vinsanity0
Active member
It's interesting to see you write this, considering your thoughts on marriage. When you discuss ethics and marriage you seem to place more importance on society's, and the government's, views rather than the people involved.
definitions of polyamory
- Thread starter Ravenscroft
- Start date
It's interesting to see you write this, considering your thoughts on marriage. When you discuss ethics and marriage you seem to place more importance on society's, and the government's, views rather than the people involved.
PolyNatural
Banned
Yes. Great example. Let's not forget I also said:
"This isn't to dismiss the idea that there seem to be some interpretations that are better substantiated than others. From outside any specific relationship, I think it can be reasonably maintained that some are more ethical than others."
In the context of marriage, I'm not granting more or less importance to any particular personal view. I'm simply looking at the issue from a detached perspective based on objective information such as specific statutes and how the interpretations of those definitions conflict with the non-monogamous nature of polyamory.
What we find when we do that is that in many cases marriage and polyamory are diametrically in opposition to each other, and therefore we're left to conclude that when the vows and agreements made when entering into marriage are in conflict with one's true views and behavior, that there is a compromise in the truth.
If the truth doesn't matter ethically to those getting married, then there's no problem with it for them, but others might have different views, including some percentage of the poly community. Personally, the truth matters to me, and I think it should matter to the community as well.
Last edited:
vinsanity0
Active member
"If the truth doesn't matter"...LOL. Law does not equal truth. What of people who enter into a marriage with the agreement that they are poly? Quite often laws have not caught up to society. There was a time in this country when biracial marriages were illegal. Did the law make that ethical? Not in my opinion. The law was unethical. Polygamy was outlawed in this country as a reaction to the LDS Church. How could that be considered ethical? Now gay marriage is legal in most states. Eventually polygamy will be legal.
PolyNatural
Banned
I never said that Law=Truth
It depends on the type of marriage and the rules around it.
I would say "No", but that's also different than what I'm referring to.
The nature of the truth I was referring to was stated fairly clearly. I'm not sure where the misinterpretation came into play. I'll try to be more specific. If the people getting married indicate in no uncertain terms that they agree to the marriage as defined in the laws applicable to that marriage as being monogamous, knowing full well that they don't agree to that condition, then they aren't telling the truth.
Furthermore, in many of these examples a declaration is made before some deity, entered officially into a government register, and pledged before a crowd of witnesses. Therefore these aren't trivial declarations that can simply be hand waved. It is lying on a fundamental level about a relationship that is one of the most important that people can make. From a detached and objective perspective, lying in this situation cannot be justified as ethical whether the two people getting married agree to both lie or not.
Ethically, if people don't like the marriage laws, then don't get legally married. It's not okay to lie on agreements and contracts to suit one's own self-interest unless perhaps there are greater ethical considerations that would come into play where one would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. But really, how often is that the case? Not very often. When was the last time you heard of a shotgun wedding taking place? Nobody is forcing these people to lie.
Last edited:
vinsanity0
Active member
Maybe things are different in Canada. Here, the Federal government has not legally defined marriage. The conservatives tried and failed. That leaves it to the states to decide. I don't know of any states that legally define marriage as monogamous. Florida marriage law only states that marriage is between two people.
My wife and I were never legally married. We lived together for over 20 years and referred to each other as husband and wife. However, Florida does not recognize common law marriage. Until 2016, what we were doing was illegal. Even though shacking up is now legal, committing adultery is not. So where did the ethics lie in that mess? If we were married and poly it would have been illegal. If we weren't married, but living together, it would be illegal. The only legal solution would have been to not get married, not live together, and not have sex with anyone who was married. The government should not have a right to dictate my personal life to that degree based on laws passed by religious zealots in 1868.
You claim to have not stated that law=truth, but then you go on to reiterate that law defines ethics. You argument is that it is unethical to not follow the letter of the law. I say that is pure nonsense. Laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other. Here are a couple of my wife's favorite quotes:
"Morality is moral only when it is voluntary"---Lincoln Steffens
"The law allows what honor forbids."---Rita Mae Brown
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to get married. I sort of wish we had now. Then I wouldn't have to jump through hoops to retain my home of the last 23 years.
