What is justice?What is Right or Wrong Morally?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Monogamy allows everyone (or rather the greatest number of possible people, as there is not enough people in the world for everyone) to experience companionship, which would be more fair than some people having multiple partners and being fulfilled, and some people having none and not being fulfilled.

By choosing that which is fair to everyone.

Such a choice does not exist, certainly not if it's a principle chosen universally. "You can't please everyone" as the saying goes. In fact, I dare say more people would be fulfilled if they were allowed to chose for themselves than follow some universal. For example, some people might find it is more fulfilling to be monogamous, others might prefer polyamory, others might prefer no marriage at all. To force everyone into the same standard would reduce the number of people who are fulfilled.

I'm not saying people should be coerced into marrying, but that, to allow marriage to be open to as many people as possible, we would have to limit the its openness.

[The Grims]

And the same can be said about monogamy or bachelorhood. Any one of these being applied universally would not lead to everyone else being fulfilled, and surely people could be fulfilled otherwise.

Monogamy allows everyone (or rather the greatest number of possible people, as there is not enough people in the world for everyone) to experience companionship, which would be more fair than some people having multiple partners and being fulfilled, and some people having none and not being fulfilled.

A polygamous marriage with 4 people gives just as many people companionship as 2 monogamous marriages do.
Except they have more companionship per person in thr polygamous situation, so according to your reasoning monogamy is bad.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Monogamy allows everyone (or rather the greatest number of possible people, as there is not enough people in the world for everyone) to experience companionship, which would be more fair than some people having multiple partners and being fulfilled, and some people having none and not being fulfilled.

A polygamous marriage with 4 people gives just as many people companionship as 2 monogamous marriages do.
Except they have more companionship per person in thr polygamous situation, so according to your reasoning monogamy is bad.

Not everyone can get companionship from a polygamous situation when polygamy is the norm because many people do not find that sort of relationship fulfilling at all and as such won't get any companionship from it.

[Neanderthaland]

A polygamous marriage with 4 people gives just as many people companionship as 2 monogamous marriages do.
Except they have more companionship per person in thr polygamous situation, so according to your reasoning monogamy is bad.

Not everyone can get companionship from a polygamous situation when polygamy is the norm because many people do not find that sort of relationship fulfilling at all and as such won't get any companionship from it.

And those people shouldn't do it. No one is forcing them to.

Or are you suggesting that everybody should always only do the thing that the largest majority finds enjoyable?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not everyone can get companionship from a polygamous situation when polygamy is the norm because many people do not find that sort of relationship fulfilling at all and as such won't get any companionship from it.

And those people shouldn't do it. No one is forcing them to.

Or are you suggesting that everybody should always only do the thing that the largest majority finds enjoyable?

If it were done on any reasonable scale, it would reduce the number of people with companionship, this has already happened in some countries.

[Neanderthaland]

And those people shouldn't do it. No one is forcing them to.

Or are you suggesting that everybody should always only do the thing that the largest majority finds enjoyable?

If it were done on any reasonable scale, it would reduce the number of people with companionship, this has already happened in some countries.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that Grims probably isn't advocating we cut-and-paste the practices of Yemen.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If it were done on any reasonable scale, it would reduce the number of people with companionship, this has already happened in some countries.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that Grims probably isn't advocating we cut-and-paste the practices of Yemen.

Unless we were to maintain a fairly strict gender ratio in polygamous marriages, it would be pretty difficult to avoid.

[ImperialRussia]

Depends on the action of the other nation imposed on your own people in how your own view see what is imposed is morally wrong

[The Grims]

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that Grims probably isn't advocating we cut-and-paste the practices of Yemen.

Unless we were to maintain a fairly strict gender ratio in polygamous marriages, it would be pretty difficult to avoid.

So should we enforce such gender ratios to maximise companionship ?

[Neanderthaland]

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that Grims probably isn't advocating we cut-and-paste the practices of Yemen.

Unless we were to maintain a fairly strict gender ratio in polygamous marriages, it would be pretty difficult to avoid.

