Shouldn't Adultery be a crime?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


That seems like a sensible rule. The whole community has an interest in people having stable marriages (since it reduces competition and violence) at least some way of assuaging the wronged party must be considered.

If everybody was fat, drunk, happy and laid all the time, competition and violence would be a lot less too. Does that mean it's the "community's" business to provide those things?

Stable marriages are the responsibility of the parties entering into (or deciding intelligently not to enter into) those marriages.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

If everybody was fat, drunk, happy and laid all the time, competition and violence would be a lot less too. Does that mean it's the "community's" business to provide those things?

Not much of an argument there, since all these things have other consequences that outweigh any benefits they may bring.

Stable marriages are the responsibility of the parties entering into (or deciding intelligently not to enter into) those marriages.

A sane community provides an environment in which these can flourish and social sanctions to enforce them. There's a good reason for why most communities in the history of humanity have done so - it works. It allows people to live more fulfilling lives without worrying all the time. To say that the state has no business in marriage is to overlook what the custom is actually for and the problems it solves.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

So don't make stupid decisions in the first place and **** them, let alone marry them.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Keeps the "serial" aspect out if applied early enough, though.

Yeah, but look at the means people now have to identify infidelities (DNA testing, surveillance, etc.). It's not so hard to hide any more. I've seen some pretty wicked fights happen over this sort of thing. I think we meddle with the adultery taboo at our peril.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


Not much of an argument there, since all these things have other consequences that outweigh any benefits they may bring.

So does the notion of a general right of the state to intervene in whatever someone designates is in "the community interest."

A sane community provides an environment in which these can flourish and social sanctions to enforce them.

A sane community recognizes individual rights, does not bar individuals from access to education, etc., and generally allows people to live their lives as they wish, so long as their actions don't infringe on a (genuine) public interest.

There's a good reason for why most communities in the history of humanity have done so - it works.

Most communities in the history of humanity have treated women as so much chattel. Some still do. Not much of an argument there.

It allows people to live more fulfilling lives without worrying all the time.

So we should have lots of extra government and lots of enforcement and the whole general mess of commie-ness for that?

To say that the state has no business in marriage is to overlook what the custom is actually for and the problems it solves.

The state has no business other than recognizing it (or performing, in the case of civil marriages), and providing a fair means for the parties to terminate it.

[Dinner]

I believe it is in the community's interest for women to be kept bare foot and pregnant and I call upon the government to help me make this a reality. They can do this be requiring the top ten super models to all marry me.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

So does the notion of a general right of the state to intervene in whatever someone designates is in "the community interest."

My point is that the good consequences in this case outweigh any detrimental ones. Remember, I'm not suggesting that we throw them in jail - only that some mild sanctions against adulterers are useful.

A sane community recognizes individual rights, does not bar individuals from access to education, etc., and generally allows people to live their lives as they wish, so long as their actions don't infringe on a (genuine) public interest.

Moral rules against things like adultery are in the public interest.

Most communities in the history of humanity have treated women as so much chattel. Some still do. Not much of an argument there.

And they may have had good practical reasons for doing so (although the mind boggles at what they might have been). You can split hairs here, but the reason adultery is frowned upon is that it causes fights and undermines the incentive for men to take care of children. Similarly, polygamy is prohibited because it indirectly causes violence.

So we should have lots of extra government and lots of enforcement and the whole general mess of commie-ness for that?

A mildly Scandinavian type socialist state of the kind I advocate is leaps and bounds ahead of the lunacy that prevails in the US. At least everyone has a roof over their head, a free press, and decent education and health care.

The state has no business other than recognizing it (or performing, in the case of civil marriages), and providing a fair means for the parties to terminate it.

A state that merely does that is taking a free ride on the inculcated moral rules its members abide by, if these are weakened bad things are likely to happen. Since moral rules don't arise overnight, it is the state's business to engage in creative legislation to solve problems.

Looking at a system of rights or any legal system from the perspective of the individual's right claims against society is to make a fundamental mistake regarding the functions these things serve. Any society is necessarily coercive - it's just a question of finding the optimum level of coercion to ensure the best overall outcome.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
My point is that the good consequences in this case outweigh any detrimental ones. Remember, I'm not suggesting that we throw them in jail - only that some mild sanctions against adulterers are useful.

