Moral Responsibility

F

Fafnir665

You just got served.
Registered Senior Member
Why should others be held responsible to what I find morally right?

Example : Poligomy.

Person A find that it is morally wrong.
Person B doesn't.

Person B has 6 wives.
Person A lobbies and it becomes illegal for person B to have more then one.

Why should that persons morals dictate anothers actions. Why should societies morals as a whole dictate in such a way? As long as an action doesnt cause harm to others... why should it be deemed illegal on grounds of morals?
 
Oh Fafnir, fafnir ^^" how do you know it doesn't cause harm to others?
Morals do in a sense help society to maintain a level of control.
Without morals, why, we'd be back to becoming like animals, and wherefore would that take us? Back in the primordial stage?
Uh-uh, I'm still thinking about that colony everyone is talking about in the future, you know, the one on Mars.
 
Taking a stab at the harem

There was a time in history when we might describe the function of subjective morality as a superstitious propriety holding society together (and sometimes ripping it apart) in lieu of a more objective perspective. One doesn't need "God" to tell them that incest is not a good thing, although if you're the ancient Hebrews it seems easier to say that the way of the Universe (the way of God) is that incest is not a good thing. As Neil Simon put it, "You can't marry your first cousin; you get babies with nine heads or something."°

I think we can start at a superficial level: American society, for instance, is not prepared to accommodate polygamy. Estate laws, community property, tax bureaucracy ... what a mess. Polygamy would drag our productivity down in a sea of paperwork and, given the American inclination toward a short attention span, absolute chaos: what would a divorce proceeding look like? Could you trust the testimony of five other wives?

Could six husbands share the same wife without killing each other? Society has a good distance to come. I think people must set different collective priorities before polygamy becomes remotely functional.

In addition ... well, Communists and Christians, for instance, have a common bond in their loathing of the nuclear family. For Christ, he who did not love Him more than these other things . . . . For the Communists it was a matter of efficiency in which people owe as much to the society as the society owes to them; the nuclear family is not necessarily the most optimal way of raising children as members of society. But how radically different becomes the social construction? Is a clan-based society, while not necessarily the only outcome of polygamy but rather a possibility, a progressive change, an evolution of society?

Humanity is in a unique position compared to most organisms on the planet. The relationship between individual and species is perhaps singular among species. While certain small animals may prosper through a non-monogomous seeding of genetic material, we have the unique position of considering whether polygamy is more or less efficient for us as a species. We are uniquely enduring and capable in nature; certainly the tortoises live longer, but they didn't build Trinity Library, or send a rocket to the moon. And if they did, they should probably say something and set the record straight.

Elephants paint; dolphins are smart enough to go AWOL from the US Navy; whales ... we can get along with the whales, I promise. Bonobos are sex fiends; chimpanzees in an elevator. We carry certain weight against nature that other animals don't. We might say "stupid dog" or "stupid cat", but the smartest things cats and dogs ever did as a species was to attach themselves affectionately to human sentiments. They knew a mealticket when they saw it. But humans ... humans ... look what we can do when we're not scrounging for food?

I accepted the idea that Bill Clinton signed DoMa. I feel badly that a good friend had to leave the country in order to get married. But I also think that marriage in general is a dumb social ritual that ... fine, I'm willing to leave it to the churches. Now, let's get it out of the tax code altogether. I mean, really ... how much money does society waste every year on divorce courts? Make marriage what it is: a religious commitment. I have no problem with domestic partnerships for any human/human gender combination. But look at what divorces bring: that should be considered up front before entering into the partnership. This, to me, is far more progressive than polygamy.

Which brings me to my specific response: Polygamy, in my opinion, should remain illegal because it is not progressive, because it is specifically regressive, excessive, and costly. I believe that society moves forward when this monumental institution called marriage is put in its proper context. It's a method of ownership justified by centuries of religious sponsorship. And it's old and it should be over. We're a smarter species than this, and extending the nature of ownership into such a multifaceted aspect is only a waste of humanity's time and resources.

Even if we set aside the petty emotionalism of marriage--if you're wife #6, do you really have a right to be jealous when he marries #7?--and look at it merely as a process, I see greater risk of harm in polygamy than benefit, and that's why I would hold it to be "morally" wrong. And morals are a more tenuous argument than the simple mechanics of it: Unless we radically redesign, for instance, American society, polygamy would be a drastic setback for human progress.

