Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Should adultery be illegal?
Comments
-
Yes, I am very much for real. I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't have an input in progressing Western society to be better than it already is. It has occurred to me that I could be mistaken, but then you would be discussing ethics not morality. I advocate my view, others are free to advocate their view, and that's the way that ideas are generally shared. Your view basically amounts to, have your own views and shut up so we can pass laws to advocate liberalism (You're doing the same thing yourself there). However if you believe that this could be very much to the benefit of society what is the point in that?
Why where possible? Why not just let people determine their own moral values on everything? You shouldn't be forcing your morals for anything on anyone if you are holding to this position. I don't really like the term "forcing" for a number of reasons:
1) If a bill ever passes in Dáil based on suggestions from people in the general public, it will happen because most of the representatives there voted for it.
2) If a referendum ever passes, it will because most of the general public voted for it, not because you are forcing anything upon anyone.
3) If we didn't advocate our ideas, others would be advocating their ethics or morals in the public sphere. Why should we be forced to tolerate legalising cannabis for example? Isn't this not forcing people to accept things which they find to be wrong? People always will have their own opinion, and it's only fair that they should be honest about them when it comes to the voting booth too.
It really isn't the abuse of state any more than liberals passing laws which are very likely to be dangerous to society such as the example I used in this case, legalising cannabis. We should be aiming for a better society, not one which is worse.
EF: You say that we can't legislate for adultery, but you are forgetting that they already do in the Philippines, India (5 years), Korea, Taiwan and states of the USA. Or are these not in the real world?
I think his point is, and I imagine you're well aware of this by the way, that you're entitled to your moral views on cannabis, marriage and all the rest of it.
However, passing legislation on moral issues removes another individual's right to their moral opinion. You're basically telling people that you know better than they do and they can't be trusted to make up their own minds on their own private problems.
Everyone should be entitled to make their own judgements about their own moral dilemmas, legislating only forces someone's morals on somebody who might not agree. And it doesn't matter if it's a majority vote in a government or referendum or anything else, the fact is you have the conceit to tell a person that your way of life is superior to theirs and forcing them to follow with legislation.
If you have a moral point of view regarding adultery, abortion, cannabis smoking or anything else then by all means use it to make any decision you wish in situations you're actually involved in.
But when it's somebody else's business and you have absolutely no connection to the situation, can't you do those people the service of allowing their morals to rule their own lives?
Why is it that living your life the way you want isn't enough and you have to try to get legislation passed to force everyone to apply your morals in their lives rather than using their own?0 -
Yes, I am very much for real. I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't have an input in progressing Western society to be better than it already is.
Better in your opinion.Your view basically amounts to, have your own views and shut up so we can pass laws to advocate liberalism
Not really. I'm not saying shut up, I'm saying advocate you views but don't force me to believe them. And I don't know how you pass laws to advocate liberalism. This is what you don't seem clued into, you remove/lighten laws to advocate liberalism. How can removing a law be forcing your opinion on someone?
On the other hand you want to introduce legislation that will set new restrictions on people. These restrictions are what you think is right. But people should be allowed to make up there own minds about what is right.Why where possible? Why not just let people determine their own moral values on everything?
In certain cases people must be prevented from one another, and the state must uphold the rights of the citizens. That is why, even if someone thinks murder is morally right they will not be allowed to commit it.You shouldn't be forcing your morals for anything on anyone if you are holding to this position.
Yes, and I'm not. I trust people do decide whats right or wrong. You on the other hand want people to accept your perception of right, even if they disagree with it.2) If a referendum ever passes, it will because most of the general public voted for it, not because you are forcing anything upon anyone.
Yeah you are. The majority have just forced the minority to live under the law passed.Why should we be forced to tolerate legalising cannabis for example? Isn't this not forcing people to accept things which they find to be wrong?
How so? Were not making people take cannabis, were giving them the option. If you dont like drugs you can just abstain from using cannabis, and from your perspective it is exactly the same as if it was illegal. Yeah?It really isn't the abuse of state any more than liberals passing laws which are very likely to be dangerous to society such as the example I used in this case, legalising cannabis.
See above about passing laws to promote liberalism.
