That is, if cheating mom is the better parent all things considered, I wouldn't concern myself too terribly with her infidelity to dad. — Hanover

But do you recognize that her immorality is one of the factors to consider when making such a decision? Of course it's not the only one, maybe the father is a dangerous drunk for example, or a thief, etc. in which case obviously the cheating mother should get the children. Or even more - nothing wrong morally with the father, but he's an invalid and can't take care of the children - obviously the mother should still take the children - even though it is very unfair to the father, and I would expect some financial compensation from the mother for that.

Punishment is a criminal concept, and, to the extent anyone still cares, adultery is on the books as a criminal act in many states to this day. — Hanover

Well most legal codes have taken a very dim view of it all things considered. Anyway - in my mind it can be potentially very harmful and could very well be in need of punishment. You know that adultery rates are growing. From 10% up to 50% in the last 50 years - that's a problem, and we as a society need to do something about it.

I doubt you're going to find any actual prosecutions for it, though because most don't consider it a matter for the state's interest. — Hanover

If the state has a duty to protect citizens from serious, long-lasting harm, which is irreperable and can have strong consequences in the life of either of the spouses (or their children, or their families) - then it certainly is of the interest of the state, especially if it becomes a widespread problem as now - regardless of the liberal progressives who dogmatically claim the state should have nothing to do with it.

It's not clear to me, unless by 'less people' you set the bar as low as 'at least one person will not do it that otherwise would' — andrewk

I have provided a few studies which seemed to conclude so.

As has already been pointed out, punishments exist already in the form of social disapproval and guilt. — andrewk

As I have said before I disagree - this isn't true. We live in a culture which is highly tolerant - even encouraging of adultery. They call it open-mindedness, sexual liberation, and so forth. If we had lived in a culture in which there was strong social disapproval and guilt over adultery, then I would agree no law would even be in the question. But fact of the matter is adultery rates are growing - we have to do something about them. It seems our culture isn't capable to deal with it anymore.

The onus is on you to show that a legal punishment would significantly increase the number of people managing to overcome their temptations — andrewk

The purpose of punishment is not for people to overcome their temptations. Punishment does not seek to make people moral - and this is very important. It seeks to discourage an activity which is harmful to others and to the rest of society. There's always divorce if partners want to separate in order to be with someone else. That's the lawful way to do it. If X divorced Y in order to have sex with, marry, or live with Z there would be no problem from a legal point of view.

- the costs to society of detecting, arresting, trying, convicting and punishing those convicted under the law
- the inevitable occurrence of erroneous convictions — andrewk

I agree.

- displacement effects, whereby a reduction in the proscribed activity causes an increase in another, more harmful activity. An easily foreseeable one here is an increase in spousal rape in the case of partners with highly mismatched sexual appetites. — andrewk

I don't think this would be a problem. If it is a problem, then we already have it, since our society is failing to minimise cases of mismatched sexual appetites.

- providing a breeding ground for organised crime. We only need consider the Prohibition era and the impact of the US's puritanical 'war on drugs' to see how criminalisation of activities generates a boom in organised crime that has a much bigger harmful impact than the problem they were intended to solve. — andrewk

Maybe - but it's different than in the case of objects. Drugs, alcohol, etc. are objects. Adultery is an action requiring two.

- forcing those that do the proscribed activity to take risks they otherwise would not take, at risk to themselves and others. A good example of this is how the criminalisation of drugs makes taking small recreational amounts of drugs much more risky because one cannot know whence they came or have a reliable way of knowing they are unadulterated and of a known concentration. — andrewk

Well this is precisely the point - making it difficult for someone to do what is against the law.

I agree with you, as would many on here I imagine, that adultery is often harmful and immoral, and best discouraged.

So is calling somebody an idiot. — andrewk

Very different degrees of harm here.

But most harmful and immoral things are not illegal, because making something the subject of criminal law has huge costs and consequences. These things need to be weighed up with enormous care and diligence. To just say 'This law will discourage that harmful activity and clearly there are no downsides' is naive and dangerous in the extreme. It reveals a complete failure to understand the complexity and importance of the development of public policy — andrewk

Yes you are correct here, and this is perhaps the stronger point you raise.

It seems to me that the arguments you have made in favour of criminalising adultery, or analogs thereof, can be applied just as easily to the harm of calling someone an idiot. Would you then also support the criminalisation of that activity? — andrewk

The harm of calling someone an idiot is small. It's not breaking a life-long agreement or deal. It's not exciting as many dangerous passions as adultery is. It's not likely to affect other parties except the two people involved. Adultery is something that affects marriage - which is a long-term agreement, which entails its own expectations, and involves other third parties - the families and the children. The two are not comparable. As I said, adultery is quite possibly worse than theft - depending of course how you steal, who you steal from, what you steal, etc. (I could see situations where theft is worse than adultery - but I'm talking generally)

In the final analysis, there's no legislation that can be passed to make people honest, to love their significant others, or to be better people. Legislating goodness never works. — Hanover

Indeed. Legislation is just for discouraging actions which harm others. Not in order to ensure goodness - goodness isn't the absence of harm, but something positive in its own right.

The legal trend, as I understand it, is to provide less alimony to divorcing spouses. — Hanover

This seems like a very good law in most cases.

Georgia's rule (where I live), which eliminates the right to alimony where a spouse has committed adultery, is not based upon progressive principles of egalitarianism, but the rule is instead rooted in strict morality. It's largely punitive, stating that if the woman wants to cheat, she's on her own to figure out her own finances. I'm not saying it's necessarily unfair, but it is punitive because it looks neither to her financial needs nor the husband's ability to pay. — Hanover

Why just a woman? Why doesn't it apply to a man committing adultery as well? Or does it, but it most often ends up being women who would be accorded? The law should apply uniformly.

My own view is that I can't really see generally where the division of marital property should be affected by adultery, nor do I think that child custody should necessarily be affected by it. — Hanover

Well clearly adultery is a very important criteria which must be taken into consideration especially for child custody. The child should not remain with an immoral parent. Are you telling me you think that shouldn't play a role in deciding who the child remains with - the moral capacity of the parent to provide a good, moral education to the child? That is of foremost importance. But I agree that adultery is not the only factor included there, but it certainly is one of them. Second the property should be so divided such that the parent who has custody is given a larger share of the martial property or alimony in order to be able to care for the child. Obviously this should not be exaggerated. Say the husband owns 50 million USD, and his wife is a stay at home mother, and he cheats on her. Obviously in such a case the wife should be provided with sufficient to take care of the children - say 5 million USD with no future payments as this is more than enough. But if the husband is a poor guy, then he would still need to support the wife throughout.

