= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kindly comments on Interview with Singularity Institute Research Fellow Luke Muehlhauser - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (65)
Not technically true. Since you have already said marriage is being redefined it just means that the redefinition must be to something which does not necessarily include sex---that is, a contract that allows enforced abstinence. A logically coherent concept even though I find the notion repugnant.
But as Saint Paul rather delicately said, and people in the eighteenth century rather more plainly said, enforced abstinence is not going to fly.
So, if "rape" in marriage is a concept, marriage is not a concept. If marriage is not a concept, massive drop in female fertility and male investment in offspring, decrease in total children, increase in fatherless children.
Which is not moral progress.
Yeah, in certain circumstances people are going to have incentives to break promises (and/or contracts). I don't think that this is specific to marriage, and I don't think it makes the concept of marriage invalid.
You cannot, or at least should not, ask people to contract to that which they cannot perform. Thus, moment to moment consent to sex, requires in practice moment to moment consent to marriage, which abolishes marriage. Abolishing marriage violates freedom of contract.
Which is not moral progress.
I don't understand this.
NOTE: please, no-one downvote the parent. I don't want another conversation cut off mid-discussion by the Troll Toll.
It's not as though people cannot obey a marriage contract that requires moment to moment consent to sex.