World's happiest man..

[Settrah]

There's gotta be a catch.

There's always a catch.

[New haven america]

And if you told the Kali Hindu worshippers of India that human sacrifice is bad, well then you'd probably be sacrificed to Kali as that is basically a blasphemous statement towards them. (Well, they kinda can't now cause the Indian government has told them not to, but it ain't stoppin' them from trying)

Morality only means what a group decides it means, and that is subject to change throughout the world.

No. No. That's cultural relativism. Morality, as mentioned previously, is the distinction of what is right and wrong, not the individual or collective perceptions of it.

The bolded is exactly one of the reasons why morality is subjective.

[Settrah]

Morality is subjective because there is no one true universal moralty. Different doctrines and narratives have their interpretation of what their moral guidelines are.

Some reactionary religious thinking would claim that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it obviously f#@$ing isn't.

[Bombadil]

One might possibly derive some degree of objective morality on the basis of fairness, or aversion to inequity, that to take something, a life, an object or even sense of security, without due recompense is unfair and thus immoral. Primates recognise fairness, I doubt they recognise morality as much so I'd likely say morality arises, in part at least, from that sense of fairness.

Thus one might argue that in sleeping with twins the boyfriend is enjoying an unfair benefit, but unfair to whom? I suspect that argument doesn't stand and so this is not an immoral issue.

I mean, I don't doubt someone would make an argument that -- by having two girlfriends -- the boyfriend is depriving another man of his chance at a girlfriend, and that would be unfair.

But, as no-one (contrary to what some persons seem to think) has an entitlement to either sex or love (thus the boyfriend is not taking someone's right) there's no unfairness there either.

I think there is an international, and cross-species (at least with certain primates) code that recognises fairness (prohibitions against murder, rape and robbery would apply). We could call that "morality". But, then you get so many people trying to bunch so many other cultural and historical laws, from various religious and philosophical texts, under that same umbrella (the whole pro-wife-beating/evil-left-handedness metric) and, of course, people get uncomfortable.

..and it's ironic that the jump to defend objective morality in this thread follows off the entirely subjective 'moral' that monogamy and sex only within marriage is morally correct.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

Certain principles remain unchanged over time, because society has decided it is beneficial for them to remain so: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.

Other principles have changed. Marrying a minor used to be acceptable (even quite recently; now, society is generally appalled by the idea). LGBTQ people used to be regarded as mentally ill; we have now learned that being gay is at least largely innate and that is no longer held to be true in most Western countries (except by a vocal minority). It used to be acceptable to beat your wife; now it will land you in jail in many countries. Writing with the left hand was regarded as evil (now we would probably laugh at anyone who made that assertion).

All moral standards that have changed with greater understanding. All of which suggests that morality is adapted from what is seen as the standard for the time.

One might possibly derive some degree of objective morality on the basis of fairness, or aversion to inequity, that to take something, a life, an object or even sense of security, without due recompense is unfair and thus immoral. Primates recognise fairness, I doubt they recognise morality as much so I'd likely say morality arises, in part at least, from that sense of fairness.

Thus one might argue that in sleeping with twins the boyfriend is enjoying an unfair benefit, but unfair to whom? I suspect that argument doesn't stand and so this is not an immoral issue.

You talked about fairness. What could qualify to achieve fairness? These qualifications are the principles that people hold to achieve this level of "fairness", in the attempts of being moral.

One could argue that the intentions of this couple to engage in a polygamous sexual relationship, outside of marriage, as immoral. I would at least. It isn't because I am old-fashioned or a religious nut. It's just that I hold certain principles of value, that I consider universal to all human beings. If I were to list them, they would be in such order: Life, Liberty, Justice, Faith, Intellect, Family, Property, Progeny, and Honor. These would be my guiding principles, and I as a rational agent would deduce which actions would be right or wrong by those governing clauses. Any action or intent that would undermine one or more of these principles, would be immoral. And any that would further them would be, more than just "right", but encouraged, for they would be beneficial. I would immediately condemn a sexual relationship outside of marriage because it is against Life, Progeny, and Family. How? Well that lies at the very essence of what is a beneficial relationship, marriage. A relationship outside of it demands no legal, spiritual, moral, ethical, or practical responsibility, and it can be reduced to merely a sexual exchange the likes of animals and beasts. If the parties would procure a child, who would support him/her? This would remain unanswered and would result in an unstable family for the child and would likely result in the bad raising of the child. Why? Because there were no declarations of mutual responsibility for anything procured in the relationship.

