First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/11/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


Okay, let me try this...
Do you think it is immoral to eat human...? Please answer truthfully ...!





No, I do not find eating human flesh immoral- there is nothing wrong, inherently, with the consumption of human flesh. In China, for example, during era of famine and drought, during era of mass starvation, cannibalism was not only practised, but authorised. Following the Consequentialist definition of Morality outlined above, I do not think that cannibalism is, inherently, immoral, and it be even be a necessity. But I am repulsed by it. Let's go back to the nudist- we find the public nudist repulsive and engaging in non-socially acceptable behaviour, we do not find him, however, immoral, just so with the cannibal- we find him in a condition where a group of men must eat human flesh to survive, we do not find his action immoral, because they must choose between either eating the flesh of their fellow man, and allowing the some to survive, or letting themselves starve to death, wherein there is no survivor.

---



That's I said that morality evolved over time and is different from place to place...

I'll ask you again.. Do you think that eating humans in your country in this time morally correctly...?
Please answer truthfully, in your context.


Wrong! Morality is not, as you say, relative to time and place- we accept Cannibalism under the circumstance where it is not possible to survive without it, it is moral because it causes the least harm for the benefit of the greater. It is morally justifiable to cannibalise the dead when all other options are exhausted, during Mao, during the Soviet famine, even within America, the infamous Donner Party, because it benefits those who are still living, and this condition applicable to all cultures of all times. If my companions and I were to starve, with no recourse to other forms of food, and we were to spy another dead body, I think we are morally justified in eating it, because it serves the greater good, that is, our survival, with the least pain, that is the consumption of a dead person. So, yes, if, in America, we do, indeed, suffer from want of food, and survival depends upon our cannibalisation, as is the case with famine stricken China, Russian, or any other place where cannibalism is rendered a necessity, it would be morally justifiable to cannibalise. However, under my conditions, when food can be found in plenty, I am not justified in cannibalism. If there was someone who was in such a condition where the greater happiness (i.e. his survival), depends on his cannibalisation of the dead, then cannibalism is morally justified. There is no 'within my context', because my context is irrelevant and varying, and should my 'context' change such that it becomes a necessity, then I am morally justified in doing so, thus, whether or not the forces external to me, act in such a way that, in its relation to myself, it makes the condition for cannibalism applicable and morally justifiable, then my context is such that this universal principle is applicable. Take the laws of nature, some of them are not applicable to you at the moment, but, when those circumstances change, then they become applicable to you- you would not say that, because they do not apply at the moment, they must, therefore be relative, instead, the external and internal circumstances is such that it does not apply at the moment, but is still universally applicable. This then It is not a difficult concept to grasp, an action is universally moral when it produce the greatest happiness with the least pain.


And from what i've gathered from your response you pretty much agree that cannibalism can be justified under certain circumstances...
... Which is what I've been saying...
MORALITY DIFFER FROM PLACE TO PLACE....
Moreover you answered that you don't think that cannibalism is immoral when I asked you that question...
I rest my case....
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/11/12 , edited 9/11/12

shuyi000 wrote:

And from what i've gathered from your response you pretty much agree that cannibalism can be justified under certain circumstances...
... Which is what I've been saying...
MORALITY DIFFER FROM PLACE TO PLACE....
Moreover you answered that you don't think that cannibalism is immoral when I asked you that question...
I rest my case....


From what I've gathered from your garbled response, you miss the point entirely- The principle stated above is universally applicable regardless of culture or place, and depends wholly on having the condition wherein it is necessitated, if I find myself in a position where cannibalism would generate the greatest good with the least harm, then it is moral, otherwise, it would produce a greater harm than is necessary while generated the same, if not less, good from that action. Morality does not differ from place to place- it does not matter if we are in America or in Africa or in Coleridge's magic ship, or if we were Hindoos, or Christians, or Buddhists, it would still hold regardless of geographical location- if we are in a position where the universal rule: that is moral which produce the greatest happiness and the least pain is moral- would be violated if we didn't cannibalise, then we are acting immorally. So, no, Morality does not differ from place to place, and you have proven nothing.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/12/12

longfenglim wrote:



From what I've gathered from your garbled response, you miss the point entirely- The principle stated above is universally applicable regardless of culture or place, and depends wholly on having the condition wherein it is necessitated, if I find myself in a position where cannibalism would generate the greatest good with the least harm, then it is moral, otherwise, it would produce a greater harm than is necessary while generated the same, if not less, good from that action. Morality does not differ from place to place- it does not matter if we are in America or in Africa or in Coleridge's magic ship, or if we were Hindoos, or Christians, or Buddhists, it would still hold regardless of geographical location- if we are in a position where the universal rule: that is moral which produce the greatest happiness and the least pain is moral- would be violated if we didn't cannibalise, then we are acting immorally. So, no, Morality does not differ from place to place, and you have proven nothing.


What if a one engage in cannibalism despite the abundance of food...?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/12/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



From what I've gathered from your garbled response, you miss the point entirely- The principle stated above is universally applicable regardless of culture or place, and depends wholly on having the condition wherein it is necessitated, if I find myself in a position where cannibalism would generate the greatest good with the least harm, then it is moral, otherwise, it would produce a greater harm than is necessary while generated the same, if not less, good from that action. Morality does not differ from place to place- it does not matter if we are in America or in Africa or in Coleridge's magic ship, or if we were Hindoos, or Christians, or Buddhists, it would still hold regardless of geographical location- if we are in a position where the universal rule: that is moral which produce the greatest happiness and the least pain is moral- would be violated if we didn't cannibalise, then we are acting immorally. So, no, Morality does not differ from place to place, and you have proven nothing.


What if a one engage in cannibalism despite the abundance of food...?


Then, it is immoral because it causes a greater pain than is necessary to obtain less satisfaction.

Now, let's back to polygamy, despite your rather morbid fascination with cannibalism- how is Polygamy 'immoral'? Do not say that morality is relative to culture and place, but this has already been shown demonstrably false, in that if a culture practice something obviously wrong, such as hunting helots for sport, then we would have to accept that it is, indeed, a moral course of action, when it, obviously, isn't.

13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/15/12

longfenglim wrote:

Now, let's back to polygamy, despite your rather morbid fascination with cannibalism- how is Polygamy 'immoral'? Do not say that morality is relative to culture and place, but this has already been shown demonstrably false, in that if a culture practice something obviously wrong, such as hunting helots for sport, then we would have to accept that it is, indeed, a moral course of action, when it, obviously, isn't.



Because morality is different in different part of the world...
You probably think that eating beef is nothing... in some other place it is immoral...

You would probably bury the dead... in some part of the world, they're morally obligated to eat their deceased family members.

You probably thinks that all men are equal today... in the past, blacks were born slaves...

Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful...

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/16/12 , edited 9/16/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Now, let's back to polygamy, despite your rather morbid fascination with cannibalism- how is Polygamy 'immoral'? Do not say that morality is relative to culture and place, but this has already been shown demonstrably false, in that if a culture practice something obviously wrong, such as hunting helots for sport, then we would have to accept that it is, indeed, a moral course of action, when it, obviously, isn't.



Because morality is different in different part of the world...
You probably think that eating beef is nothing... in some other place it is immoral...

You would probably bury the dead... in some part of the world, they're morally obligated to eat their deceased family members.

You probably thinks that all men are equal today... in the past, blacks were born slaves...

Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful...



