That is the worst deception, to think you love someone, while in truth you only love yourself. — Agustino

Well said, my friend.

Yes, and I can see how such a deception might lead to imagining God would agree that fear is better than love and that one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. Someone's whole moral and religious sense could break down when what drives them and what they need to excuse through disractions is their own avarice. They might even end up claiming that God hates [insert someone else's sin here] when of course God doesn't hate, God is love.

You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period. A ruthless business career and the word of Jesus Christ don't mix, Agu. Maybe this unresolved contradiction is why you're lashing out, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Deal with the beam in your own eye.

You've linked me to the part about Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello (coincidentally, my graduation thesis was on that). It has no bearing on the adultery discussion though.

That is quite false, Lewis is one of the best in the last 100 years. — Agustino

Only in the eyes of Christians that are weak in their fate that they need apologists to shore up their faith. Lewis does not write with the logical rigour of Aquinas for instance.

That is the height of moral insanity. — Agustino

Yeah, you'd know all about moral insanity, wouldn't you?

I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. — Benkei

Augustine's Confessions seems to me readable only if one enjoys another's efforts to expose himself, as it were. There's something perverse about his eagerness to detail his sins, purportedly for the benefit of others. Rousseau's Confessions are sickly in a similar way.

As for the work of that embodiment of the sin of gluttony, Thomas Aquinas, it's not so bad, though very dry and of course thoroughly derivative of Aristotle.

I have no respect for C.S. Lewis as an apologist as I think he was rather inept. Take, for example, his argument Jesus was God because he said he was God. It goes something like this: Only a lunatic or liar would say he was God if he wasn't God. Jesus wasn't a lunatic, nor was he a liar. Therefore, he must have been God. He came up with it (Lewis, I mean) because he was annoyed with people thinking Jesus was just a great man.

That doesn't really work, though. For one thing, it assumes what was written about him decades after his death is accurate. And Jesus is portrayed as saying he's God or at least his son only in the Gospel of John, generally considered to be the last of the Gospels written This seems flimsy stuff to me.

Well, as long as we're doing the Jesus thing, I thought I'd chime in. Just saying.

In all honesty, that sentence missed the word "again" but I didn't want to admit I read them as part of my Catholic upbringing. Not that I was forced, I just read everything I could get my hands on as a kid. Also the reason I stopped believing, too many irreconcilable contradictions in a book that only contained "truth". Logic trumped faith when I was 14 or so.

Had an agnostic period for a while. It was more of a respect for others misguided belief thing. Now I wish Philosophy of Religion would just die already with all the "proofs for Gods" having been disproved by now.

Be proud of your Catholic upbringing. Revel in it!

If one is going to belong to a religious institution, or institutional religion, Catholicism is the way to go--or used to be, in any case. Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis. But back in the day, as they say far too often, it's ritual was beautiful, even glorious, filled with ancient forms and ancient mysteries; a link to the old Greco-Roman civilization and culture, with Judaism added, rather awkwardly, I think. What else can a good institutional religion be but beautiful and an artistic expression, appealing to what is natural in us?

Santayana was right about Catholicism, I think: Catholicism is paganism spiritualised: it is fundamentally naturalistic; and the transcendental spirit and the wise statesman may accept Catholicism, where it naturally arises, as a good poetic symbol for the forces and the issues of human life in that phase; not, however, as a scientific revelation of reality or a history of literal facts.

Because the harm that adultery causes is irreparable, irreversible and cannot be compensated for, and thus, it demands punitive damages, not just the removal of the threat through divorce. — Agustino

If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another? If so, please describe it.

Because such a punishment is brutal, and it would say more about us than about the adulterer. It is an inhuman form of punishment. — Agustino

Incarceration, especially in America, is also quite brutal.

