It is not a redefinition at all, contrary to your claim. Deliberately engaging in an action which you know will cause severe, intense, and possibly lasting emotional and mental pain to your spouse is abuse, plain and simple.
What a stunning and clever argument.
People do bad things. It is generally accepted that there should be punishment for bad things. When someone does something very bad, the punishment should generally be much worse than when they only do something mildly bad. When someone performs an act that may cause lasting harm to another’s emotional and mental state, something bad should happen to them as punishment.
Since it isn’t truly illegal to cheat (where there are such laws, they are rarely enforced), this punishment cannot come from the legal system. Ideally, it would. However, since that is not the case, the punishment needs to come from elsewhere else.
We all have a moral obligation to to what we can to discourage bad behavior. Cheating is extremely bad behavior.
Don’t hide behind the law when you know we’re discussing morality. The law does not always accurately reflect morality.
To square things away with the original Pit thread (and to remove some of the consternation of the current posters), the OP here specifies both parties as having consensual contact. In the original thread, the contact was not consensual.
So your arguing that vigilante justice is appropriate?
And your argument does?
Absolutely. She has a basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Moral to do so? Certainly not. It is quite disgraceful.
Never. Unless the non-physical attack you reference is a viable threat of a physical attack.
And Sauron, I appreciate your attempt to clarify something, but the OP to this thread did not reference the pit thread, and clearly stated consensual. And for the record, I believe the OP in the pit thread had conflicting information on this point.
Call it what you like. Whether you call it an attack or not, it is physically using force upon another human being. I was under the impression that you considered it morally permissible to use physical force upon another human being so long as the target of that force had first used physical force upon you. This is a “two wrongs make a right” system of morality.
Not in all cases or for all types of emotional harm or physical harm. In some cases, with particular types of emotional harm and physical harm, yes.
This is not a new idea. Stalkers who have never physically harmed their target can be physically confined in jail. Saying certain words to certain people in certain situations (such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre) could get me in serious trouble. If I ran into an airport and started yelling that I had a bomb, the security guards would be quite right to tackle me to the floor and search me, and then to take me into custody. There are many cases where non-physical attacks are officially responded to with the government’s institution of force: either the police or military, depending on the situation.
Where the law and morality part, follow morality. Civil disobedience to unjust laws has, IMHO, a counter-part: enforcement of just laws that are not currently written on the books.
Yes.
(What did you expect me to say?)
Ah, I think we were talking past each other on this. She has a legal right to cheat but does not have a moral right to cheat. Does that sound right?
On this we disagree. I do have a question though. If you believe it is (or at least can be) right to respond to physical force with physical force of your own, would you find it appropriate to respond to an attack on one’s mental and emotional well-being with another attack of this kind?
No problem. I see some of the same posters in both threads, and I think folks are getting confused on the consensual vs. non-consensual aspect of things.
The OP in the Pit thread did not have conflicting information on this point; others attempted to portray it that way, however.
I’m sorry Night but you do not get to physically impose your own sense of “morality” on another human being. Your SO has ZERO obligation to conform to YOUR morality. Each person has their own individual right to pursue their own lives, and those lives are not subject to YOUR moral judgement. The very WORD “morality” is already so subjective that it is virtually meaningless,so resorting to personal interpretations of perceived “moral” wrongs as a justification for violence is laughable on its face. This kind of argument represents exactly the same kind of logic used by people who blow up abortion clinics (or fly planes into buildings) This attempt to classify adultery as some sort of “abuse” which warrants physical retribution is completely unsupportable, LEGALLY or MORALLY.
Then why don’t you show why it’s unsupportable, morally, instead of just flying off the handle?
If morality is so subjective, then who the hell are you to tell me that mine is wrong? For someone who doesn’t believe I should impose my morality on others, you certainly seem to think you should impose yours on me.
BlackKnight, I think you need to address Diogenes’s statement here:
Are you truly saying that an individual has a right in this country to decide that violence is necessary to deal with a situation, and then be able to get away with it because that person’s own moral imperative is somehow above the law?
I’m not imposing anything with VIOLENCE, that’s the difference. Expressing an OPINION about morality is one thing. Trying to physically PUNISH another person for disagreeing with you is quite another.
Uh, no, that is not a description of what I find morally permissable, or a system of morality, unless you want to reference the Code of Hammurabi. Do you recognize the difference between “offensive” (aggressive) physical force and “defensive” physical force? One is always justified, the other never is.
I summarily reject your position of “two wrongs make a right” as a legitimate moral system, at least in today’s society. Hell, I learned that in kindergarten.
Your confusion between these physical concepts boggles my mind:
[ul]
[li]offensive physical force[/li][li]defensive physical force[/li][li]incarceration (physical confinement)[/li][li]physical force used by law enforcement within the scope of their job function[/li][/ul]
You kinda equate all of these, and use them interchangeably in your arguments. They are all very different.
