From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 23:17:55 BST
Hi Johnny,
JOHNNY
> Me too, but I want to point out that there is an internal contradiction
> there. If the intellectual level love is all about individualization, or
> personal, each person seeing themselves as the person to please, their own
> eudaimonia the highest goal, how does that relate to loving someone else?
RICK
You've confused Eudaimonia with mere "self-interest". Go read Sam's essay
again.
JOHNNY
> Adultery is very clear cut, it's entirely biological.
RICK
Way to think outside the box J :-). But seriously, the particular mix of
self-righteousness and value rigidity that a statement like this indicates
is downright intellectually scary. Besides, the term "adultery" isn't a
part of the term "emotional cheating", so if it's semantics you're worried
about, you're objecting to nothing.
> >RICK
> >Well, in the legal past, adultery was the only recognized ground for
> >divorce.
JOHNNY
> What convenient snapshot of history are you selecting from now? I think
> liberal divorce laws of most states right before the changes in the 70's
> were highly evolved and should be what we are use as our standard in this
> discussion as the alternative to current laws. Things like abuse,
> alcoholism, and neglect were grounds for divorce, but barrenness and
getting
> fat weren't.
RICK
First off, "getting fat" still isn't a recognized cause of divorce (if my
snapshot was selective yours is outright fictitious). Second, "barrenness"
wasn't (and still isn't) a ground for divorce because it always has been
(and still is) a ground for "annulment" (I'll assume you know what the
difference is). Finally, while cruel and inhuman treatment, alcoholism
(substance abuse) and neglect were among the recognized Common Law actions
for divorce, most states (like my own NY) overrode the Common Law by statute
and made the available remedy for such actions a judicially ordered 'legal
separation', which could only be converted into a divorce after years of the
fulfillment of harsh and often impossible conditions. Even the states that
did adopt the Common Law causes of action made them all but unattainable.
I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough for you... perhaps I should have said
adultery was the only grounds for divorce 'effectively' recognized by
statute in most states. The trends during which most states have made the
Common Law remedies more convenient and widely available didn't really come
on until several decades ago. However, even if it is to be regarded only as
a 'thought experiment', my example to Sam still stands as a conceivable
situation in which putting eros over agape may be the most moral course.
take care
rick
Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours. - R. Bach
(Illusions)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 23:28:05 BST