Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example. — Agustino
What an unfortunately silly person you are! Silliness can be amusing, and normally I'm in favor of it, particularly where the law is concerned. But one should employ wit when being silly, and wit requires some knowledge of one's subject matter, and I fear you have none in this case. Silliness without wit is merely tiresome, or clumsy in an embarrassing manner. Like Valvert was when trying to make an amusing comment on Cyrano's nose.This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury? — wellwisher
I agree with Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others — Erik
If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system — wellwisher
I agree with you on this point. If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. Those who say otherwise are much like the slaveowners, who, attached to their slaves, and not wanting to let go of the power they wield over them, want to maintain an unjust status quo. And whoever says that taking the slaves by force if one must and freeing them is tyrannous, only proves his own tyranny by that assertion.I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. — wellwisher
What is tyrannous is subjecting your marriage partner to something they haven't agreed to, THAT, now, is tyrannous, and ought to be punished accordingly. If you want to cheat on your partner, then you should never get married, it's very simple. And if you do get married, then you should divorce beforehand. Who is forcing you to get married? Is someone putting a gun to your head? Of course not. So if you do get married and you end up cheating, then you ought to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to cheat either. If you cannot control yourself, shame on you, and if you actually plan it out, even bigger shame on you. There really is no excuse. There can't be, not without claiming that people are not responsible for their actions. If people are responsible for their actions, then they are responsible for this too and should pay the price. If they cannot control themselves, it is much like not being able to control yourself and going on a murder spree against people who make you angry. It doesn't absolve you of guilt.It really comes across as tyranous. — Benkei
I haven't seen much of any relevancy there.Thank you for not replying to my arguments and just giving me more opinion — Benkei
You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. — Benkei
Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? :s Obviously in certain circumstances adultery would receive a lower punishment than in others. Just like some instances of theft deserve lesser punishment than others. But this doesn't change the fact that they should both be a crime.Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian. — Benkei
You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite. — Agustino
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. — Agustino
Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? — Agustino
You assert maintaining the status quo, I assert changing it. Both are equally taking a stance / action. I see no reason for there being a difference between us, merely because yours happens to be the prevailing opinion at this historical juncture.There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like — Benkei
Yeah, and people have been living with slavery for millennia as well! You should get on with the program.Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. — Benkei
Well, if the respective woman were to attend a psychologist, they would go through a process which would reveal that the cheating has nothing to do with her - she is not a cause of it nor responsible for it - but rather it has to do with the man and his (lack of) character.I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? — Benkei
:rofl:The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with. — Benkei
Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. But there is a historical progression, as even Engels illustrates in his book, from promiscuity towards monogamy. It seems to be THE requirement for fulfilment in human beings in terms of sexual relationships and intimacy.The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. — Benkei
Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. — Benkei
Why is "the personal shit" going to be harmful if the underlying action is so benign or trite?The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you. — Benkei
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. — Agustino
I disagree with you. My view emphasises the total commitment that love itself demands from the two lovers for their relationship to be authentic. Namely the willingness to even die for one's partner, a wholehearted giving of oneself to the other completely.What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship. — Bitter Crank
In essence marriage is monogamy because it is personality — immediate exclusive individuality — which enters into this tie and surrenders itself to it; and hence the tie's truth and inwardness (i.e. the subjective form of its substantiality) proceeds only from the mutual, whole-hearted, surrender of this personality. Personality attains its right of being conscious of itself in another only in so far as the other is in this identical relationship as a person, i.e. as an atomic individual.
Further, marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — a personality in every possible way unique in each of the parties. Consequently, it ought not to be entered by two people identical in stock who are already acquainted and perfectly known to one another; for individuals in the same circle of relationship have no special personality of their own in contrast with that of others in the same circle. On the contrary, the parties should be drawn from separate families and their personalities should be different in origin. Since the very conception of marriage is that it is a freely undertaken ethical transaction, not a tie directly grounded in the physical organism and its desires, it follows that the marriage of blood-relations runs counter to this conception and so also to genuine natural feeling. — Hegel
(with regards to polygamy)
I am opposed. Having multiple partners that satisfy different aspects is not true love. True love is in despair: I choose you because I can not survive without. They are in this romantic, monogamous and violent. Love is violence, abuse of themselves and others, is unique. And obscene, today, because the feelings are ousted from a world where porn reigns more and more. — Zizek
You know what book I really didn’t like from this perspective? Laura Kipnis’ "Against Love." Her idea is that the last defense of the bourgeois order is ‘No sex outside love!’ It’s the Judith Butler stuff: reconstruction, identity, blah, blah, blah.
I claim it’s just the opposite. Today, passionate engagement is considered almost pathological. I think there is something subversive in saying: This is the man or woman with whom I want to stake everything.
This is why I was never able to do so-called one-night stands. It has to at least have a perspective of eternity. — Zizek
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. — Agustino
marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — Hegel
Yes kissing on the mouth + sexts would still consist in adultery. Though obviously less severe than if it's a 6-month long affair that involved everything for example, including hotel bookings and the like.Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? — Ciceronianus the White
No.Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? — Ciceronianus the White
Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant? — Ciceronianus the White
Yes, in the process of building a family, sure! I don't see a problem with that. Building a strong community of any kind requires some form of "surrender" and adjustment to mutual goals. Don't you think?Are you ready to surrender your personality? — Bitter Crank
Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion. — Agustino
Yes, for the most part fornication is required. But obviously making out for example, and similar types of conduct would also be considered adulterous.Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct? — Ciceronianus the White
Agreed.Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence. — Ciceronianus the White
Yes.May the vehicle be searched? — Ciceronianus the White
No.Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest? — Ciceronianus the White
No, only if a relevant court official decides to further pursue the case. The police should only be able to submit their evidence/report to the relevant court, which should decide if further investigation is required or worth pursuing.If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.? — Ciceronianus the White
So far the police found SOME evidence which could indicate adultery. They have to take a decision if they will file a report for it, get the testimony of the witnesses, and submit it to court, or not. If they think the evidence requires it, then yes, otherwise no.Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.
Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. — Ciceronianus the White
Depends. I would say no.attempted adultery should be a crime as well — Ciceronianus the White
4 months to 5 years I would say.the range of sentences available — Ciceronianus the White
You mean after already being punished, as in repeat offences? Yes, I would say so.whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment — Ciceronianus the White
Same crime.whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime — Ciceronianus the White
Single crime.and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself. — Ciceronianus the White
4 months to 5 years I would say. — Agustino
It's not long. Where I'm from, for forgetting to renew your gun license you go 6 months in jail.How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex? — VagabondSpectre
A punishment doesn't have to be the lesser evil. That's why it's a punishment. That's why things like PUNITIVE damages exist.How is imprisonment the lesser evil? — VagabondSpectre
It is balanced. Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved.Where's the balance of harm and justice? — VagabondSpectre
Multiple repeated offences, long-drawn out affairs, etc.What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? — VagabondSpectre
Irrelevant.Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe? — VagabondSpectre
Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others. — VagabondSpectre
Nope. This is bullsnit. If I go out on the street wearing a Rolex, I'm not inviting people to rob me.So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone. — VagabondSpectre
Let's see some serious arguments if you have any. — Agustino
Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved. — Agustino
Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral.you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults — VagabondSpectre
It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent.Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely. — VagabondSpectre
Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices.My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. — VagabondSpectre
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.He who has not sinned, cast the first stone. — frank
A needless generalisation, just like the previous one with the clothing. Some women do, some are offended by the opulence. Not all people have the same preferences.P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive. — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.