But the point stands. Consent cannot be assumed.

As I said - it’s your thought experiment and you can propose any motivations and reactions you wish to either party. However I am equally free to propose alternative motivations and reactions which are diametrically opposite and they’d be equally valid - because we’re both just making things up to support our point.

Remember my alternative scenario: the 45-yr-old man has been in a relationship with the 17-yr-old girl, including taking photos with consent, but yesterday they broke up. Heartbroken, today he is looking at his photo collection - do you still feel that it might be morally wrong for him to do so?

However I am equally free to propose alternative motivations and reactions which are diametrically opposite and they’d be equally valid

Well they’re not equally valid. But anyway, we’re not in a symmetrical situation here. I only have to demonstrate why it’s an issue. You have to demonstrate why it isn’t an issue, which means you have to show where I’m going wrong. The bar is higher for you than it is for me (since I’m not saying that your moral claim is wrong, merely that you have to deal with my arguments).

Anyway, it has been fun, but I really have to bow out now! I’ll let you have the last word! :-)

I’m not making any moral claims - I’m saying that I don’t see where moral claims arise here. You haven’t demonstrated the issue (or perhaps I’m too dense to grasp it) - you’ve described a scenario and told us that it makes you feel uncomfortable. Short version: I understand that you’re asking questions about continuity, but I wonder if your moral qualms actually stem from the age difference.

All of which brings to mind the Mona Lisa. Ah, lovely Mona who smiled so mysteriously, invitingly really, at so many men but especially at handsome and young Leonardo. So he painted her (didn’t have cameras back then) and could gaze upon her loveliness whenever he wished, that day, next year and the year after that. Mona smiled for his eyes and his paint brush only. And now look at what’s become of her. Hanging in the Louvre all these many years, a whore of art, stared at by any tourist who can afford to go to Paris. A mysterious smile has been reduced to a condescending smirk. Oh the immorality of it all! Turn over in your grave, dear Mona.

Can we at least lay the blame where it would fall all by itself.: evil nature who made most attractive those bodies most likely to propagate the species and the same evil nature that gave humans the ability to reproduce images, by brush or gadget, to aid in men’s memory of those times when they were best able to contribute to that propagation.

Paul: What interests me is the question of the continuity of the self. So, if a 45 year old man looks at nude pictures of a 17 year-old woman, with whom he had a relation yesterday, I don’t see a moral issue. Perhaps the nude pictures aren’t the best example to illustrate the problem of continuity. Suppose that you (or I) had some very stupid and sophomoric views on politics when we were 17 and we are now 47 and running for political office, after 30 years of public service and mature political participation. Should our views at age 17 count against us? Call it the Bill Ayers dilemma, if you wish.

It is actually immaterial if the man knows the girl-woman or took the photos when he was a child or not. The possession of nude photos of children by an adult who is not directly related to the child is illegal. Legality is a reflection of morality of the day, is it not? That’s why laws change - according to moral fashion. It is also largely immaterial (though interesting) whether anyone here thinks it’s ok and can’t see anything wrong with it. The fact remains that todays social puritans (who are the majority) assume bad faith and judge the possession of nude photos of children as both immoral and illegal. Perhaps in court, and the photos put in context, the judge would be lenient to our first offender, demonstrating a little moral flexibility…….

and jeremy BTW unless you have some ‘objective’ criteria to measure the actions against you are expressing moral opinions not discussing moral facts. The reason it is important to discuss the legality of the question is that’s the closest thing we have to criteria outside our own personal opinions - though you might also like to look to religion for ‘objective’ guidance. Otherwise you could organise an opinion poll if opinion is the most important deciding factor in questions of morality. My favourite colour is red in case that has any bearing on the questions….