Why? Suffering is what rehabilitates people. Without suffering, rehabilitation is impossible. That is the very biological purpose of suffering, to guide behavior away from that which causes suffering. If we find a way to extinguish suffering after a crime, then that itself is a great crime. — Agustino

You're not describing reform or rehabilitation, you're describing threats and counter-threats; conditioning via negative reinforcement. If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime.

This position is a perfect mirror of the Christian version of hell; bad people deserve to go to the bad place to suffer badly.

Consider your hypothetical future son, who takes (steals) a chocolate bar from the corner store before they understand what money or property is. They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong.

Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression. Sometimes they're necessary, but generally only when a vulnerability must be protected (i.e: a grifter is locked up to stop their grifting, a drunk driver is locked up to stop them driving), or as a last resort, but many kinds of transgressions aren't of such a nature. We don't arrest Jay-walkers, and almost never would, even though they break the law. We may fine them which is on some level punitive, but it is also restorative, and compared to being incarcerated, a monetary fine is like a pat on the butt. If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws).

Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships. Their main function is to protect confidence in the emotional, physical, and financial security of a relationship by enumerating expectations, shared authorities, and offering recourse when they are not upheld. By cheating with another man, your wife can cause you indirect emotional pain, and possibly direct financial suffering, and this would be adequate grounds to have the contract dissolved (financially in your favor if your spouse is at "fault"). The financial suffering being repayed via the circumstances of the divorce, all that's left is the indirect emotional suffering of having been cheated on, but I don't think indirect emotional suffering in and of itself is something that we should seek to balance for the sake of justice.

Sometimes people feel emotional suffering for different reasons. You might feel emotional suffering at the thought of your future wife with another man, but some men do not (open marriages aren't harmful). In order to cause your ex wife similar amounts of suffering to teach her a lesson, we might have to lock her up for the full 5 years and beyond, depending on how hard you took it and how hard of a hypothetical woman she actually is. Possibly the divorce and or loss of custody alone would cause your hypothetical future ex-wife much more emotional suffering than you ever experienced as the result of her infidelity, in which case, ought we let her go free?

What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery?

If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why?

Why do you think so? Also, this is a metaphorical expression suggesting that the punishment ought to be proportional to the harm caused, where this is at all possible. — Agustino

Actually, this parable suggests that the punishment ought to be the crime. Don't you at least find that to be slightly ironic? The hard learned truth of this parable is that it doesn't reduce crime but instead perpetuates it.

Some notions of justice actually do seek punishments that fit the crime, such as those which restore damage done or rehabilitate the offender (i.e: community service for a vandal, anger management for verbal harassment (where appropriate), a psychiatric hospital for the pathologically violent/dangerous, financial settlements for financial (and sometimes emotional) damages). When a litigant seeks punitive damages against an individual or corporation, it only makes sense to grant them when it is necessary to correct behavior of the defendant and deter other parties from engaging in the same behavior. In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress?

Since when is mere hurt feelings grounds for incarceration?

I agree, but that isn't to say that their injustice should be ignored, is it? — Agustino

It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.

I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?

America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too?

So Donald Trump should be in jail then, correct?

Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis. — Ciceronianus the White

What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church.

What else can a good institutional religion be but beautiful and an artistic expression, appealing to what is natural in us? — Ciceronianus the White

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, a source of horror and bloodshed the world over.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, a source of horror and bloodshed the world over — frank

That seems to have been the case for institutional Christianity generally, I would say, and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Or perhaps more accurately, it has been the case with the followers of institutional Christianity generally. It's a function of what Christianity did not derive from paganism; Christianity's exclusiveness and intolerance, which Christians that obtained political power brought with them into government. The Catholic Church was beautiful and artistic to the extent honored its pagan roots, but the beautiful and artistic can also be cruel.

True. They're all guilty.

