Just some thoughts swirling in my head this morning as I try to recover from being up most of the night with a stomach bug...
For some time these questions have been nagging my brain...possibly motivation for doing some research and writing a law journal type article on the topic. The relationship between society's moral code or ethics and society's legislation has always intrigued me.
Should there be a law, providing for criminal punishment, for someone who commits adultery?
If a state already has a law that criminalizes adultery, should the State actively enforce such law?
If a politician in said state proposes to repeal any such law, does that make the politician pro-adultery, or an adulterer?
For some time these questions have been nagging my brain...possibly motivation for doing some research and writing a law journal type article on the topic. The relationship between society's moral code or ethics and society's legislation has always intrigued me.
I am going to have to say no on all counts. While certainly not the mainstream, there are couples who get married, but then live in an open relationship. In any moral based definition of adultery, these people are morally "in the wrong" so to speak.In order to legislate against adultery, I think you would be very very hard pressed to come up with an objective enough definition of adultery that would allow couples who choose to live that lifestyle to not be persecuted (if it were enforced).Does that make sense? Of course, whether or not that life style should be legal could become an argument in and of itself...I would say no, myself...but you know, everyone has their own opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think if it can be communicated that the politician is speaking in terms of law and legislation, it makes sense to call them pro-adultery. They are proposing that adultery is perfectly fine according to the law. No matter their personal ethics, the conversation is within the context of what is permissible by the law and what is not.Now as to whether we can realistically limit the conversation to that context, is another question.
ReplyDeleteDave - personally I agree with you, I think such a law by the state is too intrusive of individual liberty/privacy rights. In addition, the victim of said "crime," the spouse, would have recourse in a fault based divorce law state, for whatever that's worth.Justin - I think I understand what you are saying, and its problem with limiting it to that context. But semantically, framing it as "adultery is perfectly fine according to the law" rather than saying "its not the role of the law to regulate conduct in this arena", while logically saying the same thing, carries much different connotations socially and politically.
ReplyDelete