I think there is nothing wrong with the situation described by jeremy. If you add others to the equation such as a new girlfriend or a jury or a time machine… the moral problems that may or may not arise are not related to the original question. If he has a current girlfriend the moral issue is moved from “is it wrong to look at pictures of a naked 17 year old with her former consent” to “is it wrong to look at pictures of a naked woman you had a relationship with when you are in a relationship with another woman”. So to the original question: I reject the addition of continuity as a deciding factor as the decision of the 17 year old woman to give the photos to someone who could then use them in any way he wished was her full responsibilty. If I am 10 years old and give my best friend a diamond ring my grandmother gave me, it is fully my responsibility if that friend, who I lose touch with in years to come, never gives back the ring. I may not have been capable of making a good decision at that age but I am responsible for the outcome. Now, if the 17 year old girl consented to the photos being taken, she accepted the possibilities that went with that decision and trusted her boyfriend not to share them with anyone else. As long as he lives up to that trust, and she does not give him any reason to believe she has changed her mind about him having them for himself, then he is not betraying her 17 year old self or her trust. I presume he would be looking at the photos in a different way to a man looking at an abstract photo of a 17 year old girl. He is probably looking at the photos and remembering the memories that went with the photo, remembering how she looked, how he felt, his youth, her youth. There is nothing wrong with finding youth attractive, and in this case he is 100% sure that the girl in the photo was not coerced into the situation. The problem with child porn is different to the problem with teen porn. A 17 year old girl is in the range of her most sexualy attractive years. She is probably naive but her body is formed and if she is sexually active through her own consent, then she is a woman.
The issue of continuing consent isn’t related to her age, it is a general issue. What if an 18 year old porn star stars in movies and later regrets the decision, and wishes she had not been filmed? Does that make it morally wrong for any man to use the films now that the woman is 40? I don’t think so, because the woman gave her consent for her body at that time to be filmed. She has every right for her 40 year old body to be kept private, but she gave up the rights to the film of her younger self when she made her decision. She could have been emotionally immature at 17, 18 or 30. The age of consent is an average, and not based on morals or nature.

The possession of nude photos of children by an adult who is not directly related to the child is illegal.

That just isn’t true, Flooted. It depends on the country and the photographs. In Canada, for example, simple nudity is not enough for a photograph to be defined as child pornography.

Here’s the relevant clause:

“163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.”

Ok so laws are specific (and your man’s pictures would be judged against item (i) above), opinions about morality are specific also. My point is only that in order to assess your scenario as moral or not you need a reference outside your (one’s) personal opinion…

(I choose the law as my reference because I spent many years working with a child protection organisation that encountered all sorts of people who had also sorts of compelling reasons for why they were justified in possessing pictures of nude children.) …

Anyway what reference outside of their personal opinion do others choose to determine the morality of this particular scenario? Religion?

Ok so laws are specific (and your man’s pictures would be judged against items (i) and (ii) above), opinions about morality are specific also. My point is only that in order to assess your scenario as moral or not you need a reference outside your (one’s) personal opinion…

(I choose the law as my reference because I spent many years working with a child protection organisation that encountered all sorts of people who had also sorts of compelling reasons why they were justified in possessing pictures of nude children.) …

Anyway what reference outside of their personal opinion do others choose to determine the morality of this particular scenario? Religion?

flooted said: “It is actually immaterial if the man knows the girl-woman or took the photos when he was a child or not. The possession of nude photos of children by an adult who is not directly related to the child is illegal.”

In the first place, in my own country, Spain, or in the UK, with 17 you’re not a child in any legal or moral sense. So, there would not be anything formally illegal at any age in the person in the story keeping and visualizing the pictures.

It would be illegal if the girl had not expressed her consent, which is obviously not the case.

As for morality, my modest opinion is that something is immoral when you harm, potentially or actually, someone when you do it or prevent it. It is obviously not the case here either , since she has never withdrawn her consent at his keeping, and possibly enjoying, the pictures. A different issue would be if the man showed the pictures to somebody else, without the explicit consent of the lady, but it is not the issue here.

Therefore, I do not see any legal or moral conundrum here.

Trouble is, Flooted, the logic of your argument suggests the possibility that I might be moral if I possess the photographs on the Canadian side of the bridge at Niagara Falls, and then if I walk 400 yards to the American side, I’m suddenly immoral. Or, more absurdly, that if I’m standing on the American/Canadian border, that half of me is moral and the other half immoral.

That’s somewhat implausible!

Morality is different from legality (though, of course, one might argue that it is morally wrong to break laws - but that’s a different argument.)

@jeremy I am just thinking what is the basis for any of the reasoning expressed here outside of personal opinion? I choose the law to express my moral position for the reasons outlined above. I have not intentionally chosen legal-moral relativism but I agree with the outcome you describe in your first paragraph. But the situation is the same (or worse) depending on what individual you speak to and their particular opinions. Family ‘x’ says your situation is fine while family ‘y’ will throw rocks at you. At least my relativism is written down and provides a legal accountability framework at least in some countries…

So I ask again: what reference outside of their personal opinion do others choose to measure the morality of this particular scenario?

There must be some external criteria, no? Or are we just left with opinion?