No, Morality is, in fact, universal, and applicable everywhere, it is objective. You make various, unfounded assumptions of me and what I would consider immoral or moral. All this by the by, I shall first address your slave thing- we know, definitively, that slavery is immoral, it may be an economically justifiable practice, but it is immoral. Why is it immoral? Consequentially, if we consider the fact that the good to be got out of slavery (cotton) with the pains the results from slavery (the degradation of a group of men), and that we have an alternative to slavery which generate just as much overall satisfaction as slavery (hiring farmhands and workers), we know, certainly, that it is an evil. Eating beef, however, is only Immoral in the sense that it is the application of Consequentialist Ethics to animals- it is moral to create a greater suffering than necessary in the eating of Cows, or meat in general, when many of the benefits of meat eating can be derived from eating non-sentient plants? It is simply the same universal morals applied more broadly than I would apply it. In the practice of cannibalising deceased family members- whom you wrongly assume I would bury, rather than, as customary amongst my own people, cremate- if there is no pain to be got out of it, and it offers some measure of comfort, then it is not morally permissible, though I would argue that it is not moral, nor do they perceive the cannibalising of their deceased family member to be 'morally obliged', rather, they are 'obliged to do so by tradition'- here, you are confusing the societal with the moral.

Let's follow up on the distinction between the moral and the societal. It is a societal prohibition that we do not walk about the street completely in the nude- it isn't a moral dictum, but a societal one. We also are societally obliged to certain etiquette, when eating, greeting, speaking, and all that. It is not immoral to be rude, politesse is something society hoist upon us. 'Propriety', then, is a social construct, it is proper to not be nude, to obey etiquette, or, in your example, within that society, to eat the flesh of one's deceased relative. Morality, however, concerns itself with the 'goodness' and 'rightness' of something.

But, considering this, say that you are right, there is no moral objectivity, how can you argue, then, that it is 'morally superior' to be faithful to a single spouse, when the man or woman argue that such fidelity would restrict their own happiness, as the obligation of their spouse to be faithful to them would restrict theirs? You have no basis to say that 'it is morally superior', because, in your diagram, there is nothing on which to found 'moral superiority' or 'inferiority', because there is no fixed standards to measure it.

Let me give two arguments, commonplace arguments, I may add, against Moral Relativism, and I ask that you kindly answer them directly, as you have been avoiding any serious ethical discussion thus far-

1. Morals are objective, otherwise what we would obviously call wrong, like a certain genocide by a certain ethnic group upon another, we would have to accept as a moral course of action. The objection that we can say that it is wrong from our own standpoint is fallacious, in this case, because there is nothing to make our standpoint more valid than the genocidal death squads.

2. Morals are objective, and not based upon the society. If it were, then it is moral to conform to society, and thus, if that society binds men to accept all of its action. So, if our government bombs civilians in Northern Pakistan in search of Terrorist, kills an American Citizen without trial, or routinely hunts down whistle-blowers and act without the consent or consultation of any of the other branch of government, we have no reason to decry these action, but accept them. Therefore, we are no longer able to decry the government in moral terms, in terms of freedom, liberty, and all that, and all abridgement of our liberty, so long as they prove to be efficiently fascist, should be quietly accepted. If we do react against an unjust society, then we are acting, in fact, immorally, if we opposed segregation decades ago, or if we oppose slavery over a century ago, we would be acting immorally. This is, however, obviously not the case, societies, we know, can err, as our own society shows, and reformers do exist to institute moral reforms to the system.
24363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Indianapolis, Ind...
Offline
Posted 9/17/12
I honestly don't see what the issue here is. If consenting adults wish to live in such a situation, who has the right to tell them otherwise.
Posted 9/17/12 , edited 9/23/12

iamtheredseven wrote:

I honestly don't see what the issue here is. If consenting adults wish to live in such a situation, who has the right to tell them otherwise.
Are you familiar with the utilitarian moral philosophy called the "harm principle"? If not, the following quote should help you get up to speed.

Now you enlisted two requirements of "consenting adults" and "rights". Since I've just demonstrated how certain situations shouldn't be allowed under the harm principle. Let's see how both cases of polygamy in apes, and as a human cultural practice.

Researchers have observed various male animals--including insects, birds, and mammals--chasing, threatening, and attacking females. Unfortunately, because scientists have rarely studied such aggression in detail, we do not know exactly how common it is. But the males of many of these species are most aggressive toward potential mates, which suggests that they sometimes use violence to gain sexual access.