Any particular reason you're sure there wouldn't be a fairly equal ratio?

I grant you it doesn't work that way in Yemen. But then, in Yemen, there's a very different power dynamic, and it tends to be established 40 year-old men marrying multiple teenage girls. The difficulty of men finding partners has more to do with families being unwilling to marry their daughters to men who don't yet have wealth and status. And the women aren't given much of a choice either way.

And in most countries with legal polyamory, it makes up such a small percentage of relationships that it has very little impact on the availability of partners.

[US-SSR]

Morality can only be founded upon God. What He says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong. Objective morality can't come from any other source. We can know what he says is right/wrong through his word, the Bible

So slavery is OK but don't eat shrimp. Got it.

I would also strongly disagree with Justice or Morality being a social, rather than individual concept. Law is a social construct, Justice and Morality are individual.

What is justice?: Just Behavior or Treatment. To be Just is to be morally right and fair. So Justice is the maintenance of Morally right behavior.

What is Right or Wrong Morally?: Courses of action which see you prosper or making gains towards your own self-determined goals.

How do you tell something is right or wrong?: By weighing an actions effectiveness in accomplishing your goals against the costs. As an example, Theft. You could gain by stealing things, however this would require either there be no punishment for thievery, in which case you would have little recourse against the losses of thievery yourself. Or that you get punished for theft, any punishment, in order to be effective, would have to cause you to lose more than you gain by the act to be discouraged, and so thievery is undesireable within the ingroup where all are subject to the same laws.

What are morals?: Morals are the general tenets of what one believes to be effective strategies for successfully achieving ones goals.

How are laws binding?: By the consent of the governed, granting empowerment to the enforcers of those laws.

What is freedom?: The lack of constraints on ones actions.

I find it useful to think in terms of what is legal/illegal; what is socially acceptible/unacceptible; and what is moral/immoral. Pictured as a Venn diagram these would be three circles intersecting each other. Moral actions may or may not be legal and/or socially acceptible.

[ImperialRussia]

Morality can only be founded upon God. What He says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong. Objective morality can't come from any other source. We can know what he says is right/wrong through his word, the Bible

So slavery is OK but don't eat shrimp. Got it.

ok

[United Muscovite Nations]

Unless we were to maintain a fairly strict gender ratio in polygamous marriages, it would be pretty difficult to avoid.

Any particular reason you're sure there wouldn't be a fairly equal ratio?

I grant you it doesn't work that way in Yemen. But then, in Yemen, there's a very different power dynamic, and it tends to be established 40 year-old men marrying multiple teenage girls. The difficulty of men finding partners has more to do with families being unwilling to marry their daughters to men who don't yet have wealth and status. And the women aren't given much of a choice either way.

And in most countries with legal polyamory, it makes up such a small percentage of relationships that it has very little impact on the availability of partners.

Evolutionary psychology mainly.

[Ayytaly]

I wonder what OP's opinion on NAMBLA is. This smacks of anarcho-libertarian apologism.

[Neanderthaland]

Any particular reason you're sure there wouldn't be a fairly equal ratio?

I grant you it doesn't work that way in Yemen. But then, in Yemen, there's a very different power dynamic, and it tends to be established 40 year-old men marrying multiple teenage girls. The difficulty of men finding partners has more to do with families being unwilling to marry their daughters to men who don't yet have wealth and status. And the women aren't given much of a choice either way.

And in most countries with legal polyamory, it makes up such a small percentage of relationships that it has very little impact on the availability of partners.

Evolutionary psychology mainly.

Which is basically just you saying that your intuition insists it must be so.

Your intuition may be right, but until you produce a research paper by evolutionary psychologists, that's all it is.

I don't think you're going to find an example of a heavily polygamous society to work off of that isn't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads (say that 10 times fast.) And we aren't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads .

[United Muscovite Nations]

Evolutionary psychology mainly.

Which is basically just you saying that your intuition insists it must be so.

Your intuition may be right, but until you produce a research paper by evolutionary psychologists, that's all it is.