Flooted - Well that’s just a very difficult question to answer. If you’re a utilitarian then you’re going to look at harm, and maybe decide that in this situation there isn’t much harm occurring. But if you’re interested in character and virtue, then maybe you’ll think there is something troubling about what’s going on here.

But if you’re asking whether it is possible to ground these kinds of moral positions, then…

Well probably not. Relativism doesn’t necessarily follow, though.

Just for the record…

I think there is nothing wrong with the situation described by jeremy. If you add others to the equation such as a new girlfriend or a jury or a time machine… the moral problems that may or may not arise are not related to the original question. If he has a current girlfriend the moral issue is moved from “is it wrong to look at pictures of a naked 17 year old with her former consent” to “is it wrong to look at pictures of a naked woman you had a relationship with when you are in a relationship with another woman”.

True, but the “original question” was not “is it wrong to look at pictures of a naked 17 year old with her former consent”; it was ” Is it morally wrong for a man in his mid-40s to be looking at naked photos of his 17 year old ex-girlfriend taken 25 years previously?” As I said, nothing else was stipulated. The way the questions are laid out, the first three ask if it is wrong and only then, in question 4, is the question asked ” If not (2 or 3), is it the fact that he can no longer assume her consent?” - which means that 1-3 do not assume that the reason the answer to 1 could be “yes” is to do with consent.

I simply thought the whole thing was like the questions in “Taboo” and that the question really was simply “is it wrong, in any sense, for any reason?” I thought we were being asked if we could think of any reason it was morally wrong. Apparently it was self-evident that the question throughout was “is it wrong for reasons to do with consent?” - but it wasn’t self-evident to me.

Maybe (come to think of it) there are two styles or methods of reading in play here. Maybe according to an intuitive common sense social cues style of reading, it was obvious that the whole question was always about consent, and I was being autistic not to get that. But according to a more cautious style of reading, it is a mistake to read things into what has been said, because that can cause one to answer questions that haven’t been asked, go off on tangents, miss the point, etc. Jeremy is careful about the way he words things, and I took him to have worded the questions the way he did because that was what he meant. An intuitive style of reading is highly appropriate for some kinds of reading, but not for all kinds. As far as I know, a very literal way of reading is what’s needed for discussions of this kind. But perhaps that’s my mistake.

Here’s my response from a general moral point of view. Hopefully, you will find the answers to your questions in this.

Obviously, there is a confusion about morality in your questioning. Her consent or age have nothing to do with you still having the pictures being morally wrong. The fact that you had such a relationship with her is morally wrong in the first place. Allow me to explain. Such relationships before marriage seem harmless but have a psycho-social impact on society leading to harmful effects that are more obvious. Let’s take your relationship for example. You were so open with this girl that she let you take nude pics of her which allowed you to believe that such relationship before marriage is no big deal as long as you kept it to yourself. This thinking liberated you (at least momentarily) and allowed you to pursue such relationships in the future with other girls (doesn’t matter whether you in particular did or not because it follows). As a person has such a relationship, his curiosity builds fantasies (i.e., sexual) and can lead to more than just taking nude pics. A man who does not have control over himself and tries to fulfill all his sexual fantasies:

- may go to the point where he will commit rape to satisfy his urge
- will have a distorted view of reality
- will have family problems depending on his control over his urge
- will most likely pass such thinking to his kids (or peers) who will continue to pass it down to their kids

The fourth point is actually the most self-evident. If you look at the past, it was universally considered immoral to have any such relationship before marriage. With the invention of television, there came a lot more exposure to the opposite sex. With the coming of VCR, one could just rent a video and watch pornographic material in the privacy of his own home. Fulfilling your fantasies became a lot more easy. It didn’t stop there though. The new generation picked this up as a liberating, free-thinking perspective of life and started having open relationships. Having a boyfriend/girlfriend became a trend as one can have a ‘temporary’ sexual relationship before marriage with little or no moral or ethical or even legal obligation. This brought forth a higher rate of:

- single working mothers with little sense of security
- pregnancy, especially teenage mothers
- abortion, especially teen
- bastard children whose mothers mothers don’t even know who the father is
- orphan population
- troubled kids
- depression, especially the young (history shows depression was a mental disease for the old)

….I think you get the idea.

Anyways, this may at first seem far-fetched but if you really think about it, everything starts from somewhere. I’m not saying all of this started from sexual tension but I will say it’s is a huge driving factor.

In conclusion, any intimate relationship between a man and woman before marriage is generally immoral. I could go on forever and write a book about all of its effects on man and society but not right now. Hopefully in the future though, hehe.

