The morality of adultery

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Andrew256, Apr 15, 2018.

?

Would you?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112
    soo you support and promote free universal access to birth control for women ?
    (why do i doubt that?)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    I'm saying if an act is deemed moral or immoral by a society, then that is a good indication that vast numbers of people are already doing it or not doing it accordingly.

    Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between thesis and antithesis .... but by the time it comes around to synthesis you will again be at the point of thesis (and a majority).

    Regardless to what degree we are for or against mainstream norms, the fact there is a mainstream will dictate not only how we present our individual morality to others, but also how we perceive it our selves.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112
    is sexual morality a (USA)licensed legal paradigm ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    Huge numbers of sex offenders in (USA) jails certainly seem to indicate it is.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,784
    Unless both parties are fully open to one or both having other sexual partners, adultery would seem to be the breaking of an explicit contractual agreement either in the face of the God you believe in or simply in front of society as a whole. To break that agreement seems to me to be wrong. Lying about it simply compounds the issue.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112
    yes... well... was refering to the other thing...
    the premise of informed consent, as a process of marriage licensing, that then in turn or by its very normalisation, drives culture and in turn drives laws, or in reverse.

    we could probably talk in circles for ever about concepts of sexual proclivaties of the ID.
    i prefer to remain in the realm of adults making informed consent for the concept of social normative function, otherwise we are in fact talking about slavery.
    which was and still is normalised by some cultures in some places in the world.

    subjective ground zero of morality...etc...

    rendering from the ground up to attempt to balance the informed adult personal relationship inside a frame work of pre-defined rules is in its self a process of pre-ordanned moral structure.
    i understand the sudden jump by many to think of sexual slavery, however... that is not my topic.

    though you do raise a valid point about the age of informed consent and marriage licensing ages.
    in my opinion they should be the same,
    voting, alcahol(recreational drugs [exceptions are prescriptions by doctors]), marriage, surrogacy, organ/blood/bone marrow donation, adopting, parenting(being allowed to keep a child and raise it yourself etc...), signing contracts that are legally binding,

    my exceptions are
    driving a private motor vehicle for private purposes or for transport to & from work.
    operating machinery & power tools(firearms for work purposes i.e farmwork)
    nothing involving passenger transport

    allowing children to adopt children and be surrogate parents and then equating that to the morality of adults having casual consenting sex with other adults when married is quite a jump in a concept of moral equity from what i can tell...(not what i was talking about as you should hopefully now realise)
     
  10. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    Absolutely. As long as it doesn't involve health risks for women. I don't know why I made the impression that I wouldn't
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Right. But if you talk about it beforehand and both parties (all three parties actually) agree to it, its not breaking any agreement.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Given that the most strident defenders of a given moral virtue are often the most likely to violate it - probably not a good assumption. For example, 20% of people in a recent poll admitted to drinking and driving; only 9% favored less stringent drunk driving laws. (The rest wanted to keep the laws the same or make them stricter.)
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    So you had 80% who who didn't drink and drive and 91% who didn't favour less stringent consequences. On the surface, I'm not sure how the respective 20% and 9% suddenly became, not a minority, but the "most strident defenders of virtue".

    At a guess, I would say those most likely to violate drink driving are those that not only do it, but those who think the penalties should be less .... although taken outside the pigeon holes of the survey, those most likely to drink and drive, as tends to be the case for most people who make regular plans to break the law, are those who think they will not get caught. For all we know, the 9% in favour of less stringent penalties may never drink and drive because their local police are always out breath testing motorists, or whatever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  14. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    Politics and identity. There is (absolutely) no hope of avoiding them in a discussion about sex.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    It should be addressed, sure, so long as it is not used to interfere, stall or stalemate the primary topic of discussion.

    It is a pretty basic tactic for an opponent to confound a discussion by attempting to continually expand the scope so that no progress is made.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    You might have missed the bit earlier, when andrew suggested the path of progress was to discuss sexual morality sans issues of identity and politics.

    Me: There is no such thing as "only sex" in this world.

    Andrew: I have to disagree. How we view sex is subjective, and I can certainly imagine seeing it as only sex. Another question - if I decide to see some sexual intercourse this way, is it making me immoral (or childish) in your opinion?

    Despite his insistence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure there will continue to be repeated clarifications/accusations of a political agenda arising from identity.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112
    awesome !
    note you do realise a women getting pregnant is an actual health risk ?
    these days with western modern technology they are a lot safer.

    no real risk of death for men in sexual intercoarse.

    some conservative propoganda sock puppets like to hide behind verbose inferances of "protection" as a code word for not doing anything as a catch phrase for abstanance compulsivity metaphours and anti-abortion and anti-morning after pills etc...
    not to mention the denial of rights to girls to see a doctor & get contraceptive pills to manage menstration issues(the leading cause of high school drop out for teenage women and lack of sports involvement leading to obesity) along with free access to condoms for teens etc.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    Well, so far my prophecy is coming true.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Clearly more than half disagree. They want the same or stricter laws even though they themselves drive drunk.

    And again this is nothing new. Abortion opponents want exceptions for their daughters or mistresses because "it's a special case." Politicians pass laws against bribery and graft and then regularly partake in such things themselves. In a great many situations, people support laws that they feel are needed, while at the same time feeling they should be exempt.
     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    By a most liberal assessment of the information you are providing, half a minority.


    And when the hypocrisy of a minority becomes a majority, what tends to happen next?
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112
    you mean nazi-ism/stalin-ism etc ? effectively a facist dictatorship exercising socialist public laws to control society and make it turn on its self ?
     
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    Actually I was thinking more about prohibition. But the gameplays of fascism and communism are similar in the sense their lack of appeasement to majority issues inevitably saw them sidelined, redefined via a dialectic (or even machine gunned https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu )
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,112

Share This Page