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! — Agustino

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

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).

What do you mean take it metaphorically? I — Agustino

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

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

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). — Agustino

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.

Both my parents have been divorced. So you think that I should think that divorce is a good thing morally speaking? — Agustino

No, not necessarily. I don't know how you've made that logical leap. It isn't one that I would make. Nothing I said was specifically about divorce, which can be good or bad, or both in varying respects. It was about single-parent families.

We must learn from other people's mistakes I believe. — Agustino

Sure.

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? — Agustino

No, not necessarily, and the assumption that it would have been annoys me. It might well have been much worse. In a world where all parents are saints, sure, but that is certainly not this world.

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? — Agustino

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

If all parents were saintly... — Sapientia

We wouldn't be discussing punishment.

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...

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.

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.

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). — Agustino

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. But it is generous of you to accept that there are places the state has no business legislating. I would say that the bedroom is one of those places.

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 :) — Agustino

I know. I meant in general. But it is annoying precisely because there are countless cases like my particular case. And there are in fact many cases much worse than my particular case. So I don't think that such assumptions and generalisations are particularly helpful, and I don't at all see the point of your qualification. Why would you only want to discuss cases where both parents love each other and get along? Are we talking about Heaven or Earth?

Sure, but it does suggest that it would be good if this would be possible. — Agustino

Sure, but, on the whole, it isn't realistic.

So it merely gives something to strive for. — Agustino

The best outcome is what should be strived for, and that isn't necessarily a two-parent family.

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? — Agustino

I don't, but I'm clarifying what the good is, and contrasting that with simplistic and prejudiced assumptions. The best outcome is of course ideal, and that can be a single-parent family or a family with both parents. It can be a family with married parents or a family with parents who never marry.

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... — Agustino

I'm not denying anything without good reason. The situation with you and your ex-girlfriend might be completely different from my situation, which you don't know enough about to reasonably use that as an analogy. I could probably think up analogous situations in my life, but I don't really see the point. I've not denied that things can turn out better if a relationship remains intact. Likewise counterfactually, although that is harder to judge.

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.

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

My apologies, no doubt they are. I momentarily cast you in the role of hypothetical co-respondent.

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. — Agustino

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?

If your partner cheats on you to be on topic, you're not likely to be very happy - — Agustino

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

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. — Agustino

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

I was raised in a broken home, and look how I turned out!

I am from a single-parent family, and Bitter Crank, I find your comments and others like yours very offensive. — Sapientia

Of course I didn't intend to offend you, and I am glad that your single parent did a good job raising you, and he/she deserves a great deal of credit, as all good parents do. Most children in single parent families grow up normally. But...a quarter to a third (in the US) have bad outcomes, which is much higher than bad outcomes for two parent family children. It's a significant difference.

I'm sticking with the judgement that single parenthood in general is not an advantage, is a great burden to the single parent, often results in untoward outcomes, and should not be encouraged through policies. In the United States (with it's diminished and grudging social service system) single parent-headed families are at a significant economic, psychosocial, and educational disadvantage and experience more difficulties than two-parent families.

Just for example...

Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families
Authors
Wendy D. Manning,
Kathleen A. Lamb
First published: November 2003
Abstract

Cohabitation is a family form that increasingly includes children. We use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to assess the well-being of adolescents in cohabiting parent stepfamilies (N= 13,231). Teens living with cohabiting stepparents often fare worse than teens living with two biological married parents. Adolescents living in cohabiting stepfamilies experience greater disadvantage than teens living in married stepfamilies. Most of these differences, however, are explained by socioeconomic circumstances. Teenagers living with single unmarried mothers are similar to teens living with cohabiting stepparents; exceptions include greater delinquency and lower grade point averages experienced by teens living with cohabiting stepparents. Yet mother's marital history explains these differences. Our results contribute to our understanding of cohabitation and debates about the importance of marriage for children.

Growing Up with a Single Parent. What Hurts, What Helps.
McLanahan, Sara; Sandefur, Gary

Using information from four national surveys and a decade of research, this book demonstrates the connection between family structure and a child's prospects for success. It shows how divorce, particularly with often-attendant drops in income, parental involvement, and access to community resources, diminishes children's chances for wellbeing. It is revealed that children whose parents live apart are twice as likely to drop out of high school as those in two-parent families, one and a half times as likely to be idle in young adulthood, and twice as likely to become single parents themselves. Additionally, data show that some of the advantages often associated with being white are really a function of family structure and that some of the advantages associated with having educated parents evaporate when those parents separate. The concluding chapter offers recommendations for rethinking our current policies. The authors explain why it is imperative that more of the costs of raising children be shifted from mothers to fathers and from parents to society at large, as well as why universal assistance programs that benefit low-income two-parent families and single mothers must be developed. Appendixes contain data and variables from the studies, bivariate probit models, and sex-difference factors statistical tables.

from a Slate article:

Take two contemporary social problems: teenage pregnancy and the incarceration of young males. Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father.