What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church. — Posty McPostface

It changed when it abandoned its ritual, ceremony and liturgy. In other words, when it changed the manner of its public worship. I had the misfortune of attending a funeral mass a short time ago. It's been some time since I attended a mass of any kind, but the ceremony, the songs sung, the language used, are dull, colorless, vapid, commonplace. I have no problem with the use of English (or whatever language) rather than Latin, though I think Latin is more attractive as a spoken language. The King James version of the Bible is very well written, and can be poetic, even. Modern translations are monotonous when read, agonizing when spoken. There seems nothing spiritual about it, to me. It's like attending a meeting of a the local Rotary.

Well said, my friend. — frank

You are both thoroughly mistaken when you think that love does not include hatred, or that to love someone means to act as they want you to act.

Kierkegaard writes:

God doesn't hate, God is love. — Baden

That doesn't mean God doesn't hate. For example: Proverbs 6:16-19, Exodus 20:5, etc.

one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. — Baden

It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless.

fear is better than love — Baden

I didn't claim that.

You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period. — Baden

I disagree... this is so wrong. Success in business takes many of the same qualities that are required to be a moral person. Discipline, being ruthless, being independent and not following the crowd, etc.

It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless. — Agustino

Probably a language thing but there is no "good sense" for ruthlessness because that is devoid of compassion. You just seem to mean strict.

The comment in itself is devoid of content because it's very unclear under which circumstances you meant it to apply. Certainly not all because that would be stupid. I'm all for holding people to their word (eg. Be strict) but before there's a contract ruthlessness gets you nothing and strictness very little. It's just not a good negotiating strategy as it would never result in a win - win as you'll be too focused on your own requirements. You only need to be strict with regard to your bottom line in that respect, the rest should be all flexibility. That's some free advice. In any case, your personal experiences are worthless as an argument to begin with.

Also, I was wondering whether you'd want to retract your conclusion earlier that Tibetans are savages or whether I'm free to conclude you're a discriminating (in the bad sense) person. It will save us a lot of time in future discussions if you could clear that up.

I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. — Agustino

What? :rofl: :vomit: If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? What was Jesus, just another Jewish teacher? Upholding the old Jewish law? I'm assuming you haven't read any of the gospels? Again, are you professing Judaism, Agu? Specifically, an old, outdated form of Judaism which no one else professes? That interpretation makes this gospel anecdote completely uninteresting and not worth recording in the first place, within the context of Christianity as a historical religion. It would be just another moment in time in which Jewish teachers quarreled over the Tanakh, and then came to a consensus. Status quo maintained. Perpetrators stoned. Nothing interesting to be learned; no new wisdom, no heretofore unheard-of divine message. I'm shocked at how un-Christian you're interpretation of that passage is, for someone who claims to be a Christian.

If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? — Noble Dust

Sure.

What was Jesus — Noble Dust

Have YOU read the Gospels?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:17-20

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-woman-caught-in-adultery.html

un-Christian — Noble Dust

I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite?

I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. — Agustino

The difference is that I'm not a Christian.

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven — Agustino

I hope I'm called least in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:17-20

This is what you should have highlighted in the context of what we're talking about.

Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite? — Agustino

He didn't claim the opposite of abolishment.

I hope I'm called least in the kingdom of heaven. — Noble Dust

Well yes, so you are going against the words of Jesus.

He didn't claim the opposite of abolishment. — Noble Dust

What's the opposite? He said He came to fulfil the Law. Furthermore, that:

until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. — Matthew 5:17-20

If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another? — VagabondSpectre

Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other.

If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime. — VagabondSpectre

By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way.

This position is a perfect mirror of the Christian version of hell; bad people deserve to go to the bad place to suffer badly. — VagabondSpectre

Bingo.

They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong. — VagabondSpectre

No, I correct them by (1) teaching them, (2) telling them to return the chocolate, pay for it, and apologise. But if they repeat the offence, then they will get punished, because they should have known better.

Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance.

Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, they do have to be the first moral recourse against transgressions that are willed, despite knowing better. Where there is ignorance which leads to the transgression, then yes, threats of suffering are not necessary.

If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws). — VagabondSpectre

In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry.

Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships. — VagabondSpectre

It does, any contract is legally binding.

What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery? — VagabondSpectre

The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.

If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why? — VagabondSpectre

Damage is reparable and not that extensive. You can pay back our dough.

Actually, this parable suggests that the punishment ought to be the crime. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree - you're reading it too literarily. The idea is that the punishment will be proportional to the gravity of the offence.

In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress? — VagabondSpectre

Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it.

It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.

I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?

America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever. Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft?

Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other. — Agustino

How is "failing to achieve 100% intimacy" actually harmful? You've equated "not actualizing one's full potential" with "irredeemable harm". If I'm gathering firewood, and I don't actualize my full potential by gathering all the firewood I can possibly gather, have I done irredeemable harm to myself?

If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful? If the 100% intimacy is a good thing, then isn't 50% intimacy half as good?

By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way. — Agustino

There are two conflicting ways of preventing crime we're discussing: Your way is to use the threat of violence and incarceration as deterrent, and my way is to try and address the root contributory causes of crime to begin with. My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course. Your ethical framework is more likely to destroy a transgressor than to turn the other cheek or rehabilitate, which is somewhat ironic given that you're the Christian, and I, the atheist.

So, when you encounter a petty thief who steals because of hunger, you would lock them up in a place of suffering as deterrence, whereas I would offer them food so that they don't have to steal. You would incarcerate a drug addict for possession, whereas I would send them to a detox facility/hospital/therapy.

In response to rising gang violence, you would invest in prisons, guards, and guns, whereas I would invest in schools, social assistance programs, decriminalization of drugs, and economic development projects in afflicted communities. We still need a police force, and dangerous or violent criminals must be captured for our own safety, but our fundamental approach to crime differs in the same way that old testament fire, brimstone and condemnation differs from new testament forgiveness, redemption, and salvation. You blame individuals for their actions completely, such that it would make sense to cut off the hand of a petty thief in a framework that is at times intuitive-utilitarianism and at other times obsequiously Aristotelian: "It's OK to cut off the right hand of petty thieves because their crimes are their own fault, it stops them from stealing, and it deters other people from stealing". You might object to the brutality of cutting off hands (but not to the brutality of American prisons) for mere petty theft, but you're intuitively comparing the gravity of petty theft to the gravity of losing a hand, completely subjectively, just like you deem adultery to be of equal gravity to being incarcerated for 5 years.

If adultery was a dangerous (significantly harmful) and violent sort of crime (it isn't), such that we needed to incarcerate adulterers for our own safety, we should also need to investigate the motivations of the adultery in question so that the "punishment" we administer actually addresses the causes of their crime (rehabilitates them). If, for instance, an individual was found to have an over-active libido (or some sort of hormonal imbalance) then hormone suppressors might be the only way to actually prevent them from committing adultery. If the spouse was sexually and emotionally unavailable to any reasonable degree, then this could be considered a mitigating factor in that sexual and emotional neglect can cause people to seek fulfillment elsewhere. People convicted of adultery might also be able to file a class action lawsuit against any advertisement or media company which produces content of a sexually provocative nature, in that it could be considered some kind of corruption of innocence or promotion of crime.

Once adultery is committed, and a divorce occurs, since they're no longer capable of committing adultery and actually doing any harm (casual sex among the unmarried is not sufficiently harmful that you think it should be a crime, correct?) why even bother keeping them incarcerated? If the spouse who was cheated on doesn't want their partner to be incarcerated in an attempt to reconcile, must the law be applied regardless?

Bingo — Agustino

This amounts to vengeful sadism. You get a pleasurable feeling of having satisfied justice when bad people suffer. It's un-Christian to judge, and it's un-Christian to torture.

Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance. — Agustino

Humans are complex creatures who aren't either "totally ignorant" or "in full knowledge", in fact we're all somewhere in-between. When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant...