This at least, is a good representation of how morality works in a practical sense for an individual agent.

[Bombadil]

Morality is subjective because there is no one true universal moralty. Different doctrines and narratives have their interpretation of what their moral guidelines are.

Some reactionary religious thinking would claim that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it obviously f#@$ing isn't.

I think one can separate cultural/religious morality from more objective morality. In the case of homosexuality then many cultural or religious moralities might hold it as immoral but within objective morality one would say to treat anyone differently, certainly at a disadvantage to the rest of society, due to sexuality is in and of itself morally wrong. Hence we've moved to the less cultural/religious view to the more objective view that discrimination based on a variety of things is immoral because it's unfair.

[The Free Joy State]

I mean, I don't doubt someone would make an argument that -- by having two girlfriends -- the boyfriend is depriving another man of his chance at a girlfriend, and that would be unfair.

But, as no-one (contrary to what some persons seem to think) has an entitlement to either sex or love (thus the boyfriend is not taking someone's right) there's no unfairness there either.

I think there is an international, and cross-species (at least with certain primates) code that recognises fairness (prohibitions against murder, rape and robbery would apply). We could call that "morality". But, then you get so many people trying to bunch so many other cultural and historical laws, from various religious and philosophical texts, under that same umbrella (the whole pro-wife-beating/evil-left-handedness metric) and, of course, people get uncomfortable.

..and it's ironic that the jump to defend objective morality in this thread follows off the entirely subjective 'moral' that monogamy and sex only within marriage is morally correct.

But you forget... your own morals are always objective.

One might possibly derive some degree of objective morality on the basis of fairness, or aversion to inequity, that to take something, a life, an object or even sense of security, without due recompense is unfair and thus immoral. Primates recognise fairness, I doubt they recognise morality as much so I'd likely say morality arises, in part at least, from that sense of fairness.

Thus one might argue that in sleeping with twins the boyfriend is enjoying an unfair benefit, but unfair to whom? I suspect that argument doesn't stand and so this is not an immoral issue.

You talked about fairness. What could qualify to achieve fairness? These qualifications are the principles that people hold to achieve this level of "fairness", in the attempts of being moral.

One could argue that the intentions of this couple to engage in a polygamous sexual relationship, outside of marriage, as immoral. I would at least. It isn't because I am old-fashioned or a religious nut. It's just that I hold certain principles of value, that I consider universal to all human beings. If I were to list them, they would be in such order: Life, Liberty, Justice, Faith, Intellect, Family, Property, Progeny, and Honor. These would be my guiding principles, and I as a rational agent would deduce which actions would be right or wrong by those governing clauses. Any action or intent that would undermine one or more of these principles, would be immoral. And any that would further them would be, more than just "right", but encouraged, for they would be beneficial. I would immediately condemn a sexual relationship outside of marriage because it is against Life, Progeny, and Family. How? Well that lies at the very essence of what is a beneficial relationship, marriage. A relationship outside of it demands no legal, spiritual, moral, ethical, or practical responsibility, and it can be reduced to merely a sexual exchange the likes of animals and beasts. If the parties would procure a child, who would support him/her? This would remain unanswered and would result in an unstable family for the child and would likely result in the bad raising of the child. Why? Because there were no declarations of mutual responsibility for anything procured in the relationship.

This at least, is a good representation of how morality works in a practical sense for an individual agent.

Case in point to my reply to Bombadil

Marriage as the beneficial relationship is a subjective opinion, and many would disagree with it (and quite a few of the people who would disagree would disagree having been married). Furthermore, research indicates that being married isn't necessarily beneficial to children, with children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples and children of single parents no less happy than those with two parents (it's the quality of relationship that matters).

So, using marriage as an example of morality is the very definition of subjectivity. Evidence does not support it, merely opinion.