But daughters depend on dads as well. One study by Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. This dramatic divide was narrowed a bit when Ellis controlled for parents’ socioeconomic background—but only by a few percentage points. The research on this topic suggests that girls raised by single mothers are less likely to be supervised, more likely to engage in early sex, and to end up pregnant compared with girls raised by their own married parents.

I was raised in a broken home, and look how I turned out! — Wosret

But you were raised in Canada.

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.

Let me summarise what happened in a more comprehensive manner. — Agustino

It's a pity that you didn't put the tremendous amount of energy into answering the question of the OP, that you obviously did here with your ,sadly, irrelevant "summary" rather than avoiding that question, precisely by tossing in the gigantic red herring that your "summary" constitutes. Stop playing the politician and trying to discredit your opponent by taking sentences out of context and answer the question and the challenge that has been put before you.

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.

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.

Thanks Bitter Crank. While I more or less agree with most what of what you say here; I don't think it is really relevant to the purpose of this thread, which is specifically to consider the question of whether adultery should be punishable by law, as well as attendant questions such as whether, if adultery were to become punishable by law, that change would be good for the stability of society, what we even mean by "stability of society", whether such a law would encourage more people to marry. whether the legal definition of adultery should be extended to de facto relations, and people should be understood to have undertaken and be legally bound by certain vows simply by virtue of living together in a sexual relationship, and so on.

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.

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?

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?

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.

That's true, made up for it.

I apologise if my questions have been covered somewhere in the five pages of discussion, but here they are anyway:

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

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

I have a third question which is 'How would achievement of that goal weight up against potential negative public policy impacts of such a law?' But that would be best left until the answers to the first two questions are clear.

Well, I've clearly argued that the person who breaks the vow ought to be punished, or else the vow is pointless. Now, if it isn't going to be the law, the state, which imposes such punishment who is it going to be? Punishment is not something we can just be handing out to one another, unless we establish a law which allows this. But wouldn't this just be a different form of being punished by law?

Marriage has become a legal institution, rather than a religious one. If certain vows are included in that institution, then the legal system is responsible for the punishment of breaking such vows. Here, I think we come to a very important distinction between the approach of religion, and the approach of the state, toward this type of issue. Most religions are structured toward encouraging success of morality, in distinction from the state, which is structured toward punishment for failure. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, so apparently you join Agustino in being for state-sanctioned and prosecuted punishment of adultery. The question is, taking (at least to begin with, and for simplicity's sake) the kind of standard traditional marriage vows as they are given by various Christian denominations, and assuming that they do specifically mention sexual fidelity, as one side of the 'agreement between parties' and the 'signing of the register' as the other part; what legal status do you think the Church-bound exchanging of vows actually has? I mean, there is a separation between church and state, so I cannot see how the specifically Church-bound part of the ceremonial proceedings could rightly be said to be legally binding.

So, in order to implement a law under which adultery could be legally prosecuted, it would be necessary that the participants in the agreement both sign a written document that specifically stated that sexual infidelity constituted a breach of the legal agreement between them.

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. Are you beginning to see some of the difficulties here. Also, given the need for such changes to the marriage laws, do you believe that the result would be that more people wished to become married, or would it not be more likely the reverse?

Thanks Bitter Crank. While I more or less agree with most what of what you say here; I don't think it is really relevant to the purpose of this thread... — John

I haven't followed the adultery/mysticism discussion. I did, however, participate in the very long discussion with Agustino in the old Philosophy Forum. Don't know whether you were there for that under a different name, or not at all.

Adultery isn't a good thing, (no one has risen to argue in favor of it, have they?) but all flesh is prone to error, and adultery is one of the top five failings of the flesh. I fervently pray that we do not return to a time when adultery is punishable under civil (or criminal) law. I view adultery as a certainty for a certain percentage of the population, and a consequence of social change more than a driver of social change.

A lot of people who marry are in no wise ready or mature enough to make a lifelong commitment and keep it, without the support of an intact and involved community. Those who are more or less free of the old community ties that bind have very few places to turn to for help when marriage hits the rocks.

If philosophers can not find positive ways to address the problem of adultery, (something beside discussing punishment) then they just aren't trying very hard.

I was there under the name 'Thresholdsun' (and other previous online identities) and I do remember reading some of that discussion, although I cannot remember if I participated much or even at all, in it.

I think you're right that adultery, at least as cheating, is not a good thing. I do think part of the problem also is that it is not a precisely defined thing. Even in the context of a marriage, for example, would it still count as adultery if both parties agree to it? That is, does adultery consist always and only in cheating?

As you point out many people are probably not mature enough to marry. But would that not also often involve them not being mature enough to even recognize that are not mature enough to marry? I think this certainly presents us with one significant face of the problem.

I certainly agree that discussing punishment has little place in any philosophical inquiry concerning adultery, and in fact my motive for creating this thread was precisely the hope that in discussing punishment together it would quickly become obvious just how ridiculous and unsupportable such a notion is and how little place it does have in any meaningful discussion.

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.

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

Very well, if you don't, then you agree that maybe adultery should be legally punished in some form — Agustino

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.