Jane Goodall provides us with a compelling example of how males use violence to get sex. In her 1986 book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Goodall describes the chimpanzee dating game. In one of several scenarios, males gather around attractive estrous females and try to lure them away from other males for a one-on-one sexual expedition that may last for days or weeks. But females find some suitors more appealing than others and often resist the advances of less desirable males. Males often rely on aggression to counter female resistance. For example, Goodall describes how Evered, in persuading a reluctant Winkle to accompany him into the forest, attacked her six times over the course of five hours, twice severely.

Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe, a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized--the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh--but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behavior hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

These chimpanzee and hamadryas males are practicing sexual coercion: male use of force to increase the chances that a female victim will mate with him, or to decrease the chances that she will mate with someone else
. But sexual coercion is much more common in some primate species than in others. Orangutans and chimpanzees are the only nonhuman primates whose males in the wild force females to copulate, while males of several other species, such as vervet monkeys and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), rarely if ever try to coerce females sexually. Between the two extremes lie many species, like hamadryas baboons, in which males do not force copulation but nonetheless use threats and intimidation to get sex.

These dramatic differences between species provide an opportunity to investigate which factors promote or inhibit sexual coercion. For example, we might expect to find more of it in species in which males are much larger than females--and we do. However, size differences between the sexes are far from the whole story. Chimpanzee and bonobo males both have only a slight size advantage, yet while male chimps frequently resort to force, male bonobos treat the fair sex with more respect. Clearly, then, although size matters, so do other factors. In particular, the social relationships females form with other females and with males appear to be as important.

In some species, females remain in their birth communities their whole lives, joining forces with related females to defend vital food resources against other females. In such female bonded species, females also form alliances against aggressive males. Vervet monkeys are one such species, and among these small and exceptionally feisty African monkeys, related females gang up against males. High-ranking females use their dense network of female alliances to rule the troop; although smaller than males, they slap persistent suitors away like annoying flies. Researchers have observed similar alliances in many other female-bonded species, including other Old World monkeys such as macaques, olive baboons, patas and rhesus monkeys, and gray langurs; New World monkeys such as the capuchin; and prosimians such as the ring-tailed lemur.

Females in other species leave their birth communities at adolescence and spend the rest of their lives cut off from their female kin. In most such species, females do not form strong bonds with other females and rarely support one another against males. Both chimpanzees and hamadryas baboons exhibit this pattern, and, as we saw earlier, in both species females submit to sexual control by males.

This contrast between female-bonded species, in which related females gang together to thwart males, and non-female-bonded species, in which they don’t, breaks down when we come to the bonobo. Female bonobos, like their close relatives the chimpanzees, leave their kin and live as adults with unrelated females. Recent field studies show that these unrelated females hang out together and engage in frequent homoerotic behavior, in which they embrace face-to-face and rapidly rub their genitals together; sex seems to cement their bonds. Examining these studies in the context of my own research has convinced me that one way females use these bonds is to form alliances against males, and that, as a consequence, male bonobos do not dominate females or attempt to coerce them sexually. How and why female bonobos, but not chimpanzees, came up with this solution to male violence remains a mystery.

Female primates also use relationships with males to help protect themselves against sexual coercion. Among olive baboons, each adult female typically forms long-lasting friendships with a few of the many males in her troop. When a male baboon assaults a female, another male often comes to her rescue; in my troop, nine times out of ten the protector was a friend of the female’s. In return for his protection, the defender may enjoy her sexual favors the next time she comes into estrus. There is a dark side to this picture, however. Male baboons frequently threaten or attack their female friends--when, for example, one tries to form a friendship with a new male. Other males apparently recognize friendships and rarely intervene. The female, then, becomes less vulnerable to aggression from males in general, but more vulnerable to aggression from her male friends.

As a final example, consider orangutans. Because their food grows so sparsely, adult females rarely travel with anyone but their dependent offspring. But orangutan females routinely fall victim to forced copulation. Female orangutans, it seems, pay a high price for their solitude.