Furthermore the point of the law is precisely to punish as well as to repair damage which can be repaired. If you steal my car and you get caught, you don't just give it back to me, you go to jail - or in some places you can agree to settle it with me for sufficient sum of money (and my car on top). So same in the case of adultery - perhaps the punishment should be financially harsh on the adulterer. This is not about legislating goodness - because again, just because the husband or wife in question don't commit adultery doesn't mean they are good to each other. They could very well be very mean and nasty to each other. But there's a lawful way to exist such a partnership - divorce - which does not involve harming each other through adultery. So the punishment would be precisely to discourage existing a partnership through adultery (which can be very harmful), and instead encouraging divorce.

power of positive thinking — Bitter Crank

The great Norman Vincent Peale...

You keep speaking of adultery as "intentional harm". This is wrong because it ignores a distinction between deliberate malicious harm, and harm which may be able to be anticipated, but which one would certainly not wish to inflict, but which one may in any case inflict due to failure to avoid the action that causes the harm. — John

This is a distinction without practical ramifications - and thus a false one. If one doesn't wish to inflict that harm, then one would not do the action, regardless of other benefits. Very simple. The truth is if one does the action, then one wishes to inflict that pain provided that X Y Z rewards to the action exist. People's desires cannot be separated from the way they act. This post-fact rationalisation that people engage in - oh I didn't really want to do that, etc. - that's just self-deception because they want to maintain a good image of themselves, in their own eyes.

I think we are going to have to rest content with mutual disagreement. — John

Very well.

But, if two people love one another, however they might express that love and organize their lives together, disapproval from you based on a generalization about what you think love is, or even more particularly, based on what you think love is for you, in other words what you call love or think about love will be irrelevant to them. — John

It's not about what I think love is, it's about what idea of love stands to scrutiny. Loving someone and doing whatever makes them feel comfortable doesn't stand to scrutiny. For example, if they should get a surgery, but they are so afraid of surgeries that they prefer to die rather than get the surgery, then it is not love to agree with them and let them go the way which makes them feel most comfortable.

I disagree entirely about jealousy. It is a negative emotion that everyone would be better off not experiencing, if that were possible. The issue has nothing to do with whether it is justified or not; jealousy has no need of justification, to speak of justification is a category error, the point is whether or not jealousy is felt and what one does with the feelings; whether one submits to them or not. — John

Like all other human emotions, every emotion has a purpose. It's like claiming fear is bad. No - not all fear is bad. Some fear is bad, when it arises in circumstances in which it shouldn't, or when it impedes one from acting in a beneficial way. Likewise for jealousy. Now - I haven't said that if jealousy arises in an objectively valid situation - one in which you should feel jealous - then you should keep yourself glued to that jealousy. Absolutely not - in fact you should do things which will remove that feeling of jealousy. In the example with the mansion I gave - something I could do that would remove that feeling of jealousy is turn you in to the police for stealing my money. Then I would have done all that I could have done to render justice. If for whatever reason the police fails afterwards to bring you to justice, then obviously there's no point in me feeling jealous. It doesn't help me or motivate me to do anything useful or good. All that it would do is make me feel angry. So in that case one should eliminate the emotion - by understanding that it doesn't play a useful role anymore.

The thing is you could love someone so much that if it makes them happy to have sexual relations with another, then you will happily allow it. — John

That ignores aspects of oneself, and promotes degrading tendencies in the loved one - so that's really a lose-lose situation. You don't help bring out the best in the very person you claim to love - that in-itself is replaced with some petty sentimentalism where you do whatever makes your loved one comfortable instead of whatever is good for them, even though it might make them uncomfortable. There's nothing good in such an attitude I don't think - and I don't think such an attitude can be called love.

I used to be more of a jealous type when younger than I am now; that kind of tendency softens with time, or it has in my case, at least. — John

That depends - jealousy, like all other emotions, has situations when it is objectively justified, and situations when it is a passion that one should eliminate. If using money that you have stolen from me you buy yourself a big mansion and I feel jealous - then that feeling of jealousy is objectively justified, because you have acquired something for yourself in an unjust way. You are enjoying what rightfully belongs to me. On the other hand if I were to get jealous of you because my wife speaks to you on the phone or something like that - then of course it's not objectively justified. But to be jealous when it is not justified is a wrong. And the opposite is also true - NOT to feel jealous when it is objectively justified is also a malfunctioning of the mind/organism. One shouldn't cower from one's emotions - as one's emotions are useful guides. In adultery one feels jealous because what belongs to them (at least while they're married) - the love, devotion and intimacy of another - is given to someone else. This is an objectively valid feeling of jealousy. If one were to NOT feel jealous, then there would be a problem - probably the person in question is repressing their natural feelings because they are painful - that's a problem. Emotional dullness is not to be mistaken for virtue and wisdom.

Everyone is a different case; that's why I abhor generalizations about 'how one should be in such and such a situation'. Emotional relations are really a matter for the people involved to work out and work through; there may be some, or even a lot of emotional pain; but, hey, that's how people grow and mature. Why would I want to protect anyone from that kind of invaluable experience? — John

People only have to be protected from unlawful harm. That's why you don't outlaw divorce - which is still a harm. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected from intentional harm - like adultery - which is different.

And I can tell you that caused significant suffering to the other (and to myself on account of intense feelings of guilt at having not fulfilled their expectations). I wouldn't want to go through that again. I think if a partner 'cheated on me' now and told me; that would be a 'walk in the park' by comparison, to be honest. — John

No one claimed it's an easy experience, I don't think divorce is moral (good) either for that matter. Quite a few people from my family, including my parents have divorced. But there's nothing the law can do here. And your choices are your choices. Morally though we should condemn divorce (at least in many cases - certainly not in all) - but there's nothing we can legally do about it.

No, I would forgive or not forgive based on my love and on my ethics regarding forgiveness, not on some generalized expectation about her character. In order words I would risk being hurt in the name of love. — John

There's a difference between risking to be hurt in the name of love, and being stupid. The pragmatic prejudice (which does have a place for most conservatives, by the way) isn't contrary to my ethics - it merely helps one sort the wheat from the chaff in order to avoid behaving stupidly. We are creatures of flesh and blood - we have to act pragmatically, we can't just act ideologically following X ethics without any other rules which govern practical behaviour.