In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry. — Agustino

Contracts generally come with stipulations about what happens if the contract is broken or dissolved. Marriage being an agreement between two people, why would they want the penalties to be incarceration for adulterous breach of contract? (You can have infidelity ("lifestyle") clauses in marriage contracts. For instance, Jessica Biel gets paid 500k every time Justin Timberlake cheats on her, but, they could not stake their physical freedom as a penalty for such a clause (because it's not ethical to incarcerate someone unless they've committed a crime or crimes worthy of incarceration)). In any case, making the adulterous breach of marriage contracts and civil unions a criminal act is a sweeping generalization that undermines the freedom of two individuals to make an agreement that suits them (i.e: an open marriage, or a marriage where if one of them cheats, they're allowed to dissolve the marriage without the adulterer being sent to prison).

You equate with and define adultery as a necessarily harmful and insidious crime (in the past you've compared it to cannibalism) making you ready to tyrannically dictate the sexual habits and freedoms of all other humans because you know whats best for them.

It does, any contract is legally binding — Agustino

Then why don't I go to jail for breaching our birthday party clown contract?

Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law?

(contracts are individual safeguards of specific agreements, and they do not circumvent the law. Laws are a kind of broad public contract that we've all ostensibly agreed to, and they take primacy over private contracts. (i.e: you cannot contract your rights away))...

The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime. — Agustino

But you haven't actually answered the question. If you were in no way harmed by your ex-wife's adultery (you benefited), given that clearly no irreparable or irredeemable harm has been done, you would want her to go to jail and suffer anyway, because it could have upset you emotionally, and others need to be deterred. Correct?

Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it. — Agustino

We need to discourage a lot of things because sometimes they lead to hurt feelings (capitalizing "trauma" doesn't change the fact that this is upset emotions we're talking about, not actual (direct) physical or emotional abuse) but that doesn't mean we should lock everyone up who deviates from our vision of perfect health. Infidelity already discourages itself because it ends marriages. Breaking out the whip is pure revenge.

Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever. — Agustino

If we help a starving homeless person instead of incarcerating them as deterrence, this doesn't mean we're sending the signal to everyone else to begin shoplifting. Making an example out of the homeless person trying to survive or the very poor person who steals because they endure chronic hunger is a severe injustice. Here we have someone who already endures suffering on a daily basis, perhaps through no great fault of their own, and you think causing them more suffering is going to magically fix them, or that crucifying them as an example to others is somehow a justified course of action. Where is your understanding? Your compassion? Your Christianity?

Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft? — Agustino

I consider it a mitigating factor, and depending on the level of poverty and the circumstances of the individual, yes, it can be adequate to excuse the crime entirely.

Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law? — VagabondSpectre

As a rule, a contract to do something which violates the law is void, or voidable, on public policy grounds. So, for example, a contract to sell one person to another is unenforceable; it doesn't exist in the law, it isn't binding. To give another example which better fits in what seems the overwhelming focus of this thread, i.e. sex, a contract to sell sexual services would be void in most jurisdictions.

The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal.

Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more.

The institutional religions and the religious would then be free to say what they wish to say, require whatever rituals, vows, incantations they wish to require and impose whatever conditions they think appropriate regarding what is a marriage for their purposes, but it would be more clear than it is now that what the religious insist are marriages is not governing as far as the law is concerned.

The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife.

If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful? — VagabondSpectre

Well this is precisely the problem. The moment you allow happiness to be interpreted as subjective, something defined by the subject, from that moment, anything goes. There is no God (objective standard) - thus anything goes.

If individual X thinks that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If individuals X and Y think that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. Once we reach this point, then we cannot dispute the subjective assertion that is being made. Whatever a subject claims is the supreme truth - indeed, the subject's re-presenting WILL has been made the supreme determinant of good and evil. Their will re presents reality as it wants it to be.

how can that be considered harmful? — VagabondSpectre

I can consider it harmful because I disagree that happiness is something that can be subjectively determined. Rather, happiness is something objective, and has nothing to do with what a person thinks about it. A person can be, and often is self-deceived. Indeed, the person who is so self-deceived that he perceives himself as happy, when in truth he is not happy, is in a worse state than someone who is in conscious misery (check Kierkegaard on this point - conscious despair vs unconscious despair).