Some of the factors that influence female vulnerability to male sexual coercion in different species may also help explain such variation among different groups in the same species. For example, in a group of chimpanzees in the Taï Forest in the Ivory Coast, females form closer bonds with one another than do females at Gombe. Taï females may consequently have more egalitarian relationships with males than their Gombe counterparts do.

Such differences between groups especially characterize humans. Among the South American Yanomamö, for instance, men frequently abduct and rape women from neighboring villages and severely beat their wives for suspected adultery. However, among the Aka people of the Central African Republic, male aggression against women has never been observed. Most human societies, of course, fall between these two extremes.
-Apes of Wrath by Barbara Smuts

Up to half of Tajik women subjected to violence

The authorities in Tajikistan are failing to curb rampant domestic violence against women in the country, said Amnesty International today (24 November), as it published a new report on the topic.

Amnesty's 53-page report - Violence Is Not Just A Family Affair: Women Face Abuse In Tajikistan - shows that girls being married off under-age, unofficial 'unregistered' marriages (with husbands often having multiple wives), and uneducated and poor women being treated as servants in their husbands' homes - are all contributing to very high levels of violence against women within Tajik families.

Amnesty's report accuses the Tajik police and other authorities of often sharing the values of husbands and in-law families in condoning violence and discrimination against women. One Tajik government official told Amnesty: 'Violence against women is not a problem in Tajikistan, it is a family matter; and it depends on individual people how they resolve their problems.'

Amnesty International Tajikistan expert Andrea Strasser-Camagni said:

'Women in Tajikistan are beaten, abused, and raped in the family but the authorities tend to reflect the societal attitude of blaming the woman for domestic violence. They see their primary role as mediator, to preserve the family rather than protect the woman and to safeguard their rights.

'By writing off violence against women as a family affair the authorities in Tajikistan are shirking their responsibility to a large part of the population. They are allowing perpetrators of such crimes to act with impunity and, ultimately, denying women their human rights.'


Surveys have shown that between a third and a half of Tajik women have suffered violence from a family member. One survey showed 58% of wives reporting physical and/or sexual violence from their husbands, and young - often uneducated - women married in 'unregistered' ceremonies are particularly at risk. In many Tajik households women are demeaned and attacked by husbands and in-laws alike.

Sexual violence in marriage is common. In one case a husband forced his wife to have anal sex 'in order to have a boy' (they already had six girls). In another case a husband brought a second wife home and beat his first wife after she complained when he began having sex with the newcomer in the same room as her.

Unregistered wives can also be divorced by husbands who simply repeat a phrase in front of two witnesses. This often leaves divorced women with nowhere to live and no source of income. In some cases wives have been divorced over the telephone by husbands working abroad who have already started new families abroad (widespread poverty in Tajikistan has led to millions of Tajik men working in other countries in recent years, especially in Russia).

Despite the fact that research reveals very high levels of domestic violence in the country the Tajik authorities do not compile comprehensive data on the issue and there is only one shelter for at-risk women in the entire country.

Amnesty is calling on the Tajik authorities to begin full monitoring of domestic violence, to provide women's shelters across the country, and to establish specialised police units to deal with the problem. The prosecutorial authorities are also being urged to end impunity for the perpetrators of domestic violence by pursuing prosecutions themselves rather than placing the onus on victims to initiate cases - something that victims of domestic violence in Tajikistan rarely feel able to do.

Cases
Zamira got married at 18 in a traditional Islamic marriage. The marriage lasted for five years and in this time Zamira was never allowed to leave her husband's house. 'It was like in prison,' says Zamira. She told Amnesty that when she asked his permission to go out or when they had a quarrel, her husband would beat her. One day her husband divorced her according to Islamic tradition and she was thrown out of the house by his parents. Now Zamira and her nine-year-old son live with her parents in an over-crowded house. She dreams of a home for her and her son.

