Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[Reine]

Does one just have to think it's damaging or does there have to be evidence that it is damaging? Does one's personal lack of desire to participate in one equal a moral objection to anyone else's choice to participate in one?

(I don't know if you're just restating or actually arguing a point, but I thought I'd throw those out there nonetheless.)

Those are good questions. I think that if we 'think' something is damaging,, we have the responsibility to oppose it. For sure we have the right to express what we think, everyone does. Evedence always helps support an argument, but you can still state what you think without 'proof', it's your right to IMO.

If you don't agree with a majority, you should also express that. For those opposed to some type of moral violation that they think is damaging, they have the right to and the responsibility to speak of if they are convinced it is damaging. Evedence when you are speaking about something that would be viewed as infringing on someone else's freedom would then be necessary, to prove it is damaging. There would be two standards then..

1. How would the expression of objection be satisfied with a moral opinion?

2. How would the expressin of objection be satisfied with proof of damage of a moral choice?

 

[Reine]

Functional isn't always optimal.

How would one then express objection to a moral behavior that is damaging in one's opinion in a optimal way?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those are good questions. I think that if we 'think' something is damaging,, we have the responsibility to oppose it.

But what if it turns out something is not damaging? And how do you define damaging? Many people think homosexual marriage will tear society asunder, yet many nations have had legal gay marriage for some time and they are arguable doing much better than we are. And many think open relations and polygamy are even worse than homosexuality, but polygamy has been the preferred form of marriage all throughout human history.

 

[Father Heathen]

1. There are moral grounds to oppose things that we think are damaging

At the same time there needs to be rational, substantial grounds to support the claim that something is indeed damaging.

 

[Reine]

But what if it turns out something is not damaging? And how do you define damaging? Many people think homosexual marriage will tear society asunder, yet many nations have had legal gay marriage for some time and they are arguable doing much better than we are.

Well, in an instance where someone elses freedom is at stake, I think proof of the behavior being damaging or unsafe would be necessary. But, I think that if someone really thinks something is damaging they should speak up. They would have to, or else live with the consequences of knowing they did nothing to do what they thought was right. It would be like if you had a child that had a slight learning disability, and you home shcooled the child to make sure they didn't get behind in their studies. Instead of trying to heip the child in school, they tried to move the child to a different school from where their siblings went and put them in a classroom of kids that were LD and were all two years behind in their studies so they didn't have to deal with it. (This is a true story). If you felt strongly that was wrong and should not be done to other kids, wouldn't you want to voice your concern, even when met with opposition? We take the chance that at the end of our life, we were not on the right side in all of our causes. But, we should at least try, and not just do nothing. Proof would of course be necessary to change the law in a way that was denying someone else's rights. Region should never become law, because that insures everyoen their relgious freedome.

My point is though, how do you oppose something that is only your subjective opinion on something? ...there are many ways to oppose something and take a stand...

 

[Reine]

At the same time there needs to be rational, substantial grounds to support the claim that something is indeed damaging.

Yes, that is a must especially when you are trying to change things in a way that may limit someone elses freedom... but how would you take a stand against .. let's say something like baiting deer if you were a huter and were opposed to other hunters who did this?

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, that is a must especially when you are trying to change things in a way that may limit someone elses freedom... but how would you take a stand against .. let's say something like baiting deer if you were a huter and were opposed to other hunters who did this?

It's unsporting, but unless the practice caused excessive suffering of the animal or had adverse effects on the ecosystem or something it would be a bit silly to try and legislate our disapproval.

 

[Drolefille]

Those are good questions. I think that if we 'think' something is damaging,, we have the responsibility to oppose it. For sure we have the right to express what we think, everyone does. Evedence always helps support an argument, but you can still state what you think without 'proof', it's your right to IMO.

I can state it, but if I'm wrong, then what?

For example, if I think that brushing my cat is a horrible horrible thing to do for whatever reason, but the visual evidence - she's purring and rubbing up against the brush - along with the knowledge of those with expertise (and research) - brushing cats can reduce the incidence of hairballs and be better for a cat's digestive system - says otherwise, well then it's fair to say that I'm wrong about my thoughts and beliefs in this area.