My wife and I were never legally married. We lived together for over 20 years and referred to each other as husband and wife. However, Florida does not recognize common law marriage. Until 2016, what we were doing was illegal. Even though shacking up is now legal, committing adultery is not. So where did the ethics lie in that mess? If we were married and poly it would have been illegal. If we weren't married, but living together, it would be illegal. The only legal solution would have been to not get married, not live together, and not have sex with anyone who was married. The government should not have a right to dictate my personal life to that degree based on laws passed by religious zealots in 1868.
You claim to have not stated that law=truth, but then you go on to reiterate that law defines ethics. You argument is that it is unethical to not follow the letter of the law. I say that is pure nonsense. Laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other. Here are a couple of my wife's favorite quotes:
"Morality is moral only when it is voluntary"---Lincoln Steffens
"The law allows what honor forbids."---Rita Mae Brown
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to get married. I sort of wish we had now. Then I wouldn't have to jump through hoops to retain my home of the last 23 years.
PolyNatural
Banned
"Between two people" is monogamy. It doesn't have to use the word "monogamous" or monogamy. Here in Canada it's "between two people to the exclusion of all others". Regardless. Even if one somehow interprets that between two people doesn't constitute monogamy, then adding more still breaks the agreement, and it still makes no difference in principle.
There's room for interpretation in the words "husband" and "wife". For example in Encarta a wife is defined as a spouse, especially a married one. So I'd say the word "especially" isn't the same as "necessarily".
Exactly. Although I think adultery ( at least here in the West ) is more a matter for civil litigation in family law rather than criminal.
I don't follow the logic there.
I agree that people should have the freedom to define their own relationships their own way and in such a way that it provides equal benefits under the law for such things as health care, pensions, property rights, children, and so on. For the most part it seems that most of that can be done. But there are exceptions depending on where you are.
I get your point, but none of that is applicable because I never claimed "it's unethical not to follow the law". That is a mischaracterization of the situation. This isn't a case where people aren't free to choose not to become bound by the terms of the agreement that is spelled out. Where there is no choice and the law is unethical, then IMO it's ethically fine to ignore it, but be prepared to face the consequences. My point is different.
My claim is that voluntarily signing ones name and/or making a pledge or promise of some kind to abide by the terms of an agreement of any kind, whether it be an employment contract, a lease, a declaration of citizenship, or what have you, including whatever legal documentation and pledges are made surrounding a legal marriage, constitutes a voluntary promise and a personal decision to abide by the terms of those agreements. If one knowingly has no intention of doing that, they are lying. If at some point afterwards they knowingly break the terms of the agreement then they are failing to honor the agreement and have broken their promise. There is no loophole here.
Last edited:
vinsanity0
Active member
But there is a world of difference in "between two people" and "between two people to the exclusion of all others". I do see why we are not agreeing on this now. Two different cultures.
Here in florida husband and wife are defined as spouses, married to each other.
It should be. In Florida it is a misdemeanor.
There is no logic to follow, it was the law. The law made it a misdemeanor for a couple to cohabitate if they were not married. Like I said, it was finally struck down in 2016. For over 20 years we were breaking the law by living together. In order to avoid breaking the law we would have had to get married. However, by being married, we would be breaking the law by having sex with people outside the marriage. While polyamory is not addressed specifically in Florida law, it was illegal. It still is for married people. It is the very example of a Catch-22.
You seem to be saying that a marriage is a legal agreement between two people and the government. Here it is considered a legal agreement between two people. We are not promising the government anything. I don't know if this a difference between our two countries or just how you are interpreting it. I would love to hear from some other Canadians on this, as well as people from other countries as a comparison.
