Should adultery carry legal penalties?

[Velasco]

What I find unacceptable in a western developed society is advocating the social ostracism of those found guilty of infidelity, especially is this call comes from our libertarian (liberticide?) folks

Just because others are free to act as they choose doesn't mean we aren't free to judge them for those actions.

You are free to have a negative opinion of other people's actions, but you are not entitled to act as an inquisitor with regard behaviours you don't approve. Social ostracism is libericide by definition, because its purpose is imposing a certain sense of morality to others

I can't control whether or not other people choose to ostracize someone. All I can say is that I find adultery (in the true sense of the word-- betraying a person who loves and cares for you) to be a singularly loathsome quality and I personally wouldn't want to interact with the kind of person who made a habit of such a thing. That's not being an inquisitor, that's having a preference.

My opinion is that a person is not entitled to claim for individual freedom while avoiding individual responsibility.  Claiming that you are not responsible if others choose to ostracize someone, just because that someone has a behaviour you disapprove, is the moral equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Personal convictions are tested in cases like this. If you believe in freedom, you can't tolerate inquisitorial attitudes towards adultery or other behaviours you disapprove from a moral standpoint.

As for infidelity (adultery has a medieval resonance), it's not a behaviour that I approve in a monogamous relationship. However, it's something that happens regardless our opinions or feelings on the matter. Sentimental relations are not used to last forever and love has an expiry date. Everybody can make mistakes, or simply find to be in love with another person while engaged in a relationship. Such things hurt a lot and can drive people mad. But like it or not, they are part of our lives and happen all the time. The best course of action, as well as the most difficult, is trying to learn forgiveness

[lfromnj]

No criminal penalties although a contract can include a different share from 50/50 in the event of divorce due to infidelity.

[John Dule]

My opinion is that a person is not entitled to claim for individual freedom while avoiding individual responsibility.  Claiming that you are not responsible if others choose to ostracize someone, just because that someone has a behaviour you disapprove, is the moral equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Personal convictions are tested in cases like this. If you believe in freedom, you can't tolerate inquisitorial attitudes towards adultery or other behaviours you disapprove from a moral standpoint.

Ostracism is simply the act of not engaging with someone. There is quite literally no meaningful parallel between that and crucifixion. And while I certainly oppose organized mobs persecuting individuals for their choices, nobody is under any obligation to treat other humans with respect if they do not feel that their respect has been earned.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My opinion is that a person is not entitled to claim for individual freedom while avoiding individual responsibility.

This is my opinion as well. Which is why I take hard moral lines against behaviors like infidelity.

[Velasco]

My opinion is that a person is not entitled to claim for individual freedom while avoiding individual responsibility.

This is my opinion as well. Which is why I take hard moral lines against behaviors like infidelity.

Yes, it's understandable. I'm not arguing in favour of infidelity, but against punishing infidelity with legal penalties, social ostracism or whatever measure that implies to condemn the infidel before the society, in a fashion resembling puritan or medieval times. The responsibility in a sentimental relationship concerns the persons involved. In case there is a legal contract like marriage, infidelity is a behaviour that can lead to divorce and other legal repercussions.  That is all. I have nothing to say if someone who is victim of infidelity decides not to speak to the infidel anymore. I can understand the pain and the grief. But some people here is arguing infidelity should be socially ostracized and I have to reject that vehemently, because the damage done by the most severe forms of social ostracism can be immense. Extreme isolation can destroy a human being.  I don't think infidelity is a sin to be punished with such a harsh treatment  it's not a behaviour that I approve and I realize it can be the cause of pain. But I think it should not be treated as a big offence, just as a common cause for sentimental rupture and divorce

[HisGrace]

My opinion is that a person is not entitled to claim for individual freedom while avoiding individual responsibility  

Pretty ironic statement in light of the rest of the rest of your comment. Someone has the freedom to cheat in that you shouldn't be legally prevented from doing so but you still have to take responsibility and face potential consequences afterwards, like losing your relationship or your social circle being mad at you. Those actually are just, proportionate punishments for it while going to jail is not.