I'm entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts. As I'm free to state something, I'm also free to be mocked for my opinions, or be rhetorically beaten down due to my poor judgment.

If you don't agree with a majority, you should also express that. For those opposed to some type of moral violation that they think is damaging, they have the right to and the responsibility to speak of if they are convinced it is damaging. Evedence when you are speaking about something that would be viewed as infringing on someone else's freedom would then be necessary, to prove it is damaging. There would be two standards then..

Should I speak up without evidence to back my opinion? And if I do, should I try to effect change in someone else's behavior without evidence beyond my internal opinion? Because in my experience, if I tell someone to stop doing X because I don't like it, they're going to want a lot more specific of a reason to stop doing X before they're even going to consider it.

1. How would the expression of objection be satisfied with a moral opinion?

2. How would the expressin of objection be satisfied with proof of damage of a moral choice?

I don't actually quite understand your phrasing here.

 

[Reine]

It's unsporting, but unless the practice caused excessive suffering of the animal or had adverse effects on the ecosystem or something it would be a bit silly to try and legislate our disapproval.

Well, there are a lot of hunters that feel strongly about this, and I think that it is legislated at a state level. But really, my point is... that in order to express your views to change something that you feel strongly about, but it my infringe on the rights of another... you would have to provide some type of proof that it is a damaging behavior. But I guess this hunting thing is different... I don't think it has proven to be dangerouse, yet it has ben legislated.

The second part is that sometimes there is no proof, and the moral objections are regarding things that are disagreed on, but each side feels strongly about it. let's say that you are against smoking marajuana, but your state is going t0 legalize it. How could you make a statement that objects to the use of marajuana, even though you know others smoke it... you strongly disagree with that, but you know it will be legalized. Should you take any type of stand? If so, what type of stand would you take?

 

[Reine]

I can state it, but if I'm wrong, then what?

1. For example, if I think that brushing my cat is a horrible horrible thing to do for whatever reason, but the visual evidence - she's purring and rubbing up against the brush - along with the knowledge of those with expertise (and research) - brushing cats can reduce the incidence of hairballs and be better for a cat's digestive system - says otherwise, well then it's fair to say that I'm wrong about my thoughts and beliefs in this area.

2. I'm entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts. As I'm free to state something, I'm also free to be mocked for my opinions, or be rhetorically beaten down due to my poor judgment.


Should I speak up without evidence to back my opinion? And if I do, should I try to effect change in someone else's behavior without evidence beyond my internal opinion? Because in my experience, if I tell someone to stop doing X because I don't like it, they're going to want a lot more specific of a reason to stop doing X before they're even going to consider it.


I don't actually quite understand your phrasing here.

1. I agree
2. I agree, and this is the type of thing that helps us modify our opinions
3. You are right, but now this leads into the question of how we should take a stand for the things we oppose that we do not have proof for, but we may have experience that it is damaging. How do we take a stand for our subjective values? Note.. not all stands that we take are trying to make or change laws...

 

[painted wolf]

Baiting is ecologically harmful as well as unsporting. It also hurts local hunting economies.

But is neither here nor there.

A more apt analogy would be other activities that consenting adults engage in.

wa:do

 

[Reine]

I don't actually quite understand your phrasing here.

1. How would the expression of objection be satisfied with a moral opinion?

2. How would the expressin of objection be satisfied with proof of damage of a moral choice?

I didn't see the last thing you posted regarding this. What I mean is that their are two kinds of objections, and both have the right to be heard, and for someone to take a stand.

1. Is a personal objection of a subjective nature with no proof of damage
2. Is an objection with proof that a behavior is damaging in some way

 

[Iti oj]

Are there any reasonable moral grounds to oppose open relationships and marriages? If so what are those reasonable moral grounds?

I would hazard that their might be some biological and evolutionary reason....but the same may be true of the one pointing them out, we are the sum of our selfish genes after all...as for morals...morals are subjective not objective ergo their is no good moral reasons except for those based out of consiquence. are the results of open relationships/monagamy/marige better or worse then the results of them being taboo.