JaneQSmythe
Well-known member
I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that, where I live (Pennsylvania) the "terms of the agreement" (i.e. the wedding vows) are not proscribed by the government. I wrote ours, I know what they said! You and your partner take your $80 (cash only) in person to the county courthouse, you fill out the marriage license application witnessed by the clerk, you wait three days, you get married using whatever type of ceremony you like. If you don't want an officiant you request a "self-uniting" license (which costs the same as a regular license). After the ceremony the officiant (or the participants if a self-uniting license) signs the certificate (which just states that you got "married") and sends it back to the court to be registered. Done.
Back in my day you had to take your syphilis results with you to the courthouse, but that is no longer a requirement.
If you want to get "married" to someone else you have to get your marriage annulled or get a divorce - because you can only be "legally married" to one person at a time.
So, what I am failing to see is: What pledge or promise do you think is being broken? Where in the "legal documentation" is there anything about who you are having sex with?
Al99
Well-known member
I see that the discussion has shifted to the topic of marriage over the last few days - but I am going to go back to the last page with a comment (sorry for the delay - I was essentially off line for the last week as I was on a family vacation for the Thanksgiving holiday week).
Polynatural posted a refinement of his definition of polyamory:
I had noted that while "ethical" by itself might not be specific enough for the general public, it did offer perhaps a more nuanced concept of poly.
Ravenscroft offered a very valid counterpoint that essentially "ethical" is too nebulous a term:
However, we are back to the point that we must somehow define polyamory as more than just the manufactured combination of its Greek and Latin roots"" "many loves". Otherwise, we are then back to the place where we are defining the cheating married guy with two secret mistresses as "polyamorous" - there is no differentiation between consensual and non-consensual non-monogamy.
In a previous post, Ravenscroft replied to this conundrum with:
Which is a very admirable standard - but, as with ethical, perhaps too nebulous for a clear cut definition for the general public.
So - I still find myself returning to finding the more specific phrase "with the knowledge and consent of all involved" to be a necessary component of a standard definition for polyamory - in order to distinguish it from other forms of non-monogamy.
But - then again, that's just me - the discussion continues to be of interest as it looks at just what polyamory is.....
I am tempted to add a quote from one of my favorite spiritual texts to my tagline:
Let us not forget, however, that words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice removed from reality.
I hope all our USA folks have enjoyed a pleasant Thanksgiving week. Al
Polynatural posted a refinement of his definition of polyamory:
I had noted that while "ethical" by itself might not be specific enough for the general public, it did offer perhaps a more nuanced concept of poly.
Ravenscroft offered a very valid counterpoint that essentially "ethical" is too nebulous a term:
(Followed up by a very sound post to support his assertion).
However, we are back to the point that we must somehow define polyamory as more than just the manufactured combination of its Greek and Latin roots"" "many loves". Otherwise, we are then back to the place where we are defining the cheating married guy with two secret mistresses as "polyamorous" - there is no differentiation between consensual and non-consensual non-monogamy.
In a previous post, Ravenscroft replied to this conundrum with:
Which is a very admirable standard - but, as with ethical, perhaps too nebulous for a clear cut definition for the general public.
So - I still find myself returning to finding the more specific phrase "with the knowledge and consent of all involved" to be a necessary component of a standard definition for polyamory - in order to distinguish it from other forms of non-monogamy.
But - then again, that's just me - the discussion continues to be of interest as it looks at just what polyamory is.....
I am tempted to add a quote from one of my favorite spiritual texts to my tagline:
Let us not forget, however, that words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice removed from reality.
I hope all our USA folks have enjoyed a pleasant Thanksgiving week. Al
Last edited:
PolyNatural
Banned
I would dispute the claim that using the word "ethical" is too nebulous and that requiring "consent" is a better choice for the following reasons:
1. Ethical behavior appears to be the common denominator when coming to agreements about what is acceptable in poly relationships. The alternative is to accept that unethical behavior is just fine provided that consent has been obtained.
Perhaps there are those who might agree with the idea that unethical behavior is fine provided consent has been obtained, but I don't. I believe that if we are to create a common understanding about polyamory for the community at large ( which is what we're doing here ), that there is a responsibility to frame polyamory in an ethical context. That sentiment is also evident in poly reference material e.g. The Ethical Slut.