Also, can we please stop talking about open relationships or "polyamory" in here? If both parties in the relationship agree that's not adultery. Adultery is when there was an agreement to be exclusive and one person deceives the other and breaks it behind their back. The idea that that is wrong is not "puritanical morality" it's the idea that you shouldn't be lying to the people closest to you in your life and that promises should mean something. No one's forcing you to make the promise if you can't keep it.

The best course of action, as well as the most difficult, is trying to learn forgiveness

It's 2021, man, no one does that anymore. If people can't forgive each other over mean tweets, sometimes over a decade old, what makes you think they can do it for something actually serious?

[afleitch]

It's perfectly fine for adultery to carry 'social' penalties but I'd question the intent of those who think they should air them.

Consenting threesomes or open relationships (which I don't personally subscribe to) shouldn't count as adultery. Nor would I judge a woman entrapped in a loveless or abusive marriage, without wielding power or legal ability to terminate it as being an 'adultress' by finding solace in the bed of another. In doing so you're giving tacit 'approval' of the abusive structure she is trapped in.

[HisGrace]

Yes, it's understandable. I'm not arguing in favour of infidelity, but against punishing infidelity with legal penalties, social ostracism or whatever measure that implies to condemn the infidel before the society, in a fashion resembling puritan or medieval times. 

Maybe read about the middle ages sometime man. They'd cut adulteresses tits off. Not even remotely the same thing as people getting mad at you for doing a bad thing.

But some people here is arguing infidelity should be socially ostracized and I have to reject that vehemently, because the damage done by the most severe forms of social ostracism can be immense. Extreme isolation can destroy a human being.

So basically you're saying the person who cheats is free to hurt other people but them getting hurt is completely unacceptable? Losing friends is a proportionate punishment for infidelity, as opposed to imprisonment or bodily mutilation. As you said, you can't claim the freedom to do something without also taking responsibility after you do it, that's part of having the freedom.

[Velasco]

Yes, it's understandable. I'm not arguing in favour of infidelity, but against punishing infidelity with legal penalties, social ostracism or whatever measure that implies to condemn the infidel before the society, in a fashion resembling puritan or medieval times.  

Maybe read about the middle ages sometime man. They'd cut adulteresses tits off. Not even remotely the same thing as people getting mad at you for doing a bad thing.

But some people here is arguing infidelity should be socially ostracized and I have to reject that vehemently, because the damage done by the most severe forms of social ostracism can be immense. Extreme isolation can destroy a human being.

So basically you're saying the person who cheats is free to hurt other people but them getting hurt is completely unacceptable? Losing friends is a proportionate punishment for infidelity, as opposed to imprisonment or bodily mutilation. As you said, you can't claim the freedom to do something without also taking responsibility after you do it, that's part of having the freedom.

You are distorting the argument. Friendship is a voluntary act, so people is free to befriend each other and it's not neccessary to legislate about it. If someone loses friends because of some infedility, that person will have to accept that's a consequence of a behaviour. Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.  People should act freely in these cases,  so some members of the social circle could decide by their own to unfriend the infidel and others could decide to continue with friendship (even dissapproving the behaviour). Some people is able to forgive, regardless of what you seem to believe. In sum, what I find inquisitorial and unacceptable Is the pressure and the encouragement that leads a certain social group to harass and condemn someone gregariously. That's a remainder of medieval mentality, in my view  (I love reading about the Middle Ages, btw). Every member of a certain group should react to someone's acts freely and out of pressure

 Also, can we please stop talking about open relationships or "polyamory" in here? If both parties in the relationship agree that's not adultery. Adultery is when there was an agreement to be exclusive and one person deceives the other and breaks it behind their back. The idea that that is wrong is not "puritanical morality" it's the idea that you shouldn't be lying to the people closest to you in your life and that promises should mean something. No one's forcing you to make the promise if you can't keep it.
 

