|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| "Something will benefit," and, "Someone will be happy," are two very different propositions though. Of course I'd agree that proper ethical conduct can't help but be beneficial, because I see human advantage and disadvantage in entirely ethical terms, so I'd merely be admitting to what I see as a tautology. But, I don't think an interplay of ethical behavior will necessarily make everyone happy. |
This is an interesting point to pursue.
While I am not looking for a Pareto improvement... could answer my previous inquiry into the conditions/definition for marriage as things stand now.
Specifically with regards to 'till death do them part'.
From your ethical viewpoint...with people living far beyond childbearing years, and twice as long as when this 'rule' was drawn up, do you think it is ethical to have it as a condition for marriage?
To give one's word...but knowing that divorce is optional...even fashionable?
If you are so inclined...you could comment on the monogamy part of my earlier post as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| If you walk around Seoul the streets are filled with men/women holding hands enjoying the day together. In KR men and women still like each other!! |
That's the wife and her boyfriend. The husband is at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stain wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Stain wrote: |
| It requires blind faith and a leap into the absurd, which means anything that isn't logical. Absurdity is a great place. |
Perhaps, we could all get islands, like Fox. And you could name yours 'Absurdity'.
I'm sure it will be a great place to visit...if you allow us.
 |
But, of course. What shall we do? What didst thou in thy mind have? |
While this may sound absurd, I am not entirely sure of the all the contents in my mind. Perhaps we could work on ways of recollecting fond memories. I seem to have a talent for modifying not so fond memories.
But of course, as it is "Stain's Island", I find myself honored at just being invited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
While I am not looking for a Pareto improvement... could answer my previous inquiry into the conditions/definition for marriage as things stand now.
Specifically with regards to 'till death do them part'.
From your ethical viewpoint...with people living far beyond childbearing years, and twice as long as when this 'rule' was drawn up, do you think it is ethical to have it as a condition for marriage?
To give one's word...but knowing that divorce is optional...even fashionable? |
When my wife and I got married, I know we didn't swear "till death do us part," and I don't necessarily think such an oath is advisable or even reasonable. There are entirely valid reasons marriages can fail, even many ancient societies recognized this. As such, no, I don't think an oath along those lines is ethical, but I don't think anything has changed in that regard either. People may be living longer, but that doesn't mean much when the causes which can legitimately undermine a marriage are independent of how long one lives. The idea that tacking another ten or twenty years onto your life makes life-long marriage less sensible confuses me in fact; if you can make it to fifty while keeping your marriage together, what catastrophe is suddenly occurring at age sixty or seventy that legitimately necessitates divorce?
As to monogamy, I think we need ask ourselves only a few questions to see whether it's superior to casual dating:
1) Do we desire romantic companionship?
2) Do we want that companionship to be based on superficial lust or deeper emotional bonds?
3) Do we want to have children?
4) Do we want those children to thrive, even at the expense of some sacrifice from ourselves?
Individually the answers will vary, but for most people, I strongly suspect the answers will be:
1) Yes.
2) The latter.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
Marriage -- not ceremonies and vows in and of themselves, but a sincere, good-faith effort and building an enduring family -- provides all of this, and casual relationships do not (especially regarding the children, who are often greatly harmed when their parents decide to tear up the family). Yes, some people will answer no some of the above questions, but I've already acknowledged that those outliers avoiding marriage makes sense; if you're asexual, or simply don't want kids, okay, passing on marriage makes sense. For the rest, though, they're letting their "biological fundamentals" get in the way of things which in their heart of hearts they themselves value more. Letting your relationship decay to the point where breaking it up seems like a good idea is almost invariably a choice, and a choice similar in character to not exercising, or eating poorly, or politics, or any number of other unhealthy habits. That's the thing: same modern populace you're using to imply that marriage is somehow against the human character engages in bad habits in more or less every walk of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| If you walk around Seoul the streets are filled with men/women holding hands enjoying the day together. In KR men and women still like each other!! |
That's the wife and her boyfriend. The husband is at work. |
Exactly, men and women like each other so much; the more the merrier.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| *marks out over Fox/The Cosmic Hum debate, despite being thoroughly lost after reading it* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| EZE wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| If you walk around Seoul the streets are filled with men/women holding hands enjoying the day together. In KR men and women still like each other!! |
That's the wife and her boyfriend. The husband is at work. |
Exactly, men and women like each other so much; the more the merrier. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
When my wife and I got married, I know we didn't swear "till death do us part," and I don't necessarily think such an oath is advisable or even reasonable. There are entirely valid reasons marriages can fail, even many ancient societies recognized this. As such, no, I don't think an oath along those lines is ethical, |
We agree, and nice to see we are making some clear progress on this.
| Fox wrote: |
but I don't think anything has changed in that regard either. |
Things have changed. Many things.
Divorce as an option.
The feminist movement.
Women in the workforce.
Longevity...and biological factors.
etc...
| Fox wrote: |
People may be living longer, but that doesn't mean much when the causes which can legitimately undermine a marriage are independent of how long one lives. |
The causes which you vaguely imply 'may' be independent.
Longevity may have 'causes' that you are yet unaware of, both academically and experientially. At this stage, perhaps it is best to admit that we don't know.
| Fox wrote: |
The idea that tacking another ten or twenty years onto your life makes life-long marriage less sensible confuses me in fact; if you can make it to fifty while keeping your marriage together, what catastrophe is suddenly occurring at age sixty or seventy that legitimately necessitates divorce? |
The prospect of living another 30 to 40 years with the person who no longer provides/supports the basic tenets upon which the marriage was intended.
| Fox wrote: |
As to monogamy, I think we need ask ourselves only a few questions to see whether it's superior to casual dating:
1) Do we desire romantic companionship?
2) Do we want that companionship to be based on superficial lust or deeper emotional bonds?
3) Do we want to have children?
4) Do we want those children to thrive, even at the expense of some sacrifice from ourselves?
Individually the answers will vary, but for most people, I strongly suspect the answers will be:
1) Yes.
2) The latter.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
|
2) Emphatically both. This is not an either or condition.
Your use of the term 'superficial lust' is indicative of a moral value that has been used to shame sexual activity.
'superficial lust' - physical attraction - without it...most people would not even entertain the idea of marriage.
| Fox wrote: |
For the rest, though, they're letting their "biological fundamentals" get in the way of things which in their heart of hearts they themselves value more. |
What do they value more?
And with regards to a marriage past child-rearing...haven't these conditions already been met?
| Fox wrote: |
Letting your relationship decay to the point where breaking it up seems like a good idea is almost invariably a choice, and a choice similar in character to not exercising, or eating poorly, or politics, or any number of other unhealthy habits. That's the thing: same modern populace you're using to imply that marriage is somehow against the human character engages in bad habits in more or less every walk of life. |
And here we are back to basic ethics...yes?
If the modern populace engages in such unhealthy (individual) behavior in every walk of life...how are they suppose to be expected to avoid such behavior in marriage? |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
