envy can be a trivial, and hardly evil. feeling indeed. — John

No immoral act is trivial.

I was raised in a Christian family, by Christian parents who had taken the commonplace wedding vows, done so by thousands of couples, here in the United States. With those vows came many things, none more important, however, than the agreement between both my parents to be utterly and completely faithful to each other. Were I to tell you all that such a vow between them was broken, I doubt anyone would think anything more than, "well, one or both of them was seeing and/or sleeping with another person, clearly." I would too, understandably, but that's not quite right. My father, in ill-health and frame of mind, turned toward viewing pornography as a means of releasing the many tensions in his life (to no fault of my mother). I didn't know that he had been up to this for as long as he had when I did, finally, realize the weight of the situation, nor even did my mother. I remember being greatly distraught (an understatement) as I slowly put together the pieces of what was going on. And when I did tell my mother one afternoon what my father had been doing, showing her the evidence, as much as that was awkward for me to do, she immediately concurred with my initial thought that this was adulterous, that he had dabbled in infidelity. In not receiving sexual satisfaction, or, to him, proper affection from my mother, he turned to pornography. — Heister Eggcart

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing this! This illustrates how a sin that people so commonly trivialize - oh yeah, it's just porno, nothing bad - can actually destroy people's lives.

I am not convinced that porn addiction should be counted as being as significant a betrayal as having sex with someone else. — John

Surely it's not as bad as adultery, but it is bad enough.

One of the reasons people get involved in extramarital relationships is an effort to get some energy back into their life. Whether it's moral or not, it sometimes works for the individual. People also masturbate alone and turn to pornography to try to extract some pleasure out of life, once work, childrearing, marriage, et al has become a treadmill. The thing about pornography and masturbation is that there are no performance demands--physically or emotionally. It's reliable. It's cheaper and easier than adultery. And much, much safer. — Bitter Crank

When it comes to this there are sins and sins. Adultery is worse than pornography. In-so-far as someone has temporarily used pornography in order to avoid adultery, while that is clearly not good, it is still much better than having resorted to adultery - better to get to Heaven maimed than to be cast into hellfire. If a husband or wife really can't hold it - much much better that they fantasise to porn than they go and cheat. But I know now some folk here will reply: "oh yeah, but it's better to go cheat once and be done with it than to watch a screen" - false. The damage of pornography is bad - very bad. But adultery is infinitely worse.

When I was a teenager in 9th grade I had some folk at school who liked to use prostitutes (that's what Eastern Europeans do in high school...). At the time when many of us (including, shamefully, me) had discovered our sexual nature and fallen into the sin of watching pornography - they were like "why would I watch pornography, when i can so easily get a girl every week? I don't even have to take her out anywhere. Much better to fuck once a week and get over it, than to watch a screen every so often". Wrong. Very very wrong. It's much better that you watch the screen than to be promiscuous - better to lose one eye than have both eyes cast into hellfire. That's why they've never had a proper relationship - probably not even until now (I haven't kept in touch with most of them, as they were never my friends). But of course there's many unenlightened folk who encourage as much sex until marriage as possible - ignoring the obvious dangers.

And now for the dangers of pornography - look pornography is very bad. It's not a trifle - it's not to be joked about. When I met my first girlfriend, pornography was one of the prime issues which took away from the relationship - until we managed to stop it, and this took a long time - a few months of common effort. How did it harm us? Because nothing compares to pornography - in pornography you can fulfil any fantasy, and it's so easy. Not to mention that nothing compares in terms of pure physical (not spiritual - very important) pleasure to pornography. You can sit there, watch, go at your own pace, there is no other you have to take care of, there is no one to satisfy except yourself. You can go back and forth, and spend hours in front of that screen. Stop when you please, start when you please. So easy. In the real world, people are people, with their own characters, and their own limits to what and how they're willing to do. Real people have their dark sides, they can sometimes be uncaring, and so forth. Furthermore, they have their own desires, which are not always the same as yours. So when you watch pornography, you start to compare that with your situation. You start to fantasise about reality - you start to bring demands. You start treating the other person as an object.

But please - if ever you desire very strongly something unlawful and can't stop giving in to the temptation - never think about adultery, promiscuity etc. Just open that screen. Just turn it on. It's going to actually be better from a purely physical point of view than anything like adultery, promiscuity, etc. But of course it is better never to find yourself in a situation where you have to commit to a smalller harm in order to avoid a bigger one - that's why you need to be on guard. You need to orient yourself towards the spiritual pleasures, and gain control over your sexuality. It is eminently possible if you desire it! In fact, it feels much better.

So you don't desire that John be someone else than a person who steals your money?

What I'm saying doesn't just hold for a romantic context. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - I can care less how he is. All I am concerned about is that justice is done. And jealousy is a response to an occurence. The way you treat jealousy is very strange.

You want sexual exclusivity so much that you blame any woman going into the future. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is false. I haven't blamed any woman.

Supposedly, your relationship will be soiled, lesser, somehow without intimacy because one or both of you have had sex with someone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a fact - not the total lack of intimacy, but it will have less potential than otherwise.

