|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| 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... |
I don't think any of these things detract from the value of a healthy marriage. You are correct that they have an impact on divorce rates, but that impact is similar in character to the impact of large quantities of cheap junk food, mechanical transit, office jobs, and television on health.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| 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. |
I'm always willing to entertain skepticism, so long as it's consistent. Earlier in this thread, you made an absolute statement: "If we let science work on this a bit more, we will discover soon enough that humans are not, by fundamental nature, monogamous till death do them part." If you want to be skeptical, isn't it best to admit that you don't know this either?
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| 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. |
Now let's be clear: I'm sympathetic to this concern. When I talk about a marriage decaying, I'm talking about exactly this. If one does not maintain one's relationship well, one is in fact very likely one day to wake up and realize this is one's exact situation. But rather than the answer being to just accept that as a foregone conclusion and racing to divorce, it seems to me better to take steps to prevent it from happening. I try to do this myself; I think about the potential ways in which my behavior could sour my marriage over time, and I do what I can to rectify those things before they can become problems. In short, I've been trying to walk my walk. On the one hand, it's not always easy to admit that I may have been doing something wrong. On the other hand, I think it's improved me as a person and laid a firmer, better foundation for my budding family.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
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. |
I don't think there's anything shameful about superficial lust per se, and if you can combine lust with an enduring emotional bond, that's good. But, if you have an enduring emotional bond, your relationship can endure without the lust, and if you lack an enduring emotional bond, your relationship will fail with certainty. In short, the presence or absence of a real, deep emotional bond is the determining factor. The husband who stands by his cancer-ridden wife, the wife who cares for her paralyzed husband, these are glorious examples of human loyalty and love, and while enjoying sex with someone is all well and good, it's really not much by comparison.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| 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? |
Well, a number of things, but the most relevant here being family life.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| And with regards to a marriage past child-rearing...haven't these conditions already been met? |
The important role grandparents play in child rearing shouldn't be underestimated, and its on-going underestimation is part of why child care has become so expensive and burdensome in western countries. Beyond that, one's post-childbearing years are exactly the time in which enduring, reliable companionship becomes most important, to say nothing of the additional economic hardship induced by singlehood late in life. That said, if people can manage to at least keep their relationships together at least long enough for their children to grow up and become independent, then a lot of the broader societal damage will be avoided, so I'm less concerned by it. They're probably still cheating themselves of something wonderful, but cheating yourself is better than cheating your children.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
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? |
You are, of course, entirely correct here. The rotten fruits of an unprincipled, hedonistic society will manifest in all it does. Absent real ethical reform, anything which doesn't promote pleasure in the moment will be a lost cause. This is precisely what motivates the ethical dimension of my position, why I've devoted time to talking about it here, and why I've tried to probe your ethical positions as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We now have more options for what to do with our lives than ever before. There is international travel and career flexibility. We can buy more with our money than ever before. We can socialize with whomever we want around the world thanks to increased technological advancement.
Marriage and child rearing will remove that element of choice from your life. Suddenly your time is not your own, your money is not your own. You can't simply do what you want when you want. Forever, until you die. Thats called marriage.
And child rearing? why even bother to reproduce when the world population is approaching 9 billion? The last thing we need is more people, especially when they are trashing the natural environment left right and centre. What kind of future will all these extra mouths have to look forward to?
marriage was ok 200 years ago and before when there were few people around, plenty of space, people lived in villages and had nothing to do all day except talk with the person down the road. but in 2014?? it just shows a lack of imagination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| 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. |
I'm always willing to entertain skepticism, so long as it's consistent. Earlier in this thread, you made an absolute statement: "If we let science work on this a bit more, we will discover soon enough that humans are not, by fundamental nature, monogamous till death do them part." If you want to be skeptical, isn't it best to admit that you don't know this either? |
If you read that again, you may discover that I have not been inconsistent. I have admitted I don't know.
However, as you are well aware, every statement often has both semantic and pragmatic interpretations...and I suspect you are alluding to the latter.
My post history may well prove my love for grammaring; however, should we venture down that path in this thread, there is little doubt the value our conversation may suffer.
| Fox wrote: |
Now let's be clear: I'm sympathetic to this concern. When I talk about a marriage decaying, I'm talking about exactly this. If one does not maintain one's relationship well, one is in fact very likely one day to wake up and realize this is one's exact situation. But rather than the answer being to just accept that as a foregone conclusion and racing to divorce, it seems to me better to take steps to prevent it from happening. I try to do this myself; I think about the potential ways in which my behavior could sour my marriage over time, and I do what I can to rectify those things before they can become problems. In short, I've been trying to walk my walk. On the one hand, it's not always easy to admit that I may have been doing something wrong. On the other hand, I think it's improved me as a person and laid a firmer, better foundation for my budding family. |
My response to this is one of simple respect. Your intentions are commendable, and I wish you the best of success. Truly.
| Fox wrote: |
I don't think there's anything shameful about superficial lust per se, and if you can combine lust with an enduring emotional bond, that's good. |
I will respond to this again. But as this is the second time you are making this point, I strongly suggest you are vastly underestimating the value of lust.
