Hacker News Reader

Comment by harry8 | Hacker News Reader

>> When oral contraceptives were first approved by the FDA in 1960, critics at the time warned that “the foundations of contemporary sexual morality may be threatened” by the ensuing promiscuity

> Were they wrong?

Yes. Totally and absolutely wrong. Practice based on fear of consequence is not morality. Weakening the affect of consequence changed exactly nobody's morality. Anyone who claims a morality that is followed only by being based on enforcement through physical harm is pretty messed up.

Promiscuity levels changed with the change in cost of the alternatives. Morality of people making those choices did not budge one iota.

View on HN

The question only makes sense in the context of what those critics believed about morality. If you substitute your own beliefs on morality, then they weren't even wrong -- it's just a different question.

Morality is the way you act when nobody is watching and the consequences are all but non-existent.

I don't think driving more slowly to stay under the speed limit in an enforcement blitz is moral behavior. I think driving as safely as practicable for the safety of pedestrians when there is no enforcement (eg in a poor and corrupt country) might well be moral.

If you have different definition of what morality is, that's ok but there's not much to discuss.

Morality is impacted by perceived norms. Perceived norms are impacted by incentivization. Underage kids making non-nude porn en masse on MySpace would not fly in 2005. Thirst baiting is normal on tiktok today.

Again practice is impacted by perceived norms. If you thought it was constrained by morality and it changed through change of norms and incentives then you just found out it wasn't. You don't have to like that. I sure don't.

There is no fear of punishment for not bringing your shopping cart back. No fine or social stigma. Yet most civilized people bring back their cart. Except where there is visible moral decay around them. I don't subscribe to a nihilistic view that any moral principles that a group of people can give up on were never moral principles.

Which, if your observation is true, that shopping cart return is motivated by utilitarian incentive. "If most of us do it, things work better and most us do so it makes sense."

Disagree with that all you like, you might well be right. I claim whatever it is it's a long way from promiscuity increasing with a decline in consequence for sexual activity from saying anything about the morals of those who would have loved to fornicate but lacked opportunity prior. Or indeed those so easily swayed by the "everyone does it" argument and were making a virtue of their lack off reasonable opportunity. Reasonable people may disagree with that of course.

Usually this kind of thing is imposed morality which isn't individual morals. "I want everyone else to follow what I think is moral by making (sex/drugs/other thing I dislike) have dire consequences through policy because I can't convince _them_ to do the right thing because _they_ lack [my] morals."

Don't get hung up on the morality bit. The point was that The Pill changed behavior.

So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior.

So what?

So there's a value judgement about whether that change in the behavior of others is a good thing. So "morality" which is where this came in.

You want to make cases about the pill adoption and STD prevalence getting worse, go right ahead. It is different data and a very different case to make. Also far from obvious which way it goes, fwiw.

> So did every piece of technology that was widely adopted change behavior.

>So what?

It sounds relevant if the pill was introduced and got legalized on the grounds that it would not cause that kind of change but e.g. only help married couples to plan their pregnancies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com