solipsist comments on Rationality Quotes February 2014 - Less Wrong

5 [deleted] 02 February 2014 01:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (482)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: solipsist 03 March 2014 04:42:14PM 4 points [-]

Wikipedia article on prenups:

Prenuptial agreements have historically not been considered legally valid in the United Kingdom. This is still generally the case, although a 2010 Supreme court test case between the German heiress Katrin Radmacher and Nicolas Granatino,[6] indicated that such agreements can "in the right case" have decisive weight in a divorce settlement.[7]

Comment author: Lumifer 03 March 2014 05:02:22PM -2 points [-]

On the other hand, pre-nups are enforceable in the US and most of continental Europe.

And if you're afraid the court won't enforce your pre-nup you can put assets in escrow, for example :-)

In any case, I'm not sure what the underlying argument is. I tend to see it as expressing the wish that the society enforce a very particular notion of marriage on everyone regardless of what they think about it.

Comment author: Salemicus 03 March 2014 05:53:23PM 6 points [-]

In any case, I'm not sure what the underlying argument is. I tend to see it as expressing the wish that the society enforce a very particular notion of marriage on everyone regardless of what they think about it.

The underlying argument is exactly the opposite of what you see it as.

Society is currently enforcing a very particular notion of marriage on everyone regardless of what they think about it. Specifically, removing any notion of fault from the termination.

I would like people to be able to credibly commit as to their future behaviour if they so wish. I would like to give people that choice, which the likes of Kennaway would deny them. If you want to stick with the current arrangements, you should be able to.

I do wonder about so wilful a misreading of the discussion here.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 March 2014 06:32:54PM -2 points [-]

Specifically, removing any notion of fault from the termination.

I feel there is a bunch of anchoring going on here.

Why do you think the termination of the relationship naturally has an actionable fault of one party that is being removed?

By the way, do you feel that this fault has to be sexual? Can this actionable fault be ill temper, or snoring, or flatulence, or lack of humor, or insufficient performance in bed, or earning not enough money?

I would like people to be able to credibly commit as to their future behaviour if they so wish.

I don't think so. Putting on a wedding ring looks like a credible commitment to me. What you want is to punish people for breaking their commitments and so far I haven't seen a good reason to do so in the context of marriages.