Let’s take just one of your examples - stalkers. AFAIK, no one goes around with a sign on their back that says “stalker”. But they do exist. When a stalker begins harassing someone (by following them, showing up in public places, things that are otherwise legal), the target of their “affection” must go to court and get a restraining order. They have to make a case in front of a judge to have this individual be determined to be a stalker. If the judge agrees, he doesn’t let the target beat the shit out of the stalker, saying, “hey, two wrongs make a right!”. The judge issues the restraining order, and the stalker is informed of the specific behaviors that are forbidden. At this point, the stalker is legally presumed to be (offensively) physically threatening if they violate that order. And if they do violate it, the target still doesn’t have the right to beat the shit out of them. But the target can call the police, who may use reasonalbe force in performance of their duties, and may incarcerate the stalker to protect the target from physical harm. Can you comprehend the differences here? Do I even need to address your other examples?
Some adults may claim “severe, intense, and possibly lasting emotional and mental pain” when other people use profanity. To them, I say: fuck 'em. The only pain caused is through their own construction, they are responsible for themselves.
You may claim that adultery causes the offended spouse to have such mental anguish, but let’s first consider some facts. 60% of married men cheat. 40% of married women cheat. If ones mental capacity cannot withstand the possibility of surviving the emotional abuse of discovering their spouse cheating on them, I offer them one piece of advise - don’t get married. Your chances of survival are significantly diminished.
IANAL, but I presume that if such mental anguish can be proven, the civil courts are the place to make the case.
If I were a lawyer, I would probably be pointing out how tortured your logic is, in comparing civil offenses with criminal offenses. In comparing criminal penalties (what you may call punishment, I may call protecting society) with criminal actions. Or even suggesting that vigilante justice (mob rule) is any justice at all. Downright scary.
Sorry, that’s not how it works, and cannot work that way in any free society. There is no one moral standard, everyone has their own. Your description above would result in anarchy. Civil disobedience to unjust laws is intended to change the laws, not to enforce unwritten laws!
If your arguments support a moral code, it is a moral code that has not been deemed acceptable to civilization for over two thousand years.
And what is a moral right? A right is something granted by law. We have already established that morals may be unique to individuals. There is no such thing as a moral right.
No. I don’t believe it is proper to respond to an attack with an attack. I have no problem with responding to a verbal attack with a verbal defense. I would be hard-pressed to come up an example of an attack on one’s mental and emotional well-being. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words…
So, I was wrong when I said the OP had conflicting information regarding whether the contact was consensual. The only information provided in the OP was that it was consensual!
My apologies on the confusion, AZCowboy. When I said “the OP did not have conflicting information,” I meant the original poster, not the original post. I’m basing my earlier statement on this post later in the thread:
This indicates to me that not only was the physical contact not consensual, but that the third person in this scenario initiated the aggressive physical contact (pushing away NPavelka’s hand/arm).
However, I believe I’m in danger of hijacking this thread, which isn’t about non-consensual physical contact, so I’ll back out now.
Sauron, I like to avoid hijacks myself, as I have noted in this thread.
I must note, so someone may correct me, but the use of the abbreviation of OP on SDMB refers to the Original Post, and not the Original Poster. If I don’t have this right, someone please inform me.
So if someone takes a solemn lifetime vow to be faithful, they have zero obligation to follow that vow?
I agree that no one has the right to enforce their own moral code on others. So if I started dating a woman, and I somehow convinced myself that that meant we were exclusive, but we had never discussed it, and then I spot her in an alleyway orally pleasuring 17 albino goatherds, I have no right to judge her for that. She did not wrong me.
If, on the other hand, we get married, and make serious commitments to each other, and have definitely clearly discussed our opinions of marriage, and part of our image of marriage is one in which sexuality is exclusive to each other, and then she cheats on me, then she has wronged me.
It was wrong of her to cheat. It was a bad thing to do. It was immoral.
Whether she had the “right” to cheat or not strikes me as a vague and pointless semantic debate. If someone wants to define what they mean by “having the right to do something”, I suppose we could debate it, but it seems pretty abstruse.
Back to the specific topic of the thread at hand, I agree entirely with MGibson. If Bob catches Mary in the sack with Fred, and he assaults either Mary or Fred to a minor or major degree, said assault is not excused by the circumstances, but the circumstances should certainly be viewed as a mitigating factor while judging Bob, both legally and morally.
IF something is not addressed by laws (or is addressed wrongly, such as laws enforcing slavery), and IF this something is very important (i.e., not some arcane regulation about the price of cabbages in Denmark) then civil disobedience is permissible. Of course there may be legal results from this disobedience, and these should be expected and dealt with. That is, if one is willing to protest an unjust law one must be willing to deal with the results of breaking that law. I never said that someone should “get away with” (legally) what they do, only that they may be morally permitted to do so.
