One of many reasons why I love reading threads here. Thought provoking.

The idea of "if you don't create victims" then its your biz seems like a good basis of determining about acting ones age/maturity...

Unfortunately, this too suffers from moral judgment. If one has young children and loves to base jump, most will agree that he is being immature and not acting his age. That may be true. So what if the same man were to golf. It too carries risk. Bing Crosby died of heart attack while playing round of golf. Driving a car does carry risks. More die from cars than from air-plane crash. both in numbers and miles per person driven. But social and moral judgment is that golf and driving a car is considered acceptable. Granted the rate of death is far lower than high altitude mountaineering or base jumping.

And would your perception change if the man was wealthy enough so that the children can be well taken care of after the man's untimely death. Conversely, if the man were playing golf and dies but leaves nothing for his children and children ends up in abject poverty. Is this still acceptable?

I think the original post by LPH and the writer of the article that got this whole thing started is that the writer was voicing her own opinion of social acceptability and the sliding scale of acceptability based on age.

I have no answer to moral question. It all boils down to one's perception of acceptability one's belief in what constitute a right or wrong e.g. Roe vs Wade, Brown vs Board of Education, Loving vs state of Va (interracial marriage was banned in VA till this case but it wasn't till the 60's that the law was taken off the book). or 19th amendment giving us the right to vote. Many women were brutally beaten for this right 100 years ago. Men didn't think it was morally right for women to vote.

One thing I will say is this: moral judgment based on person's age really needs to be thrown out in trash.