Now if person X cheats on me, then I have misjudged their character - I thought they were someone else, but they're not. I was wrong. So nothing changed about my love - my love is still there, except that they turned out not to be the person I loved - I had made a mistake in judgement. Now if someone cheats on you, you forgive, they do it again, you forgive again etc. - that's not called taking a risk in the name of love - it's called stupidity. Love is about caring for the other as much as you care for yourself - this presupposes that you must first love yourself. Hence "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". Of course erotic love is a special type of love - but it is built upon this neighbourly love.

Then I don't agree that adultery, for the most part, qualifies. — John

I think it does due to the nature of it. It's a betrayal of someone out of a life-long deal - and it's not like divorce - it's also insulting and disrespectful to the other person. It's not simply an assertion of your freedom to be your own person and do as you wish (as divorce would be) - it's a direct and intentional disrespect of the commitment you have to the other (who moreover is someone you claim to love) - a mockery of it. That is precisely why adultery leads to the creation of probably one of the most poisonous mixes of emotions - more poisonous than the reaction you would have if your lover were to steal quite a bit of your money and spend them without your knowledge for example. Have you not heard or read stories about people who killed themselves or others due to adultery - or otherwise behaved violently, etc.? I've read and heard quite a few. This shows that such activity is very dangerous, as it can very easily escalate to worse sins. For example, one of my neighbours back when I was a child attempted to kill herself (although thankfully she survived) because of her husband's repeated affairs which she couldn't even bear the thought of. I would say in order of moral gravity it would go like murder (with violence and other direct privations here including self-harm) -> adultery -> theft. Adultery is very likely to lead to what's included in the category of murder here - much more likely than say theft (depending of course on what's stolen, how valuable it is perceived to be, etc.). But all sins are likely to escalate though to worse sins - some moreso than others. That's why I have said adultery means social instability - because it promotes very dangerous emotions. That's exactly why something must be done to prevent, limit and control its occurence.

The law has no business interfering in affairs of the heart; and I cannot see that anything but more trouble and heartache would come from it. Human beings are not perfect when it comes to emotion and desire; that may offend your purist sensibilities; but I think it is something you will be forced to deal with. — John

Right - that's why you can divorce. You can't disrespect and harm your partner by intentionally and unlawfully breaking your marriage vows - but that's different. That's there not to be involved in the affairs of the heart between you and your partner, but to protect both of you from unlawfully hurting each other. If the affairs of the heart between you two determine that you should divorce nothing wrong with that - you go ahead and do it.

You asked me how I would react to that and if i would forgive her. i told you how I would act - what more do you want? It was an honest response based on how I am. Of course I use generalisations which have been developed from my experience when taking personal decisions- what else do you expect? If you answer a personal question you would too. There's no argument in that response just a description for how i would act.

How do you know what the characters of "most people" are? Have you met "most peolple" and lived with them enough to know what they are like? — John

It's an observation considering the people i have met and interacted with. Do you disagree with it?

If you loved someone and they committed an infidelity, would you be able to find it in your heart to forgive that? — John

Depends on the particular situation. Generally if I have to pick an answer I would say that i would not forgive it. Most people don't change their characters and thats just a pragmatic lesson we have to learn. I'd look for someone else. But if despite this she made sacrifices, showed true repentance, showed that she was willing to do whatever it takes to remedy her character and make herself a better person, showed that she really hated herself for doing such a thing, and showed evidence of never doing such a thing again then I would very possibly end up forgiving her. But as you see it's not so simple to give an answer. It depends on the people. If she's some feminazi who says she can do whatever she wants with her body, that she did nothing wrong, that she felt ignored, etc. then definitely i won't forgive her. She must be sorrowful and repentant to be forgiven at minimum.

Im not home I'll deal with other parts of your post later.

I appreciate your input, I find it very thoughtful., coherent and rational. I must agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I'm not at home so I can't give a detailed response yet. So my apologies, I will return to your post at a later time. But you are right about possible disadvantages.

I will say this quickly - a very big problem is that social condemnation and disapproval for adultery is vanishing. So I disagree on the point that this mechanism works. We have a problem precisely because it doesn't work. Hence the rising rates of adultery. We have movies and a culture which not only don't condemn adultery, but actually encourage it, either by making something of a joke out of it, or by diminishing its consequences. What is clear is that we have to do something to lower the rates of adultery - if social disapproval is the way, how do we implement it in a culture which makes a "cool" thing out of adultery?

To varying degrees infidelity does harm people. But then so, to some degree, however small, does all social interaction. — John

I said significant, long-lasting and unrepairable harm.

Consider this situation; a couple are married under the new marriage laws that sanction punishment of adultery by law. They love one another very much, but in a moment of weakness the women meets a man she is highly attracted to, and in a moment of weakness, allows herself to be seduced. She feels terrible remorse afterwards and suffers terrible agonies of conscience; she cannot decide whether to tell her husband as she knows it will hurt him terribly, and she loves him so much she cannot bear to see him suffer, but, on the other hand the guilt is eating her up inside and causing her great pain. Should she tell him? He will not suffer unless she does tell him. Is it more selfish of her to tell him in order to alleviate her own suffering than it is to suffer in silence to protect him? Unbeknownst to her, someone spied her infidelity, filmed it and reports it to the police. In the meantime she tells her husband, and he, although angry, loves her so much he forgives her. The police come to arrest her, and the man says he does not want to press charges, because he loves his wife and understands that she is only human. The police say that she must be charged under the new laws and spend some time in prison to set an example an example to others. — John

Okay a few points. First your narrative is quite unrealistic - most people committing adultery do not have such a character. Second of all your story is very abstract - it's very very unlikely that it's "a moment of weakness". You know, a moment is not enough for adultery to take place. Suppose it's true that she is attracted to him. She can't just jump and have sex with him in the middle of the office for example - she must first talk to him - probably much more than once. All this time what is her conscience doing? In her mind she knows she is attracted to him and thus doing wrong. Then she actually has to arrange with him to do it somewhere - say a hotel. What is her conscience doing on that psychologically long way to the hotel - and even in actually arranging it? In most people fear they are doing something wrong intervenes. Then when she reaches she must undress herself - what is her conscience doing? Sleeping? Then she actually has to engage in quite a few things such as foreplay and kissing before getting to the actual intercourse. This means she must look at herself naked before that man, This is not instantaneous. So in that time - what is her conscience doing? Then she must actually go through the act! Is her consciousness in a comma?? A moment of weakness - give me a break. Such things are intentional - they are not moments of weakness. If she is say drunk - thats not a moment of weakness that would qualify as rape most likely. It's like murder - can't be done in a moment of weakness - most plan it, and later they may justify it as moment of weakness etc. Anyway - if thats the case she morally has a duty to tell her husband - because he must have a right to choose if he wants to remain with such a woman or not. Also she morally has a duty to do something about herself and fix whatever issues she has.