If she feels you have the greatest spiritual connection with here and you come back with: "Ugh, our relationship isn't that great because I've had sex with previous girlfriends. You'd be better off finding some virgin." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is that what you would say if you were me? >:O

This is what I mean about love being an image to you. Rather than love being considered in terms of living people, you imagine it as a statue floating in the sky. It shows two people who are sexually exclusive to each other. An image which amounts to intimacy. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Firstly you need to make the distinction between an ideal - and the actual situation. Yes the actual situation can be different than the ideal, no one disputes this. But one can still judge the actual situation as inferior to the ideal (which it necessarily is, hence why something acts as ideal). This is not to say that one shouldn't be exceedingly grateful for the actual situation - or refuse it simply because it doesn't reach up to the ideal. Those are very very different. The fact remains that we are who we are - as I have told you before, sin in this life is eternal. Nothing (well apart from God) can be done to remedy it. This does not mean that one shouldn't try to do one's best with whatever is left. Of course they should - hence Jesus's admonition "sin no more". Look, I made a mistake - people make mistakes - either because they don't know any better, because they don't have the required wisdom and social support around, and so forth - all I can do after having made it is learn from it, which I did. But the fact that I learned from it, and in this manner turned the evil into some good doesn't mean that the evil was erased, or that somehow the good surpasses the evil. Such comparisons are pointless - nothing can erase my history - except God, in the next life hopefully.

But for all practical purposes, it will remain with me. Yes of course I will try to achieve as much intimacy as I can with my future partner - of course I will be exceedingly grateful for it, and of course I will enjoy what I am offered - but I don't even expect to receive anything - and so I am at peace with whatever I will be given, but determined to make the best out of it. But this doesn't mean that I will somehow brush over a mistake, and refuse to admit it, refuse to see the wrongness of it, and the eternal harm that it has done - this has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, refusing to see its eternal harm is precisely what does in fact ruin future relationships. As Spinoza said, loss is eternal. But just because loss is eternal doesn't mean that if we have lost we should keep on losing... imagine if you lost a leg... what will you do, go ahead and lose the other also? But there's many many people - and I've had many friends - who have made similar mistakes. But instead of cutting their losses short, they threw love away, and submerged themselves in promiscuity. Such an attitude is not rational. What is rational is to do your best with what you have left, cut your losses, and enjoy what is left for you to enjoy. In other words, learn from your mistakes, don't justify them. Don't justify why you have sinned - why you have done wrong. That's not needed. All that is required is simple honesty, acceptance and reason.

Why do previous encounters stay etched in your mind? Why do the spoil the specialness of the future? — TheWillowOfDarkness

For the very simple reason because it is part of my history, and we cannot undo our histories. They are fixed - utterly necessary once they have occurred. This isn't to say that you will constantly think about it, be obsessed about it, or even try to bring it back into memory. Of course not. But you have to be aware that it can happen - regardless of your attitude. The possibility will always be there once the sin has been committed - nothing can wipe away the possibility. Will that possibility spoil the future? Not more than the loss of a leg spoils the future - you can get a prosthetic, you can become very happy with it, but its function will still objectively be less than it would have been had you had your original leg in a good condition. I fully concur that having a good and hopeful attitude is good - in fact it is rational - but that isn't to say not to be aware of the objective situation. So all I said is that objectively my capacity for intimacy is more limited. Practically this doesn't mean I can't have a great relationship. Only that the relationship would be less than it would have been otherwise. But that's not a problem - I don't expect the impossible, and I am grateful for things. A good thing is a good thing, even if it's not the best. It's you who thinks that I am obsessed with "the best" to the point where I ignore other good things and refuse to see them - but this really isn't so.

On the contrary, the attitude you promote is completely terrible - you say ignore past sin. It doesn't matter anymore. It's irrelevant. And so forth. That promotes an attitude as if sin were redeemable - as if it doesn't matter if you lose your leg - you can get a prosthetic! Look I was having a conversation with a doctor who is a friend. And we were talking about HIV - and I said to him "Look, what's so terrible about it - everyone is so scared - but why? I mean that's probably one of the "best" serious diseases to get. You live 10+ years even without treatment. But someone like you, who has access to the best treatments, why would you even be concerned about it? You can easily live 25+ years if you get it" But he replied saying that every little small thing counts. Even a small infection counts. Anything that is out of order with the body is bad - and not to be joked about. And he is right - it's the same in moral matters. Everything counts. This being flippant isn't helpful at all.

Sure, let's call it righteous anger :P I really don't mind. My understanding of jealousy is shared by some of the Aristotelians by the way :)

jealousy is wanting another to be something they aren't. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This must be false, because it potentially holds only for a romantic context, and clearly jealousy applies to other contexts as well - such as John stealing my money and enjoying a car he buys with them in front of my house :D

You are entirely correct to say your jealousy is not about losing your wife or anyone's sexual prowess. It's about the world not belonging to you. Like envy, jealousy is the emotion of not being able to control the world to your desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not quite.