I am not trying to punish anyone for disagreeing with me. Nor did I ever say that those who disagree with me should be punished. You are confusing “those who disagree with me” with “those who commit great wrongs”.
I see no difference between them except for the order in which they are applied. Aren’t they both instances of physical violence? What makes the second one justified is not what it is, but when it is performed - that is, in response to the first one. If it were performed before the first, then it wouldn’t be justified. This is why I say it is a Two Wrongs Make A Right system of morality: the justification of performing an action that would be otherwise wrong is permissible if it is in response to a wrong.
A system of morality that is not a form of TWMAR would be one that says, “Never use physical force. Period.” This would include force in defense of one’s self.
In Kindergarten I learned that if you misbehaved you would have priviledges taken away. I learned there are consequences for bad behavior.
I must admit that I do not see any distinctions between these that would have bearing on this debate. All are examples of physical force. I agree that some are justified and some are not. You seem to be denying what I find to be quite obvious: the only reason they are justified is when used in response to a wrong. If they were done otherwise, they themselves would be wrong.
My examples were for the purpose of showing that there is precedent for using physical force against those who have not themselves used physical force. Even the one example you did address reveals this. Without ever using or threatening physical force, a stalker can be threatened with the physical force of the police department. A restraining order is only as good as its enforcement. It is an order promising the use of physical force to keep so-and-so away from such-and-such if necessary.
True, and some adults believe the world is flat and the government is out to get them and that we should wear tinfoil hats. I think we should deal with reasonable, average people when deciding what should be permissible, not the extremes. Would an average reasonable person suffer severe, intense, and lasting emotional and mental pain from overhearing swear words? No. Would an average reasonable person suffer severe, intense, and lasting emotional and mental pain from being cheated on? Quite likely.
And most people lie. Doesn’t mean lying is a good thing. (BTW, I know it goes without saying, but those numbers are how many admitted to cheating.)
This is one reason why I am not married and probably never will be. Thanks for the advice.
I hope I don’t have to say this again, but we are discussing morality, not legality. At least, that’s what I’m discussing.
What I find scary is blind obedience to the law, any law, just because it’s a law.
Just to be clear - are you saying there is no objective right and wrong?
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Chaging laws means one law is stricken, and a new one is made.
A right is something granted by morality and recognized by law. Or are you seriously saying that before the civil war, blacks really didn’t have a right to freedom?
We have not established that, but I understand that’s what you believe. Different people believe different things about morality, but that does not necessarily mean that morality is purely subjective.
You are simply redefining attack as defense. Same thing, different name based on when you use it. If I go up to a random stranger and say, “Fuck you!”, that’s a verbal attack. It’s still the same thing even if I do it in response to someone else saying, “You’re ugly!”. We might choose to call it a defense. Makes sense; I’d call it that too. But it’s still the same thing that it was before, just used in a different situation.
Perhaps I’m just strange, but when people insult me I am often insulted. When people play passive-agressive mindgames (coughroommatecough ), that hurts one’s mental and emotional well-being. Spreading rumors behind someone’s back can hurt their mental and emotional well-being.
That’s right Max, they have ZERO obligation to follow that vow. You can "judge " them all you want, but you have no right whatsoever to put your hands on anybody.
When I talk about “rights” I am talking about legal rights, since those are the only rights that matter. “Moral” rights are completely subjective and meaningless. You can think she’s “immoral” all she want, that does not give you a legal right to commit violence.
Sorry, Knight but there is no such thing as “moral” right, because there is no such thing as objective “morality.” There are only OPINIONS about morality. You did say, Knight, that if your SO does something
Here is what you said, Blackknight:
>People do bad things. It is generally accepted that there should be punishment for bad things. When someone does something very bad, the punishment should generally be much worse than when they only do something mildly bad. When someone performs an act that may cause lasting harm to another’s emotional and mental state, something bad should happen to them as punishment.
Presumably you are the one who should do the “punishing?” I believe that WAS the implication of your argument. Are you not stating, then, that you personally should be able to punish a person who behaves in what you believe is an “immoral” manner towards yourself?
Didn’t you also learn that you weren’t allowed to take punishment of other people into your own hands? That we give that right up to authority figures for the sake of relative peace and harmony?
And isn’t that what we’re really arguing about here? Whether or not it’s “right” to give up the right to take morality and justice into our own hands when it involves other people? As for me, I gladly give up that right so as to protect myself from anyone who feels I’m infringing on his or her moral code and decides to rectify that situation with a gun.
I’d still like to see you address this (because I’m pretty interested in the answer, not because I’m implying that you think it’s ok):
I’d also like to see Diogenes respond to this one:
I think you’re right BlackKnight in the fact that “rights” are not founded in the realm of law, only supported by it.
), that hurts one’s mental and emotional well-being. Spreading rumors behind someone’s back can hurt their mental and emotional well-being.