Notes:

° Neil Simon - Okay, it's a slight paraphrase from a discussion between Stan and Eugene regarding Gene's obsession with his cousin, Nora, in Brighton Beach Memoirs.
 
Polygomy was just an example, I don't neccesarily support it.
(in fact i don't)

The subject I was trying to put forth was on moral responsibility. Why should one person be subjected to laws based on the morality of another, if it does that person who does not morally support it no harm? (physical, hurt feelings when they see them doing it and despise them for it don't count)

Here are some more examples (massachusetts anyways):

No oral sex
No anal
No smoking in public places (there is no PROOF that second hand smoke has killed anyone) ((i dont smoke btw))
No recreational drug use

Those are off the top of my head, but theres a whole big list of laws that are based on the morals of society, rather then the morality of the individual, which really has no business saying how the individual should spend their free time, or how they should sexually gratify themselves. Why does it have to be so? So what, your disgusted with the behaivior of that individual, what harm has it done you?

"That emotionally upsets me"

Wouldn't the limiting of that persons activities upset them?

"I dont want to see him naked"

So what? Look away!

Laws concerning safety.. whats really safe? But they protect everyone from making threatening situations for others. Speed limits, inspections, all that jazz, thats not morally based, so ignore it ;)

Well, I'm done for now.
For now.
 
Originally posted by Silent Beauty
Oh Fafnir, fafnir ^^" how do you know it doesn't cause harm to others?
Morals do in a sense help society to maintain a level of control.
Without morals, why, we'd be back to becoming like animals, and wherefore would that take us? Back in the primordial stage?
Uh-uh, I'm still thinking about that colony everyone is talking about in the future, you know, the one on Mars.
Click to expand...

SB I believe more in responsibility to ones self, rather then having the government hold your hand. I'm not saying that morals are wrong or bad, I'm asking why other peoples morals must neccesarily take precedent over mine. Why is it illegal for consenting adults to have anal sex? Because that 90 year old lady might overhear them talking about it and get emotionally upset? Why can't I grow and smoke marijuana in my back yard? Are my crazy antics, or complete complaceny going to offend the neighbors, or someone who may call?

Why can't I marry 3 women! Are those other guys gonna be jealous that 2 extra are taken out of circulation?
 
Look at primate behavior. Its a lot like a dog pack, there is an alpha male and he gets his pick of the women, he also has to repress the sexual urges of the other males to make sure that he is the only one who passes on his genes. In human society, males that would fancy themselves alphas get off on seeing what kind of hoops they can make the other males jump through, the more times one male can force another to submit to his morals the more dominant he looks, and the more powerful he is in the pack hierarchy. Its a part of our base animal desires to want to force others to do as we say, and repress their sexual desires. Its sort of funny that organized religions see themselves as so above this sort of thing, yet they are certainly among the most aggressive at this illogical animalistic posturing. And look at how cavalier politicians are about sending the younger more physically fit men off to fight wars with no clear reason. Its all because they want to remind everyone that they are on top. Of course we don’t go around beating our chests like great apes, probably our device for this behavior is the strong desire to moralize.
 
Last edited:
I like the message you're getting at here, fafnir. Frankly it is a bit ridiculous to have a society in which authority can regulate matters in which they have no stake. It's long been my opinion that without some direct stake or interest in what someone is doing, you've got no say in it. Don't like the fact that people are having oral sex? Too bad, it doesn't effect you directly, so but out; hate rap music, tough shit, plenty of people do; don't like people who drive around with their car speakers booming rattling everything in your house, well you've got a genuine claim there, because now it IS your problem, talk to the city council about setting decibel restrictions between certain hours. It's really that simple, if you haven't got any business in an event, you've got no right to have a say in it, if it doesn't effect you, if it's not your problem, then it's not your place to have a say.
 
Originally posted by Fafnir665
Polygomy was just an example, I don't neccesarily support it.
(in fact i don't)

The subject I was trying to put forth was on moral responsibility. Why should one person be subjected to laws based on the morality of another, if it does that person who does not morally support it no harm? (physical, hurt feelings when they see them doing it and despise them for it don't count)

Here are some more examples (massachusetts anyways):

No oral sex
No anal
No smoking in public places (there is no PROOF that second hand smoke has killed anyone) ((i dont smoke btw))
No recreational drug use
Click to expand...