2. While it is true that ethics are largely subjective and heavily influenced by culture, it's not entirely accurate to claim that ethical principles are simply whatever we self-servingly want them to be. Principles like conflict of interest have tangible variables, and from a psychological perspective, emotional intelligence can be combined with that to form well reasoned ethical principles for handling material and emotional situations that can be assessed with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
Perhaps there are those who might agree with the idea that unethical behavior is fine provided consent has been obtained, but I don't. I believe that if we are to create a common understanding about polyamory for the community at large ( which is what we're doing here ), that there is a responsibility to frame polyamory in an ethical context. That sentiment is also evident in poly reference material e.g. The Ethical Slut.
2. While it is true that ethics are largely subjective and heavily influenced by culture, it's not entirely accurate to claim that ethical principles are simply whatever we self-servingly want them to be. Principles like conflict of interest have tangible variables, and from a psychological perspective, emotional intelligence can be combined with that to form well reasoned ethical principles for handling material and emotional situations that can be assessed with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
So given that the intent of using the word "consent" is to inject an air of ethics into the definition, but that it lacks the breadth to cover all contingencies and in some situations may itself be unethical, it makes more sense to use the term "ethical" than to use a specific situation that may or may not be ethical, and to leave interpretations for specific situations up to the individuals and the community at large.
IMO the community at large and individuals should recognize the merit of ideas other than their own that have been relatively well substantiated by thinkers who take an interest in the subject. So this is where we all put our 2 cents worth in. It's a worthwhile discussion.
All that being said, I do agree with the spirit of the point about vagueness, and can see how some further elaboration and case examples could be very helpful, and will add them as time and resources permit. I think that's how the discussion shifted into marriage. It was in the context of the ethical considerations.
Thanks for your input and wishes. It's a very good post, and your quote on words as symbols is worthy of reflection. FWIW I'd say that symbols are very powerful, and someone also once said something along the lines that the pen is mightier than the sword ;-)
Last edited:
I disagree. If we follow this line of reasoning, then consent isn't necessary for poly relationships. The intent of using the word "consent" has nothing to do with injecting an air of ethics into the definition and has everything to do with injecting "consent" into the definition. They are not interchangeable terms. There are things in this world that could be ethical according to some models of ethics that are not consensual.
What do you think that would solve? The the thinkers who take an interest in this subject have not agreed on one unifying ethical model and continually debate and challenge the various models that get presented by various thinkers. And there are *several* models of ethics out there that contradict each other.
This only works if ethical is used as a descriptor and not a definer, because an actual concrete definition of "ethical" that can be universally applied doesn't actually exist. However, there is a concrete definition of "consensual" that can be tested against scrutiny. Yes, within that scrutiny, you will find small variants around who can consent, etc, but this is far more testable a term than "ethical" is.
If something can only be defined anecdotally, then the definition needs revision.
vinsanity0
Active member
"Ethics" is subjective. "Knowledge and consent" is cut and dried.
At first I was fine with using the term "ethical". However, I have seen that not everyone operates under the same code of ethics. Personally, I cannot see how the knowledge and consent of everyone involved can lead to unethical behavior, as it is my understanding that the use of the term "ethics" implied that everyone was operating under the same code of ethics.
At first I was fine with using the term "ethical". However, I have seen that not everyone operates under the same code of ethics. Personally, I cannot see how the knowledge and consent of everyone involved can lead to unethical behavior, as it is my understanding that the use of the term "ethics" implied that everyone was operating under the same code of ethics.
Can you give examples of unethical behavior with the knowledge and consent of all involved? Because I have trouble imagining them in this context. (Ok, I can imagine just one, bdsm specific: Someone with self-harming tendencies giving consent to being harmed and the other doing so. But that's always arguable.)
On the other hand, I see clearly people arguing why it's more ethical to keep one's spouse in the dark than confront them with polyamory.
So maybe it's "ethical, in particular with the knowledge and consent of all involved".
Ravenscroft
Banned
FWIW, I'm not just trying to be argumentative -- details clearly matter.
