No, because replacing "foolish" with "objectionable" or "wrong" is begging the question.
There's no justification for replacing the predicate "foolish" with the predicate "wrong" - they don't mean even similar things. Smoking is foolish; riding a motorbike without a helmet is foolish; attempting to clean your upstairs windows without ensuring your ladders are secure is foolish. None of them is objectionable or wrong.

Lots of people do lots of foolish things all the time. That's not a moral objection.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:23, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Riding a bike without a helmet is objectionable due to the knock on effects on other peopple should teh rider crash.
It's irresponsible.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:26, Reply)

I think you might be nitpicking a bit here

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:27, Reply)

Right. So, when there's third-party harm, that does alter things.
But merely being foolish isn't harmful, and - besides - it's not clear what third-party harm there has been when A shags B. Even if there were some harm, you'd still need a separate argument to show that it's sufficiently great to warrant curbing A and B's liberty.

The point stands that "foolish" per se does not imply "wrong".
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:30, Reply)

I'm in very late here, but
the third party harm is that self-loathing over the whole thing is a good chunk of what's turned Bert into such a deranged wankstain and lead to his treating some of my friends in a frankly appalling manner.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Sun 12 Sep 2010, 12:12, Reply)