The debate "Legalizing polygamy around the world would be good" was started by
February 2, 2020, 7:23 am.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Anonymous42 and 14 visitors agree.
Allirix, Nemiroff, jrardin12, chickenfordiner, Huzaifa and 23 visitors disagree.
It must create a contradiction of reasoning or an error 404 to be bad. Theft requires private property for taking something from you to be theft, lies require meaningful language for words to convey deception, and marriage requires commitment for it to have any meaning. Applying the breach of these requirements universally creates a world where the original concepts can no longer exist. That's the contradiction that creates the error.
The marriage contradiction isn't the same as theft or lying because it's a social construct so it's requirements are socially defined. If society changed to define husband and wife differently then it could still exist, but applying a breach to commitment universally creates a world where our current version of marriage cannot exist, which is what I loved about it.
Is not procreating bad using this tool? I guess if everyone abstained all the time everywhere then there would no longer be any humans to not procreate. I'm not sure if that would be considered a contradiction of reasoning or just a contradiction of circumstance though.
If no one could have children, humanity would become extinct, so not having children is bad or did I get it wrong?
It's a tool that uses absurdity to demonstrate what's good and bad.
Imperative = drive to do something and categorical = all the time everywhere.
If everyone was driven to steal all the time everywhere then the concept of private property wouldn't exist. If everyone lied all the time everywhere language itself would be meaningless. If everyone married everyone everywhere then the concept of marriage wouldn't exist.
I haven't seen the good place since their mid season hiatus over Christmas. I have some catching up to do.
unfamiliar with the fancy names but a quick google got me confused. my argument had no moral references, much less a "moral law that is absolute or unconditional". how would you connect my argument to the categorical imperative?
also, have you heard of the show the good place?
I love this way of framing it. It's applying Kant's categorical imperative to polygamy. Convinced me.
ill have 5 wives, and if even one of them has a second husband and third husband, each of them will be married to 2, etc etc into a web of national intermarriage.
and it will only take a few husbands to have some international wives to join our national marriage to other national marriages until everyone is everyone's spouse in law. the very term husband and wife will be meaningless. i don't have a moral issue with polygamy, but its technically absurd.
what do you think are odds of everyone in the world ending up as one big family? what will family mean then?
all women and all men can have multiple spouses?