Tahmina, a mother of three children, has been married for 13 years. She says that she had three stillbirths and after that her husband began to beat her. As a result of a beating another baby died; then she miscarried while five months pregnant and her first child was born deformed. She once went to the police when she was black and blue and had a knife cut on her arm. They said she could write a complaint, but otherwise did nothing. She felt they blamed her for having provoked the violence.

Risolat, a 17-year-old from a small town was raped by her boyfriend, who threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. He forced her to have sex during a four-month period. He also beat her. A year later she went to the police wanting to file a complaint, but she was mocked by the officers and sent away.
-Tajikistan: Child brides, polygamy and poverty contributing to rampant domestic violence- new report
Use these factual reporting to build the arguments on the objective morality of polygamy. And consider this well known scientific made legal fact, about how sexual coercion in the form of psychosocial abuse, can cause physiological and neurological harms, without the onset of physical assault or rape.

Let's now look at the evolutionary psychology of human polygamy.

Does all this de facto polygamy bursting through the seams of our nominally monogamous culture tell us anything about our evolved mating psychology? To answer that, we should examine the types of small-scale societies in which nearly all of our evolution has occurred. When we do so, we find that these hunter gatherer and tribal societies have, throughout the world, historically practiced polygamy. Although most men in these societies strive for polygamy, however, only a minority can achieve it, because maintaining a large family requires an often prohibitively high degree of wealth and status. Further, because it is generally difficult to store and hoard wealth in small-scale societies, even men who do achieve polygamy can usually afford no more than two or three wives. It wasn't until the emergence of large-scale agricultural civilization, a few thousand years ago, that wealth-hoarding became possible and powerful men began accumulating large harems of hundreds or thousands of women. This pattern occurred in similar ways all over the world, as Laura Betzig describes in Despotism and Differential Reproduction. So once the ecological constraints on polygamy were lifted, high status men began accumulating many more wives than they had in small-scale societies.
-Are People "Naturally" Polygamous? by Michael E. Price

So as you can clearly see, not only that women were being treated as mere status symbols and objects of material wealth in a polygamous marriage, they were psychologically and emotionally coerced to obey this situation since young, when we consider the multi-generational abuse that girls suffered from within their religiously polygamous families, or the relatively low social status for men, power struggle/grab, and emotional drama from modernized fictional polygamy

Carolyn Jessop, who grew up in Colorado City, Ariz., in a polygamous family, was testifying Wednesday in Vancouver in a B.C. case examining the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law.

When she was 18, she was forced to marry a 50-year-old man she didn't know and who already had three wives. She eventually had eight children with him, Jessop said.

She described a house plagued by beatings and emotional abuse, which she said was common throughout the isolated community where men were encouraged to control women and children.

Jessop, now 43, said all marriages were arranged and women were taught that refusing a marriage was a grave sin that amounted to a "death sentence" when it came to her place in the church and in the community.
-Woman recounts abuse in polygamous family