Few care about actions that cause no harm to others. Look closer to see if society finds that there is harm. Polygamy is perceived to cause harm because it reduces tax revenue. One man married to 10 women and 9 single men generally pay less tax combined than 10 married couples. Religions find harm in oral & anal sex because it weakens the flock. The more the flock believes what they’re told, the more money they donate. If followers have oral & anal sex, they won't produce as many future followers or they may question other orders and eventually stop donating. Second-hand smoke doesn’t have to kill; it only has to annoy (if people farted on your face daily you might want a law against that). Drugs reduce tax revenue when society pays for 12 years of someone’s education only to have them live in an alley, or costs taxpayers to build methadone clinics to rehabilitate junkies.

Things that subtly cause harm may become moral issues when that better sends the message. For example, Muslims don’t eat pork because someone a thousand years ago found out that pork is deadly when improperly cooked. Now it’s immoral for Muslims to eat pork.
 
we do not live in a void. any action, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, affects others.
society consists of connections, interactions, social "webs", etc.

those rules are generally supposed to keep society unified. but since everybody is a fuckin individual beautiful snowflake, books like this one encourage people to follow their own selfish needs and wants, ignoring society.

what, do you suppose, would happen if everybody did do everything they wanted to do, as it is allowed under the constitution (a seriously flowed document btw, IMHO) ?

there would be absolutely no feeling of community.
that is one of the main reasons for the phoenomenon of anomy (i think that's the correct name for it) when people feel extremely lonely even though they live in big cities and constantly surrounded by lots of people. this phoenomenon is a leading cause for depression and suicide in urban places.

while living in rural communities where people are far apart from eachother there's a much greater sense of community and less anomy. those places have strong family values and "a way to do things" that is not constantly prodded and nitpicked to death.
 
Feminist bait;

Humans are actually made for polygamy, that is a male (or a few buddies) with a harem of females.
The males that don't fit form rogue gangs in an attempt to strengthen their chances of later scoring a harem.
Don't believe me?

Look at human behaviour today, guys when you have a girlfriend don't you notice her friends suddenly become your friend? They don't push anything cause they know better, they probably don't even think about it but if they're single they hang around and they don't know why. You don't get this with guys, the last thing we want to do is hang out with our buddy and his new girlfriend, in fact once a buddy gets a girlfriend there is a little instinctual urge to stop being his friend altogether. You don't really hate him you just don't see any reason to continue hanging around him, you don't know why he just becomes a whole lot less appealing as a friend. Girls seem happier when they are hanging with their friend and her boyfriend, and even if they previously thought this guy was disgusting they start changing their mind.
I've seen it SO many times.

Also, a threesome with two males and one girl is a big joke, the guys are laughing and highfiving and showing off trying weird freaky things, the girl has a look on her face "omg this is so bad" etc, everyone involved just senses that this shit is not supposed to be going down, thats kind of the allure.
A threesome with 2 girls and a guy on the other hand tends to be a really serious activity for some reason, the girls get friendly with eachother and it just has a natural atmosphere. It doesn't feel wrong like an mmf, even the girls don't think so. It really does almost feel uber-right.

Also, girls don't know the meaning of true jealousy, they pretend. They "get jealous" for the sole purpose of using it as ammo to force the guy they're with to pay attention to them and pity them.
Guys legitimately get furiously jealous. Girls have no idea what thats like, they are open to the concept of sharing a guy. Some might be a little opposed, but nothing compared to how opposed a guy feels to sharing a girl.
And if the right girl comes along most can warm up to the idea, as long as they are in countrol.

No guy would ever have a mmf 3some with a girl they consider important in anyway, in this instance the girl is a tool used to strengthen the bond between the buddies that are degrading her. Its like jerking eachother off without the high level of awkwardness. It is all about the male bond 100%, mmf 3somes won't happen twice with the same girl. She is almost looked down upon afterwards like a dirty rag, and that is essentially what she is to the males that double teamed her.
If a guy is serious about a girl he expects his friends to stay well way.

