Should adultery be re - criminalized?

[SlowFJH]

There's been a plethora of threads from OW in recent days. The general feeling on MN seems to be "cheating is always wrong". Yet most "civilised" countries have removed "Thou shalt not commit adultery" from their statute books many years ago. Was this a mistake?

Of course in those same countries it is still a legitimate grounds for divorce.

Sorry I was agreeing with Giddy there.

If you don't think infidelity is morally wrong then elaborate that argument and stop wasting everyone's time and energy with vague and obscured points which conflate morality with law. They are not the same thing.

It was illegal in the past because a wife was a chattel and adultery damaged her economic value as a piece of property. It was nothing to do with morals.

What has changed is the law's attitude towards the rights of women.

Offred
What makes you so sure that it is morally wrong?

Because things that cause harm to other people are morally wrong. Objectively speaking cheating on a partner causes them harm - physical harm, emotional harm and often financial harm.

What makes you unsure that it is morally wrong.

Less than two life times ago, it was considered morally wrong for a woman in England to be seen in public without gloves and a hat.

Moral judgements are just that - a personal opinion guided and shaped by the influences and mores of the time.

Saying "Personally I would prefer it if you didn't xyz" is very different to saying "xyz is morally wrong" (especially if the xyz in question has been decriminalized).

The moral relativism debate has been raging a long, long time...

Whatever side of the debate you sit on, I think most people would agree that lying to your partner, spending money on someone else to the detriment of your family, taking time out of the family in order to sleep with someone else, often picking fault with your partner in order to justify your actions to yourself - it's a pretty shit thing to do.

"Legality, morality and shittyness" is actually the title of my next book

Edit : shittiness??

I'm not sure about anything anymore

Serious point.. and here's my personal POV on this, I think the "most people would agree" is part of the problem. Unfortunately in the West we want to have our cake and eat when it comes to personal freedom and the pursuit of our own happiness. This often morphs into an inflated "YOLO" attitude...

At the same time, too many people are holding on to outdated views on what is or isn't a moral absolute (based, I would contend, on historic views about what another person should or should not do).

This mismatch is what is causing the pain.

Offered
Your very emphatic point from earlier..
Law. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Morality

Really?

Laws on
Homosexuality
Blasphemy
Illegitimacy
Sunday Trading

You think all of these laws were written, enforced and then often repealed with a complete separation of legal and moral considerations?

"Affairs are always morally wrong"

I tried to leave my violent, abusive ex yet he connived and manipulated his way back into my life so may times.

He knew I didn't want to be with him, but would just act as if I hadn't left him, or make threats. The police had to get involved in the end.

Was it "morally wrong" for me to have an affair with a friend who knew what was going on in these circumstances?

I don't think so.

It isn't morally wrong to have sex with a consenting adult in addition to having a sexual relationship with a regular life partner.

It is morally wrong to break a promise which forms the basis of an understanding of a life lived together.

One issue with a debate like this, is one can't see the credentials of those arguing. And Offred, while I respect you as a superbly helpful, regular poster you have particular skills in articulating that other posters simply don't have, which can, perhaps, shut down debate?

It would be really interesting to also hear from sociologists and have their thoughts on the matter, are there any here?

I wonder about the basic concepts of marriage and it's benefit to society and the economy in comparison to the benefit to individuals; male, female, rich and poor.

Also, does the rise in the nuclear family have an impact to our attitudes?

And, conversely, longevity?

Offered is right to say that the law is nothing to do with morality.

One of the problems at the heart of jurisprudence is that there isn't strong consensus about what does constitute the basis of law, but it definitely isn't a moral code. Promises have no standing in law for example, only contracts.

Quoting what was once law but now isn't must be folly: it is no longer law because it was bad law. Homosexuality was illegal and that was manifestly bad law based on prejudice, and should never have been law. Equally the denial of rape in marriage.

Law should never be based on moral codes, because 1) that isn't the point of laws in the first place and 2) there is no agreement on morality anyway. Some Islamic states have law dictated by religion and the injustices that arise for it are readily apparent to everyone.

Adultery is clearly in the camp of morality not legality, and the law should have no part in it. Imagine prosecuting people who attend swinger parties - the law would be a nonsense.

But don't morals change over time?

Sure "bad" laws get repealed eventually (hopefully). But what is it about us as human beings that enables and equips us to agree that law is now a bad law?

Offred makes absolute statements which do not go beyond "All affairs are immoral because I SAY All. Affairs. Are. Always. Immoral.

Many opponents of homosexuality used similar arguments (i.e. based on a personal definition of what is / is not morally proper in their eyes long after the bans on homosexuality had been repealed. They were (and many still are) convinced that "Homosexuality harms people, physically, emotionally and financially"

What one generation finds "outrageously immoral" - subsequent generations say "Really??"

Has adultery ever been illegal (or a criminal offence) in England? (I'm saying England as obviously uk / fb is historically relatively new

Sorry I have RTFT now and see that's been addressed

Surely the law is basically an official codification of society's "morals"?

And to say the two things are unrelated is rather obtuse I think

I think there is an interesting debate to be had on the impact of morality in law, especially around european legislation regarding human rights and the drivers behind this.

But mixing it up with religion and adultery is not the way to go about such a debate when we all operate within grown up secular societies.

Unless you want to feed the dailyfail journalist further, of course.

You think all of these laws were written, enforced and then often repealed with a complete separation of legal and moral considerations?

No, I know they were. They were about the harm caused to the practice of Christianity and protection of the church in a country where the church had always been a fundamental part of the legislature.

Things that are illegal may also be immoral. Human rights are one of those things. The consideration for lawmaking is the form of harm of something and the appropriateness of legislating.

And don't quote me saying something I didn't say.

I articulated why I believe all affairs are immoral. As you know. They cause harm to others.

I also earlier articulated that some affairs are more understandable than others but are still the wrong thing to do.