I don't think you're going to find an example of a heavily polygamous society to work off of that isn't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads (say that 10 times fast.) And we aren't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads .

Not my intuition. Almost every society with polyamory has created that kind of system, and the reason for it it is simple: in such an arrangement, only the women know for sure that their offspring is their own. There is no evolutionary advantage for men in polyamory unless they have multiple wives.

[Neanderthaland]

Which is basically just you saying that your intuition insists it must be so.

Your intuition may be right, but until you produce a research paper by evolutionary psychologists, that's all it is.

I don't think you're going to find an example of a heavily polygamous society to work off of that isn't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads (say that 10 times fast.) And we aren't heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads .

Not my intuition. Almost every society with polyamory has created that kind of system, and the reason for it it is simple: in such an arrangement, only the women know for sure that their offspring is their own. There is no evolutionary advantage for men in polyamory unless they have multiple wives.

See my last point. All the societies you are pointing to are heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads. There's no reason to think that an egalitarian society would produce the same dynamic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not my intuition. Almost every society with polyamory has created that kind of system, and the reason for it it is simple: in such an arrangement, only the women know for sure that their offspring is their own. There is no evolutionary advantage for men in polyamory unless they have multiple wives.

See my last point. All the societies you are pointing to are heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads. There's no reason to think that an egalitarian society would produce the same dynamic.

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

[Neanderthaland]

See my last point. All the societies you are pointing to are heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads. There's no reason to think that an egalitarian society would produce the same dynamic.

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

Only if you ignore the prospect of women having any say or agency. There absolutely is an evolutionary advantage for women to have multiple partners, and human biology (testicle size) tells us that they are inclined to. Just as there is an advantage for men to have multiple female partners.

In a state of equality, I wouldn't expect either arrangement to come up very often. These societies tend towards monogamy. But there's no reason to believe that one arrangement would outnumber the other, and there's no point in legislating against the practice if it's something some people want to do.

[The Grims]

See my last point. All the societies you are pointing to are heavily patriarchal pastoral nomads. There's no reason to think that an egalitarian society would produce the same dynamic.

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

Where do you get that idea ? Monogamy is unnatural for primates.

[Neanderthaland]

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

Where do you get that idea ? Monogamy is unnatural for primates.

Maybe he's a gibbon?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

Only if you ignore the prospect of women having any say or agency. There absolutely is an evolutionary advantage for women to have multiple partners, and human biology (testicle size) tells us that they are inclined to. Just as there is an advantage for men to have multiple female partners.

In a state of equality, I wouldn't expect either arrangement to come up very often. These societies tend towards monogamy. But there's no reason to believe that one arrangement would outnumber the other, and there's no point in legislating against the practice if it's something some people want to do.

The reason it would outnumber the other is that men wouldn't willingly enter into a marriage of the type.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Perhaps not the dynamic of domination, but the dynamic of one man-multiple women is bound to happen, for the reason I gave above. There is an evolutionary (and therefore instinctual) disincentive for a man to enter into a relationship in which a woman's sexual interests are shared between them.

Where do you get that idea ? Monogamy is unnatural for primates.

So is marriage at all.

[Neanderthaland]

Only if you ignore the prospect of women having any say or agency. There absolutely is an evolutionary advantage for women to have multiple partners, and human biology (testicle size) tells us that they are inclined to. Just as there is an advantage for men to have multiple female partners.

In a state of equality, I wouldn't expect either arrangement to come up very often. These societies tend towards monogamy. But there's no reason to believe that one arrangement would outnumber the other, and there's no point in legislating against the practice if it's something some people want to do.

The reason it would outnumber the other is that men wouldn't willingly enter into a marriage of the type.

You're just repeating yourself now. But your insistence that it is so, doesn't make it so.

[Imperial Joseon]

Where do you get that idea ? Monogamy is unnatural for primates.

So is marriage at all.

Yes, some people marry more than once, either due to divorce, death of wife, or other reasons.