I have never been engaged in that kind of relationship, but my understanding is that tríos and open relationships are different from polyamory. I don't understand why the people can't accept that others want to engage in such relationships, even though I find them a bit complicated

[John Dule]

Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.

I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating for this.

[Ferguson97]

Legal penalty no, but I believe it should exclude someone from alimony and should reduce their share of marital assets.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.

I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating for this.

I know I wasn't. We have freedom of association in this country, and there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

[Velasco]

Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.

I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating for this.

I know I wasn't. We have freedom of association in this country, and there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

I was referring to this quote in particular. The implications are more serious than they appear

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it. If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

There is a difference between saying "I personally disapprove that misconduct" and saying "this behaviour should carry more negative consequences for the offender un his or her social circle". Taking it to the extreme, the sentence In bold letters carries a a dangerous logic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.

I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating for this.

I know I wasn't. We have freedom of association in this country, and there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

I was referring to this quote in particular. The implications are more serious than they appear

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it. If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

There is a difference between saying "I personally disapprove that misconduct" and saying "this behaviour should carry more negative consequences for the offender un his or her social circle". Taking it to the extreme, the sentence In bold letters carries a a dangerous logic.

"Taking it to the extreme", almost any strong opinion "carries a dangerous logic". That's not unique to dead0man's opinion on infidelity.

[John Dule]

I was referring to this quote in particular. The implications are more serious than they appear

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it. If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

There is a difference between saying "I personally disapprove that misconduct" and saying "this behaviour should carry more negative consequences for the offender un his or her social circle". Taking it to the extreme, the sentence In bold letters carries a a dangerous logic.

There is an annoying undercurrent among the modern left that seems to think "freedom of choice" means "freedom from being judged or mocked by anyone else in society." Hence why the far-left frequently complains about "kinkshaming," condemns efforts to combat obesity, and not only tolerates but openly promotes drug abuse. This attitude is encapsulated in the oft-used internet maxim "Just let people enjoy things," which (although superficially valid) only serves to endorse self-destructive behavior. No, society shouldn't legislate morality-- nor should it enforce it through external pressure. But that doesn't mean we have to actively encourage these things, and it doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't feel free to condemn them. I am not going to raise my children by telling them that adultery, alcohol, marijuana use, and overeating are ok, and neither should anybody else. Otherwise we will end up in a society full of fat, drug-addled sex deviants, and the only people we'll be able to look down upon without incurring the wrath of the Equality Police will be bald middle-aged white men who watch Adam Sandler movies.

[Velasco]

Another question is encouraging or pressing the social circle of a person that commits infidelity to ostracize him or her.

I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating for this.

I know I wasn't. We have freedom of association in this country, and there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

I was referring to this quote in particular. The implications are more serious than they appear

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it. If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

There is a difference between saying "I personally disapprove that misconduct" and saying "this behaviour should carry more negative consequences for the offender un his or her social circle". Taking it to the extreme, the sentence In bold letters carries a a dangerous logic.

"Taking it to the extreme", almost any strong opinion "carries a dangerous logic". That's not unique to dead0man's opinion on infidelity.

Of course, but I was arguing in this thread against the logic implied in that sentence.

Said this, I want to clarify that I'm not against social condemnation towards criminal behaviours, hateful speech or bigoted racism. I staunchly oppose to social condemnation on issues related to sexual morals, though. Infidelity in particular is a behaviour that you can legitimately deem incorrect, but in no way it's a criminal offence deserving harsh punishments or social ostracism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again,

there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

[Velasco]

Again,

there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

Fair enough  but I don't think the general attitude of society towards infidelity is "charitable ". Also, given the multiple personal circumstances involved, I wouldn't raise a general case against infidels
.