As an ethical aside...to the ends that a marriage is devoid of lust...one or both partners may seek it outside the marriage. Precedents have been set...yes?
| Fox wrote: |
But, if you have an enduring emotional bond, your relationship can endure without the lust, |
Possibly...but certainly not likely, and all evidence with regards to human mating patterns suggests otherwise.
In this area...the monogamous couples are the outliers.
| Fox wrote: |
and if you lack an enduring emotional bond, your relationship will fail with certainty. |
...no doubt.
| Fox wrote: |
In short, the presence or absence of a real, deep emotional bond is the determining factor. The husband who stands by his cancer-ridden wife, the wife who cares for her paralyzed husband, these are glorious examples of human loyalty and love, |
Absolutely.
| Fox wrote: |
and while enjoying sex with someone is all well and good, it's really not much by comparison. |
I don't think comparing them is wise. They are two entirely different but necessary components to a healthy relationship. Devoid of one, the relationship will suffer.
And while there are those who are willing to suffer, I am suggesting to you that they do indeed suffer.
It is this suffering, and the oppressive attitudes of others with regards to this suffering, which borders on unethical. 'Marriage' has to be redefined.
| Fox wrote: |
The important role grandparents play in child rearing shouldn't be underestimated, and its on-going underestimation is part of why child care has become so expensive and burdensome in western countries. Beyond that, one's post-childbearing years are exactly the time in which enduring, reliable companionship becomes most important, to say nothing of the additional economic hardship induced by singlehood late in life. That said, if people can manage to at least keep their relationships together at least long enough for their children to grow up and become independent, then a lot of the broader societal damage will be avoided, so I'm less concerned by it. They're probably still cheating themselves of something wonderful, but cheating yourself is better than cheating your children. |
Why is it cheating themselves? You are continuing in a pattern that makes alternative options of less value...implying something shameful.
In no way do I find your pursuit shameful. It is admirable, and I respect your goals...even if I suggest that they can be ethically achieved by very few.
| Fox wrote: |
You are, of course, entirely correct here. The rotten fruits of an unprincipled, hedonistic society will manifest in all it does. Absent real ethical reform, anything which doesn't promote pleasure in the moment will be a lost cause. This is precisely what motivates the ethical dimension of my position, why I've devoted time to talking about it here, and why I've tried to probe your ethical positions as well. |
I suspect our ethical positions are not too dissimilar. The ends to which we achieve them may be...and that certainly makes for interesting discourse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we've each clarified our positions about as much as is going to happen at this point. I'll just say one more thing for now. You say, "I strongly suggest you are vastly underestimating the value of lust," and ask, "Why is it cheating themselves?" These ultimately come down to the same point: the value of raw emotion and sensation in contrast to structure and meaning. I've said what I think is the case based upon observation of both the present and the past, and I think I've defended it about as thoroughly as I can within the context of a casual discussion forum, but I've qualified with terms like "suspect" and "probably" precisely to indicate that I could be wrong; I can't know another person's heart, nor can any of us. Ultimately, we should all consider as carefully as we can for ourselves, and base that consideration upon the firmest foundations we can find.
Thanks for the interesting conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
| survival of the person who can eat most - theres only room for one per house hold |
I can't imagine an obese couple fighting over food. What would they say to each other?
OB wife: "You ate my last cherry muffin!"
OB husbabd: "I did you a favor, you look like you've been gaining weight."
OB wife: picks up meat cleaver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I think we've each clarified our positions about as much as is going to happen at this point. I'll just say one more thing for now. You say, "I strongly suggest you are vastly underestimating the value of lust," and ask, "Why is it cheating themselves?" These ultimately come down to the same point: the value of raw emotion and sensation in contrast to structure and meaning. I've said what I think is the case based upon observation of both the present and the past, and I think I've defended it about as thoroughly as I can within the context of a casual discussion forum, but I've qualified with terms like "suspect" and "probably" precisely to indicate that I could be wrong; I can't know another person's heart, nor can any of us. Ultimately, we should all consider as carefully as we can for ourselves, and base that consideration upon the firmest foundations we can find.
Thanks for the interesting conversation. |
The decision to live outside a life-long marriage has the same potential for structure and meaning as the decision to live in one.
The same careful dedication to a life well lived serves both choices...equally.
It has been a pleasure sharing this conversation with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EastisEast
Joined: 29 May 2014
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
America used to swear up and down that it was Christian. Had the Bible and quoted it at every event. From Presidental Inaugs to Football.
Now, it would be seen as barbaric to do any of that. (I don't give a decade before the President stops swearing on the Bible..too offensive). To even follow the Bible, the cornerstone of America in the past.
Could it be that the rise of 'all the bad things that the Bible says' could be due to Americans (and the West) not following and using the Bible and Christianity as a cornerstone as it did since its inception a few hundred years ago?
Just wondering? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
