The morality of adultery

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


Would you?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Whatever, but you still have the morals of a majority coming to the fore (more often than not, through the language of identity and politics)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i think the subject nature matters because the nature of personal relationships also matter.
    the relationship between 2 minds
    as opposed to a functional trade relationship between 2 entity's

    Morality is not adverse to exceptions as long as they fit the moral code.
    thus banning alcahol to prevent lawlesness of drunken behaviour to maintain a trade relationship between 2 entity's that have elective support by the individual minds.
    those individual minds being allowed to drink and consequentlay have sex(consensual[must i need note it]) with whom ever they like.

    your choice of prohibition may be intentional, Freudian or an error.

    "prohibition " is exclusively a religious dictatorship.
    IF you are sggesting that morality in a secular society is subject to religious dictatorship then i suggest you or the thread author may have used some incorrect words while thinking a completely different thing.

    thus the correct thread header should read

    "what is morality in a religious dictatorship when it comes to sexual promiscuity inside marriage?"
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    There are a stack of laws (and morals) governing the sale, consumption and production of alcohol that have no direct relationship with religion.

    We understand you are on a "religion bashing" crusade and as such, you may feel inclined to trigger people just to provide opportunities to relieve yourself. However, it appears, as far as this thread is developing, you are a bit premature with your enthusiasm.

    Perhaps the word "adultery" is just too religiously suggestive for you. You are expecting such a thread, up to its third page now, should be up to the task of providing you with a target rich environment.

    All I can suggest at this point in time is that you be patient.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i am not anti-religious
    i am anti cult
    i am also anti slavery
    i gues i must have pushed too many conservative religious buttons for you to follow my point.
    failing to accept that a large majority of society willingly operates in a secular framework of religous association is like failing to comprehend what the word means at-all.
    dont take it personally. i am passionate about human rights & the intellectual and social evolution of the species. the species will be extinct in another 100 years if im the only one bothering.

    as it seems to appear there is a pre-coded meaning to the word "adultery" that people are responding
    (and consequently interlacing their religious dogma into it as a moral imperative, thats fine but they are in so doing making it a religous debate not a debate about personal relationships, MORE so when thier religion dictates their personal relationship of what they can and cant do in the privacy of thier own house between 2 consenting adults)
    to and that is inside some type of (what seems to start to sound like)moralistic paradigm of religious piety based on being able to provide an excuse for betrayal in their most important personal relationship.

    whine moan slam fist on counter bang bang... yes that is how people feel when thier morality is suddenly chalenged by their own hypocrisy.
    not my fault.

    denying that the usa was at the time a solid christian state government and political entity is just simple historic ignorance.
    thats how it was.
    all the other countrys that ban alcahol do so for religous reasons.
    thus by simple deduction
    prohabition is a religous law dictated to the majority by religious leadership.

    thats not trolling. thats simply pointing out a fact.
    one which im happy to discuss, do not confuse my eagerness of verse, to be personal slight toward you or your chosen path to the god of your choosing.
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    It's more that you are the only one in this thread talking about religion. If you repeatedly keep returning to it, it makes others wonder why.

    Well, perhaps their inability to comprehend could be forgiven. As a sentence, that doesnt lend itself to a uniform conclusion.

    Well let's hope there is enough oxygen to go around for everyone in the meantime.

    Who is doing this so far in this thread and where?

    Ideas about alcohol, both legal and moral, occur in many different contexts.

    Eg ...

    ... and they didn't even use the word "religion" once in that article.

    Its more that there is a broader discussion afoot about the acquisition of moral norms ... broad in the sense that the general principles apply regardless whether the society is strongly religious, not at all, or anything in-between.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    More than half, actually.
    You end up with a two (or more) class society. Laws apply to the underclass. The laws are passed by the upper class - but are not binding on them. This encourages the upper class to pass more laws, since that provides better control of the underclass without being a burden on the upper class.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Okay, let's back up for just a second, because the reason you're not certain how is because you've mixed up the sequence:

    The eleven percent difference, as I read it, is a bloc that both self-reports driving under the influence and favors current or stricter laws, or, more directly, what Billvon describes as the strident defenders most likely to violate the moral virtue. We can always nitpick the literary license, but I would wonder why because if I say I understand his point, it's not a stretch, nor even the basic accommodation of a Bushism; I would have to be pedantic and argue something like, Well, we don't know how strident they really are, since self-reporting surveys are ostensibly anonymous, and people often say things in that expectation of privacy they wouldn't acknowledge publicly, speak nothing of being strident. Maybe in public they crack jokes in hopes of throwing people off the trail, though I admit that would be a weird priority for driving under the influence.

    Then again, in my corner of the world, most days the thing about the difference 'twixt "stricter" and "more effective" is the difference itself. The laws we have now are a racket, and the next major change coming will only reinforce questions of wealth and disparate standards of justice. One conviction already ruins a poor person; everyone else is wondering about the pile of bodies and the driver under arrest who had five priors. That's the part they want stricter. For those with enough money, a breathalyzer in an autopiloted car will soon suffice.

    Meanwhile, two things people learn along the way in the racket: The average first DUI arrest means the driver has already done it between seventy and a hundred times; going through the sadistic processes states lay out for these convicts does not seem to stop people from doing it again. The one is a point taught in specialized substance education, at least in this state; the other is an observable reality occasionally discussed among DUI convicts; if you listen closely when they're seething at the state and its dangerous notion of a justice system, you will eventually hear the point about how part of the state's own argument in these "information schools" relies on the fact that the program doesn't work.

