softwareNerd Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 That is exactly my point. Since there is no principled argument that it is immoral, then it is consequently contextually moral (i.e. - may be a proper choice for some people).Just to clarify my own position, I don't think it's immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illuminaughty Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Giving life is good… but quality of life counts too. It’s true that if there’s the more quantity there is potential for more quality, but that doesn’t mean there is more quality… then again quality of life includes being allowed one’s own lifestyle, and polygamy is a lifestyle… Discuss. If its consensual, no. Most people hate the idea because they feel like they've been cheated marrying just one women. I mean. Because its not fair to the women he married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arete1952 Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 (edited) Jeesuz....one wife is MORE than enough! Edited May 27, 2006 by arete1952 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted May 28, 2006 Report Share Posted May 28, 2006 Hmm, I would hope that most people that are in a monogamous relationship chose to do so... It's viciously wrong to prefer polygamy but remain in a relationship with just one person because it "wouldn't be fair" to them otherwise. Same goes for the opposite, but I don't think that occurs very often. Altruism and romantic relationships are so not meant for eachother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoisjohngalt Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) [Mod's note: merged with earlier thread. sN] What do the members think about polygamy? Should it be made legal for anyone to choose to be a polygamist? If you ask me, I think polygamy is barbaric and should be banned. Just wanted to know the thoughts of others here. Edited October 18, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) What do the members think about polygamy? Should it be made legal for anyone to choose to be a polygamist? If you ask me, I think polygamy is barbaric and should be banned. Just wanted to know the thoughts of others here. It violates nobody's rights, so whether you think it is great or lousy, there is no basis on which to want or declare it illegal. As for what people think of it, well... there has been a thread or two. A very, very, long thread or two. I suggest a search. (Merged with old thread -sN) Edited October 18, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 If you ask me, I think polygamy is barbaric and should be banned. What about polygamy leads you to conclude that it is either uncivilized or primitive? And as Inspector alluded to, why do you think it violates anyone's right such that it should be "banned"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) In Atlas Shrugged, when Dagny is in the valley, she visits Francisco one afternoon, and there is a moment that she leans against him, he looks at her and both of them feel passion for one another. Neither of them act on it. Then later on, When Galt and Dagny (and Francisco) are at Francisco's house, and Francisco finds out for the first time that Galt and Dagny are interested in one another, he immediately assumes that it means that he cannot have Dagny, and Galt assumes the same, when he tells him (something like) "I would give everything for this to be different, except for that which is beyond giving". Polygamy is completely out of the question for them, even though there is not a problem of desire. Dagny wants Galt, he wants her, she wants Francisco, Francisco wants her. Why can't she have them both? What is the rational reason why she would deprive herself of that pleasure that she can have with Francisco, and act not according to her emotions for him? Edited October 18, 2006 by ifatart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoisjohngalt Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 What about polygamy leads you to conclude that it is either uncivilized or primitive? And as Inspector alluded to, why do you think it violates anyone's right such that it should be "banned"? In a polygamous marriage, all the wives may not be fully satisfied by the husband. Actually, I don't think it violates anyone's rights as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) In a polygamous marriage, all the wives may not be fully satisfied by the husband. Actually, I don't think it violates anyone's rights as such. ...and you should understand that whether it is good, and whether it violates rights, are two separate questions. ...But I detect you might be discovering that right now. Edited October 18, 2006 by Inspector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 In a polygamous marriage, all the wives may not be fully satisfied by the husband. (My bold highlight) Okay, but I don't understand how that has anything to with an arrangement being barbaric. Aside from that, I've seen many monogamous relationships where the one wife (or husband for that matter) was not satisified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Why can't she have them both?Perhaps she liked Galt better, and enough better that she wanted their relationship to be special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Perhaps she liked Galt better, and enough better that she wanted their relationship to be special. What makes a relationship special comes from the values that two people share. Why is there a need to add artificial things as well? I mean, what's next, is she going to stop dressing up (with pretty clothes) for work so it would be special just for him? Is he going to stop looking at art so that she would be the only piece of art he sees? etc'. Those things also make the relationship more special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Perhaps she liked Galt better, and enough better that she wanted their relationship to be special. And sacrificing another value makes it "special"? This argument is completely flawed. Either when you find someone you like "better" a romantic relationship with the previous "best" becomes worthless (this makes no sense to me) or giving up the relationship with the previous person is a disvalue. Obviously, if the new "better" person is unwilling to share, so to speak, changing partners is not a sacrifice - it is exchanging a value for a greater one. This is the context in which I find monogamy to be justifiable. It does not exclude the possibility that some people may find it better to have romantic relationships with multiple people they value - and does not make each relationship in that context any less meaningful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 And sacrificing another value makes it "special"? This argument is completely flawed. just what I said. Obviously, if the new "better" person is unwilling to share, so to speak, changing partners is not a sacrifice - it is exchanging a value for a greater one. What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"? Suppose the time Dagny would spend with Francisco would not be at the expense of the time she could have spent with Galt (for example, she would sleep with Francisco once a month when Galt is not available anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"?What does introspection tell you? Can you imagine a situation where you would not want your husband to be close to another woman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 What does introspection tell you? Can you imagine a situation where you would not want your husband to be close to another woman? There are countless reasons why you could want your husband/wife not to be close to another woman/man. That does not mean any of them are rational, nor does it mean that they apply equally to all people. Either there is a rationally identifiable principle explaining why accepting a third party romantical involvement is objectively bad or there isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) Either there is a rationally identifiable principle explaining why accepting a third party romantical involvement is objectively bad or there isn't.You're assuming it's an issue of Ethics (i.e. a non-optional decision). Edited October 18, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Obviously, if the new "better" person is unwilling to share, so to speak, changing partners is not a sacrifice - it is exchanging a value for a greater one. This is the context in which I find monogamy to be justifiable. Exactly what planet are you from where this isn't patently obvious? Of course monogamy is practiced because people are unwilling to share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 What does introspection tell you? Can you imagine a situation where you would not want your husband to be close to another woman? I have a problem introspecting this one. I first need to identify the rational reasons for choosing something before being able to decide about it, or feel something about it. And when I look inside and ask myself about this, I get blank. You're assuming it's an issue of Ethics (i.e. a non-optional decision). I think this is an issue of ethics, because it is an issue of rational or irrational choice. I agree with mrocktor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"? And what planet are you from?!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 And what planet are you from?!?!? Planet earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 I think this is an issue of ethics, because it is an issue of rational or irrational choice.Every choice, qua choice, is an issue of ethics. Still, they are contextual. What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"?Let's take one step back. Before asking why a rational person would want to share someone else's love with another object of that love, ask: why would a rational person want someone else's love in the first place? I mean, if love is a response to values, and that's all there is to it, why would anyone care if that love is reciprocated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Planet earth. You sure? No, honestly. Because if you are, how can you be missing an understanding of this? You might as well ask what would be a rational reason why a person would want to listen to music. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I'm just taken aback that a person could be missing an understanding of this. Anyway, I hope SoftwareNerd can clear this up for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted October 19, 2006 Report Share Posted October 19, 2006 Geez, if the above is not "argument from intimidation" I don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.