There is an annoying undercurrent among the modern left that seems to think "freedom of choice" means "freedom from being judged or mocked by anyone else in society." Hence why the far-left frequently complains about "kinkshaming," condemns efforts to combat obesity, and not only tolerates but openly promotes drug abuse. This attitude is encapsulated in the oft-used internet maxim "Just let people enjoy things," which (although superficially valid) only serves to endorse self-destructive behavior. No, society shouldn't legislate morality-- nor should it enforce it through external pressure. But that doesn't mean we have to actively encourage these things, and it doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't feel free to condemn them. I am not going to raise my children by telling them that adultery, alcohol, marijuana use, and overeating are ok, and neither should anybody else. Otherwise we will end up in a society full of fat, drug-addled sex deviants, and the only people we'll be able to look down upon without incurring the wrath of the Equality Police will be bald middle-aged white men who watch Adam Sandler movies.

Most of your argument is nonsensical and I don't see a clear equivalence between infidelity and obesity or marijuana use. Isn't it "let's enjoy things" a libertarian slogan? I never said that. I get the impression that, while you oppose to legislate on such matters, you wouldn't oppose to mob lynching against adulterers. That's only some steps ahead of mocking or encouraging social pressure

[John Dule]

there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

Fair enough  but I don't think the general attitude of society towards infidelity is "charitable ". Also, given the multiple personal circumstances involved, I wouldn't raise a general case against infidels
.

There is an annoying undercurrent among the modern left that seems to think "freedom of choice" means "freedom from being judged or mocked by anyone else in society." Hence why the far-left frequently complains about "kinkshaming," condemns efforts to combat obesity, and not only tolerates but openly promotes drug abuse. This attitude is encapsulated in the oft-used internet maxim "Just let people enjoy things," which (although superficially valid) only serves to endorse self-destructive behavior. No, society shouldn't legislate morality-- nor should it enforce it through external pressure. But that doesn't mean we have to actively encourage these things, and it doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't feel free to condemn them. I am not going to raise my children by telling them that adultery, alcohol, marijuana use, and overeating are ok, and neither should anybody else. Otherwise we will end up in a society full of fat, drug-addled sex deviants, and the only people we'll be able to look down upon without incurring the wrath of the Equality Police will be bald middle-aged white men who watch Adam Sandler movies.

Most of your argument is nonsensical and I don't see a clear equivalence between infidelity and obesity or marijuana use. Isn't it "let's enjoy things" a libertarian slogan? I never said that. I get the impression that, while you oppose to legislate on such matters, you wouldn't oppose to mob lynching against adulterers. That's only some steps ahead of mocking or encouraging social pressure

Yeah, if there's anything I'm known for on this site, it's my support for mob rule.

[Velasco]

Yeah, if there's anything I'm known for on this site, it's my support for mob rule.

I have read that paragraph again and fail to see the logic in it. Where is the missing link between infidelity,  obesity and marijuana consumption? Who are those evil leftists encouraging overeating, drug abuse and cheating husbands? Who are those bald middle aged men? Are baldness and obesity signs of moral falling? Which solution is better against obesity: mocking the fatties, or educating people in healthy habits and regulation (tax the bloody sugar)? Isn't it weed a libertarian thing? I'm perplexed
?

[John Dule]

I have read that paragraph again and fail to see the logic in it. Where is the missing link between infidelity,  obesity and marijuana consumption?

A lack of self-control.

Who are those evil leftists encouraging overeating, drug abuse and cheating husbands?

In my experience many of them write for Vice.

Who are those bald middle aged men? Are baldness and obesity signs of moral falling?

Lol, what are you even on about now?

Which solution is better against obesity: mocking the fatties, or educating people in healthy habits and regulation (tax the bloody sugar)?

The fat positivity movement frowns on both of those options, so the distinction is meaningless.

Isn't it weed a libertarian thing?

"Libertarians are Republicans who like weed" is a phrase popularized by internet leftists. I have never met a libertarian who smokes marijuana.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again,

there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

Fair enough  but I don't think the general attitude of society towards infidelity is "charitable ".