Please, if anyone wants more info, clarification, or just pass a comment on this, follow up with me via haroon.babu@yahoo.com.

Thank you.

Haroon: I’m puzzled. Is a relation between two men before marriage also immoral?

With the coming of VCR, one could just rent a video and watch pornographic material in the privacy of his own home.

Yeah, though it was always a little embarrassing renting “Big and Busty” or “One In the Eye from Popeye” from the local video store.

Amos. Yes, such relations b/w two men or two women are immoral. They have their adverse effects. Here are some statistics.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

Haroon

What about a relationship between man and goat?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

here’s another good website.

http://smma59.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/the-effects-of-pornography-and-homosexuality-on-society/

Jeremy that’s disgusting and humorous at the same time. I don’t think I need to explain the effects of this type of relationship though.

I don’t think I need to explain the effects of this type of relationship though.

No, you don’t. It killed the poor goat!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6619983.stm

Still let’s hope it died happy.

But what about man and vacuum cleaner? Sex and cleanliness all at the same time! Surely you can’t object!?

http://tinyurl.com/62rhum

Jeremy, you are just prone to the sexual curiosity of man aren’t you? Tell you what, unless you personally try anything you can think of and find no negative effects in the long run, I will not object. Is that fair?

Eh? haroon said ‘you’ -

Her consent or age have nothing to do with you still having the pictures…The fact that you had such a relationship with her…Let’s take your relationship for example. You were so open with this girl that she let you take nude pics of her which allowed you to believe that such relationship before marriage is no big deal as long as you kept it to yourself. This thinking liberated you (at least momentarily) and allowed you to pursue such relationships in the future…

And went uncorrected. I thought this was a thought experiment type thing, not autobiography. If I’d realized it was personal I never would have commented.

How cringe-making.

Ophelia, I’m sure it wasn’t personal. I said ‘you’ because I was talking to the questioner who may be anyone posing a question. I’m not an English major. I majored in Engineering my profession is business. So if there is some unparallelism in my initial answer, I apologize. But I think the important thing is not my grammar skills but the message in the answer which Jeremy seems to understand. If you have any objections to my answer, please reply.

No no, sorry haroon, I wasn’t attacking your grammar skills, I just thought I had misunderstood the whole post.

Haroon

Jeremy, you are just prone to the sexual curiosity of man aren’t you?

Man, woman, beast (goat), vacuum cleaner, bicycle (http://tinyurl.com/8ufnos) - my curiosities are legion. Not sure what you mean by the prone thing, though - you saucy devil! :-)

I think we’re getting off the point. What was the point again?

nothing really. Just a joke.

I just read your profile. Interesting. I’m not as formally educated as you but have been a thinker and a truth seeker since I was a kid. Truth is my drive. I am Muslim. Being in London and a traveler, you must have come across many Muslims. I hope you had a positive experience. Anyways, I am 25. I came across your website about a couple months ago. I played the logic games. Fun. However, there was this one game in particular, Do-It-Yourself Deity, I wanted to comment on. Whoever wrote the questions made them very confusing. I had to read them over and over again to comprehend what was being asked. There were two questions in particular though I did not understand- I don’t remember what but I’ll play it again and I’ll let you know. I got bullets from both of my answers. Otherwise, I was, according to the game, logical.

Anyways, nice to finally meet the maker of the website. I’ll be in touch.

Haroon

nothing really. Just a joke

I know, I’m just kidding with you. Nice to make your acquaintance too. I figured you were a Muslim. I spent a large part of the summer reading a book of Sha’afi jurisprudence (’Reliance of the Traveller’).

Did you know that it is forbidden to laugh whilst you’re using the bathroom!? Think of all the fun that rules out!

Well, if you really think about it, why would you be laughing on the toilet in the first place? haha. I haven’t heard that but I have read that it is forbidden to talk while using the bathroom. And naturally, I never did find it okay to talk while using the bathroom. Logic behind this, if you already had not figured it out, is to maintain a sense of modesty in your character. These types of jurisprudence are for character building for the Muslim in particular. I haven’t really read any of Sha’afi’s work because I can’t manage my time right but he’s one of the most respected scholars. I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. Just ask yourself “Why?” or “What does he mean by this?” and think objectively.