Now, from a legal point of view, I never specified the nature of the punishment. You assume the punishment is a prison sentence and that the police can persecute by itself, even if the victim is against such prosecution - suggesting that adultery has been made a criminal offence. I have nowhere detailed this and i would probably disagree with it. Im not sure on the nature of the punishment, I simply said there should be one given the tremendous harm of the act.

Yes that was a point i might have responded to if you weren't so busy justifying your prejudice. — unenlightened

You have a prejudice against white, heterosexual males sir. I don't have any - I treat all people equally.

Huh? Does that relate in some way to This? — unenlightened

Short comings in terms of experience, career and aptitudes are permitted to the black female lesbian while not to the white male heterosexual.

Is there some reason why a white male professor should be preferred? — unenlightened

No - they should rather be chosen based on their aptitudes, not on their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color as it happens now in many places.

Really, your scattergun approach that does not even attempt to address the arguments is too tiresome to me to continue thi — unenlightened

Right thank you. I was getting a bit tired to talk with someone who never even once responded to the points I have repeatedly made at different times in this conversation.

For example - this point you've never answered - because you can't:

Nope. We disagree here. These social policies don't stop you from loving if that's what you want to do. They stop you from harming others. They are there to protect people from harming each other, not in order to force people to love each other as you seemingly think. If you want, you can divorce. You are absolutely free. No being able to commit adultery doesn't mean you're in chains. It simply means you can't harm your partner - not that you can't leave them. — Agustino

Anyway have fun thinking through your anti-patriarchal ideology :D - maybe one day you'll be able to reach the point where at least it is coherent.

Love requires freedom, because love that is coerced is not love but a reaction from fear. — unenlightened

I agree.

Love requires the absence of coercive policies, the absence of legal contracts, the absence above all of fear. — unenlightened

Nope. We disagree here. These social policies don't stop you from loving if that's what you want to do. They stop you from harming others. They are there to protect people from harming each other, not in order to force people to love each other as you seemingly think. If you want, you can divorce. You are absolutely free. No being able to commit adultery doesn't mean you're in chains. It simply means you can't harm your partner - not that you can't leave them.

I don't know why you keep branding me as an ideologue as if what you propose is not based on an ideology. — unenlightened

Because everything you have said is passed through your anti-patriarchal ideology. It's not considering what are normal human reactions and expectations, which arise naturally in most human beings. It's not grounded in this. It's grounded in a theoretical framework that you have built, which you use to judge reality. It's bad according to you that people desire loyalty, it's bad that they desire their partners to save themselves up, etc. These are unnatural desires according to your framework. But then if we return to reality - the world as it is - we will see that these are perfectly normal, and spontaneously arising desires. Just follow the life of a teenager - even in our modern decadent world. Follow the life of such a young person, and you will see many of these desires arising, sometimes fading, sometimes persisting - sometimes abandoned as unachievable ideals, and so forth. Look at life in its fullness - then you may be able to decide what is worth pursuing.

nor do I live in a country where any view of the sort is currently widespread, in fact there is no such country. So if you are concerned with 'empirical truth', such claims need to be withdrawn. — unenlightened

Yes tell that to the white, male professor who tried to get a university position and was denied - instead the black female lesbian was accepted. Being male is a disadvantage in many many Western societies now. You seem unable (or better said unwilling) to recognise this. This is comparable to the opposite situation in many Eastern societies where being female is a disadvantage. These are problems that we have to solve. And no - not by denigrating men or women. We have to solve them together - both men and women.

No one has the right to be loved cherished and obeyed for a lifetime, and such a clause in any other contract would be stuck down as unfair and unreasonable. — unenlightened

This - what you said in the beginning - illustrates that you just don't care about the well-being of people. You have become cold-hearted, like other ideologues such as Marx. You judge everything through the narrow prism of your anti-patriarchal lenses.

The question of deception is one your own mind's fears. Not because it is contrary to continuation, but rather because you fear a world where you have no power over death. If you were stuck in a world without means to guarantee a continuation, it would be the worst. There would be no action you migh take to get life. You really would be at the mercy of death — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am already in such a world. I don't personally have power over death. So what?

My point here is just to say that committin adultery already negatively impacts the adulterer in a divorce. — Hanover

In some countries - unfortunately not in all of them. Where I am originally from, in Eastern Europe, divorce in most countries is in the favor of the man, regardless of adultery or not. That's not fair - especially since in those countries men are much more likely to engage in adultery than women. That's a problem. And in some Western countries, adultery or not doesn't make a difference in divorce anymore - which again is a very big problem. And in yet other Western countries, everything is pardonable to women - because they are women - this is again a very big problem. Because ideologists like unelightened run the place in those countries - that's why they are so unenlightened places!

So all your arguments about the union of two as one, and about love are irrelevant. Your policy is not about promoting love at all, nor is it about preventing the harm of losing love. — unenlightened

No - they are not. They are about love. Love requires certain social policies to be made possible and encouraged. Those policies are compatible with love. You seem to think per your ideology that love is something that has nothing to do with society and social policy. This is not true. Empirically it's not true.

Marriages break up because people do not want to continue with them. — unenlightened

Yes it's called divorce - not adultery, thankfully.

There is nothing natural about the preference for virginity; it is all about the maintenance of patrilineal inheritance. — unenlightened

When I say natural I simply describe a predisposition of the human organism. Most people would prefer that. Now you prefer your ideology - that it's about the maintenance of patrilineal inheritance. As if premartial sex certainly had anything to do with children. Yes ... that certainly makes much sense, bravo! :-!

You are the one wanting to enforce contracts, not I. — unenlightened

As social policy - not as love.