Not too far back in the thread, you were talking about standards of proof and trials a la other partnership dissolutions. That's a lot of lawyering and court time for mild sanctions. Then how far would you take it - say one spouse with a low drive level decides to "punish" the other spouse by withholding sex (in states with dissolution for cause only laws, that gives rise to a tort known as "constructive abandonment." The cheating spouse argues they didn't want to divorce and put the kids through the wringer and sell the house, they just want to get laid for the first time in two years. JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! Any process into which you can introduce two lawyers, a jury and money to be fought over is sure to go right into the cesspool.

Moral rules against things like adultery are in the public interest.

Arguably, so are moral rules against drinking, smoking, eating fatty foods, mixing stripes and plaids, fat women wearing short skirts, tubby men with body hair going shirtless, questioning the government or the party , and a plethora of other things. The operative question is whose morals does the state decided to impose. Oh, and are party members exempt?

A mildly Scandinavian type socialist state of the kind I advocate is leaps and bounds ahead of the lunacy that prevails in the US. At least everyone has a roof over their head, a free press, and decent education and health care.

This from the guy who's location field used to read "left of Lenin?" In the US, pretty much everybody has the opportunity to get those things.

A state that merely does that is taking a free ride on the inculcated moral rules its members abide by, if these are weakened bad things are likely to happen. Since moral rules don't arise overnight, it is the state's business to engage in creative legislation to solve problems.

You're in good company. Mullah Omar, John Ashcroft, and the Ayatollah Khomeini (peace be upon him) all share the same views about the state's business to creatively legislate moral matters.

Looking at a system of rights or any legal system from the perspective of the individual's right claims against society is to make a fundamental mistake regarding the functions these things serve. Any society is necessarily coercive - it's just a question of finding the optimum level of coercion to ensure the best overall outcome.

Societies are an abstract creation of individuals. The rights of individuals have to be balanced against other rights, but the rights of individuals are paramount. The optimum level of coercion is the minimum necessary to achieve the popularly agreed upon goals of government, in a manner consistent with individual rights.

Sorry, my ancestors made a hobby of plinking Redcoats, so you won't see me advocating statist tyranny over the individual anywhere this side of hell.

[Shi Huangdi]

to Michael the Great


A sin is not the same thing as a crime!

[Cruddy]

This should only be considered a crime if you intend locking up a large percentage of the western world.

There wouldn't be enough jails - what are you going to do, let all the rapists and murderers out?

Of course, you could go the Sharia law Muslim route, and just kill them in public to save jail space. A practise the Jews used to follow - but I think they now ignore that bit of Leviticus. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nubclear]

Yes.

And while were at it, we should outlaw atheism.

Its so ungodly!!!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


My point is that the good consequences in this case outweigh any detrimental ones. Remember, I'm not suggesting that we throw them in jail - only that some mild sanctions against adulterers are useful.

I doubt that mild sanctions would have any effect at all. Consider how much people risk now to cheat. Their marriages, reputations, and potentially assets and access to their children are all on the line. How would a mild penalty impact a person who is risking their life as they know it?

[Kramerman]

Re: Shouldn't Adultery be a crime?

no

only actions that violate the rights of others should be crimes. This cuts out most of the moral reletivity **** of the various sub-cultures and societies of the country and world.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

A mildly Scandinavian type socialist state of the kind I advocate is leaps and bounds ahead of the lunacy that prevails in the US. At least everyone has a roof over their head, a free press, and decent education and health care.

So why don't you go find one (soicalist state) and get on with your life, and quit incommoding us with your constant whining about a country that you do not come from and don't live in?

[Ben Kenobi]

You can split hairs here, but the reason adultery is frowned upon is that it causes fights and undermines the incentive for men to take care of children.

You need to read the bible more. This is the same argument they use against adultery, in that it causes rifts in the family, rifts in the marriage relationship, though I am sure that you are not getting this from there.

It may be wrong, but does that mean we should make it a crime? There should be rules to protect the third party, the husband or wife, who gets cheated on, and these are already in place. Secondly, there should be counselling, to help the marriages where the people choose to stick together. I guess the root of this problem is that you are not going to stop a person from committing adultery, unless they believe it to be immoral.

I want to dig into this question a bit more, in the compelling interests of the state to protect marriages.

[TheStinger]

Christ there are some idiots here.

Adultery is obviously not a good thing, however for people to genralise and say you should be punsished or get lees of the matrimonial assetts is stupid.

What if a woman has been beaten for 15 years by her husband but has 2 children and can't leave him(I know she should but it can be difficult) Then she meets someone who is loving caring etc she has an affair and leaves her husband. Does the husband get all the money or does she get thrown in prison.

Adultery should be seen as reason for divorce but it it should not be used in the settlement process.