If you don’t mind, I would like to know your religious background. Are you atheist, agnostic? What is your viewpoint on religion. I promise not to stereotype. I just like to know what the basis of people’s viewpoint on life. For example, although I was born into Islam, at the age 23 I consciously chose Islam to be my way of life because I found it most logical through a philosophical point of view and the fact that it is compatible with modern science. Did you know in the Qur’an it says there are two bodies of water that are separated by an invisible wall? http://afr33n.rediffiland.com/blogs/2008/03/16/The-Description-of-the-Barrier-Between-Two-Seas.html

Haroon

I’d have thought that the possibility of being laughed at in the bathroom might encourage modesty! :-)

Did you know in the Qur’an it says there are two bodies of water that are separated by an invisible wall?

And yet it doesn’t mention polar bears (though it is very keen on camels)!

My religious views tend to alter depending on who I want to irritate I’m talking to!

I don’t understand your sarcasm about polar bears and camels.

And how can you have alternating “religious views?” What’s the logic behind that? And correct me if I’m wrong but if you do that, then you don’t have a true, hardcore standpoint on life. And in your profile you mentioned that you are an elected Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. How can you scientifically examine religion without a firm “religious view.”

I wasn’t being sarcastic, it doesn’t mention polar bears, and it does mention camels. (The point being that the Qur’an is the product of its time and place.)

Haroon - I’m trying to avoid engaging with you about religion - just because it’s a conversation that will go nowhere. We’re not going to agree. I’m not going to persaude you that your views are wrong, and you won’t persuade me that mine are wrong. And it’ll take a long time. Also, I don’t really want to be identified as an ‘atheist’ or an ‘agnostic’ or anything like that because I’m not very interested in religion in that sense. I’m interested in it politically; and I find theology quite interesting. But I’m not interested in questions about whether religious belief is rational, whether there is a God, that kind of thing. (So I’m not so interested in apologetics, for example.)

I used to run a discussion board for The Philosophers’ Magazine. I banned all talk about religion! :-)

I hope you don’t feel brushed off. I know you’re engaging in good faith, and I’m not cooperating. But it’s just… not my thing.

Yeah, it’s a mystery how I managed to get elected to the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. (Though, as I say, I am interested in the politics of religion.)

Understandable. But honestly, I did not mean sell you on my beliefs or religion. I am not even that educated on my religion nor am I that experienced in life to have such an influence over someone with your experience. And the only reason I brought up “religious views” was because of your interest in morality, the content of the Philosopher’s Magazine, and seeing that you are in the CSER. But no prob. I am not that educated on theology so I don’t like to discuss religion (right or wrong) anyways. I do however like to discuss different perspectives of life (religious or not) through a logical and philosophical point of view. So don’t worry. I’m not going to ask you again. Can I ask, if you don’t mind, why you were reading Sha’fi’s book and what you got out of it? Also, do you have material reflecting your thoughts on politics of religion? That’s something I also have an interest in. I’ll check back with you tomorrow. Later.

Haroon

Absolutely no need to explain. I’m the one being difficult here. I’ll respond to your questions in the morning! Night!

[...] to chew on Filed under: Ethics, Philosophy — Luke @ 1:07 am Jeremy Stangroom on the ethics of nude photography… it’s not quite what you’d think: Suppose an 18 year old fella takes some [...]

Never mind the morality lets see the pictures!

I can’t see that the age thing is an issue. He could be having actual sex with her and if it was consenting and otherwise non-exploitative then on the basis of the age gap alone it wouldn’t be wrong; let alone would just looking at photographs be wrong.

But I’m interested in the idea that you might think that consent might have an expiry date. That she might not consent again, if asked now, does not mean that she did not previously consent. I might become dissatisfied with a contractual arrangement, you might regret taking on your mortgage; but the agreements are nonetheless extant.

But if the contract is of the ind that I can actively back out of, then fair enough, and I think consent works like that, in most people’s minds: you have to actively end it for it to expire. 25 years later the consent is in force; she needs to actively withdraw it.

Right, glad I got that sorted. Now where’s my old photo album…

It’s interesting that by the time you get to the bottom of all these responses, what you intended to type after reading the original post has altered quite a bit. Anyways…

1. Continuity of self seems like it just has to be assumed true, otherwise holding anyone responsible for things in their past becomes practically impossible. I admit that it’s interesting, but we all already know that we’re just not the same physical being in any literal sense that we were 25 years ago, 10 years ago, 3 years, 2 months, etc,…If you get caught for a crime you committed 2 years ago(insert any length of time), you can’t reasonably reply that it was someone else.