So you may ask, why then is it unlawful this adultery business? Well because the spiritual goods of the relationship are ruined - intimacy is ruined. And this has nothing to do with whether the other person is a better lover or not, whether she feels good or not, etc. The sexual act itself suffices, because sex is never purely physical - it always also has a spiritual component - hence why all religions talk and moralise about sex. That's why promiscuity in the animals is irrelevant - they have no spiritual side - for them sex is purely biological, the more the better. Us human beings also have other interests. For example, I've had sex with two of my girlfriends that I had when I was a teenager - I regret that, because of the psychological effects it has on the self. Now my capacity for intimacy with another women is diminished - because the images of my previous encounters will always be etched in my mind, which takes away from the specialness of anything in the future. That's why no sex before marriage is a very very good idea, which I wish I had listened to, instead of listening to the liberal progressive dribble. So that's a scar I have to carry on for my entire life - nothing can wipe it away, it remains there. That's why these matters are not things to be flippant about and say "yeah yeah why does it matter?". — Agustino

I think that if you are being honest about your usage of the term then it is simply a case of you using the term in an unusual way. You are entitled to do that, but I don't believe most people would agree with your usage. So, in any case, it seems pointless to continue with this line, particularly as I already said because it is off-topic. I am only continuing to respond at all to your posts because i feel some responsibility, despite my stated caveats, on account of it was I started the thread. — John

I've edited and added to my previous post. And yes maybe my understanding of what I call jealousy is different from that of others. I don't think that's really very relevant, we could pick another term for it if you want.

Well then who are you jealous of in a situation like that? — John

Depends. If she was raped, only of the man. If she willingly did it, of both, because they have both taken what rightfully belongs to me.

I would say you are envious because you are afraid that he might be a better lover than you. — John

I honestly wouldn't care one bit about this. Again, even if he was a cripple - as I said in my previous post - who didn't even make her feel half as good as me, I would still feel jealous.

Or you might be envious of the feelings that your wife has for him; that is for the hold you imagine he might have over her. — John

I wouldn't care at all, again. What I would feel jealous about is that she has allowed another to take what rightfully belongs to me, and that another has taken what rightfully belongs to me. That's why if she willingly does it, it feels worse than if she is raped for example (in terms of jealousy). We would feel jealousy in both cases, but different intensity, because in one case it's two sources of jealousy, and in the other only one. And if she divorced me, and then had sex with whoever - I wouldn't feel jealous at all. I wouldn't care if they are better lovers than me or not. I wouldn't care if she loves them more than me. It would all be irrelevant because no injustice would be done. I would feel the sadness of rejection maybe, but certainly no jealousy.

So you may ask, why then is it unlawful this adultery business? Well because the spiritual goods of the relationship are ruined - intimacy is ruined. And this has nothing to do with whether the other person is a better lover or not, whether she feels good or not, etc. The sexual act itself suffices, because sex is never purely physical - it always also has a spiritual component - hence why all religions talk and moralise about sex. That's why promiscuity in the animals is irrelevant - they have no spiritual side - for them sex is purely biological, the more the better. Us human beings also have other interests. For example, I've had sex with two of my girlfriends that I had when I was a teenager - I regret that, because of the psychological effects it has on the self. Now my capacity for intimacy with another women is diminished - because the images of my previous encounters will always be etched in my mind, which takes away from the specialness of anything in the future. That's why no sex before marriage is a very very good idea, which I wish I had listened to, instead of listening to the liberal progressive dribble. So that's a scar I have to carry on for my entire life - nothing can wipe it away, it remains there. That's why these matters are not things to be flippant about and say "yeah yeah why does it matter?".

For me, jealousy certainly involves envy, but it may have an additional element of fear that you will be the loser, or will be seen to be the loser. — John

Maybe for you, but the way I have described it, I hope I made it clear I don't perceive it in the same way.

But then you go on to make a claim that purports to transcend your personal experience, about what you say is 'clearly' the case. I am afraid the veracity of that claim is by no means clear to me. Further, I struggle to see how one could obtain statistics about what adultery levels were for instance amongst the 18th-century French aristocracy, miners in the California gold rush, or soldiers in the Napoleonic wars (or even World War I). — andrewk

I compared with 50 years ago, not with 18th century French aristocracy. And the trend was a gradual rise from 50 years ago to today.

If you'll permit a brief digression: I have been striving for a while now to completely expunge the words 'clearly' and 'obviously' from my vocabulary, in mathematics as well as in philosophy and politics. Usually they are untrue, and are used to cover up the fact that I don't have a good argument to support my claim that P is the case. And in the minority of cases where they are true, they add no useful information to the communication. Especially in mathematics, using the word clearly is simply a slap in the face - an accusation of stupidity - against someone that is unable to see why B must follow from A.

In mathematical writing, there is a substitute that can add useful information without having to produce the entire proof, which is to say something like 'by considering the example of a X that has property P, and trying to perform operation N on it, it can be fairly readily deduced that condition C always holds'. If one is feeling especially friendly, one adds 'the proof is left as an exercise for the reader/student'. The point is that the sentence has given a guide to the reader about how they might set about convincing themself of the claim's verity. There may be an analog of that for philosophical discussion, but I haven't felt the need to find one so far, as I find that by removing my clearlys and obviouslys from philosophical writing, not only is nothing lost, but clarity is improved.

I commend this vocabularic excision to you and to any others that find that unwonted 'clearly's and 'obviously's keep on popping up in their prose. — andrewk

Thanks for sharing this, I will ponder and consider it, and may let you know what I think by PM as it wouldn't belong in this thread :)

Envy and jealousy are basically the same. Envy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has. Jealousy may consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has, in which case it is the same as envy. It is perfectly synonymous ordinary usage to say either "Mary was jealous of Cynthia's looks" or "Mary was envious of Cynthia's looks". It's true that only 'jealousy' ordinarily refers to feelings associated with what another might come to have; in this connection jealousy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one might end up with with what another might end up with. But it could also be said in this connection, although it is not usually expressed this way. that one is envious of the situation another is in on account of what the other might end up with.All in all, there is not much significant distinction between jealousy and envy; they both consist in comparing oneself with others. — John

Check the additions to my previous post.