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

[The Blaatschapen]

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Well, that is just your opinion

[The Free Joy State]

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Well, that is just your opinion

I don't care for your opinion of my opinion. Time to rustle up some "alternate facts" (I hear they're still very much the "in" thing)

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Well said, that is just your correct opinion

Much better!

I'm sure I'd make a fine *shudder* spin-doctor.

[The Grims]

So if one gets pregnant and the other not.. they will abort ?

[Purpelia]

What consenting adults get up to in the confines of their bedroom is none of my concern. If anything I am happy for them for having found such an understanding boyfriend so that hey can share everything in life like a good family.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

..and it's ironic that the jump to defend objective morality in this thread follows off the entirely subjective 'moral' that monogamy and sex only within marriage is morally correct.

But you forget... your own morals are always objective.

You talked about fairness. What could qualify to achieve fairness? These qualifications are the principles that people hold to achieve this level of "fairness", in the attempts of being moral.

One could argue that the intentions of this couple to engage in a polygamous sexual relationship, outside of marriage, as immoral. I would at least. It isn't because I am old-fashioned or a religious nut. It's just that I hold certain principles of value, that I consider universal to all human beings. If I were to list them, they would be in such order: Life, Liberty, Justice, Faith, Intellect, Family, Property, Progeny, and Honor. These would be my guiding principles, and I as a rational agent would deduce which actions would be right or wrong by those governing clauses. Any action or intent that would undermine one or more of these principles, would be immoral. And any that would further them would be, more than just "right", but encouraged, for they would be beneficial. I would immediately condemn a sexual relationship outside of marriage because it is against Life, Progeny, and Family. How? Well that lies at the very essence of what is a beneficial relationship, marriage. A relationship outside of it demands no legal, spiritual, moral, ethical, or practical responsibility, and it can be reduced to merely a sexual exchange the likes of animals and beasts. If the parties would procure a child, who would support him/her? This would remain unanswered and would result in an unstable family for the child and would likely result in the bad raising of the child. Why? Because there were no declarations of mutual responsibility for anything procured in the relationship.

This at least, is a good representation of how morality works in a practical sense for an individual agent.

Case in point to my reply to Bombadil

Marriage as the beneficial relationship is a subjective opinion, and many would disagree with it (and quite a few of the people who would disagree would disagree having been married). Furthermore, research indicates that being married isn't necessarily beneficial to children, with children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples and children of single parents no less happy than those with two parents (it's the quality of relationship that matters).

So, using marriage as an example of morality is the very definition of subjectivity. Evidence does not support it, merely opinion.

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Ooo what a nice way to churn out deception. Take note of: "children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples and children of single parents".

Yeah, what a nice and honest way to characterize marriage, through the "children of divorce" and "the children of fighting married couples". Look, of course, the quality of the relationship is the primary factor in determining the upbringing of children. Yet, you don't see that marriage is the only sort of relationship that provides that foundation for a high-quality relationship to prosper.

I suggest you read The Future of Children, which states, in part: “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes...” One reason married parenthood is best for children is because of the stability it provides. “On average, no other relationship delivers the kind of stability marriage does", according to IFS senior fellow W. Bradford Wilcox. "Across the United States and much of Europe, parents who marry before having children are markedly more likely to stay together." Marriage also protects children against poverty. While single-mother families are more than five times as likely to experience poverty as married-parent families, single fathers and cohabiting parents are also more likely to live in poverty.

We also know that children are safer in married-parent families. They have a lower risk of being exposed to domestic violence because married women are less likely to experience physical abuse than single or cohabiting women. Likewise, children are at the greatest risk of abuse and neglect when they live with their unmarried mother and her boyfriend.

It is also important to note the importance of a father in the family. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) explained in a 2016 report:

Fathers do not parent like mothers, nor are they a replacement for mothers when they are not at home; they provide a unique, dynamic, and important contribution to their families and children.

Morality is subjective because there is no one true universal moralty. Different doctrines and narratives have their interpretation of what their moral guidelines are.

So, using marriage as an example of morality is the very definition of subjectivity. Evidence does not support it, merely opinion.

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Marriage was never framed as an example of morality. I showed it to be moral by the moral standards I have established.

Anything supported by manipulated evidence is not true.

There is a difference between the ultimate difference between right and wrong, and the perception of a people whether something is to be right or wrong.