My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, my way views suffering as essential to redemption. It is only when an individual accepts that they deserve to suffer, and willingly and gladly embrace that suffering, saying, with Nietzsche's overman, one more time, again and again, I deserve this, that they can start on the path to redemption.

You view evil as the result of ignorance, I view evil as the result of a corrupt will. Since evil is the result of a corrupt will, education is of no help. More education will not cure a corrupt will. We're back to the problem that Socrates and the Greeks tried to address - whether sin is the result of ignorance, or something else. You side with the Greeks - sin is ignorance, and gnosis, knowledge, is what is required to fix it. I side with the Christians - sin is the result NOT of ignorance, but of a corrupt will. As St. Paul writes:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. — Romans 7:15

So the problem isn't that people don't know what is good and what is evil. No, not at all. People have, metaphorically speaking, eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - they know what is good and what is evil, but they choose the evil nevertheless. That is the moral problem in its essence.

Of course that, as one persists in evil, it is totally possible that one's will, will also corrupt one's intellect. Then we reach the maximum level of despair, which is unconscious despair, with a very slim possibility of redemption, since the sufferer identifies himself or herself as happy. Then the will has completely enslaved one's intellect, to the point that one cannot see clearly, and sees evil as good, and good as evil.

Going back to the point. Look at Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov. It is only when he admits his guilt, turns himself in to the police, and effectively demands to be punished that redemption is at all possible. Indeed, it is the suffering which redeems him. Without the suffering, and without acceptance of the suffering as just and necessary, no redemption is possible. So long as one tries to escape suffering, one has not overcome one's selfish will.

If the 100% intimacy is a good thing, then isn't 50% intimacy half as good? — VagabondSpectre

I think it's much more of a binary choice than a gradation.

It's un-Christian to judge — VagabondSpectre

Why do you reckon it's un-Christian to judge? What about:

Stop judging by outward appearances, and start judging justly. — John 7:24

When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant... — VagabondSpectre

Several points. I think being physically attracted to others in some circumstances is a sign of immaturity. A person who is married for example, but finds that they are physically attracted to other women is frustrated - there is something wrong with them, as if they haven't grown up, and they're still a 15 year old who doesn't know any better.

In addition, it is true that drinking dims the intellect. But at the same time, if one knows that one is such that drinking may lead them to commit sin, then they should not drink. Preventing temptation is often more important and more relevant than resisting temptation, and it has to do with knowing yourself. It is a slippery slope, you should not play with the fire. If you know that other women attract you, for example, and you are married, then you ought to stay away from having alone time with other women, because it clearly is dangerous for you. This has to do with self-knowledge, but also requires humility. If you are proud, and think that you can withstand any temptation, then you will fail.

Answering the rest later.

The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal. — Ciceronianus the White

So for instance, a lifestyle clause in a marriage contract or prenup which stipulates incarceration as penalty would be unenforceable and voidable.

The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife. — Ciceronianus the White

This is essentially one of the points I'm making to Agustino. "Breaching contracts" isn't a criminal action per se. To legally justify incarceration adultery would have to be specifically defined in penal code as criminal. If it was indeed the case that adultery (defined as sex with someone other than one's spouse, if married) was a crime, then almost nobody would get married, and couples would ritualistically move in and out of each other's home to avoid being considered a common law spouse. If in the case Agustino's argument relies mainly on the breach of the marriage agreement itself, then people could simply alter their marriage agreements to allow for extra-marital sexual activity.

Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more. — Ciceronianus the White

If only humans wern't so damn ritualistic, superstitious, traditional, nostalgic, etc...