Your proposals seem dangerously close to conservatism though BC :P How does a Marxist explain this? — Agustino

What contributes to healthy, nurturing families does not vary greatly from left to right. (Marx himself, as you no doubt know, was not exactly a paragon of familial propriety.) That so many couples in the United States ((which is what I am familiar with) are having serious difficulties maintaining relationships and healthy and strong families doesn't seem entirely mysterious. three points:

1. It takes community to create healthy nurturing families, and community has been collapsing for decades.

2. Shrinking and maldistributed economic resources degrade individual, community, and family capacity to succeed. It isn't just that large numbers of people have less income than they need, it's the psycho-social effect of large income disparities communities. Inadequate income from work means more time spent at work for both spouses, which short changes everyone in the family.

3. The expectations of very large numbers of individuals are altogether out of sync with what they can reasonably achieve.

Is everything falling apart? No. If you look at healthy, economically stable communities you can find healthy families. You can find some healthy families in communities that are falling apart too. But on the whole, the proportion of communities and families in economic and psychosocial distress are perhaps the majority.

Very-large-scale changes in western culture are probably beyond any sort of remediation. The controlling role of religion in society probably is not going to return, which I view as more a blessing than a curse, but there is definitely a downside.) Communication technologies, world economic shifts, and a host of other factors have a role to play in the difficulties individuals experience.

I may sound conservative here, but some of the old-fashioned virtues have survival value in a rotting capitalist state.

http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women for example this. — Agustino

Really, Agustino, you have to reference better sources than Fox News Magazine.

What should the punishment be for people who endorse legal punishment for adultery?

Balderdash, stuff and nonsense, propaganda and codswallop! You may find these things desirable but that is a very distant thing from what others need and this moral censorious charter is absolutely not a guarantee of success (if that term is even meaningful in the context!)

What the heck is 'traditional child-rearing practice' for a start? Whose tradition from what part of history? There are as many 'child-rearing practices' as there are stars in the sky (well visible ones anyway) and almost all of them somehow manage to produce pretty much the same balance of good and bad people. And 'functioning community'? What's that when it's at home? — Barry Etheridge

I'm glad that someone spoke out against his comment. He might have meant well, and there is probably some truth in what he said, but single-parent families can have a hard enough time as it is without discrimination from do-gooders as well as the other sort. I am from a single-parent family, and @Bitter Crank, I find your comments and others like yours very offensive.

While I wouldn't disallow monogamy, I'm not in favor of it, and I think it's horrible that the vast majority of cultures are still so oriented towards it. I'm in favor of polyamory. I think the world would be much better if far more people were having far more sex with a much wider variety of partners, via encounters ranging from life-long (non-monogamous) commitments to extremely casual sex.

I also think we'd be much better off with a far more communal, free-flowing approach to families and child-rearing.

The thread is about punishment for adultery. Punishment can only protect to the extent that it deters through fear. — unenlightened

Well hopefully this thread is for the dialogue I started with John to continue. Regardless of the somewhat unfortunate name of the thread, which I did not choose, it should be noted from the dialogue we were carrying in the other thread that "punishment for adultery" is only one of the minor and side issues we were discussing.

Sir it is good I believe that people have more intelligence than this :)

But let us be clear. Punishment for adultery would protect me from the intentional harm caused me by person I want to be one with? And " If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts ...", so you kindly instruct me. So the net effect is that I am to be hurt for hurting myself. Clearly I have gone wrong somewhere; I cannot believe you are advocating such abhorrent madness. — unenlightened

I never said it's rational for your partner to commit adultery. That's precisely the point! It's not rational. If they were acting rationally, then they wouldn't do that. If they did adopt the "if the other hurts, I hurt. If I hurt, the other hurts", then they would never do that. But they do it - that means they haven't adopted that - very simple.

Unfortunately, Agustino, you have nowhere near the intelligence it would take to realize that moral stances are in no way indicative of intelligence.

What should the punishment be for people who endorse legal punishment for adultery? — Sapientia

Even if you are a progressive, this is not a rational attitude to adopt. Several other progressives have already made this point.

Did I say they were? They're not - but it takes intelligence to see the consequences of immorality. Sure after you see the consequences, then you can still do the immoral thing - I don't disagree.