Many people (whether someone living in a manner that everyone could readily agree is indeed polyamorous, or someone reading about it in the popular media) seem to have a questionable understanding of its underlying & necessary nuances. As a result, polyamory is seen as another form of kink, or interchangeable with swinging, or requires (not merely allows) subterfuge, or the same as hierarchal nonmonogamy (like most polygamy), or is anti-monogamy.
In part, when faced with such misunderstandings I generally prefer to just roll my eyes, & move along as necessary. On sites such as this, though, I find it difficult to turn a blind eye to the outfall from these failed apprehensions. Worse, people latch onto them (often in a self-seving manner), blast them across Facebook & their blogs, & even enshrine them as Truth in published books & science journals.
Contrariwise, it can also be interpreted that I simply have to let everyone know I'm nonmonogamous; this allows DADT (which would otherwise be a deal-breaker) to exist within polyamory.
(People have repeatedly tried to sneak in the notion that we have "emotionally intimate relationships" with our kids & siblings & parents etc.; does that mean we can only be poly if THEY know?)
And I get the impression there's lots of people who can't differentiate "consent" from "assent," thereby validating the notion that (say) my spouse doesn't really have any more say in the matter than I wish to grant her -- she wants to stay married to me, & can't really do much to stop me anyway, so she remains silent. Assent, not consent.
I'm also going to have to argue against polyamory being "an ability to form multiple relationships." There seem to be plenty of people who likely have the ability to carry out a high standard of nonmonogamy, but don't see much reason to do the heavy lifting of learning HOW to do it, much less do it WELL, so they merrily run roughshod over the core concepts yet claim the title & indeed feel fit to pronounce upon others' intimacy.
Conversely, being "poly-able" includes people who are entirely unaware of even the concept but might somehow be objectively validated as having the necessary skills or emotional maturity or whatever to be good at multiple relating should they ever drift in that direction.
Mostly, it's relationships that are polyamorous, not the people in them. Upon gaining hands-on experience in polyamory, those individuals will view the world in a different manner, even if they give up having multiple relationships, & I suppose in that sense might "be poly" even if they've stopped being poly. In a wider sense, though, people aren't actually polyamorous.
Even "poly relationship" needs much more solidity. That Newsweek blog claimed there are ~250,000 "poly families" in the U.S. ... but it's never explained WTF "family." If a woman has four ongoing lovers, & none of them is involved (or wants to be) with anyone else, then she can be said to have a poly relationship with them, but I can readily argue that THEY aren't themselves "in a poly relationship." And let's say that I'm married & we're both actively nonmonogamous, & one of my years-on lovers is in a similar situation, & we're separately domiciled -- is that one "family" or two or maybe three? How does my wife's married boyfriend affect this number?
Many people (whether someone living in a manner that everyone could readily agree is indeed polyamorous, or someone reading about it in the popular media) seem to have a questionable understanding of its underlying & necessary nuances. As a result, polyamory is seen as another form of kink, or interchangeable with swinging, or requires (not merely allows) subterfuge, or the same as hierarchal nonmonogamy (like most polygamy), or is anti-monogamy.
In part, when faced with such misunderstandings I generally prefer to just roll my eyes, & move along as necessary. On sites such as this, though, I find it difficult to turn a blind eye to the outfall from these failed apprehensions. Worse, people latch onto them (often in a self-seving manner), blast them across Facebook & their blogs, & even enshrine them as Truth in published books & science journals.
Oh, that it were so easy! Something so simple & obvious falls apart with very little prodding. On the one hand, it can readily be interpreted as saying that I've got to run around & get permission from everyone I'm intimately involved with (emotionally, sexually, financially, residentially) before doing anything intimate with another person (certainly getting approval before doing anything new!).
Contrariwise, it can also be interpreted that I simply have to let everyone know I'm nonmonogamous; this allows DADT (which would otherwise be a deal-breaker) to exist within polyamory.
(People have repeatedly tried to sneak in the notion that we have "emotionally intimate relationships" with our kids & siblings & parents etc.; does that mean we can only be poly if THEY know?)