 

[Reine]

Baiting is ecologically harmful as well as unsporting. It also hurts local hunting economies.

But is neither here nor there.

A more apt analogy would be other activities that consenting adults engage in.

wa:do

Can you think of any activities that consenting adults engage in that you don't want to support personally, but you have no proof or other thoughts that they would be damaging to society, but you would rather not see your children engage in them because you think it is immoral and may lead them to a bad place in life... if so, in what ways could you voice an objection or take a stand?

 

[Father Heathen]

let's say that you are against smoking marajuana, but your state is going t0 legalize it. How could you make a statement that objects to the use of marajuana, even though you know others smoke it... you strongly disagree with that, but you know it will be legalized. Should you take any type of stand? If so, what type of stand would you take?

What business would it be of mine if they're not harming me nor anyone else?

 

[Reine]

What business would it be of mine if they're not harming me nor anyone else?

I'm trying to find an example of something that you would not want in your own life or in the life of your kids, that you have formed an opinion about ... that you want to express your opinion about, but it is not necessarily your business.. does that example fit?

 

[Father Heathen]

Can you think of any activities that consenting adults engage in that you don't want to support personally, but you have no proof or other thoughts that they would be damaging to society, but you would rather not see your children engage in them because you think it is immoral and may lead them to a bad place in life... if so, in what ways could you voice an objection or take a stand?

If you have no proof then you would have no grounds to "take a stand". Insecurities and knee-jerk reactions aren't valid justifications for limiting the rights of others.

 

[Drolefille]

1. I agree
2. I agree, and this is the type of thing that helps us modify our opinions
3. You are right, but now this leads into the question of how we should take a stand for the things we oppose that we do not have proof for, but we may have experience that it is damaging. How do we take a stand for our subjective values? Note.. not all stands that we take are trying to make or change laws...

3. Isn't it as simple as saying "I disagree with X, therefore I won't do X." Why must one 'take a stand' for something in a public sense? Wouldn't 'taking a stand' just a simply be doing what you think is right and raising your kids that way, finding a partner (or partners) who agree with you about your values, etc.?

You can make a big point to say, out loud, in public, "I AM AGAINST X" but for what purpose? And, that doesn't actually address the point at hand which is having a reasonable moral ground. Disagreeing is fine, but without providing it a ground to stand on, you're back to opinion only.

I didn't see the last thing you posted regarding this. What I mean is that their are two kinds of objections, and both have the right to be heard, and for someone to take a stand.

1. Is a personal objection of a subjective nature with no proof of damage
2. Is an objection with proof that a behavior is damaging in some way

You are very focused on the "right to be heard." One has free speech and the right to speak, but not the right to be heard or listened to. Of course one may speak up on nearly any issue in nearly any location (discussion of explosions in airports and fires in theaters being examples of the exceptions).
1.But a personal subjective objection lacks the reasonableness required in the OP without at the least a lot of philosophical groundwork.

2. Certainly in the hypothetical, but as this is a specific topic it's not enough to say that "if there is objective proof of harm then there can be objection," but instead one must actually show proof of harm.

In short, your points may exist, but they're not substantive at the moment.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm trying to find an example of something that you would not want in your own life or in the life of your kids, that you have formed an opinion about ... that you want to express your opinion about, but it is not necessarily your business.. does that example fit?

If someone asks your opinion, you could give it, but do you just want to shout from the street corner all the things you object to? I object to drug use, but outside of my job (which requires I discourage people from illegal activities) I don't feel any right to be heard about my opinion unless engaging others in a discussion on the topic. And if I do so, I better have a good reason to back up my dislike of drug use if I wish that others were prohibited from doing it.

If I just want my kids to not use drugs and hold a family value of sobriety, well then I'll raise my kids and hope to instill those values. Even if teens tend towards this: :ignore:

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm trying to find an example of something that you would not want in your own life or in the life of your kids, that you have formed an opinion about ... that you want to express your opinion about, but it is not necessarily your business.. does that example fit?

I wouldn't want my kids doing anything risky or unhealthy, but I wouldn't try to parent the rest of the world because of it.