Did I say they were? — Agustino

Via implication, yes. And if you don't realize that, it's just further evidence of your deficiency.

Actually not - that's an additional assumption you're making there. Namely that one must know the consequences of immorality in order to be moral. I don't think this is true. There's many people of little intelligence whom I know, who are more moral than some very intelligent folk I know, including the one I'm speaking to perhaps :D

I wasn't asking, and you've demonstrated yourself not qualified to judge re "actually not."

It's good you recognise that - many other Marxists wouldn't. :) I disagree with you about religion for example but that's a story for another thread.

I never said it's rational for your partner to commit adultery. That's precisely the point! It's not rational. If they were acting rationally, then they wouldn't do that. If they did adopt the "if the other hurts, I hurt. If I hurt, the other hurts", then they would never do that. But they do it - that means they haven't adopted that - very simple. — Agustino

But I have adopted it. I am the injured party in this hypothetical, and you want to injure me further by punishing my other half. But more than that, if my partner shows that they do not want that unity with me, rationally or not, it is hurting myself to even demand that they should do so, and to institute punishment not only hurts me further, but invites us to live in a pretence of unity which does not exist and therefore cannot fulfill.

But I have adopted it. I am the injured party in this hypothetical, and you want to injure me further by punishing my other half. But more than that, if my partner shows that they do not want that unity with me, rationally or not, it is hurting myself to even demand that they should do so, and to institute punishment not only hurts me further, but invites us to live in a pretence of unity which does not exist and therefore cannot fulfill. — unenlightened

In medicine, there are quite a few conditions when the immune system turns against your own body. Multiple sclerosis is one such condition, which are often known as autoimmune conditions. Clearly in such cases it is justified to take aim at the immune system and do whatever is possible to stop the negative effect it has on the rest of the body.

There are cases in medicine, when your cells start going rogue. Then they multiply without limit - called cancer. In such a situation it is again right to take aim at your own body in order to put an end to this. Yes you will hurt yourself. But it's necessary for the greater good.

Same in this case. If your partner shows that they engage in activities which hurt you and your love relationship (adultery to be clear), then they have become like a cancer unto love. So love protects itself as best it can - in this case through the law.

. So love protects itself as best it can - in this case through the law. — Agustino

Yes indeed. And the best protection is not to carry on living with the cancer, but to get a divorce. Not much point in punishing the cancer though.

Yes indeed. And the best protection is not to carry on living with the cancer, but to get a divorce. Not much point in punishing the cancer though. — unenlightened

Right - the best solution to being robbed by a thief is to get better protection for your home - forget punishing the thief. If we all thought like that, we'd still be in the stone age!

I'm glad that someone spoke out against his comment. He might have meant well, and there is probably some truth in what he said, but single-parent families can have a hard enough time as it is without discrimination from do-gooders as well as the other sort. I am from a single-parent family, and Bitter Crank, I find your comments and others like yours very offensive. — Sapientia

Both my parents have been divorced. So you think that I should think that divorce is a good thing morally speaking? We must learn from other people's mistakes I believe. I understand that it must have been hard for you and your family at times. But don't you think that it would have been better for all of you if you could have grown in a two parent family? Not in your particular circumstances which I don't know, but generally speaking. If your parents both got along, and you grew up in a two parent family - how would you feel in regards to that?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

From your other comments I've seen of yours you don't seem to only believe that God amounts to a particular set of moral stances. So you take things like "the will of the Father" to be metaphorical?

Even if you are a progressive, this is not a rational attitude to adopt. Several other progressives have already made this point. — Agustino

That part was tongue-in-cheek. I don't really think that you should be punished for your view. At least nothing more serious than a little scolding. I just couldn't resist, even if it has already been said. But I do still of course disagree with your position. And, as for rationality, well, we could discuss the part which rationality plays in ethics, but if it does play a role, I don't think that your position is any more rational than mine. Rather, it boils down to how you and I feel about it, and we obviously feel differently about it.

The authorities have much better ways to spend their time and money. And they shouldn't intrude into private relationships unless the situation warrants it, as in, for example, cases of serious domestic abuse. Cheating on your spouse is not a crime, nor should it be. But of course, you disagree, and I doubt we'll resolve our differences by having a drawn-out discussion.

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.