Polygamy - why not?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I did it directly, I even amended the text of the principle - you, on the other hand faffed around the topic.

For example, I could suggest that your primary condition is 'consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships as long as there is sufficent support and demand', but while you may have implied this, you never actually stated this and so I'd rather not have you accuse me of misrepresenting you again.

Okay thats your definition of my point of view how does it differ

Simply put, people’s rights are limited for the greater good. Sometimes this is obvious, such as the fact that we are denied the right to drive and park our cars as we wish, but must follow the rules of the road, other times it is less so - we may not think that we are acting in a manner which is harmful to Society, and acting alone we’re not, but were enough people to act in the same fashion then the accumulative effects would be harmful to Society.

from your own POV in any real way?

More philosophically the right to the ‘pursuit of happiness’ and equality are generally considered fundamental human rights, so there would be a fairly strong argument to say yes it is.

Using that very loose perception of that right, crack should be legalised. Because it makes addicts happy it should be allowed.

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

"what is missing from or false in the principle of ‘consenting individuals may be allowed to have a sexual relationship which should be treated equally in Society as other relationships as long as that relationship is not inherently harmful to any non consenting individuals’?"

It’s certainly an improvement on the original principle, and is essentially a variation on ‘the greater good’ conditional.

As a criticism, however, I would observe two points; inherent harm is a fairly open term and could mean anything from immediate and direct harm, through to long term and indirect harm. Some actions are not inherently harmful in themselves, however they can have very harmful effects indirectly or over time. For example, using chlorofluorocarbon based sprays is not directly harmful. Unless a lot of people use them. A lot. For a long time. Then they can be very harmful to the environment in which we live in.

The second is that the question of inherent harm is only applied towards non-consenting individuals. This leaves the door wide open for euthanasia, suicide pacts and more macabre behaviour, such as the Meiwes case in Germany.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Okay thats your definition of my point of view how does it differ

Is it your point of view, or more correctly what you proposed as a conditional, or are you still avoiding a straight answer?

from your own POV in any real way?

Are you saying that the greater good of Society and what there is demand for in Society are the same thing?

Using that very loose perception of that right, crack should be legalised. Because it makes addicts happy it should be allowed.

But this is what we’re debating. If it should not why not? And I don’t mean why not in this particular case but what general moral or ethical principle are we basing our decision upon. Hence I proposed a principle that was open ended and asked if we needed to amend it.

To date the closest we have to such an amendment from you is my interpretation of what you may be saying, but to which you seemingly refuse to admit or deny.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Is it your point of view, or more correctly what you proposed as a conditional, or are you still avoiding a straight answer?

No i'm suggsting they're a moderately descent yardstick to start the debate.

Are you saying that the greater good of Society and what there is demand for in Society are the same thing?

No i'm saying i've defended my belief to a more than adequate degree, I've answered all you questions, Why don't you answer some of ones I posed to you. Specifical what limits would you put on consenting adults and why?

But this is what we’re debating. If it should not why not? And I don’t mean why not in this particular case but what general moral or ethical principle are we basing our decision upon. Hence I proposed a principle that was open ended and asked if we needed to amend it.

To date the closest we have to such an amendment from you is my interpretation of what you may be saying, but to which you seemingly refuse to admit or deny.

No I've defended my position. I've given the boundaries of my position. I've highligted two extreme arguments thats i'd like you to answer. I'm debating, you've failed to give a position you're defending or condemning (ps saying "i've defended my position before" is not a response I'm asking you to quantifty your position again. (by again I mean for the first time)

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

No i'm suggsting they're a moderately descent yardstick for any debate and individual cases, and if anything else comes uo, i'll look at that as well

It’s not your point of view and it’s not a conditional to the moral principle that I originally proposed, but it’s a “moderately decent yardstick”? You’ve got taking the piss at this stage - how evasive can you be?

No i'm saying i've defended my belief to a more than adequate degree I've answered all you questions, Why don't you answer some of ones I proposed to you.

I’ve ultimately asked only one question, for you to directly address the principle that morally justifies it all, and if flawed how it should be amended. And you’ve still not done so - it’s really very easy, you look at the wording of the proposed principle and you amend it so that such that the anti-social cases are no longer condoned.

And as I’ve repeatedly said, I’ll happily address your points when you address mine.

Several other individuals have managed this, why can’t you?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not your point of view and it’s not a conditional to the moral principle that I originally proposed, but it’s a “moderately decent yardstick”? You’ve got taking the piss at this stage - how evasive can you be?

I've added an amendment that I think makes your original principle debatable, beforehand it was just a convienent handgrenade for you lob onto the thread.

I’ve ultimately asked only one question, for you to directly address the principle that morally justifies it all, and if flawed how it should be amended. And you’ve still not done so - it’s really very easy, you look at the wording of the proposed principle and you amend it so that such that the anti-social cases are no longer condoned.

And as I’ve repeatedly said, I’ll happily address your points when you address mine.

What do you call my amendment? thats the jumping off point for the debate.

I've literally never met anyone so obtuse, while insisting that everyone else defend the principles raised by yourself, without bothering to even vaguely mention what you think couples should be allowed or not allowed to do.

Several other individuals have managed this, why can’t you?

Because more than adequately, and I'm getting fed up jumping through hoops, while you move the yardstick of the debate (to mix up my metaphors nicely)

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Because more than adequately, and I'm getting fed up jumping through hoops, while you move the yardstick of the debate (to mix up my metaphors nicely)

You've not jumped through any hoops and I've not moved the yardstick (at least for 5+ pages at this stage). As I've repeatedly asked address it directly as others have done so or just go away.

Zillah

The word inherent has nothing to do with direct or indirect. A form of harm could be 'inherent and direct', or 'inherent and indirect', its a completely different concept.

It relates to whether the harm is a core part of the issue or merely a possibility.

A hobby that involved shooting strangers with pellet guns in public would be inherently harmful as injury is unavoidable.

A hobby that involved shooting targets in a firing range is not inherently harmful, although it could be harmful.

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

The word inherent has nothing to do with direct or indirect. A form of harm could be 'inherent and direct', or 'inherent and indirect', its a completely different concept.

Fair point.

Bucephalus

zaph wrote:

Just for the record, Mormons no longer practice polygamy and haven't done so for quite some time.

They did so because the USA refused to recognise Utah as a state until polygamy was outlawed. Some small sects of the church still practice it, but they are not in the mainstream.