The presumed 30% of successful marriages will be unaffected, since those people want to remain together and need neither a contract nor the interference of government to do so. — unenlightened

This is a presumption.

One obvious essential to making an informed lifetime commitment that you seem to favour is to have pre-marital sex. — unenlightened

The experience of hundreds (or better said thousands!) of years disagrees with you. People generally do prefer if their partner had saved themselves up for them. If they could choose, they would certainly opt for that. Now the viscitudes of life make that difficult for many in practice - especially today. Yet you seem to ignore basic human natural preferences in favor of your ideology. But of course, you are entitled to believe whatever you want.

Try before you buy. Sexual compatibility cannot be judged at arm's length. — unenlightened

Right - because love is a business transaction...

1. What would be the public policy goal of a law that made adultery a punishable criminal offence? — andrewk

-Deterring adultery, encouraging divorce as a way of separation
-Preventing social conflicts that arise out of adultery, as I'm sure you know, adultery provokes the worst passions in men and women, including anger, hatred, jealousy, etc. which can lead to violence, self-harm, or worse.
-Preventing others from intentionally harming their partners in marriage.

2. What reasons are there to believe that the goal would be achieved by such a law? — andrewk

-Clearly if there is a punishment, less people will engage in the activity. This is a well known fact - contrary to what many progressive unbelievers think - which does deter the activity in question whatever it happens to be (here, here, here, here, or here) - this is not to say there will not still be people engaging in it, just that the numbers will be reduced.
-Thus punishment will prevent others from harming each other, and in the case they do, the law will be present to render the justice which they deserve. And if you still have doubts - just look at the trend of adultery. It has increased from about 10% to over 50% in many countries over the past 50 years. Why? Because we don't punish it anymore (either legally or socially)- moreover, we make it to be something cool. This is terrible. Not to mention that now we get some people - like @unenlightened or @Terrapin Station - in fact maybe the two of them should join forces and form a commune, unenlightened can be Krishnamurti and Terrapin Rajagopal perhaps - who even claim we should abolish marriage - why? Because 50% of people don't respect it. They forget that they used to respect it - when we had the required social infrastructure around. Clearly marriage and human nature haven't changed - only our social organisation has. We have removed barriers which previously existed, and this is the result of it.

How would achievement of that goal weight up against potential negative public policy impacts of such a law? — andrewk

I don't see any negatives, except that less people will get married at least in the short-term. But that's a good thing. Those people who were never serious about marriage, shouldn't have got married in the first place. The other potential negative is that divorce will become easier. Overall I think the policy would be successful in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, deterring adultery, preventing social harms arising out of it, preventing intentional harm in marriage, protecting the marriages of people who care about them, and rendering justice to those people who are deceived and caused to waste their time with partners who never intended to respect their vows.

It does not follow at all. I have presented the alternative that adultery should be prevented by preventing folk from entering contracts that your own statistics show they in the majority do not wish to, or are unable to, honour. — unenlightened

Yes, just like cancer can certainly be prevented by suicide >:O

Solutions my friend are found WITHIN the framework in discussion - not outside of it. To say you prevent adultery by not getting married is a sophism. We're discussing how adultery is to be prevented within the framework of monogamous marriage here. We're not discussing whether that framework should or should not exist. That question is already presupposed to be answered by "yes it should" in this discussion, because without that presupposition, there is no adultery to even talk about. This should be obvious.

You have said that adultery causes harm, that the harm is intentional harm because all knowingly caused harm amounts to intentional harm, in this connection you have even likened adultery to wife-beating in order to justify the idea that it should be punishable, and you have said unequivocally that people who cause harm should be punished for causing harm. How could that series of statements not amount to asserting that adultery should be punishable? — John

Let's see what I actually said in the previous thread...

Although maybe some immoral things ought to also be illegal - say adultery. But that is a different debate. — Agustino

Now it appears that you want to resile from you previous position; is that perhaps because I have convinced you (although you won't admit it) that it is unsupportable? — John

Well, well, who is the politician now side-stepping the arguments I have put forth so skillfully in order to gain a rhetorical advantage?

In any case, even if you wanted more modestly to claim that it is only maybe a good idea to punish adultery that "maybe" is empty without an argument for how that "maybe" could possibly be a good idea. That is, you would still need to mount an argument as to why anyone should think it would or even could be supportable to punish adultery, as well as provide an account as to how punishment for adultery would be practicable and how it could be justly implemented. — John

"Maybe" it's a good idea simply means that considering just the action and its consequences, we have ample reasons to punish it. It remains a maybe, because there's a series of other difficulties to overcome until it can be introduced into the law - difficulties that are not my concern, but rather the concern of lawyers. As for mounting an argument, I already did, but you ignore it. So I will post it below for you. Please answer question by question.

I have explained it harms people - do you disagree with that? I have explained the state has a role to prevent actions which cause harm to others - especially if that harm is significant and has large ramifications. Do you disagree with that? I have explained that adultery is an action which fits that criteria - namely it causes harm which has potentially large and severe ramifications. Do you disagree with that? Very well, if you don't, then you agree that maybe adultery should be legally punished in some form. — Agustino

But then it would also be necessary for the claimant to prove that the defendant had actually committed the act of sexual infidelity. That proof would need to come in the form of independent and unbiased witnesses and/ or audially or visually recorded evidence — John

These are legal details and quandaries that have to be decided by lawyers, not by us. Again as I said, I don't think any of us are here to detail to you a complete plan, ready to go and be put into the law. We're discussing whether the action is harmful, and whether such an action would deserve punishment under the law - we're not discussing if such punishment would be feasible.

And that is coming from a self-acknowledged well-seasoned hypochondriac. :) — John

I don't understand the stupid comment about Carnegie; I would never read such drivel — John

You don't have to be shy - he has quite a good book called How to Stop Worrying and Start Living :D

We (or at least I) had already acknowledged and moved well past the 'slanging match" phase of our 'conversation'; so why revisit it, when, since I specifically mentioned that the question of the legal punishment of adultery, which you have advocated, emerged out of the 'Mysticism' thread, people could go and read for themselves and form their own opinions, if they hadn't already, about exactly how the argument developed. — John

I have said I think there maybe should be a punishment for it. I have explained why, and provided justifications. What more can I do for you?