2. A point of curiosity was brought up earlier when someone asked if anyone’s point of view would change if it was nude pictures of a man with an older woman looking at them. I’m curious if anyone’s views would be different if it was a 17 year old boy taking pictures of his 15 year old girlfriend and then keeping them. At what age is it no longer wrong for 2 teenagers to mutually consent to, if not sex, at least nude picture taking?

I don’t know if it’s “wrong”, it seems to bring up the question of “what is wrong”, though.

A man who donated his kidney to his wife eight years ago now wants it back after she cheated on him and filed for divorce.

I thought the above (found on the Sky News website today) was an interesting variation on this story.

Katie

Yes, that story is interesting. Another really good illustration of this kind of thing - well not exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, but at least the question of whether consent extends through time - is this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6530295.stm

It was big news a couple of years ago.

Well, pretty late on this one.

I agree with Michael F that there has to be some [i]moral[/i] continuity for individuals (although the philosophic issues around continued identity are interesting). Therefore, if she consents at 17, then her consent holds until it is withdrawn. One day after consent, the consent can be assumed by him. Same goes for a few weeks later, and a few months and so on. There’s nowhere to draw the line, so the same goes 25 years after UNLESS:

- She has withdrawn consent - but the onus would be on her to make this obvious. Notice in the BBC article linked above, the consent was actually withdrawn.

- Maybe if there is some specific reason to know it was unlikely that the consent had continued (say, if he had reason to understand that she just meant if they were still together).

Looking at the kidney example (though not having read any details), a person who doesn’t understand that their consent for such an action cannot be withdrawn later because of a break up, is frankly just stupid. (He might have a point if he is arguing that he was effectively tricked into donating the kidney. That is, he thought he was giving something to a faithful loving wife, but really she was cheating on him the whole time, and just put on a façade to get the kidney.)

So in the case of the 17 year old, she may not be able to know how her future self will feel, but that’s true in many circumstances for all of us; it would be absurd to rule out allowing consent that applies to future selves on that basis. (Can I burden my future self with a mortgage?)

There are things we consent to in situations that we know our views/circumstances might change, but we take the risk anyway. In those cases (and this thought experiment is one) we understand that future explicit withdrawal of consent is usually required. So she doesn’t have to know what her future self may think and feel, she just has to understand the nature of the consent she’s giving.

Hi Jeremy
Yes, I remember that story well. Even more complicated as, potentially, there are others involved, too.

Re future selves:
I guess we do make many decisions with our future selves in mind. Not to take illegal drugs - which we’d maybe enjoy for a short time but for which our future selves would pay - is one.
I often think of my future self when I stop myself putting off a job I don’t want to do.

I’d have to think about this, but I’m wondering where we naturally stop in this process, and why.

I also often think of my future self when I confronted with work. I think: “he can do it!”

But your drug example is a good case (putting aside issues of legality). It may be wise to consider your future self in such circumstances, but would anyone say it was *immoral* to make such decisions?

Eg: I can’t freely choose to drink deer, because it’s just possible that my future self *might* be harmed to some degree or other? Or just not approve?

There would be innumerable such examples, it seems to me - not just health related either. It would paralyze us. (This is one reason I think moral continuity applies.)

Thing is, though, guys it’s possible to reply to these examples that “Yes” absolutely we are morally required to think of our future selves. If I make a pact with the devil today that will mean in 30 years time some great harm will come to my future self then I think I am behaving immorally. Well, at the very least, I’d be needed to be persuaded that I’m not.

I don’t think it would paralyse us anymore than the fact that we have to think of other people in present paralyses us. (We just exercize due caution, etc).

I have trouble with your ‘deal with the devil’ example. It seems to be loading the question somewhat. One assumes, pretty much by definition, that a deal with the devil is immoral. I know it’s an analogy, or generalization, but it adds a level of intrinsic nefariousness to the example. I don’t think there is anything *intrinsically* immoral about drinking beer, or smoking drugs, or looking at photos of naked people etc.

Anyway, there’s a difference when regarding others and oneself. Many people (including myself) have no moral objection to someone choosing for themselves to do something dangerous to themselves - such as smoking or mountain climbing.

However, I don’t think you should smoke in a situation where someone else cannot but help breath in your smoke (with the possible exception of when that person is visiting you in your own private dweling - I think you know what I mean here). One may choose to do things that have potential harm effects you, but one may not impose those things on others.

If you are now saying we should be morally obiliged to consider our future selves just as if they were another person - what’s more, another person with whom we cannot even communicate - then yes, it does paralyze us in a different way.