If your wife has sex with someone else; you may rightly be angry, but that is not jealousy. You are never jealous of the wife. IF you are jealous you are jealous of the other. You might be angry with the other too, but that is a different thing to being jealous of him or her. In any case the other has not transgressed any vows, because the other has made no vows declaring that they will not have sex with your wife. You might be angry with the other because he does not respect the laws of society, but you will be jealous of him only on account of comparing yourself with him or her. Your wife might enjoy sex with them, or even just being with them, more than sex with you or being with you. This is the source of jealousy, it is based in the fear that you may lose your wife and that someone else may have here instead. — John

If I am jealous of the one she had sex with, that is clearly different from envy. If I were envious of him, it means I would want to be like him. And I totally don't want that. So there's a big difference right there. Furthermore, the other is doing evil because he has taken what rightfully doesn't belong to him - regardless of the fact he made no vow - the vow makes husband and wife rightfully belong only to each other. Hence whosoever takes either husband or wife in adultery commits the same wrong. Furthermore, I'm not jealous because I'm afraid for losing my wife to that person - or because she enjoys having sex with him more than with me. I would be jealous because he has taken what rightfully doesn't belong to him. It totally has nothing to do with whether my wife enjoys it or not, whether I am sexually inferior or not, etc.

In fact, I would be just as jealous if my wife had sex with a handicapped, crippled person who didn't make her feel good at all. I would be jealous even if my wife was raped for example. Not that I would condemn her for that obviously it wouldn't be her fault, but I would still feel jealousy, which is rightful anger towards the one who has taken what rightfully belongs to me. So there is no question of insecurity in jealousy here. There just is none. It's not about any security - it's not about fear of losing anything or of being inferior. It's simply about justice.

Third, note that envy ( jealousy) is right in there with all the other unequivocal sins? — John

No Aristotle as far as I remember didn't condemn jealousy. And envy isn't the same at all. Envy is when I desire what others have. That's not being jealous - jealousy has to do with injustice.

X is envious when they lust for having sex with Y's wife/husband. Y is jealous when X has sex with his/her wife/husband. Notice the difference? In the first case someone for whom it is unlawful to have sex with Y's partner wants that unlawful thing - thus envy. On the other hand, Y is angered by the fact that X has used what belong exclusively to him - thus jealousy. Hence jealousy occurs as a result of an injustice - something that is unlawful, namely that X doesn't respect the marriage of Y.

Also please note "I am a jealous God" being attached to the commandment not to have idols or worship other gods. Why? Because worship lawfully belongs to God alone - not to idols. Hence God is jealous when you worship idols - why? Because it's giving what rightfully belongs to Him unto others. Jealousy has always had to do with injustice. Envy is purely desiring unlawfully and excessively what others have - and is purely negative.

But, such views are ultraconservative. just as my views are liberal. From this it does not follow though that you are aligned with any far right conservative ideology or movement, any more than it follows that I am aligned with any progressivist liberal ideology or movement. As I have repeatedly said it has always been you wanting to bring in such characterizations in to the discussion.

If you do advocate legal punishment for adultery then I would say your views are extremely conservative insofar as such views are not espoused by any political party or movement; well certainly not here in Australia, although I can't speak for the USA.

Also, I disrespect the views, not those who hold them. I don't deny anyone the right to hold any view, no matter how outrageous or absurd I may judge those views to be. I might not respect the understanding or intelligence of such a person, especially if they cannot mount a decent argument to support their views, but even then I wouldn't disrespect the person, if by that you mean claim that they have, on account of their stupid views, forfeited the right to be considered human and to be treated as others are. — John

I will end with a quote from the one whom you called perhaps the greatest philosopher (along with Hegel):

Not every action or emotion however admits of the observance of a due mean. Indeed the very names of some directly imply evil, for instance malice, shamelessness, envy, and, of actions, adultery, theft, murder. All these and similar actions and feelings are blamed as being bad in themselves; it is not the excess or deficiency of them that we blame. It is impossible therefore ever to go right in regard to them—one must always be wrong; nor does right or wrong in their case depend on the circumstances, for instance, whether one commits adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right manner; the mere commission of any of them is wrong. — NE 1107a, Aristotle

Now please do some of your "creative misreading" on that... It's gonna be fun to watch you try ;) (by the way, you notice how adultery is written right next to theft and murder to suggest also the potential gravity of the offence). Sometimes it's baffling how liberal progressives like you can take serious sins and make them into light inconsequential feathers. And by the way, I guess now Aristotle will go from greatest philosopher down to fundamentalist ultra-conservative right? >:O That's what happens when people forget their history, and don't respect their ancestors anymore. We get crazy statements, like condemning adultery is "ultra-conservative" - actually it's just damn common sense - it was so 2000 years ago, and it is so today. The only difference is that today we have a liberal progressive dominated culture imposed over Western society principally by universities, the media, and Hollywood via the mechanism of political correctness. No, let's not talk about adultery, that's a sensitive subject, for each person to privately decide upon >:O . Ben Carson is right:

My experience is just the opposite. I find that it is still largely unacceptable for women to commit adultery or cheat, although it has indeed become more acceptable than before. Whereas for men, it is more acceptable than ever to cheat. They are lauded by their peers, and they are looked up to for it. BC, you comment about Strauss Kahn - I would remind you that 50 years ago if that was the case with someone, they would have been finished. A Brelusconi would have been impossible 50 years ago.

