After all, if nothing else, it is a breach of contract. — andrewk
It all turns on that word 'reasonable'. What seems reasonable to you and me may not seem reasonable to Agustino and Wayfarer and vice versa.Surely you would not agree that there could be any reasonable argument for legal sanctions in regard to adultery occurring within the context of de facto relations? — John
I hope we prevail, but I don't believe that there is any fundamental principle according to which we are right and they are wrong. — AndrewK
That's a pragmatic argument and, to me, a compelling one. It is a mainstay of my 'multi-faceted' argument against criminalizing adultery.Thus the argument that I would mount for why adultery should not be punishable is simply based on the fact that it is too diverse and unquantifiable a phenomenon to be justly and workably punished. — John
Indeed. That's why democracy is sometimes called the 'tyranny of the majority'. They impose their worldview on the minority. Fortunately for me, where I live the majority is in favour of laws mostly based on secular, utilitarian values, so to that extent my viewpoint is imposed on religious conservatives that would for instance like abortion to be illegal.I don't agree with you about the mutual imposition of values either, because the laws that we actually do have represent (at least in principle) the will of the majority; they embody (or ideally should, at least) the kind of society that most people would like to live in. — John
But the disproportionate - and hence unrepresentative - number of committed Christians in our parliament is a separate topic — andrewk
https://books.google.com/books?id=DR_IAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=falseAn arcanum is a "ferment" or an "enzyme" whose presence stimulates the spiritual and the psychic life of man. And it is symbols that are the bearers of these "ferments" or "enzymes" and which communicate them -- if the mentality and morality of the recipient is ready...
Among Christian Hermeticists nobody assumes for himself the title and the function of "initiator" or "master."
The changing of work, which is duty, into play is effected as a consequence of the presence of the "zone of perpetual silence," where one draws from a sort of secret and intimate respiration, whose sweetness and freshness accomplishes the anointing of work and transforms it into play — Meditations on the Tarot
So I am very sympathetic to that kind of 'evolutionary enlightenment' view, but on the other hand, I'm mindful of it being wishful thinking. — Wayfarer
know quite a lot about a relationship to know that adultery causes suffering — andrewk
These two don't work very well together. I think "quite a lot" is an exaggeration. I would agree one needs to know at least something about the relationship, but not "quite a lot".I agree with you that adultery is often, possibly even usually, a harm — andrewk
That's like saying HIV causes harm only if you know about it or have symptoms. This is false. The virus can live in your body causing harm for 10 years until you have any symptoms. That doesn't mean that after 5 years of having it you're not harmed. Only that you're not aware of what? Of the harm. The virus is slowly attacking your T-cells, whether you are aware of this or not. Or it's like someone has stolen my wallet but I'm not aware of it as I haven't checked my pocket. If you ask me later, when have I been harmed, I will not say "when I checked my pocket" - I will say "when I was robbed". Same in adultery. So it's not an excuse to say "Oh they don't know, therefore no one is harmed" - people are harmed, it's just that they don't know about it.Another difference is that generally adultery only causes harm if the cuckolded party knows of it. — andrewk
despite being one of those dreaded Progressives — andrewk
I can see that :DPersonally, I am opposed to the criminalisation of adultery — andrewk
Any action performed knowing that it would harm someone is intentional harm, regardless of the presence of other motivational factors.One is intentional harm and the other is not — John
Morally no - they're harming each other. Legally I can't do anything about it - if they want to harm each other, and agree to this mutually, there's nothing the law can do about it, just like one can't prevent another from committing suicide if they really want to.So, it's OK with you if people choose to live in open marriages? — John
Evidently that's what they end up being.I haven't said anything about different circumstances being "justifications for harming someone" — John
Morally no - they're harming each other (or if they're not, then they've acted foolishly - like for example by carelessly choosing the wrong partner). But because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus said, and in order to avoid adultery and any other such foolishness, it is better that they divorce.It appears you're OK with divorce then? — John
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire — Jesus Christ
They shouldn't get married. Very simple.Sometimes people transgress the agreements between them, even vows that they might have made (vows. no doubt, often made without proper intent, and perhaps just for superficial reasons of following what have become empty traditions) — John
Wow - outlawing adultery is the total abolition of private life. I never knew that committing adultery is all that people do in their private lives - or even what they want to do... If that's what private life is for, then it should rightly be abolished.Are you advocating for the total abolition of private life? — John
That's why if I visit your house and take 5 dollars it's a big deal and the police intervenes right? But if you cheat on your wife and ruin her marriage - no big deal, no substantial loss there. Just check the number on violence, crime, or self-harm that's resulting out of adultery please, before stating that there is no substantial loss. There is a very substantial loss - someone is cheated out of a very important, life-long agreement, not to mention the impact on third parties like children and families.The law has no business interfering in people's personal lives and punishing individuals for transgressions against others in virtue of agreements they may have made, unless there is substantial resultant loss or injury to one party. — John
This is again liberal propaganda. Most people don't know how bad the cheating statistics are. Most people are not aware that this is a problem. Most people don't know that it's quite likely that this will happen to them. That's why by the time they age, most people will agree with me. So you're wrong - it's not an extreme minority. And if you look through history, you will be surprised to see that most people who have ever lived in fact agree with me. All religions - without exception, be they Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism - all of them have rules against adultery. Do you think all those people were idiots, and you're the only smart person?If you would truly advocate this kind of thing then you would be in an extreme minority, along with Muslims who advocate sharya law and honour killings and the like. — John
No, not at all. There's nothing undemocratic about outlawing adultery and protecting people who are unlawfully and cruelly harmed, in ways that they cannot undo or remedy. There is in fact something very fascist about gleefully enjoying the state of people being harmed and having their lives ruined.this is far more egregious; it is a matter of democracy versus fascism. — John
This misses the point. I'm not ISIS, nor is conservatism fascism. So please read up on your terms, and don't strawman. You repeatedly and pejoratively throw around labels - this is inadmissible in an intellectual circle. You should know the difference between conservatism and fascism - if you don't, please read up on it before you comment. Adultery being illegal is NOT an extreme position - in fact it's a position that has been very commonly adopted through human history as a moral position. Given mankind's history, adultery NOT being illegal is a much more radical and extremist position. But unlike you I don't get involved in such silly squabble. Ideas are to be discussed on their own merits. And it seems that you're refusing to acknowledge that adultery is a serious problem that can seriously hurt people in long-lasting and irredeemable ways. Much more it seems that you have a problem with decent people who are outraged by this harm - and just like the slave owners 100 years ago, you think it just that people ought to continue to be abused and accept it, without the possibility of defending themselves.Yes, but it always comes down to what is good for the individuals that form a community. The more individuals in any community feel that they are living a good life in their community, then the better it is for the community. Sure you might argue that some ultra-fascist community might be incredibly stable and last for millenia by total subjugation of the wills of its citizens; but that is highly unlikely because people will not tolerate severe oppression for too long, And even if it were possible; it would be a matter of the welfare of the community, seen just in itself apart from its members, and who would say that it is desirable? What good could an ultra-stable community that did not benefit its members be? It can equally be said that out of individuality arises community. It is a symbiosis. But the important thing is that is the welfare of all the individuals that make up any community that matters most, — John
it seems obvious that consciousness has evolved, both from an evolutionary perspective and also, culturally and quite radically, as Hegel has shown, as the Western philosophical tradition
The thing is, that this matter doesn't even have to do with this. Individual consent IS broken during adultery. The problem is that some are so attached to a sin, they don't even want to admit the significant harm it causes. At least @andrewk was honest and recognised it is very often harmful.This is in line with the 'culture of consent' i.e. the only criterion for ethical worth in sexual relationships is consent and mutual enjoyment, the only constraint being not to compel. There are no duties towards marriage, as such, beyond individual consent — Wayfarer
This is not true. Every Christian (really, here one should write RELIGIOUS - because all religions are against adultery) man and woman deserve to have their marriage vows protected by law against unlawful transgressions such as adultery. The possibility of divorce is there precisely to enable people to leave marriage without committing adultery.Many conservatives are Christian, and don't you think that even most of those would think that the punishment of God suffices in cases which are merely moral, as opposed to criminal, transgressions. Society as such is not critically threatened by even widespread moral transgressions (as it would be by widespread criminal transgressions); it is only a certain very particular (and I would say extremely conservative) conception of how society should be that could rightly think itself to be threatened. — John
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.