As well it shouldn't be. What I'm saying--and what I'm evidently going to have to keep saying until I get sick of this thread--is that there are mechanisms of sanction that society has for its members that fall far short of ostracism, and that can and should be used in a great many situations in which sterner measures can't or shouldn't be. When my great-aunt Anna "Gorg" Gorglione found out that her sisters were cheating on their husbands while they (the husbands) were away fighting World War II, she chewed them out over the dinner table a few times and got them sh**tty Christmas presents.

Also, given the multiple personal circumstances involved, I wouldn't raise a general case against infidels

1. People keep saying this in this thread and I guess they have a point, but no amount of "multiple personal circumstances" changes the fact that the act of adultery looked at in the abstract is a sh**tty thing to do and the nature of the act militates against putting up with people doing it. If we're unwilling to say that some actions, as actions, are less morally acceptable than other actions just because "multiple personal circumstances" might apply in the lives of the people who commit them, then why talk about morality at all, on any subject?
2. "Infidel" in English is used exclusively as a dated pejorative for followers of religions other than the speaker's. It's never used to describe someone who's sexually unfaithful.

[Velasco]

Who are those evil leftists encouraging overeating, drug abuse and cheating husbands?

In my experience many of them write for Vice.

Libertarians are Republicans who like weed" is a phrase popularized by internet leftists. I have never met a libertarian who smokes marijuana

I see. Personally I woudn't advise you must encourage your children to embrace bad dietary habits or drug abuse, nor I think that cheating is a good thing. Adultery, on the other hand, is a novel written by Paulo Coelho. The Independent found the book shallow and full of cliché, while "the sex is aggressive and gratuitous". May I suggest you to stop reading Vice and never engage with Coelho?

Sure, "Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed" must be a cliché. It's not that you are lacking of common places and distorted images of the leftists and the issues they stand for. I never read Vice

I got tired of this thread, so game over

[Kingpoleon]

No, but I'm not surprised that there are libertarians arguing for it. Libertarianism was never about fostering a truly free and open society, and always about setting up a system to permanently entrench the existing power structures under the guise of muh contracts.

I would suggest reading Rose Wilder Lane & Isabel Paterson - unlike Rand, they are much better proponents of libertarianism than their male counterparts. If that upsets your mind, take some MacIntyre as a antidote afterwards.

no, but it should carry far higher negatives from the friends, family and acquaintances of those that do it.  If you're willing to stand in front of your god, your friends and loved ones and lie to their faces, you're not someone who can be trusted with much of anything.

I would argue that it ought to be, alone, grounds for impeachment. Trusting someone to be loyal to the American people and Congress who is not loyal to their wife is not just immoral, it’s illogical.

Right now, by the way, the military can expel members for adultery - see Kelly Flinn. In civilian law, however, the only notable example recently is John Raymond Bushey, who got fined $100 in Virginia over it.

[afleitch]

Again,

there plenty of ways to register intense social disapproval short of ostracizing people. This all-or-nothing attitude towards whether or not to treat an immoral behavior charitably is the cancer that's killing moral reasoning.

Fair enough  but I don't think the general attitude of society towards infidelity is "charitable ".

As well it shouldn't be. What I'm saying--and what I'm evidently going to have to keep saying until I get sick of this thread--is that there are mechanisms of sanction that society has for its members that fall far short of ostracism, and that can and should be used in a great many situations in which sterner measures can't or shouldn't be. When my great-aunt Anna "Gorg" Gorglione found out that her sisters were cheating on their husbands while they (the husbands) were away fighting World War II, she chewed them out over the dinner table a few times and got them sh**tty Christmas presents.

Women have both historically and to this day suffered disproportionately from legal and social charges of adultery. They often suffer blame even when they aren't the one who cheated. (Hillary Clinton et passim). Even women are more likely to blame other women for their husbands infidelity (Cardiff Met had a study on this in the age of online affairs looking at Facebook messages).

It's why I'm not a fan of airing even tacit dissaproval because we know it's effects and how it can be weaponised is disproportionate. And you can't balance it because the scales are too tipped towards misogynistic and patriarchal structures of power, roles and responsibilities.

Tldr; the real world implications disproportionately affect women. I think it's always worth pausing for thought.