So if one gets pregnant and the other not.. they will abort ?

One better not hope for such murder.

[Samudera Darussalam]

So if one gets pregnant and the other not.. they will abort ?

This is really a good question. I wonder the same
But let's hope that scenario won't be happened.

[The New California Republic]

So if one gets pregnant and the other not.. they will abort ?

This is really a good question. I wonder the same
But let's hope that scenario won't be happened.

They have likely got some really creepy sex rota system in place that is timed to the millisecond during periods of ovulation, to maximize the odds of both of them getting pregnant at the same time.

[The Grims]

This is really a good question. I wonder the same
But let's hope that scenario won't be happened.

They have likely got some really creepy sex rota system in place that is timed to the millisecond during periods of ovulation, to maximize the odds of both of them getting pregnant at the same time.

Seems.to take all the fun out of sexy times.
Perhaps that is the catch.

[Settrah]

This is really a good question. I wonder the same
But let's hope that scenario won't be happened.

They have likely got some really creepy sex rota system in place that is timed to the millisecond during periods of ovulation, to maximize the odds of both of them getting pregnant at the same time.

It'll be bad though if one had an issue where she couldn't bear his child (or any child), but the other could no problem.

Or they both can, but one had complications and the baby died, but the other baby with the other woman was fine.

Imagine the resentment.

[The Free Joy State]

But you forget... your own morals are always objective.


Case in point to my reply to Bombadil

Marriage as the beneficial relationship is a subjective opinion, and many would disagree with it (and quite a few of the people who would disagree would disagree having been married). Furthermore, research indicates that being married isn't necessarily beneficial to children, with children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples and children of single parents no less happy than those with two parents (it's the quality of relationship that matters).

So, using marriage as an example of morality is the very definition of subjectivity. Evidence does not support it, merely opinion.

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Ooo what a nice way to churn out deception. Take note of: "children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples and children of single parents".

Nice way to exploit a missing comma and chop down my sentence.

Not a good start to constructive discussion.

. Furthermore, research indicates that being married isn't necessarily beneficial to children, with children of divorce being better off than children of fighting married couples, and children of single parents no less happy than those with two parents (it's the quality of relationship that matters).

That's better, isn't it.

The children of single parents are also no less happy that those with two parents. Nice and clear.

Yeah, what a nice and honest way to characterize marriage, through the "children of divorce" and "the children of fighting married couples". Look, of course, the quality of the relationship is the primary factor in determining the upbringing of children. Yet, you don't see that marriage is the only sort of relationship that provides that foundation for a high-quality relationship to prosper.

That wasn't what the sentence said, and chopping it up -- inserting a period where there wasn't one -- doesn't look very good. Just sayin'.

I suggest you read The Future of Children, which states, in part: “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes...” One reason married parenthood is best for children is because of the stability it provides. “On average, no other relationship delivers the kind of stability marriage does", according to IFS senior fellow W. Bradford Wilcox. "Across the United States and much of Europe, parents who marry before having children are markedly more likely to stay together." Marriage also protects children against poverty. While single-mother families are more than five times as likely to experience poverty as married-parent families, single fathers and cohabiting parents are also more likely to live in poverty.

No. We do not know that. Some studies, mostly conducted by the same scholars -- such as Sara McLanahan (whom you were quoting) -- suggest that.

Others suggest quite the opposite:

So I wasn't surprised when the results of a national substance abuse survey, based on 22,000 adolescents, found more substance abuse among the children of single mothers than among the children of two biological parents. But, considering the rhetoric about single parenting, I was struck by how few of the children of single mothers had substance problems - 5.7% -- and how similar the number was for the children of two biological parents - 4.5%. A difference of about one percentage point is not a very big return on twice the love, attention, and resources.[…]

In a nationally representative sample of many different kinds of households - two-parent biological households, single-mother households, adoptive households, stepmother, and stepfather households - there were no differences at all[…]

Sometimes children of single parents do better than children of married parents. For example, a study of hundreds of 10- to 14-year olds and their parents showed that in their day-to-day lives, single parents were friendlier to their children than were married parents. […]

Are single parents more likely to live in poverty. Yes. Does that mean, objectively, that single parenthood is bad? No. It means that governmental support needs to be improved, that social support needs to be improved, the single motherhood needs to be destigmatised.