    And in that eleven percent, there are plenty who will finish explaining thosse points to you and then give a wink as they throw back, rattle their glass, and then pull their keys from their pocket as they head out the door. But even those who believe in the neighborhood pub because that means they don't need to drive anywhere to get home will occasionally do the math if they think circumstance warrants, and having been through the racket doesn't really seem to improve their statistical analyses. That is to say, people tend to think they're good to roll long before they are, and the laws are not yet strict enough to convince them to stop trying to do the math in the first place.
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I stand corrected .... a conservative estimate would have been half a minority. A liberal estimate would have been a mere minority.

    Have you got an example of this?
    Like an example where disregard for a law (both in mind and action) is found in 80 - 90 % of the population?

    My take is that it tends to disempower the law (even catalyzing revolution if the issue is important enough), or that it introduces a dialectic to render it more benign.

    It is my observation that in all such circumstances of majority disregard for law, any attempt by authority to shore up the disregard by introducing stiffer penalties or a platform for introducing a host of by-laws simply runs the very likely risk of rendering law impotent (that is, merely increases the number of laws that practically nobody cares to follow or enforce) or toppling the very authority orchestrating such laws. Either way, by introducing a more benign approach via rewriting a more practical interpretation of law or the more radical introduction of regime change, the laws come to reflect a more practical utility.

    Perhaps you have some other example in mind, but I am pretty sure that breaking things down into upper and lower classes is irrelevant.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Sure - speed limits. In a recent AAA poll, only 16% of polled drivers thought that "driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for skilled drivers." The rest thought the risk was moderate to high. But where I live, >90% drive over the speed limit. In fact, when I try to do the speed limit (trying to maximize range or something) I get honked at, flipped off etc. That's a case where people agree that driving too fast is dangerous, and to be avoided - but they do it anyway.
    Agreed there.
    Also agreed.
    Upper and lower class divide would cover something like tax law, where the poor pay penalties (and sometimes spend time in jail) where the rich are able to insulate themselves from such penalties.
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    What do you think the consequence would be if 90% of the said drivers started receiving speeding fines?
    Would they accept it, that they have done something wrong and must pay the penalty?
    Ot would they group up and push for change (as in make the speed limit reflect natural habit... maybe something like the autobahn)?

    IOW, in this case, would the law be strong enough to effect changed behaviour in motorists, or would the motorists effect a change on the law more in line with their notions of danger?

    Of course realistically, the law is laxly enforced so the latter scenario only occurs under more tepid conditions. In the meantime, municipalities get an income source while simultaneously reaping the benefits of lip service to the rhetoric of safety. As such, the authorities appear quite satisfied to have laws that are flagrantly disregarded.

    I was suspecting you might have been talking about an underclass, which would be a minority living in the shadow of an upperclass majority.

    However, in the case of a regular upperclass, you are just talking about a minority which is perennial to human civilization. There is no clear path to disenfranchise such a minority from their perks at the top of the pyramid (ie, establish a classless society) without destroying society itself. Their disregard for law (or ability to surmount its effects) never has the numbers to become a majority issue.
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    soo you want to have casual sex with someone even though you have already agreed to have no other sexual partners in your current sexual realtionship ?
    you tell your current sexual partner that you want to and they say they dont want you to.
    you then tell them your going to and you do...
    is it wrong to then have sex with that person after you have already told them that you do not accept their "no" and that you will do it any way..
    is it called cheating ?
    should you both stop having sex together ?

    if you current sexual artner is your best friend ... is it right that your best friend would deny you your hapiness by telling you that you cant have sex with someone else ?
    are they really your best friend if they say you should not ?

    is thier any adults involved ? could it be called adultery ?

    what if its not even really kinky sex and you just kinda want to be close to them because your sexually attracted to them..
    is it ok to hang out with at person knowing your best friend doesnt want you to ?

    have i brought the thread back on topic sufficiently ?
  15. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Ok, what I would say is - if you've made a promise to your best friend (your spouse in our case) to maitain the emotional and sexual ties with him/her for an extended period of time ("until death do us apart"), than of course, having a sexual affair on the side without them knowing means hurting them. I understand the feeling of jealousy and emotional pain of "cheating", as we call it in our society, very well.

    I think some people are predispositioned to monogamy because they hold the emotional ties to a much higher value. On the other hand, restricting your natural desires to have varied and interesting sex life can be harmful too, and I know people who are regretting they didn't get rich enough sexual life during their prime years. And all those couples visiting the sexologist about their declining sex life... there's just so many of them.

    So, what if we, in theory, could build a relationship framework as I've described in the first post? What if me and my partner could agree to have a sex on the side, which is no different than masturbation - no emotional attachment, like a massage. But, many people just can't view the sex without emotions at all.

    I don't know if monogamy is built into us by nature or by society and morals - scientists are still debating about this. For now I just want to see how many non-religious people could even acknowledge that such society could exist, therefore the vote.

    Thanks to everyone who voted by the way.
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Ah, okay. If you're defining adultery simply as sex with someone other than your legal spouse, then yes. I tend to see adultery more as the situation when it is not agreed between the married couple. So I take your point.

Share This Page