You have stated that you believe it would be a good thing if adultery were to become punishable by law; that question and only that question (and of course any other considerations that are necessarily supportive of, or entailed by that) is the question this thread is intended to address. — John

No I didn't state this. I stated that it very possibly may be a good thing - there's a difference. Secondly, I didn't open this thread - and there's not much to discuss if you never address the reasons and justifications I provided for thinking it may very possibly be good. I'm not interested to detail to you a plan about how the punishment of adultery should be legally implemented. Whether it should be penal, or just a civil offence, whether less people will get married because of it, or more, whether society will be more or less stable, etc. - I don't care about that. I have explained it harms people - do you disagree with that? I have explained the state has a role to prevent actions which cause harm to others - especially if that harm is significant and has large ramifications. Do you disagree with that? I have explained that adultery is an action which fits that criteria - namely it causes harm which has potentially large and severe ramifications. Do you disagree with that? Very well, if you don't, then you agree that maybe adultery should be legally punished in some form.

And I believe that neither Wittgenstein nor Heidegger would recommend the kind of obsessive, even pathological, preoccupation with gaining control over our own physical destinies that Agustino seems to be advocating. — John

I don't see any pathological thing about understanding your own body, and taking responsibility over your own body. This should be something taught to everyone in schools. You don't have faith in your priest for your spiritual health - but then you go having complete, blind faith in your doctor for your body - that's a bit crazy. As for Wittgenstein and Heidegger - probably they wouldn't give such advice, though they were philosophers. A philosopher's job is not to give life advice generally. For that YOU John read Dale Carnegie don't you? ;)

So if there were someone who would say, "I don't desire to have friends," etc., (I'm not saying that I would say this, by the way) you'd say that either they're not being honest or they're not human? — Terrapin Station

First I would inquire why - why don't they want to have friends? Maybe they think their friends will betray them, maybe they think everyone is a self-interested snitch, maybe they are very introverted or just don't like approaching people, maybe they think that by having friends they will lose their independence and so forth. Generally this will have a cause. Once the cause is discovered, it will become crystal clear that it's not friends in themselves that they dislike - but a certain other aspect, whatever that ends up being. Then I will mention to them the goods of friendship - such as mutual help and understanding, bringing the best in each other, and so forth. I would ask them if they would not like to possess those goods. If they do, then we will have to figure out a strategy to get ahold of them. If they don't - then I would ask them if they don't consider such things to be goods. If they don't, then their way of being will be somewhat deviant from the majority of people, which is something that they should keep in mind as they live. They should consider if they want to investigate friendship more, maybe if they do they will appreciate it. If they don't, then they don't - but at least they can make a well informed choice.

I have open relationships, including an open marriage. Again, I think this is preferable. — Terrapin Station

Yes but what do you give up in order to have this? Is it worth giving it up? For example, is it worth giving up the feeling of belonging completely to someone with your whole being - is it worth giving up the development of exclusive intimacy with someone? Is it worth giving up the specialness associated with monogamous love? Are all these worth giving up just so you can sleep with more partners? Sex is still sex - all that matters is what do you give up in order to have it?

But it's clear that not everyone has the same opinions re what counts as well-being, etc. — Terrapin Station

Sure I never said they did :) - this wasn't about opinion though, it is simply about what is good for a human being, a human being having the tendencies that are natural to the human as a species.

I hesitate to offend your sensibilities, but in the interests of my love, I have to inform you that it was only in the act of adultery that she was awakened to the inadequacies of her relationship with me. — unenlightened

But my love had no idea what she was missing 'til she met you. — unenlightened

Those two don't chime well together. They sound quite contradicting to me.

As you can see above, I think anxiety can be somewhat useful. It can push you to learn a lot of useful information. Things that people should be taught at school - but they're not - instead they're taught how to solve second order differential equations, as if most of them are ever going to do that after they get out of there... Anyway.

My favorite philosophy piece on death are Plato's dialogues about the death of Socrates, especially the Phaedo and the Apology. I adopt the Socratic attitude. Either death is the end, or death is the continuation of life - the return to the gods. Like Socrates, I too hope, without knowing, that there is an afterlife - an afterlife in which I will get to meet all my loved ones, in which all the tears will be wiped away, and in which goodness will reign supreme. But it's my hope. Why do I hope? Because it's better to hope and go meet my death with goodness and gladness in my heart is it not? It's better to hope and be deceived than not to hope at all for fear of error. We can go wrong both in believing and in not believing - that's another lesson anxiety teaches. You go wrong when you don't believe that everything is fine with you, even though it is. By being uncertain you don't save yourself from error. You may actually be plunging head-on into error because you remain so attached to uncertainty. Even not making a choice is a choice. There really is no fence on which one can sit. That's why there always is some existential anxiety - one never knows if they are completely right. And yet one must choose - and not choosing is another choice. So there's another anxiety at play - the anxiety of not choosing, because you understand that that too is a choice. But time is running out - one must choose.

Now going back to Spinoza - yes I think his point is right. Our existence on this Earth isn't here for us to spend thinking about what is not in our control. The free man doesn't think on death at all - he is only concerned with what is in his freedom. You can't be concerned about your freedom and death at the same time - for if you were concerned with your freedom, then you would be concerned only with things that were in your control. But death is not in your control - for the most part. Thus, for the most part, if you are concerned about death you are not concerned about your freedom. The free man is the one who has understood that there exists a Natural Law which is above and beyond himself and loves this Natural Order because he understands that this Natural Order has arranged things for the best. He is only a small part of this Natural Order - he cannot hope to understand all its intricacies. He must obey it, because it knows better. Even if death ends all. Spinoza ends his Ethica totally courageous in the face of death:

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning [...] Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them — Benedictus de Spinoza

It allows us to 'become who we are' through the call of conscience, which can draw us away from the empty chatter and distractions of the anonymous crowd and towards possibilities of existing that we find more meaningful for ourselves. It has a positive function in that we no longer chase after the approval of others, and therefore gain a sense of freedom much more significant than the ability to do whatever we want, free of external constraints. In short, it makes life much more profound and meaningful, even in its seemingly mundane and trivial aspects. — Erik

I disagree very strongly about this. Death is not needed. One must not be moral out of fear. That is an inadequate idea per Spinoza. If one is moral because of death - because of fear, then one is just deceiving oneself - cheating himself that he is moral, when in fact he isn't. One must be moral because of one's love and thirst for the Good. Because of Amor Dei Intellectualis. Spinoza would disagree with the modern conception of freedom "doing whatever we want". That to him is bondage to our lusts - not freedom. The only freedom is the freedom to approach our fulfilment - which is precisely in Christian terms doing the will of God, ie being moral. We are all free to be moral - not all of us achieve that freedom though. We are all free to drop the chains of greed, of ambition, of lust, and to be entirely self-directed as Spinoza would say. And we are self directed when we act in accordance with the law in our hearts, which is the same law that governs the whole of nature. One Substance.