While I don't debate your personal experiences, and even that it may be so in your communities, it's clear that as a trend adultery and cheating are on the rise - clearly they are not diminishing. This is the case at least in the US and Europe where I have checked statistics. Rates have increased from 10% to 50% in many of those countries. So there is indeed a social problem emerging out of this, which does reflect a more laxity with regards to it, which is not favourable for society.

What must be done I'm not sure, but it seems you don't have many solutions either. As for the 60s :P of course BC, anything is more conservative than the 60s, but we're talking general trends.

As for it getting better for women AndrewK, I disagree. It's always been in women's interest first to condemn adultery. The evolutionary reason is that a woman always wanted (and in most cases still does want) protection while she was pregnant, so she didn't want to be abandoned or cheated on, so that all the male's resources would be focused on her and her offspring, and not on other pursuits. It's always been men who have been complaining that adultery laws are too harsh - not women. Today many men are jumping on the feminazi movements precisely for this reason - it makes their life much easier.

Thanks.

I don't know if this is relevant but recently I've been finding my idea of death - which we can never understand in any complete rational way - gravitating towards an idea of reincarnation. Not as far as having conscious memories of a past life but in the sense of one's consciousness somehow merging with a universal consciousness which then re-emerges in particular ways in new consciousnesses. — andrewk

I find this interesting. Typically though I tend to associate beliefs in reincarnation with those who somehow want to sugar-coat death, but I am certain that since you are very rational based on your posts and you have used Stoic practices and are at peace with the idea of death as final end, this isn't the case here. So I feel the need to ask you if you don't mind... how have you arrived at such a belief in reincarnation? I am interested in the journey and evolution of your thought towards this idea, including reading or experiences that have led to it if you don't mind sharing of course. I'm not asking to criticise I'm just curious about such experiences, and changes of belief from the belief of death as final, to a conviction that something like reincarnation is true.

Also if you would clarify if this idea of reincarnation entails the "migration" of any traits, or features or really anything that form part of your consciousness today. In other words, I'm guessing I'm asking what reincarnates according to your view? The consciousness I understand, but what is included in that? Does it include your fundamental character traits? Your fundamental desires and ideals? Or what exactly?

You may be right, but I can't remember any; but in any case even if it were true that would be an argument against style, not against substance — John

Not only against style - but against your presuppositions - namely that such views are ultraconservative, irrational and shouldn't be held in the modern world - coupled with your seeming disrespect of those who hold them.

I already explained in the thread that I had little inclination to argue much for what I posted; and I expressed the hope that others would share the burden and join in the good fight to save your soul ;) . I explained myself lack of real enthusiasm from the start so that if it had turned out that I contributed even less than I have done, it wouldn't have disappointed anyone's expectations. — John

A lack of enthusiasm saves the day sometimes ;)

Well I didn't see it so you accusation that it was "just another one of my sophisms" is completely out of line. — John

Indeed, I wasn't aware that you had not seen it, so my apologies.

the lone supporter — John

That was a supporter for punishment, but there were many more which quarreled with your black and white, dogmatic way of putting the issue.

I'm pretty much done arguing this subject; which held little interest for me from the start. — John

That's why you opened the thread, I see! ;)

This is not true. By the time you had made your post, I had already made the addition. I've added that immediately after having first posted. As soon as I posted, I edited it. But I understand that you may not have seen it.

I'd rather discuss adultery with you than with anybody else, sweetheart. — Bitter Crank

1:23-1:24

Sin is its own punishment, like virtue is its own reward. People who sin significantly (I mean, real solid sinners) destroy their relationships with others, they cast themselves out of the community if they haven't already been cast out. They destroy other people. The cut themselves off from God -- a unilateral action on their part. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

In the same way that many people are very robustly virtuous, a lot of people are not robustly sinful. A lot of their sinfulness is just wandering around in the dark not really knowing what the hell they are doing. "Moral incompetence" isn't the same thing as good, solid sin. Lots of people would have a hard time even telling the Inquisitor what sin is, never mind what their sins were. Morally, they don't know shit from shinola. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

The real sinners are morally competent: they have detailed knowledge about what sin is, they know what virtue is, and they have decided to sin. There are all sorts of things a true sinner might do--everything from stealing an article that catches their fancy (knowing that there is no logical way of justifying the theft), seducing and consorting with their best friend's wife (and knowing precisely how this is harmful), killing (murder in the first degree), and so on. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

The morally incompetent are not going to suffer much from their sinful behavior. Only the morally competent are able to suffer from sin. — Bitter Crank

Slight disagreement here, I think the morally incompetent will still suffer from their own sinful behaviour, only that they may not be able to perceive the link between the suffering and the morality (and will quite often identify the suffering as an unavoidable part), and hence may continue in their sin -> hence "the Truth shall set your free". The real sinners on the other hand will persist in their sin even if they see suffering as the effects of it.

See how much more easily such conversation goes? :D

I have remarked that Sir. Patience please. :-*

I'd rather discuss adultery with you than with anybody else. — Bitter Crank

Makes sense - it's not like you find many social conservatives around here :P

Quick comments.