And I get the impression there's lots of people who can't differentiate "consent" from "assent," thereby validating the notion that (say) my spouse doesn't really have any more say in the matter than I wish to grant her -- she wants to stay married to me, & can't really do much to stop me anyway, so she remains silent. Assent, not consent.
I'm also going to have to argue against polyamory being "an ability to form multiple relationships." There seem to be plenty of people who likely have the ability to carry out a high standard of nonmonogamy, but don't see much reason to do the heavy lifting of learning HOW to do it, much less do it WELL, so they merrily run roughshod over the core concepts yet claim the title & indeed feel fit to pronounce upon others' intimacy.
Conversely, being "poly-able" includes people who are entirely unaware of even the concept but might somehow be objectively validated as having the necessary skills or emotional maturity or whatever to be good at multiple relating should they ever drift in that direction.
Mostly, it's relationships that are polyamorous, not the people in them. Upon gaining hands-on experience in polyamory, those individuals will view the world in a different manner, even if they give up having multiple relationships, & I suppose in that sense might "be poly" even if they've stopped being poly. In a wider sense, though, people aren't actually polyamorous.
Even "poly relationship" needs much more solidity. That Newsweek blog claimed there are ~250,000 "poly families" in the U.S. ... but it's never explained WTF "family." If a woman has four ongoing lovers, & none of them is involved (or wants to be) with anyone else, then she can be said to have a poly relationship with them, but I can readily argue that THEY aren't themselves "in a poly relationship." And let's say that I'm married & we're both actively nonmonogamous, & one of my years-on lovers is in a similar situation, & we're separately domiciled -- is that one "family" or two or maybe three? How does my wife's married boyfriend affect this number?
vinsanity0
Active member
I think you are more on the authoritarian side.
At some point I have to cease to worry about what people think it is and concentrate more on what it is.
But there is such a thing as overthinking it.
And I'm sure some people do view consent in that manner. That is up to them to decide.
And this is fine as well. That is what I inform people my understanding of consent is. In any negotiation between two (or more) people these things are all defined. Regardless of what a person will consent to, consent is still consent.
BTW, I have no problem with DADT.
Not in my book. Aren't you the one who says people who are in the poly closet aren't poly?
When concocting a definition it is not required to take into account people who will not follow the definition.
Splitting hairs.
Did Newsweek have a citation for that number or did they just pull it out of their ass? But this is a good example of why it's better to look at people as polyamorous instead of relationships.
PolyNatural
Banned
Correct. Consent would only be required if it were ethical.
Of course it does.
That's only because it's seen as an ethical condition. Specifically to differentiate polyamory from cheating. If it weren't, then it wouldn't have been put in there ( obviously ).
It's not necessary that they're interchangeable.
You're making my point for me there.
It may help resolve situations where advice would be helpful in determining what action is best to take.
True, but that doesn't mean that one opinion is as good as the next. Some carry more weight than others depending on how well substantiated they are. Mere proclamations and self-serving points of view are generally less well substantiated than ones that take sets of principles into account that consider wider issues or the issues in greater depth.
That's true but it's also irrelevant. You need to provide something more substantial in order to give your position more weight than the reasoning I've outlined, specifically that requiring consent may or may not be ethical depending on the situation and therefore may not always apply, whereas ethics do always apply.
Not necessarily. The word "ethically" is itself defined in most standard dictionaries. However I would agree that examples and case studies could be helpful in clarifying exactly what is meant. I also think individuals deserve a degree of freedom in defining what is ethical for them in their situation. We don't always get to choose between absolutes, and I'm not going to be the one to try to write some sort of code of conduct whereby ever situation is defined down to paragraph and sub paragraph. I think general principles, and the guidance of fair-minded and well informed thinkers in the community should be sufficient.
Last edited:
PolyNatural
Banned
To see how the requirement for knowledge and consent could be could be seen as unethical all we need to do is consider a couple of possibilities. There are many, but in order to nullify the requirement all we really need is one. But here are two possibilities.