But a girl would only have a threesome(mff) with a guy she is serious about or hopes to get serious about.
The mff is almost like the forming of a family clan, you'll notice on springer couples trying to "experiment" with a mff always find complications. The girls will get together by themselves or the guy and the new girl will get together, they just have a hard time letting it go even though society is pressuring them to.
These are pretty obvious indications of our polygamous origins when you think about it.

A study was done where girls would select which male they found the most attractive, they were all the same guy, but one picture he was with an attractive girl, one with an unattractive girl and the other alone, nearly every girl would pick the one with the attractive girl.
Guys on the other hand, when choosing between a girl with an attractive guy, an unnattractive guy and alone, they would always pick her alone, with the unnattractive guy second and least favourite by far was the same girl with an attractive guy.
Think about this.

It makes sense, all guys compete to get their seed out their, they want as little competition as possible. But girls are more worried about being selective, they subconsciously decide that a guy with an attractive girl must have more going for him than a guy with an unnattractive girl or alone.
It is worth sharing a guy who has such quality genes.

And where do you think the species wide sentiments that a promiscuous guy is a stud and a promiscuous girl is a slut comes from?
Society? Did big bad society create the "double standard"?:rolleyes: Fraid not, this has been the general consensus long before there was such a thing as society. As i said it is a guys job to get his seed out there by any means necessarry, girls are gonna get laid, they don't have a problem there, it is up to them to be selective, choosing only the best genes, and usually the best genes have already been tapped into, this is something girls don't truely care about, its not a big concern, good genes are good genes.
Sure now some pretend they don't want to share, but that quite litterally is a case of penis envy and male mimmicry to increase success in the new artificial lives that are now available.

So yes, i believe humans are polygamous and I believe I deserve a harem of hotties.
Feminists unite! :D

PS: Sorry for not addressing your actual question, I will do it now, no, people shouldn't force their morals on other people, unless of course its me doing the forcing then it is ok because my morals are correct.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by otheadp
we do not live in a void. any action, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, affects others.
society consists of connections, interactions, social "webs", etc.
Click to expand...

Well that's a pretty claustraphobic view. I assure you that I partake in all sorts of activities which have absolutely no consiquenses for any but those involved.

In business unintended consiquenses which effect others are called "externalities". When you dump waste into a river, and inadvertantly poision the water supply of the whole town it's called an externality, a direct result of your actions which effects others (negatively in this case). However, there are actions for which there are no externalities, which others just don't have any stake, in, and rightly have no right to regulate or have any say in.

Originally posted by otheadp
those rules are generally supposed to keep society unified. but since everybody is a fuckin individual beautiful snowflake, books like this one encourage people to follow their own selfish needs and wants, ignoring society.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that looks like a good book, thanks for the link.

Originally posted by otheadp
what, do you suppose, would happen if everybody did do everything they wanted to do, as it is allowed under the constitution (a seriously flowed document btw, IMHO) ?
Click to expand...

Well if everyone had and exersized the rights expressed in the American constitution I guess the world would be a better place, wouldn't it? By the way, if you think it's flawed, there are plenty of dictatorships and collectivist nations out there for you to chose from, have fun letting others live your life for you.
 
I just read Dr.Lou's thoughts on polygomy and 3somes and dating and friends and what not. ... I can't belive that some folks still think homosexuals are the hight of perversion. I'm sure you probably have some interesting views to the effect of girls wanting to be raped too?
 
For the very first time in my life, I reluctantly agree with Dr. Lou.

What is incredibly puzzling to me is the fact that religion (islam in particular) allowed polygamy and restricted it to four wifes, but it never spoke of detail of how to handle 4 women under one roof and possibly one bedroom...There is not one religious scriptures that say that the man should have sex with one at a time, thus religion have allowed gay relations, because mfff is as gay as it gets....Very puzzling indeed.
 
HEH. Lou, start a new thread for your post--maybe under free thoughts or human science. I was gonna post something similar, but your nack for generalizing far exceeds mine. Excellent. :D
 
Without morals, why, we'd be back to becoming like animals
Click to expand...

Animals are much more moral than humans, our intellect confuses us to such a degree that natural morality has been lost. Animals seldom kill for pleasure or hate, just for food. If they get mad, it is a temporary condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top