tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3729753599444071830..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Manhattan Declaration Part III: InfidelityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1431301424075826942009-11-26T21:40:06.585-07:002009-11-26T21:40:06.585-07:00Even if there were no STDs, I think there would st...Even if there were no STDs, I think there would still be many strong reasons to promote monogamous relationships. In fact, I think these reasons are the more and stronger reasons that actually compel us to promote monogamous relationships: stable social structures that are more conducive to fulfilling many other desires.<br /><br />I also agree with Eneasz & Dan Savage, though, that it's possible that a "mostly monogamous" relationship might be the most stable. I think it's going to depend on the people in the relationship, and a "one size fits all" relationship model will not be optimal for everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25115533697331673642009-11-26T15:49:00.196-07:002009-11-26T15:49:00.196-07:00A large portion of those many and strong reasons c...<i>A large portion of those many and strong reasons comes from the many and strong reasons we have to prevent the spread of disease, and the desire-thwarting that those diseases bring. We get many of these reasons from preventing the spread of disease such as syphilis and AIDS. Recent medical research is showing that many forms of cancer - cervical, pancreatic, oral, anal, and even potentially some breast cancers - are cause by the spread of sexually transmitted viruses.<br /><br />We have many and strong reasons to hope that we, ourselves, do not get these diseases. We have many and strong reasons to hope that those we do not care about get these diseases, We should have many and strong reasons to hope that we can keep these diseases out of the future of any child's life. So, we have many and strong reasons to promote strong desires for extended monogamous relationships, and to condemn those who are promiscuous or adulterous - as well as those who promote and glorify promiscuity and adultery.</i><br /><br />Or, we could tell them to use condoms and get tested often. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2033/" rel="nofollow">I also think you're understating the benefits of promiscuity.</a>Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82189528478217115822009-11-25T11:57:39.996-07:002009-11-25T11:57:39.996-07:00eneasz
Clearly, I am not going to accept any clai...<b>eneasz</b><br /><br />Clearly, I am not going to accept any claim as to what is <i>natural</i> to have moral value. A thing can be natural and quite bad, or quite good. Its quality depends on things other than its naturalness.<br /><br />Also, claims about how monogamy is actually practiced are not going to have much moral weight. What we can expect from most people who drink is that they will sometimes drive while under the influence of alcohol. The fact that we can expect this behavior for most individuals does not change the fact that we have many and strong reasons to condemn it.<br /><br />Nor are stories about a few people who obtained a benefit by doing what was wrong and did not harm going to change the moral calculus. There are probably a great many stories of some drunk driver who reached his destination safely and in time to acquire something of great value to him. Yet the story on the morality of drunk driving will still be grounded on what tends to happen when people drive drunk - not on the specific exceptions.<br /><br />Adultery and promiscuity have a lot in common with drunk driving. They are both reckless forms of behavior that put at risk the life, health, and well-being of innocent people. One is a cause of accidents, the other is a cause of illness, but accidents and illness are alike in being desire-thwarting states.<br /><br />A perfect record of sober driving across the whole population is as unrealistic as perfect sexual fidelity. However, this still allows for the possibility that both drunk driving and infidelity are immoral when they occur.<br /><br /><i>I'm having a hard time accepting this. However isn't it plausible that the best route, in terms of both minimization of disease and preservation of multiple-decade relationships, may be to promote acceptance of monogamy-with-minor-allowances rather than a demand for pure-monogamy?</i><br /><br />It is possible.<br /><br />Desirism is an evidence-based theory, and the evidence may support such a conclusion.<br /><br />However, the risk here is that where "minor allowances" are allowed people have a bad habit of conceptualizing their own situation as falling within one of the exceptions. Even here, the analogy to drunk driving works. Allowing drunk driving with "some minor acceptions" (even though they cause a risk to the life, health, and well-being of innocent people) is an open invitation to people to wrongly think that they fit one of the exceptions.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43513471496495079252009-11-25T09:24:16.586-07:002009-11-25T09:24:16.586-07:00Dan Savage has often stated that "pure" ...Dan Savage has often stated that "pure" monogamy is a myth, and that monogamy, as it's actually practiced, consists of a mostly-monogamous couple with very infrequent dalliances by one or both partners. And that this is the <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/29/monogamy-isnt-realistic" rel="nofollow">natural state</a>. <br /><br />That post is but a brief taste, the argument is much more extensive. It includes such things as the percentage of people who have only one sex partner in their lives (almost zero), the percentage of long-term relationships where at least one partner has "slipped up" (over 50%), the fact that hysteria over expected-but-unrealistic pure-monogamy breaks up otherwise happy couples, and that some infidelity can sometimes save an otherwise happy but sexually-frustrated marriage (eg: Sen. Edwards).<br /><br />And he concludes that much like abstinence-only is a failure and does a lot of harm, expectation of pure-monogamy is a failure and does a lot of harm. That society would be better off if one accepted a small amount of safe and consensual "outside play".<br /><br />I'm having a hard time accepting this. However isn't it plausible that the best route, in terms of both minimization of disease and preservation of multiple-decade relationships, may be to promote acceptance of monogamy-with-minor-allowances rather than a demand for pure-monogamy?Eneasznoreply@blogger.com