The tensions between individual autonomy and state interests are beautifully explored in Big Love. Drawing on themes presented in the series, this Paper asks if there is any principled way to make the distinction between those relationships in which there is some physical or psychological harm inflicted and those in which the state has proscribed a relationship because of some moral or social harm it allegedly causes. Four case studies are presented to prompt readers to try to answer the question of when consent should be a defense to otherwise proscribed activity. I conclude that the future of feminist legal theory depends on its ability to remain ambivalent about the tensions presented in the consent doctrine as applied to contexts such as polygamy, prostitution, sadomasochistic sex, obscenity, and domestic violence. Big Love seeks to persuade us to accept ambivalence and to be open to changing our minds because of the complicated nature of women’s (and men’s) lives; feminist legal theory ought to persuade us to do the same. Anyone who wants to understand the present and future of feminist legal theory ought to watch the HBO series Big Love. (Warning: viewers may find the show highly addictive.) Big Love is about a modern polygamist family in Utah. The patriarch is a man named Bill Henrickson who was raised on a polygamist compound, got expelled as a teen when he became a sexual threat to the older males, and found his way to a monogamous world. He marries his first love, Barb, has three children, and is a successful business person. But when Barb gets cancer and can no longer have children, he decides to “live by the principle” and begins taking other wives. Barb is beautiful and educated and otherwise completely sane but for the fact that she agrees, however reluctantly, to the family’s ever-expanding footprint. As the series ended its fourth season, Bill had three wives and eight children, all of whom live in three houses in a modern suburban development. Bill briefly had a fourth wife, but she left when she couldn’t handle the complicated family dynamics. She is also now pregnant with Bill’s child, and she and her foreign fiancé have returned to the Henrickson homestead as they try to game the immigration system. Indeed, Stanley Fish has dubbed the Henrickson family “the new ‘Waltons’” for its nostalgic portrayal of multigenerational, large families. The show highlights that to the extent that Barb and the other wives consent to polygamy, they do so in a world in which their choices are inevitably constrained by material needs and their own spiritual beliefs, and, most profoundly for Barb, by her love for Bill. Big Love reminds us of a nearly universal desire to be in a relationship, which then often leads us to accept situations we never anticipated or wanted. Yet, Big Love’s polygamy is not obviously exploitative. It is fairly democratic, with the “sister-wives” having a voice in both how the family functions and who gets to join. True, each new “sister-wife” is younger (and hotter) than the last one, but there are no child-brides being forced into sexual servitude. Indeed, it is often the wives who run the show, and usually run Bill, who often seems powerless relative to their collective force. These are adult women who make their own decisions, and despite the expected jealousy and power struggles, the “sister-wives” share a special and affirming bond. (My best friend once commented that Big Love makes polygamy look pretty attractive. There are more hands on-deck to take care of the kids, you only have to give your husband limited attention, and when you sit around and complain to your friends about him, it is the same guy, so everyone can empathize).
-Rethinking Consent in a 'Big Love' Way by Cheryl Hanna
24363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Indianapolis, Ind...
Offline
Posted 9/17/12


Well, whatever you think man. You have the right to say and believe whatever you want. I also have the right to ignore you. All i said is what I believed. I still stick by my beliefs.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/21/12


Lets agree to disagree...
Getting nowhere...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/23/12 , edited 9/23/12

shuyi000 wrote:



Lets agree to disagree...
Getting nowhere...


No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.
18200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Canada, Qc
Online
Posted 9/23/12

CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:

Although it's people's business whether they want to be polygamists or not, I do not support it. It has an adverse effect on the relationships that takes place within a household. No person can serve to masters at once. Who would you give more importance among your spouses? Because people are the way they are, such ties can breed jealousy, incompetence, and inferiority complexes to name a few. What does that do to the children? They will quite have a stunted understanding of a familiar relationship. I've also seen disturbing news among polygamist environments. There was this report in a remote place in Colorodo where polygamy is taken to levels that include incest, molestation, and child abuse (which is not limited to the usual definitions but to arranged marriages between a 14 yr old with a 40 yr old). If you're born a male, you're pretty much ousted from the society because competition among males for females is absurdly rigged. That place forbids internet, radio, and television so they're pretty much disconnected to the outside world.

EDIT: With respect to some cultures and religions such as Islam, I believe they have limits (such as 4 for Islam) but it's still a little immoral to me. A Muslim man can legally and completely divorce a wife by saying "I divorce you" 4 times to that wife.


I was going to write a big paragraph about it, but this guy is my hero, I just saw that he told everything I was writing...
Posted 9/23/12

Chekchis wrote:


CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:



I was going to write a big paragraph about it, but this guy is my hero, I just saw that he told everything I was writing...
And with sufficient facts-findings, You won't need to either.
18200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Canada, Qc
Online
Posted 9/23/12

DomFortress wrote:


Chekchis wrote:


CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:



I was going to write a big paragraph about it, but this guy is my hero, I just saw that he told everything I was writing...
And with sufficient facts-findings, You won't need to either.

I agree. You really went through a great research, sir, chapeau.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/27/12

longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.