1. Mom and Dad give each other consent to have sex with their 12 year old daughter, and the daughter agrees. Now everyone has knowledge and has given consent. Should the poly community view that situation as ethical? I'm one of those who would not.
2. Someone in an existing relationship is drawn to someone outside the relationship, and those two have each other's knowledge and consent, but someone else in the existing relationship who also has knowledge refuses to give their consent because they hold some unreasonable personal grudge against one or the other or is demanding some sort of payment before they will provide consent. Should the poly community consider it ethical to use consent as a tool for leveraging some self-serving and unfair personal agenda? I'm one of those who would not.
2. Someone in an existing relationship is drawn to someone outside the relationship, and those two have each other's knowledge and consent, but someone else in the existing relationship who also has knowledge refuses to give their consent because they hold some unreasonable personal grudge against one or the other or is demanding some sort of payment before they will provide consent. Should the poly community consider it ethical to use consent as a tool for leveraging some self-serving and unfair personal agenda? I'm one of those who would not.
So again, the use of the word "ethics" covers these contingencies just fine. However the word "consent" clearly has issues. It resonates with people only in a specific context, and that seems fine until one realizes that there are wider considerations than the stereotypical view of what constitutes cheating. The more we consider that truth, the more problematic the term becomes. Whereas "ethical" doesn't appear to have any intrinsic problems. Meaning that it allows the baseline definition to remain coherent within a wide spectrum of contexts.
Last edited:
vinsanity0
Active member
1. Being underage, the daughter cannot give consent.
2. That is coercion, not consent.
Which you have yet to be able to provide a practical way to define or use since there is not universally applicable definition of "ethical", which makes your condition entirely subjective.
You need to provide something more substantial in order to give your position more weight than the reasoning I've outlined.
It is a *specific* condition that is definable.
You're operating under the assumption that ethics aren't generally applied in such situations. I'm talking about a baseline. Everything else you offer is merely fluff if you can't apply a clear definition to it. You could replace "ethical" with "moral" or "righteous" or "in line with my religion" and you would get the exact same result, hence it's not useful.
Never made any such claim.
There are well substantiated opinions on ethics from various well credited philosophers that are in conflict with each other. The field is full of them. If you hold the key to how to decide which is better substantiated than others, I'm sure there are many DPhil students who would love to meet you.
Ah. I see. You're operating on the assumption that many of us haven't considered these issues in greater depth or that none but you have applied any study to the subject and are merely being self-serving when we hold our positions. Well, those are merely your assumptions. And there are plenty of moral philosophers who would point out that self-serving fits well with their ethical models anyway, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to include such a phrase.
Calling into question your need to use a word as a definer when you cannot provide an applicable definition for it is quite relevant, regardless of your unsubstantiated declaration that it isn't. You'll need to provide something more substantial in order to make your reasoning stand up to scrutiny. Specifically, you need to provide evidence that your use of the word "ethical" can retain its meaning when it can be applied in completely opposite ways depending on which ethical philosophies you adhere to. Then explain how consent is subject to the same opposite applications, since you feel that such a word is unnecessary.
Then you concede that using your word within the definition is insufficient. Hence the need for words that provide more clarity, such as "consensual".
I think most people would agree. Where you appear to differ is in your assessment of how much people have already thought of these things and come to the conclusion that "consensual" needs to be in the definition in order for its meaning to stand up to testing and scrutiny.
(I'm under no illusion that any of this will have any effect on your entrenched point of view)
PolyNatural
Banned
It doesn't say "legal consent" it just says "consent", so now you'd have to add "legal consent" and start drawing up all the rules for all the exceptions in specific terms when it's not necessary. Simply saying "ethical" covers the bases just fine.
And again my point is being made for me. It's using the requirement of consent in an unethical manner, which would not be possible if it simply wasn't a requirement in the first place, and the only requirement is "ethical". Otherwise you'd have to say something like "full knowledge and legal or ethical consent" which is completely redundant when "ethical" without specific conditions covers all contingencies.
Last edited: