Good and Evil

[Ben Davis]

In a culture that lacks a concept of "underage for consent," and for that matter doesn't seek individual consent in most decision-making on any issue regardless of age?

Indeed. This lack of consent is inherently harmful as it attacks our right to self-determination. I would suggest that had the culture been interested in basing their ethical systems on an appreciation of harm, they would have been able to judge their actions in the same way that we do now, in Europe in the 21stC. Cultures may have changed drastically in the past 1400 years but the basic human being, our capabilities and processes, has changed very little.

And is harm to the youngster inevitable? Or would that depend on whether the adult was gentle versus rough?

That depends on the type of harm. Eroding our rights to self-determination attacks us at our very core identity, our self-worth, our will. The damage isn't directly physical but can be far more profoundly harmful than many types of physical abuse.

The Greeks had man-boy love of the kind that gets you in prison now, and such luminaries as Aristophanes and Plato took their turns on the "boy" side of the equation without seeming to have suffered permanent mental harm as a result.

The greek model of 'man-boy love' is far from the predatory paedophilic one that you seem to be imagining. 'Boys' were pubescent and consenting; pre-pubescent sex was seen as a wicked perversion by the ancient greeks, too although they weren't as damning of rape as we are today.

Much of the harm of incest, adult-child sex, and so on derives from our shaming of these situations and the walls of silence we've always built up to deal with them.

No, most of the harm comes from the lack of consent and physical immaturity of the victim. There is harm caused by the concepts of victim-shame which you mention but those concepts are defense mechanisms set up by the predators because they understand that their actions cause harm and they feel the associate guilt, requiring them to cover their tracks.

None of that means today's world should approve of sex with persons under 18.

That's not what paedophilia is: it's sex with pre-pubescent children. People all over the world are having sex far younger, with full consent, in the framework of a 'loving partnership' without causing or suffering harm.

There's a potential for serious harm even if such harm doesn't strike in every case, and we have a social contract guaranteeing a "protected" childhood. In addition to consent or ability to understand, this may be based on the fact that the adult is more powerful and can coerce a child. I don't think we have to refer to absolute morality or to the morals of past ages to defend our decision to put kids off limits. I think morals progress as our society acquires the wealth to afford more protections.

Agreed. And not only 'wealth' but 'capability'. You don't need to have a lot of natural resources to have empathy or behave empathically, it just helps.

There's nothing wrong with Muhammad's actions in the 7th century

Yes there was. People likely knew it but did it/allowed it anyway.

what's wrong is people thinking we should still be doing it the same way.

QFT