When all that happens, when women can choose to become single mothers and be supported, current research indicates no difference in outcomes.

We also know that children are safer in married-parent families. They have a lower risk of being exposed to domestic violence because married women are less likely to experience physical abuse than single or cohabiting women. Likewise, children are at the greatest risk of abuse and neglect when they live with their unmarried mother and her boyfriend.

That is usually due to the boyfriend, not the mother.

And fathers, married to the mothers, have been known to beat their children. To kill their children. Marriage isn't a cure-all for abuse.

It is also important to note the importance of a father in the family. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) explained in a 2016 report:

Fathers do not parent like mothers, nor are they a replacement for mothers when they are not at home; they provide a unique, dynamic, and important contribution to their families and children.

A good father can be a wonderful thing.

But a bad father can be a malign influence that children are better off without.

"When children are better off fatherless":

Michael Lamb, a Cambridge psychologist, wrote in 2010, “We think it is misguided to see increased paternal involvement as a universally desirable goal.” Certainly it is optimal to have two parents** who love and nurture their children, but rather than insist that all men can be good fathers, we should fill the lives of children with love and support from untraditional directions.

In the 2013 book “Fathers in Cultural Context,” Joseph Pleck of the University of Illinois writes: “The notion that fathering is essential to children’s social and personality development seems to be a uniquely American preoccupation. Current research actually provides little support for … this popular conception of paternal essentiality.”

(**although the author doesn't specify the gender of those parents)

So, using marriage as an example of morality is the very definition of subjectivity. Evidence does not support it, merely opinion.

Anything supported only by opinion can never be objective.

Marriage was never framed as an example of morality. I showed it to be moral by the moral standards I have established.

Anything supported by manipulated evidence is not true.

There is a difference between the ultimate difference between right and wrong, and the perception of a people whether something is to be right or wrong.

Presenting evidence that disagrees with your personal conclusions is not manipulating evidence. It's merely presenting evidence you choose not to accept.

And, trying to prove there are objective moral standards by talking about your personal moral standards kind of defeats the point.

But that's your business...

[Ethel mermania]

A source.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/03/worlds-mo ... boyfriend/

1. Those women are nuts, there is no law against nuts.
2. It is morally wrong to disappoint a woman, so I think poor Ben must stiffen up and do his duty.

[Purpelia]

One better not hope for such murder.

Why care? It's not like the thing's alive. If they want to scrape it out and try again I say go for it.

[Trumptonium1]

I went from "holy shit, that's a dream deal" to (*slowly backs away*) following a few minutes of browsing google images of their VERYYYYYYYYYY creepy faces.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Yeah thats a bit odd. Dont think i could do it.

[British Tackeettlaus]

I was thinking "this is fine". Then their appearance did cloud my judgement, changed my answer to thinking "this is a little odd". I always suspect that people who have that huge amount of cosmetic surgery, until they look like robots/mannequins, have some pretty serious mental health shit going on. It kind of makes me question their judgement more.

But who am I to judge? Nothing illegal going on.

EDIT:

Holy crap I exactly agree with Trumptonium for once

I went from "holy shit, that's a dream deal" to (*slowly backs away*) following a few minutes of browsing google images of their VERYYYYYYYYYY creepy faces.

[Costa Fierro]

Technically I cannot see anything wrong with this

Welcome to the wonderful world of de facto relationships.

[Samudera Darussalam]

This is really a good question. I wonder the same
But let's hope that scenario won't be happened.

They have likely got some really creepy sex rota system in place that is timed to the millisecond during periods of ovulation, to maximize the odds of both of them getting pregnant at the same time.

It's.....getting creepier the more you imagine about it.
I'll just settle down and watch. The business with their children as "half sibling but also cousin" still gets my mind spinning, but it's human we talked about.

[Risottia]

What really puzzles me is how do they plan to become pregnant at exactly the same time.

Maybe after blowing 250 k$ on their own cosmetic surgery they blew some more on penile surgery for him...

There's gotta be a catch.

There's always a catch.

Well, they're objectively fugly.