That it's not literally talking about a father. "Universal moral law" is not a literal definition of "father." — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure what literal talk of a "Heavenly Father" means. Human beings certainly don't live in the sky I mean. So I don't know what such talk means literarily. So I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with literally talking of a Father. I just recognize I don't know what this would mean literarily.

What led you to believe that there would be a universal moral law? — Terrapin Station

Because I naturally understood that some things have to be the case for a human being to be fulfilled. We all desire to have friends, we all desire to be respected, and so forth. We all desire to be loved, and to love back. This is all very natural - it's the essence of being human. Furthermore, we are social animals - our well-being doesn't depend only on ourselves, but also on what others do. If your partner cheats on you to be on topic, you're not likely to be very happy - it's just the way human beings react most of the time. If you cheat on your partner, they're not likely to be very happy either. So we have to organise ourselves in ways in which we foster mutual well-being and prevent occurences which can be detrimental to it. We have to organise ourselves in win-win situations. The virtues and morality are conducive to such an organisation - they are the systems of belief that makes it most likely for us to live in peace and harmony with each other. That's in a very short form how I cam to understand the universal moral law.

Yes she would be hurting me. Do you think divorce is less painful than adultery? I assure you that the rejection is what hurts, not the mere breach of contract. — unenlightened

I respect your feelings, but that's her free decision to make (and yes I would say that would be immoral for her - but the state has no business legislating that). To restrain that would mean to make her a slave. We can't do that. All we can do as a state is ensure that you are not unlawfully hurt, and she respects you enough to divorce you and be honest with you if she no longer wants to be with you.

No, not necessarily, and the assumption that it would have been annoys me. — Sapientia

I'm not saying it would in your particular case. I'm just speaking and thinking generally - as I said if both parents loved each other and got along :)

But that's just a pointless hypocritical. If all parents were saintly... But they're not. — Sapientia

Sure, but it does suggest that it would be good if this would be possible. If we could make this be the case for other people it would be good. So it merely gives something to strive for. That's what an ideal is afterall - something one passionately strives for. It's important to understand the good even if we fail to reach it because of the meanness of some people, because of our own mistakes, because of the circumstances - who knows. But why deny that something would be good? I was separated from my first girlfriend long ago because we both moved countries - yet I don't deny that it would have been better had this not happened for example. Sure it's life. But life shouldn't blind us from seeing the good...

But my love had no idea what she was missing 'til she met you. — unenlightened

:-! then she should have first divorced you, then afterwards when she has the idea, possibly renegotiate with you if you were still willing to accept to marry her again. It's simple. There's no reason for her to hurt you. She can do all this in a civilised, humane manner (not that it would be moral, but certainly it wouldn't be the state's business because she wouldn't be hurting you - the state must prevent people from hurting each other, not compel them to behave morally).

So you take things like "the will of the Father" to be metaphorical? — Terrapin Station

What do you mean take it metaphorically? I just take it for what it is - namely an expression of universal natural law, which indicates the path one must take to find fulfilment. This Law is the Will of the Father. I believe many other things by faith if I don't understand them - but this is not very relevant for me. For example, it's not relevant if Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. I believe it by faith, but it's not relevant to me. It's not the essence. If I stopped believing in God and telling everyone on the street that there is no God, my morality would really not change one iota.

How the heck did you go from being an atheist to having the religious views you have? — Terrapin Station

Because I found out that the same moral beliefs I arrived at by myself had already been specified before by religion. The only difference was that I said I didn't believe in God. So then I questioned what it means to believe in God? And I realised that if I uphold those beliefs and morals, then I actually do believe in God - because upholding these is precisely what is meant by believing in God in the first place - doing the will of the Father as Jesus said.

But I arrived at these beliefs from my experience - both of the human world, politics, personal, study and thinking, and so forth.

Yours is the mean and nasty place, that would punish my love if she no longer loves me. — unenlightened

That's. Not. True. You can divorce in my land whenever you want. Your love can divorce you. But she can't cheat on you - there's a very big difference there. And neither can you cheat on her. You can't unlawfully harm each other. But if you no longer want to be together, nothing that the law can do about that, you are free people!

The reason you're against divorce is that you have very conservative religious views. — Terrapin Station

I'm not legally against divorce, only morally. The reason for it is that I care about love - and love has to be eternal - if it's not eternal, it's not love. This has very little to do with religion. In fact I was an atheist when I first formed these views. If you ever loved someone you would know the experience. I found these values later on best expressed by religion - that is true - but I came to them independently. As G.K. Chesterton said - I tried my best to be a rebel and a heretic! And I ended up finding that my heresy was actually just an inferior version of orthodoxy. So then I just joined them

Yes, when your analogy fails, find another that might work. But I do not have any desire to be one flesh with a robber. — unenlightened

The analogy was making a different point - namely a legal point. We cannot organise society except by law - law means punishments.

No one has the right to be loved cherished and obeyed for a lifetime, and such a clause in any other contract would be stuck down as unfair and unreasonable. — unenlightened

I wouldn't want to live in your society then. It must be a very mean and nasty place.

According to Spinoza, a free man thinks of nothing less than death. — Erik

I will start by saying both that this is a topic that has interested me (personally and I have dealt with anxiety related to death as well), and also that I side mostly with Spinoza - and strongly disagree with Heidegger.

Regarding Spinoza's point, thinking about death can be debilitating. — Erik

Indeed it can be. While we think about death, we're certainly not concerned with how we can make our condition better, how we can help our family, or how we can do something for our society or for our world. We're stuck just considering what is ultimately an inevitability, which isn't in our control. So we're effectively throwing away the time which has been granted to us, instead of gratefully using it for higher purposes. I know you probably are not religious, but I will take this moment to explain why Christianity condemns anxiety as a sin - and this is precisely the reason, namely that when one is anxious, one is ungrateful - and wastes their time dealing with what is ultimately not in their control. They could've used this same amount of time doing more useful activities.

First, I had a good friend - one much younger and seemingly healthier than myself - inexplicably drop dead about three years ago. — Erik

This is possible and it is very unfortunate - but many times there are warning signs that people ignore or simply don't know how to check. It is also significant to note that in today's world people are relying on doctors with the same absurd faith that they used to place in the priest. In the end we alone are responsible for our health - we must be well informed, we must have adequate knowledge about potential conditions, we must be able to read our own blood tests for example, understand how to assess liver function, understand the body's vital functions and how to measure them, etc. Most people do not bother though - they leave it all to the doctor, they don't even know what AST (SGOT) test result on their blood tests measures or indicates. They go to their doctor, and their doctor's word is law. This is not a safe approach though. Your health is your responsibility, a doctor is to be used as a tool to help you, but you must have some knowledge yourself. Firstly, routine blood tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, liver function, thyroid function, kidney function, lipids/cholesterol/triglicerydes, prostate tests if you're a man) these are things you can do yearly. Second there's lots of tests which you can buy and do at home - you can do glucose test (blood sugar), blood pressure check, urine test (to check urinary tract, bladder, kidney - it will also check things like blood in the urine that you cannot see with the naked eye), stool test (will check blood in the stool water, which you cannot check with the naked eye - and which will very likely be present in either bowel cancer or stomach cancer), check your blood oxygen levels by acquiring a pulse oximeter. These are just a few options and there are more. Obviously you won't do these every day - but you can set say 1 weeks a year when you undertake all these tests on a daily basis to see and understand your condition. Blood pressure and pulse you can check weekly - in fact it's good that you do. Third - one needs to understand symptoms of disease, and be able to spot if there likely is a problem, or the symptoms are due to anxiety, etc. Fourth - one must have a 12-lead EKG, probably once a year, to check that everything is alright with the heart. In addition, every few years you can have an echocardiogram as well, to check how your heart beats. A doctor should also listen to your lungs once a year. If there are signs something is wrong with your heart, have a Holter monitor it for awhile. You can learn to read the EKGs yourself too - doesn't take that long to understand.

Now you can build a health monitoring program for yourself - then you will understand your body very well - much better than most people - and be able to help both yourself and those around you. You will be better than the GP almost :) . This will minimise your risk of "dropping dead" or finding out that you have an incurable disease when it's too late. Of course, the risk is still there - but you're doing your best. These are practical steps you can take, which will give you power over your own body, stop your utter dependency on doctors, and give you some degree of control.

Then, about six months after that, my 43-year-old sister was diagnosed with stage IV cancer after complaining of abdominal cramps. A death sentence, basically. — Erik

It is very unfortunate - nothing much we can do except being next to the person and helping them through the struggle though... And always have faith - there always is a small chance of recovery - and if there is a small chance, then you must play it, and play it to the maximum - your salvation may cling on it.

These traumatic events precipitated a an unhealthy dwelling on death, or, more specifically, on the precariousness of life. — Erik

Life is indeed very uncertain - there are things that we can do to minimise the uncertainty - such as I have recommended above. But there will always be some uncertainty. The fact is that - despite trying to sound like they know - even doctors have relatively little knowledge and understanding of the human body. It is very complicated. Doing our best is simply all we can do.

I started to feel extremely anxious and began experiencing some troubling physical symptoms, like shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and frequent light-headedness. — Erik

Ok time to have a way to separate your subjective state of your health from the objective state of your health. Anxiety can make you feel any symptom - if you are anxious about your heart, you will have palpiations, you will be short of breath when climbing stairs, you will be dizzy when getting up, etc. It is important to be able to understand the physical origin of this sensation if there is any, and if there is none, then attribute it to anxiety. What could cause this list of symptoms that you have experienced - an issue with the heart - an arrhythmia. A heart attack. An issue with your lungs. Anemia (low hemoglobin or iron levels). Wrong levels of electrolytes. Low/high blood sugar. Problems with your thyroid gland.

Arrhythmia and heart attack, you take your blood pressure, take your pulse, and check your blood oxygen level. If you feel very anxious, then your blood pressure the top number can be higher, but bottom number will generally be lower. Say you have 150/90. Pulse can be high, but will quickly become lower if you calm yourself somewhat - so try doing that and check. Say it's 140bpm, and then reduces to 110bpm - still high, but definitely not dangerously high or indicative of anything bad. Then you look at pulse oximeter, you see a regular pulse, and oxygen saturation of 95%+ - that means no arrhythmia, and likely no heart condition, or issue with your lungs. That's sorted. Next. Since you do your blood tests yearly, you will know if you have a tendency towards anemia or not. So that is sorted too. If you think something is wrong with your electrolytes, have a drink of rehydration salts, which will fix that - they cause no side effects and no harm. If you think it's your blood sugar - then measure it yourself and see - and adjust accordingly by eating sugar or drinking water. If you think it's your thyroid, you have done a blood test once a year for it. Check to see. Now you have literarily verified all possible conditions. If it's likely none of them, then it is anxiety.

Now your worries will vanish, because you have dealt with them rationally. After you do this a few times, you will never be bothered by such anxiety again. You can do this with all symptoms too. Once you have an adequate understanding of the human body - which you can build by studying during your own free time. Say 30mins a day.

These, along with frequent intrusive thoughts, led to a paradoxical situation in which an all-consuming fear of death led to an inability to cope with life, which led to suicidal thoughts (as the only way to overpower the fear of dying), and the downward spiral began. — Erik

Yes - so you have to take your life back. Take responsibility for your conditions and take practical steps to improve it. Understanding the objective state of your body is the first step. Then you have to understand your mind - why it gets anxious, when it gets anxious, and how to control it or simply ignore the feeling when it is present. This requires a bit of practice - I found mindfulness helpful. But over time you can somewhat detach yourself from your anxious mind and have a more clear eyed view. Not always possible. Just sometimes. But that is better than nothing. Don't fight the thoughts - let them be there, disprove them rationally when you can, form a plan for dealing with uncertainty. And for the uncertainty that cannot be eliminated, one must learn to ignore it and live with it. Have confidence that regardless if what you fear happens, you will be able to deal with it.

I should have probably added somewhere that it matters if you can think like a doctor - in medicine if you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras :) . So these are my more practical recommandations. My philosophical recommandations I will share soon, but this post has already grown too large, so I will put them in a different post.