First I didn't open the thread. I merely stated in a very large and long post in a different thread which didn't have to do with adultery except as an example of a sin (an example which by the way I wasn't the first to offer in that thread, I was merely commenting on it) that maybe something like that should be legally punished. Now some folk are very very upset about that it seems. So don't blame me - I didn't want to discuss this at all (at least not in this way, with people who are so closed minded - I find it tedious) - especially with folks like unenlightened and John, I see no reason. I'd be open to discuss with people like yourself, or AndrewK if you were interested to discuss it because at least the discussion can get somewhere that way, even though we hold different viewpoints. With people who aren't open to even admit the existence of other viewpoints - calling them irrational, undeserving of being discussed, and so forth - no point in discussing except as offering a defence of the plausibility of the position.

Second the reason adultery is different from something like gluttony, is because most of the time gluttony impacts just the individual, and has minimal impact on others. Adultery is more alike theft, in that it doesn't only psychologically or physically harm the doer, but the victim as well. It's not about the suffering caused to oneself, it's about the suffering caused to others when deciding about legal punishments. If something causes harm just to yourself, no reason to outlaw it. But if something is significantly harmful to others - then there are grounds for potentially outlawing it - but then there are many further difficulties from there until getting to outlawing it.

Nothing is special about adultery - just another sin, like theft. I never even claimed it's the worst of sins or anything of that sort (although unlike theft it is a social sin, not an economic one - perhaps today most folk are so obsessed about the economy they don't care about society anymore).

Other than that your response is just quoting my post which is merely in retort to some of the other comments. What am I supposed to talk about if this thread is about punishment for adultery? Would you expect to see the words "flying pigs", "pink elephants", or the like repeated instead of "adultery" and "punishment" which is exactly what the thread is about (did you forget how the thread is called?)? Really... give me a break.

Some liberal conservatives may share my beliefs or even all of them. — John

Just so this goes on record: no conservatives, of any kind, would say that adultery is ever morally acceptable - regardless of what those who commit or engage in it think about it - and that's a fact. A few liberal conservatives may support the absence of legal punishments for adultery - that much is true, but none of them would accept that there is any situation in which adultery is morally acceptable, or in which sharing partners is moral. None.

Your knowledge of politics seems to be utterly and unashamedly lacking - so let me provide a lesson for you. Liberal conservatives are founded upon both promoting individual freedom (AND RESPONSIBILITY), and promoting conservative values. What are conservative values? First of all, John, conservative values are natural law. Do you know what that is? Do you know that natural law condemns adultery as immoral, ever since the Ancients? Do you know that one of the founders of liberal conservatism - Edmund Burke - condemned all forms of sexual immorality? Do you know that he decried the slide of the modern world into debauchery, especially as was happening in his time in France, during the French Revolution? What you're thinking about is libertarians - which are not conservative. Paleo-libertarians are libertarians founded on conservative values - they would condemn adultery but not legislate against it.

Furthermore - people who are very close to being what I called progressive conservatives - Reinhold Niebuhr - even they condemn adultery. Niebuhr broke his friendship with Paul Tillich because he used to have casual sex with women other than his wife - and that's the attitude any man with a spine would have. Only a leech - who dreams about doing this himself - would refuse to at least morally condemn such activity. There's also other people - like Catholic liberal conservative philosopher Jacques Maritain, who supported the famous left-wing radical Saul Alinsky - even he condemned adultery as outright wrong, unacceptable and immoral. Many many other examples, but again - this just illustrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You have no idea what world you're living in!

Yep, scintillating argument you got going there, boy. — John

Yes - maybe if you quote the whole sentence you will find an argument. Quoting just the beginning is another one of your sophisms.

You assert with you "nope" that it is not anger that does the work of motivation in cases of fighting against injustice, for example. Perhaps you can explain then how the emotion of jealousy could be understood to able to do some specific positive work of motivation in some circumstances that anger could not equally well accomplish without the self-focused negativity. — John

I think you understand by "jealousy" something very different than I understand. In your terminology you can replace jealousy with righteous anger if that makes you feel any better - and I've told you this before. You're ignoring the obvious point - it doesn't matter how you call that emotional reaction - what matters is that there is a negative emotional reaction which is objectively demanded if your partner cheats on you. End of story. And of course that part, you never tackle, you quibble over a word.

Now - fact of the matter is that you - as well as Osho, Krishnamurti, and so forth - all of you - you qualify as progressives, even if you have no interest in politics (or you claim you don't). Your mindset, and your mentality is progressive - it's not conservative. Same for the one spreading unenlightenment around - even though both of you have given your word that you do not wish to pursue this conversation further. But it seems you can't even keep your own word - I don't want to even think whether you can keep anything else where it should be kept.

More importantly - you have given your word that you will show to everyone how absurd it is to even discuss punishment for adultery - you have done no such thing. You have failed. In fact from the very first moment you posted the thread, you had someone else arguing along with me for punishment! And in fact, he was even more certain than I am that it requires punishment. So the only thing you proved is how ignorant you are - and how deluded you are by your liberal-progressive bias - that you think the whole world supports these absurd assumptions that you make. Namely that something can be morally permissible if the participants agree to it, and if two people agree to do X, then it is morally right for them to agree so. This ethics of consent. Not everyone shares this - but of course, in your ignorance you condemn everyone who doesn't to the dustbin of history - because you want to impose you values - or lack of values maybe. Other progressives have themselves told you that while they don't support punishment for adultery, they can see how people could rationally support or desire such punishment. Yet you don't even see that - you don't even listen. And look - this is a very liberal-progressive community - it's a fact. I'm one of the very few social conservatives here. And even in such an environment - even here - there's so many people who show consideration and understanding, and accept rational disagreement, unlike you - who seeks to impose your ignorance and your own values on everyone.

I can't be bothered either. — unenlightened

You might be more credible if you didn't embarrass yourself with performative contradictions.

You keep trying to cast me as a liberal progressive; this is wrong, a reflection of your own prejudice, and is just a poor substitute for your lack of good arguments. — John

No I don't try to cast you as one - you are one. It's a simple fact. Liberal progressives are the only ones who share your beliefs. Certainly conservatives don't. And the whole conservative tradition doesn't. You complain that I don't let others live as they wish - but I have no problem with them living as they wish. On the other hand you have a problem with attacking conservatism and Orthodoxy and not recognising even the fact of its existence. You say its backwards, and not adapted to the times - nonsense!

It is also an unhealthy self-focused sub-species which is not useful precisely because when needed the more healthy emotion of anger can do all the work that is necessary or desirable. — John

Nope. In fact if it pleases you okay - I feel righteous anger when my spouse cheats on me - happy? >:O

Jealousy is a kind of sub-species of anger yes; which is just what I have been saying. So, now you apparently are agreeing with me. — John

Cite where.

Not convincing; if you were just angry and upset as you would be about any injustice that has been committed; then there would simply be no feeling of jealousy, but rather just of righteous anger. — John

Which is exactly the same thing as jealousy. What else do you think jealousy is? Jealousy is a sub-species of anger. It's with regards to self. Whereas anger is with regards to everyone else.

As far as I am concerned those beliefs may have had their social uses in their day ( for a start there was no reliable contraception or social welfare back then); but things have changed and now they are no longer useful, just puritanical. I never said that you think of those beliefs as puritanical; although of course I believe you should, if you want to be a reasonable modern person whose moral beliefs are in accord with, and therefore useful in regard to, the times. — John

Yes they are useful in developing spiritual intimacy among other things. Of course you can peddle this liberal progressive ideology, which is what you are in fact doing, even without knowing it. It's so ingrained.

If being in accord with the times means being a liberal progressive, no I have no such interest, sorry to tell you mate :D I would rather preserve the light of Truth through this Dark Age.

Yes, which makes you the loser; you are afraid of being the loser, of what others might say, of losing your standing, and so on. — John

No I'm not afraid of being any sort of loser - how others perceive me has nothing to do with it - I'm just angry and upset that an injustice has been committed - in this case to myself - and therefore I look to remedy this and bring about justice. Would you say for example if I see a man suffering in the street and I help him that I helped him because I'm afraid I may one day end up like him? That would be absurd!

Yes, and those kinds of beliefs may be understood to be more or less puritanical in the the sense in which I was using the word. — John

How is that possible if those beliefs - the beliefs of the majority through history - and of most major moral codes out there - form the standard by which things are judged? If I judge them using themselves as standard, then they are normal - not Puritanical.

The jealousy comes on account of the insecurity of feeling that he has gained at your expense; which is certainly accurately classed as a kind of fear of losing, of being the loser.. — John

There is no insecurity - what insecurity would there be? There's no fear that he has gained at my expense - the whole problem is that he is enjoying what is rightfully mine, without my permission.

My usage is perfectly in accordance with ordinary usage, and applicable to what you espouse; so don't complain. — John

It's not very strict are you out of your mind? >:O You gotta be joking. I espouse beliefs that all Muslims, Christians (authentic ones), Buddhists, Hinuds, and Jews believe. Do you think what so many people believe, and have believe through the centuries is "very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so" - that's impossible! Since the majority of men have believed so, it cannot be "very strict" because we set the standard of strictness based on the majority. Very strict is saying that you should never have sex. Or that you should never get married. Or that you should abstain from sex with your spouse except certain days, etc.

Agustino could never agree with that on account of his puritanical morality. — John

Do you know what Puritanical means? It means to be against sexual enjoyment. Does it seem to you like I'm against all forms of sexual enjoyment? No - so therefore don't spit out propaganda around here.

It is precisely because you focus on the fact that the injustice has been done to you, rather than someone else, that produces the emotion of jealousy. — John

Yes that's just a recitation of the definition of jealousy - obviously.

But, actually I think that it is not so much the perceived injustice but the fear of what you might lose on account of it, which someone else will gain that makes you feel jealous. — John

This is not true. If after you steal my money you buy yourself a nice car, and I see you everyday passing my house in it and enjoying yourself then I will feel jealous of you. There's no fear of losing anything there.

That is why it is an unhealthy and unproductive emotion, because it is always on account of comparing yourself to another. — John

It's not a comparison - regardless of what Osho has told you - and I know because his books (and I've read most of them) were the very first philosophy books I read - when I was 11 - very very long ago! This is exactly his idea. But he is wrong - there is no comparing of self with another in jealousy. There is a comparing between the self as possessing what is rightfully belonging to it, and the self as lacking this possession due to another. That's all.

In someone sleeping with another, what is supposedly yours has been taken away. You don't understand adultary to be a betrayal of a promise to you, but rather a failure to have something you are entitled to because you own it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Of course, because they have freely given themselves over to me, and have not decided they no longer want to do this yet - they haven't divorced me obviously.

Jealousy is terrible because it amounts to thinking you own other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If they divorced me, okay, and then they went around sleeping with whoever, I wouldn't feel jealous, because they're not rightfully mine anymore. There's no question of my ownership here - two lovers own their bodies in common, like the communists own property.

Is the desire to have sex with people other than your partner useful according to you? — John

There is no such desire. There is a desire for sex okay? Now that desire can be channeled through a moral path or through an immoral one. What does a moral one mean? One which is in accord with both one's spiritual and one's physical nature - which brings harmony amongst those two. If we were merely animals, then shagging everyone you saw wouldn't be a problem. It's a problem precisely because we have spiritual desires - such as the desire for intimacy. A moral way of being is one which reconciles the desire for intimacy with the desire for sex - and fulfils both.

That just is feeling threatened. When you perceive injustice in regard to others and feel rightly angry about it, the focus is not on self, and not on any threat to self. With jealousy the focus is most definitely on self, and the threat to self. You don't need jealousy to see any injustice, whether to self or others, and become angry about on the basis of principle, then the anger is the same if it is someone else being unjustly done by. So, jealousy is useless, unnecessary and self-focusing in an unhealthy way, pure and simple. — John

Jealousy is what you feel when you perceive an injustice with regards to self. Anger is what you feel when you perceive an injustice with regards to others. Jealousy is just anger due to an injustice that happened to oneself. When you're jealous you're angry and upset, and seek to take back what was rightfully yours. Maybe to clarify even more - jealousy occurs when someone else unlawfully and unjustly uses something that belongs rightfully to you in order to extract some benefit for themselves, and prevents you from using it.

f someone stales from you you would angry, not jealous, in any case. I agree that emotions such as anger and fear be useful. — John

Yes I feel angry if I see him steal it. But if later I see him using it and extracting happiness out of it (happiness which I should have extracted and not them to be clear) then I will feel jealous.

And to reduce you to absurdity - if jealousy was useless, and there was nothing good in it, then Nature would have never placed such an emotion in man's heart. It's there because it is useful. That's the clearest proof of it.

You keep talking about emotions "being justified'; this is a category error emotions cannot be justified or unjustified; — John

Regardless of what you say - you're not justified to laugh if you hear from a credible source that your father has died for example. So emotions are - in practice - justified or unjustified.

But I fail to see any positive role for jealousy, which si not a pure emotion like fear and anger, but comes form the unhealthy habit of comparing yourself or your circumstances to others' own. — John

No - read what I wrote. Jealousy is a perceived injustice with regard to the self brought about on the self by another, as opposed to with regard to others.

But I fail to see any positive role for jealousy — John

Thanks for recognising! :D

Also if people are truly secure in themselves they will not be threatened by, and thus will not become jealous about, the other's intimacy with others. Really the wider spread intimacy can become the better it will be for society. — John

Again - nothing about being threatened here. Your words betray a liberal progressive ideology, regardless of your protests to the contrary. Jealousy is not a reaction to feeling threatened. That's not what jealousy is. When people feel threatened they react by anger or by fear (fight or flight) - not by jealousy. Jealousy is a reaction to perceived injustice regarding oneself (as opposed to a reaction to perceived injustice regarding other people). Because it is PERCEIVED injustice, I can have a problem with my judgement and perceive an injustice where there is none - or I can accurately see to the core of a situation. What is rightfully mine is taken away. The exclusivity of my marriage and relationship - which was rightfully mine - is taken away - hence I would feel jealous. This is an entirely normal reaction - in fact something would be wrong with my sense of justice if I didn't react so.

I'm not claiming that it's impossible to feel happy about your partner enjoying themselves physically with another person. Just the same way I'm not claiming that you can't laugh upon hearing news of one of your parents' death for example. Only that such reactions would be unnatural and harmful - they would underline a repression of your own nature - because you are afraid of the pain that feeling your jealousy or sadness in the case of the parents' example would imply. I've talked with a few psychologists about this - it's a very real phenomenon in modern societies. We condemn emotions like jealousy, because we're afraid of having the plague us. But jealousy, like all other emotions, has its usefulness in guiding us to reach the optimal state of well-being. Modern ideologues adopt laughter - or flippancy - when discussing moral matters such as adultery. They turn them into some laughing matter, into some joke. Why? Because they want to run away from the potential negative emotions that they would perceive if they were patient and open to the experience.

If you genuinely believe the difference between beating your partner and committing adultery "has no practical ramifications" then I have little confidence that anything I say will make be heard. — John

This is an outright lie. Cite where I have said that "the difference between beating your partner and committing adultery 'has no practical ramifications'"

What would you be basing this on, though? What empirical evidence? — Terrapin Station

Based on the simple fact that less time with someone, and less focus on someone, will result in less familiarity and intimacy. Intimacy takes time to develop. That is obvious - if you refuse to accept something that is simply obvious then what I will tell you is be more attentive to your own experiences... We don't need no scientific study to show us this - we already know it.

By being monogamous, by the way, you're giving up the development of intimacy with multiple persons. — Terrapin Station

This assumes this sort of intimacy can be developed with multiple people at the same time or one after another. I disagree. The breaks that occur from one partner to the other stops this intimacy from ever gaining real and developing depth. I have no qualms with your choice, but you should at least be aware what you're giving up. This isn't a match "I'm giving up more than you" etc. It's just looking at the facts honestly.

Likewise, we can say, "Is monogamy worth giving up the specialness associated with polyamory?" — Terrapin Station

Polyamory doesn't have specialness - it has quantity. This is the quantity vs quality fight.