You have a very narrow view of what is good for society. So did others. Some of these others killed 5 million people in a famine in the Ukraine. Another one killed 6 million jews. Your perception of what is good for society is not necessarily right.EF: You say that we can't legislate for adultery, but you are forgetting that they already do in the Philippines, India (5 years), Korea, Taiwan and states of the USA. Or are these not in the real world?
These are countries where the religious majority force everyone to accept their religious morals. I wouldn't describe them as ideal places to live.0 -
In the USA people can get a divorce much more quickly than they can here. Therefore if you wanted to introduce this adultery law here you would have to change divorce law beforehand to significantly speed up the process of getting a divorce. Or would you expect people who are still legally married but separated to stay celibate for 5 years waiting for a divorce to be finalized?You say that we can't legislate for adultery, but you are forgetting that they already do in the Philippines, India (5 years), Korea, Taiwan and states of the USA. Or are these not in the real world?0 -
I think his point is, and I imagine you're well aware of this by the way, that you're entitled to your moral views on cannabis, marriage and all the rest of it.
Well I was adequately aware of that already
However, passing legislation on moral issues removes another individual's right to their moral opinion. You're basically telling people that you know better than they do and they can't be trusted to make up their own minds on their own private problems.
It's up to the Government to pass legislation, and it is up to the people to advocate to their representatives about their feelings on issues (Not that I am going to do this in the case as there is a clear majority against this). Everyone has an equal right to campaign politically for whatever goal they seek. I'm not telling anyone anything, the representatives in the chamber decide legislation.
As I said before, holding morals in some interpretations, (mine is quite similar to Kant's view) means holding views and values intending them one day to be absolute. That's how people hold causes generally, they want them to come into fruition. I don't believe that I am forcing anyone to do anything, or denying anyone any freedom to counter my position by advocating my own.Everyone should be entitled to make their own judgements about their own moral dilemmas, legislating only forces someone's morals on somebody who might not agree. And it doesn't matter if it's a majority vote in a government or referendum or anything else, the fact is you have the conceit to tell a person that your way of life is superior to theirs and forcing them to follow with legislation.
Why not murder, rape, theiving. Infact the actual goal of this if we extended it to all other issues would be effective anarchism. Why isn't this a possibility and why are you only going as far as adultery and cannabis legalisation? I personally don't think people should be denied the right to oppose this, and I don't see why they should be forced to tolerate these things.If you have a moral point of view regarding adultery, abortion, cannabis smoking or anything else then by all means use it to make any decision you wish in situations you're actually involved in.
Actually as citizens we have legal rights to oppose anything that we can consider to be undesirable within our communities. I've yet to see what is wrong about holding and advocating a certain view on these moral issues. We as citizens cannot make decisions as I've said, we can only hand them over to the legislature to decide on. However, if I was to vote in a hypothetical referendum on cannabis legalisation (this isn't necessary but go with it) and I voted no, I wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone if the result turned out no, it would be the general consensus saying that this is undesirable.But when it's somebody else's business and you have absolutely no connection to the situation, can't you do those people the service of allowing their morals to rule their own lives?
In the case of adultery it could well become a lot of peoples business very easily and there is no reason to suggest that it couldn't be a threat for most if not all people:
1) Your wife or husband cheating on you.
2) Your mother or father cheating on the other.
3) A friend or family member having been cheated on by their spouse.
These are all real life situations. I think we have every right to protect against harm.Why is it that living your life the way you want isn't enough and you have to try to get legislation passed to force everyone to apply your morals in their lives rather than using their own?
It's about being a socially responsible actor in society. These things that you advocate such as cannabis legalisation in particular are potentially very dangerous without adequate consideration. I think I would have the right to oppose it on grounds of being a socially responsible actor in the event that it would come to a vote if it ever did.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
EF: You say that we can't legislate for adultery, but you are forgetting that they already do in the Philippines, India (5 years), Korea, Taiwan and states of the USA. Or are these not in the real world?
How many people in reality are imprisoned for adultery? I would hazard a guess that most receive a fine and escape imprisonment. In India it is only men that can be punished for adultery, which doesn't seem very progressive0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement