[Note: This is a version of post I wrote last year. I've restructured the argument to address the useful criticisms provided by my commenters. I should note that this post is addressed to Christians because non-believers may not share my understanding of the role and nature of sex. While there may be some overlap of agreement, the presuppositional attitude of most non-Christians would be so foreign to my view (that God created sexual relations with a specific form and for a particular range of purposes) it would be impossible to offer suggestions for a general audience, though I believe this post is as relevant and true for non-believers as it is for Christians.]
Each week my neighbors and I engage in a curious ethical ritual. On Wednesday morning before we leave for work we set outside our doors an artifact which expresses our obligation to the welfare of future generations. We call these objects “recycling bins.”
Recycling is one example of an action that we take in the present to benefit a group in the future. The earth has enough space and resources that all current generations could be extremely wasteful without having a detrimental effect on the global population. Future generations, however, would likely suffer if we are wantonly careless in our use of resources. For this reason the recycling of waste products is viewed as an important, albeit minor, act of virtue.
Although most people probably do not need to be persuaded that we have moral obligations to future generations, it would be useful to examine what form the argument would take. Philosopher Jim Nolt outlines the argument as follows:
1. We have obligations to all currently living people.
2. Future people are in no morally relevant respect different from currently living people.
3. We have obligations to all future people.
Nolt believes the argument is sound and adds:
The moral irrelevance of time of birth is perhaps best understood by the realization that we are future people-to our predecessors. The distinction between past and future is, after all, not ultimate and absolute, but relative to temporal perspective. In that respect, it is like the designation, "foreigner," which is relative to geographical perspective. Who counts as a foreigner depends on the country we inhabit. Likewise, who counts as a future person depends on the time we inhabit. All people are foreigners to people of countries other than their own. Likewise, all people belong to the future generations of their predecessors. [emphasis in original]
If this argument is true then we have generic obligations (i.e., don’t despoil the planet) to future generic groups (e.g., people living in 2056 A.D.). However, I contend that we also have specific obligations to specific individuals in the future. For example, I believe that Christian men and women who are unmarried (and are not called to a life of chastity) have certain present obligations to their future spouse.
Regardless of whether they come from a secular or religious worldview, people in the West generally share the idea that there is one specific person—the “true love”, soul mate, etc.,-- for each of us. Whether chosen by God or fate, this is the person we are supposed to share our lives with in a state of marital commitment.
Setting aside the matters of providence and romance, we can take as a brute fact that for most people, that person currently exists somewhere in the world. When we meet them and begin to recognize that they are the one us, our obligations become quite obvious. But what about before this recognition occurs or even before they come into our lives? I contend that at least one obligation that is recognized after we marry is binding on us even before we meet our future spouses: the duty to sexual fidelity.
Although we may be separated “relative to temporal perspective”, this person exists now and is not in any morally relevant respect different from the person we will wed. The duties of a husband to be sexually faithful, therefore, would extend not just from the present (when we cleave together in a one-flesh union) and future (throughout our marriage) but also backward into the past (the time prior to our marriage, or even before we meet).
Of the specific obligations that spouses owe, some are shared by other people (e.g., parents) throughout a person’s life while others are unique and exclusive to the matrimonial relationship. For example, a husband has such obligation as to provide financial support and to remain sexually faithful to his wife. The financial obligation is one that is first met by the parents, and perhaps later by the woman herself. Naturally, the future husband is not expected to provide for her materially before they have even met. That is not a role or duty that is exclusive to marriage. The fidelity obligation, however, is a unique duty that is not shared by any other person or fulfilled by any other role. It is specific to the marital relationship and is therefore binding even before the spouses have committed themselves to each other.
Consider this thought experiment. Imagine a man is to be married on February 14th and has sexual relations with a woman who is not his fiancé on:
(a) The night before his wedding.
(b) The day of his wedding.
(c) The day after his wedding.
The action in each instance is the same but the term we’d use to describe the man would depend on when the event occurred: (a) would make the man a cheating cad, (c) and adulterer, and (b) either a cheating cad or an adulterer, depending on the time of day. Regardless of what we choose to call it, the consequence of the action is the same – the man has been unfaithful to the woman. Notice that though the “temporal perspective” changes the semantics, it doesn’t change the fact that the action is immoral.*
Under this view, pre-marital sexual relations become a form of “pre-marital adultery.” We are, in essence, being unfaithful to the one we will eventually pledge emotional and sexual allegiance. Why then do we not honor this obligation? As with most things in life, what we claim to believe is betrayed by our actions. Although unmarried people often claim to believe that they are waiting for their "true love" their actions show that they don’t really believe that to be true. If they seriously believed that their true love existed then how could they be sexually unfaithful to the one person who God has chosen for them?
My recycling bin is a symbol of the obligation I feel I owe future generations. Unfortunately, I have no such token to give my wife that shows the obligation I owed her before we met. Instead, I had only a string of sexual sins that showed that before we met I treated the concept of "marital fidelity" as a useful fiction.
I offer this confession to young people who have not yet lost one of the most valuable gifts God gives man: the ability to give oneself completely to the person you love. If you want to show true love to your future spouse, then start now by keeping the Seventh Commandment.
*Some people claim that the example is open to refutation by counter-example because of the possibility of remarriage. For example, if John marries Mary and she dies, then it would be permissible for him to marry Judy. The claim that John has a conflicting duty to be faithful. If before she died, he has sex with his wife Mary, wouldn't that be committing "adultery" in regards to Judy?
I have to confess that I find this objection absurd. The obligations of a widower to the second are the same as to his first -- relative to temporal perspective. Prior to marriage, John's duty to his future wife (Mary) is to remain sexually faithful. But once they have married and she dies, the one-flesh union is dissolved and the temporal perspective shifts. His obligation then becomes to remain faithful to his future wife (Judy).
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4158
1
I find it odd that this discussion doesn't involve why it is pre-marital adultery or why its even important?
Is it just because us Christians don't like anybody to have fun? (I can't believe people actually think that)
So, the why is simple!
"and the two will become one flesh". So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Matt. 19:4-6
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute (for example) is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
The reason is Covenant (which is essentially the whole point of the bible). There are many covenants; Noahic, Abrahmic, Sinai but the important ones here are the New Covenant which is the evidenced by the Lord's Supper and refers to his sacrifice and reconciliation and the Marriage Covenant which is evidenced by sexual intercourse (not a piece of paper) and means the two have become one flesh.
Has anyone noticed that we are referred to as bridegrooms waiting for Jesus? Violating the marriage covenant (which I have done, prior to marriage to my wife and no not the night before, it was before I met her) is breaking a covenant that God equates in importance to the New Covenant (or any other for that matter).
The reference to bridegroom is cultural to the bible. If I remember correctly, in Jewish biblical culture there would be the wedding proclamation, maybe even ceremony but then the bridegroom would still be with the family until the groom came back after establishing a new place to live.
In other words, he is preparing a place for her. At times this could take a while.
Again, we are waiting for Jesus, he is preparing a place for us.
So breaking the marriage covenant is like not waiting for Jesus. While he is preparing a place for us, we are out breaking the covenant.
The relationship between a man and wife should be no different than the relationship between God and you!
posted on 01.31.2008 9:01 AMI am not the best at explaining this stuff so hopefully somebody helps me here.
2
At first blush the two are pretty different. Ecology is a “community” ethic and has greater moral consequence than does faithfulness to ones future spouse, which is, on the face of it, a one-on-one thing.
To wit: As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone it’s OK…
But all of us know examples of personal virtue - or the lack of - that had ripple effects among present and future generations. And how we treat each other in these most private of matters is a good indicator of how we treat the planet. People rarely toss their wrapper on the ground or dump their oil in the back yard when they know somebody’s watching them.
And where the baggage of pre-marital sex contributes to the dissolution of a marriage, divorce has environmental consequences. [http://www.evaneco.com/?p=875]
The whole thing is food for thought. Good post, Joe.
posted on 01.31.2008 9:40 AM3
Guilty as charged.
And from a hindsight perspective, I'd grant that my pre-marital dalliances were detrimental to not only my present relationship with my spouse, but also to the past relationships.
Hard to explain to a hormone riddled teenager, which is why its probably important to have this discussion early before the hormones kick in and mental acuity is tainted.
All that said, it is important to note, that pre-marital adultery isn't an unforgivable sin. But like all sin, it must be admitted, and one should be honest, with God and with our spouse about our infidelity.
Cheers,
posted on 01.31.2008 11:35 AMJon.
4
Mighten't Nolt's formulation be re-written by replacing future with past and if so, what is the result? If this obligation works one direction it ought to work the other way as well, shouldn't it? In fact historically, in many places at many times it has been taken very seriously. Of course it also tends to correlate to various sorts of pantheism too but hey!
posted on 01.31.2008 12:00 PMFrankly if you're intent on making some sort of ethical but non-biblical argument you and Nolt probably ought (little philosophical joke) to start by making a case for your (his) postulates first. It is after all a pretty big pill to swallow to suggest (I, you, we) have obligations to all living people without offering any sort of foundation.
Btw, I don't disagree with where you ended up, Joe, I just don't think the argument you predicated it on is particularly persuasive. Much like your pro-Huckabee position. ;-)
5
Nice post.
I like the "plywood" analogy used at a purity conference I attended - although this is not a philosophical argument but a practical truth.
We become "one-flesh" (body, soul, mind, spirit) with anyone we have sexual intercourse with. We may attempt to seal off some of the connections and make it a purely physical event - but mostly we fail at that.
Think of two nicely sanded pieces of plywood that you glue together face-to-face. You can perhaps separate the sheets with crowbar and other tools - but the two sheets will never be the same. Bits and pieces of each will cling to the other - parts will be ripped off one and bonded to the other.
Neither sheet will ever be bonded to another sheet in the same way again - or as well.
God's intent is that we get "glued" to another one, and only once, and that the bond be permanent. Our personal carpenry skills tend to screw that up.
posted on 01.31.2008 12:34 PM6
Decent post, but like last time I still don't see the point of it. Christians are already told not to fornicate before marriage. For those who obey, this agruement is unnecessary and for those who don't, this won't convince them otherwise.
posted on 01.31.2008 12:37 PM7
the one said:
Decent post, but like last time I still don't see the point of it. Christians are already told not to fornicate before marriage. For those who obey, this agruement is unnecessary and for those who don't, this won't convince them otherwise.
The point is that in biblical times, when (if) they obeyed they did it for a reason. Just obeying isn't good enough.
Sometimes its helpful to understand the reason. We are not lemmings, we are Christians. Why is this important to God? How is it that by not involving oneself in adultery or premarital adultery are we being as Christ wanted us too.
And understanding does bring the possibility of conviction for those that haven't "obeyed".
posted on 01.31.2008 1:05 PM8
The only thing that makes real economic sense to recycle is metal. The rest is a feel-good measure. There must be nothing to slow down hyper-consumerism. Someone might feel a little bit guilty about generating so much trash, and thus consider cutting back their purchases. In a consumeristic corporatist economy, cutting back is bad, so recycling provides an illusion of enviornmental responsibility so people won't feel guilty about buying things.
posted on 01.31.2008 1:19 PM9
Excellent post.
Even without the environmental analogy, your point remains strong, especially this part: "Although unmarried people often claim to believe that they are waiting for their 'true love' their actions show that they don’t really believe that to be true. If they seriously believed that their true love existed then how could they be sexually unfaithful to the one person who God has chosen for them?"
I also appreciate the plywood metaphor referenced by a comment, supra.
posted on 01.31.2008 1:33 PM10
I think this argument could be made without invoking material "moral obligations to future people" in Nolt's analysis as you follow it, but it is an argument to the correct point. The wisdom and Biblical instruction the argument tries to express are valid. I think that I will try to express the same point in what I consider a better form of argument, because I am happy to agree with you and enjoy the possibility of intelligently differing, too.
Peace,
posted on 01.31.2008 2:16 PMPGE
11
There are many pop songs and such with the theme "you always remember your first time" or "the first cut is the deepest." There is something real to that.
The brain is a funny thing. Sex, which releases chemicals that otherwise wouldn't be released, has an influence on the brain. There is a real connection between partners, especially first partners. It is an opportunity missed when that first partner isn't going to be the life partner.
posted on 01.31.2008 2:31 PM12
It is a mistake in Western society to have expectations of young people to not get married until they are at least 20 or even "after college."We would do better as a society and be taking Paul's advice if expectations were not biased against marriage in the later teens.
After all, it is usually in the later teens when men and women are most likely to burn with passion with poor self-control, no?
Childhood is extended too far in Western culture. If we really wanted, we could accellerate the process. Schooling is set up all wrong anyway. Kids should be on career paths much earlier.
posted on 01.31.2008 3:05 PM13
Jay D:
I'm not sure that I agree with you here. Certainly I was a hormone-riddled teenager, but I was also rather a jerk. In terms of my own emotional maturity, I was unfit for marriage until at least 25. And I'm not sure that it was because schooling was set up wrong, and I wasn't in a career until I was 22. (Parenting may have had more to do with it, but that's kind of hard to fix.)
posted on 01.31.2008 4:16 PM14
Good stuff.
In college at Texas A&M University at our Navigators meeting, a guy asked a question along the lines of "How far is too far?"
The speaker responded with something akin to this:
Chances are good that young lady won't wind up being your wife. Chances are good that young lady will wind up being somebody else's wife.
Only go as far with her as you'd like somebody to go with your future wife.
(I picked up the implicit Matthew 7:12)
It hit me that I not only had an obligation to my future spouse, but also to the future spouse of any young lady that I should be treating as "a sister in all purity."
posted on 01.31.2008 4:30 PM15
I'm going to disagree because of the lack of a calendar.
Adultery is during marriage.
To call pre-marital sexual involvement "adultery" seems to presume the inevitability of the marriage. I can't go with such determinism.
If we're going to ignore the calendar on one end, then should it also be ignored on the other end? It's wrong to ignore it on the back end because marriages have a Biblical termination point (death). And because they have an initiation point, that should also not be ignored.
But in you example, something very positive to emphasize is that marriage commitment should be seen the same during engagement/espousal as during the marriage time itself.
Collin
posted on 01.31.2008 4:41 PMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
16
I agree with the comment that early marriageis looked down on too much in our culture. My son married at 18, and good thing, too. They are doing well.
posted on 01.31.2008 5:40 PM17
A small point - I went back to find the original article, and there was a link provided which states that the philosopher in question is John Nolt.
Interestingly, I just visited this topic very recently in regard to positions on environmental preservation and abortion rights (and whether or not there might be an incompatibility), so I experienced some slight deja vú when I saw this post (especially since I encountered the argument in a totally different place).
posted on 01.31.2008 5:54 PM18
Matthew 19
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
posted on 01.31.2008 7:56 PM19
I did go ahead and post on this at some length. In case anyone's interested:
Comment Me No Comments on "Pre-Marital Adultery"
nut graph:
Cheers,
posted on 01.31.2008 9:12 PMPGE
20
From the original post:
"Regardless of whether they come from a secular or religious worldview, people in the West generally share the idea that there is one specific person—the “true love”, soul mate, etc.,-- for each of us. Whether chosen by God or fate, this is the person we are supposed to share our lives with in a state of marital commitment."
I would take issue with the soundness of this premise, particularly if you wish this to apply to the non-religious, as you stated earlier. I would contest the actual existence of a "one true love" for every person not called to a single life for whatever reason. In any case, you do not offer any support for this premise other than that many people in the West believe it to be true. As I'm sure you know, mass belief does not make objective truth.
If I accept the idea of a God-determined future spouse, the premise stands, and I'm sure someone can provide me with Scriptural support along these lines. However, if the argument is truly meant to appeal to the non-religious, this is obviously insufficient. Arguing from "fate," too, is insufficient for many (perhaps most?) non-believers. Without some sort of support for this premise, the argument as you've pursued it fails for non-believers.
Which isn't to say there's no merit in your eventual point. At the very least, the emotional repercussions of sexual intercourse are strong, and at least partially rooted in raw chemistry. This can lead to more complex and extreme emotional effects should the couple split. This alone seems sufficient as a warning against pre-marital intercourse, especially when complemented with the usual arguments concerning the imperfect nature of even the most reliable forms of birth control and STD preventatives.
posted on 01.31.2008 10:01 PM21
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Hebrews 13:4
posted on 01.31.2008 11:47 PM22
And how we treat each other in these most private of matters is a good indicator of how we treat the planet.
Really? Has such a correlation been demonstrated? Is there, for example, a sound and unbiased study showing that coal-mine executives, or nuclear-plant owners, who cheat on their wives have different environmental policies from those who don't?
So far, I see absolutely no evidence that Bush Jr. is cheating on Laura (even in the tabloids that scream daily headlines about his alleged drug use); but he shows absolutely no conscience about the planet; and neither do most of the Republicans who preach about sexual fidelity. Did I miss the huge groundswell of faithful husbands and virgin teens rising up to stop mountaintop-removal?
posted on 02.01.2008 10:55 AM23
You need to look elsewhere beside the tabloids or mountain-top removal to get the true sense of how 'green' President Bush is.
posted on 02.01.2008 1:58 PM24
pgepps:
It seems to me that this is a remarkably bad analogy. For one, writing a check is not something that is reserved for one or even a few persons (generally speaking - one might be exceptionally frugal about writing checks, for instance), so the relevance of any obligations to that future recipient seems very dissimilar from the obligation to a future potential mate. There are other factors that make this analogy poor, such as the fact that marriage is not analogous to a financial transaction.I also think Joe's argument can do without the presumption of a "soulmate" if it is replaced with the working assumption of having a sole mate. Obviously, that doesn't always obtain, but it should be the default presumption. Therefore, the obligation is not to "the one person" who one is destined to be with but to the person who one will end up marrying (if they marry - and I would think that the obligation doesn't get ejected if there is no realization of this goal for other moral reasons).
posted on 02.01.2008 5:44 PM25
I disagree with the "Pre-Marital Adultery" idea.
A good principle in general: Don't try to be holier than God. If He had wanted to call that adultery, He would have. When you try to be holier than God you end up adding all sorts of things to God's commandments -- Like the Jews who have taken a simple command not to boil a kid in its mother's milk and extrapolated it to the point of having two sets of dishes in the house!
posted on 02.01.2008 6:17 PM26
PaulD:
You mean like Matthew 5:27-30?posted on 02.01.2008 6:29 PM
27
My pre-marital experiences are treasured memories. I wouldn't change a thing. I've been faithful for 19 years, the entire duration of my relationship with the woman I married. Had I never had any other lovers, it surely would have been more difficult to pass on the opportunities to stray that have presented themselves over the years.
posted on 02.02.2008 10:16 AM28
@Christian Cynic--thanks for interacting with my argument. While all arguments from analogy are both weak and limited, I think that Joe's language of "obligation" makes mine salient. Your key points, as I take them:
Any given check (a homely example of "obligation" in its natural and etymological sense) names one recipient, who is entitled by that naming to claim funds from [my bank who is entitled to claim them from] me. Again, Joe's language of "obligation" invokes the metaphor, here.
My point exactly. The language of "obligation" as Joe uses it is inapposite, because it turns on the assumption I name: one which, applied to checks (an obvious example of "obligation" in its natural and easily-recognized sense), is clearly not workable.
But--and contra Rob above--while there are clearly implications for one's fitness for marriage from one's current relationships (a point I make in my post, if you read it), those do not necessarily take the form of "obligations" which can be so easily adjudicated by the sort of (secular) ethical calculus Joe prefers to practice in service of his (correct) Christian principles, here.
Cheers,
posted on 02.02.2008 11:24 AMPGE
29
Wow, well said, once again. I'm in complete agreement. This is a message that everyone needs to hear -- incredibly so. Continue the ministry. :)
posted on 02.03.2008 11:02 PM30
PGE, I take it that your objection is that the given use of 'obligation' sullies what we mean by obligation since it can't be applied accurately to checks. But part of the argument is that we act precisely in this way - as though we have real obligations to people who we haven't met - when we consider the reasoning behind preserving the environment. There is some class of people ("future generations") who we have no personal contact with yet feel a moral obligation to act in a certain way such that they are able to have a relatively untainted planet to live on.
Moreover, it is clear that obligation is a generic term for something that can take many forms. My obligation to my wife is not the same as my obligation to my child (although sometimes the two may meet), and it would be absurd to think that if the specifics of one do not match the specifics of the other that one is clearly not an obligation. There are types of obligations, and that is largely based on context. I take it that the context of the expectation of a future marriage comes with its own obligations, which is what I think Joe is arguing here.
But on the other hand, I don't think that these obligations can be totally divorced from specific ethical concerns, many of which are grounded in Christian ethics. I would argue, however, that there are at least some practical concerns that would be desirable under secular concerns; the most obvious that comes to mind is that one's future mate might like the fact that you come with no risk of STD/STIs because you have had no previous sexual partners. (I know I'm grateful for that.) So I don't think that Joe's argument fails any more than the weaknesses that he admits.
posted on 02.04.2008 12:51 PM31
@cc--
Well, I don't know as "sullies" forms any part of my thought, here. :-)
"generic term" is a bad idea in philosophy, especially in the sense you're using it. Joe is attempting to define a class of moral obligations, but so far as I can tell he does so by equivocating the meaning of the term: he crafts "moral obligations" in the sense of what we owe to others (here my check analogy fits), but to do so without establishing any means by which we contract the obligation.
If you are Kantian (and Joe's POV has consistently been at least implicitly Kantian) you may well believe there are a priori ethical "obligations" which have the nature of an "obligation" only because believing them to be so is the only means of complying with the "categorical imperative" (which states that ethical behavior is acting according to principles you could wish to be universal laws), which in turn you must believe (whether you hypothesize it or don't) because without that Kantians have no moral framework to work from whatsoever. Humanity survived, though.
In fact, the analogy to environmentalism (which doesn't convince me because the only reason I would recycle is the heel tramping on my face, forever) presupposes the correctness of this Kantian logic. The argument about time-irrelevant obligations is at best fuzzy.
I actually do believe one might be able to describe a class of moral responsibilities which are not constrained by one-to-one, person-to-person, now-to-now contracting of obligations; but to do that I believe we must leave the language of "obligations" and the attempt to be "generic," and must enter the church and speak of the spiritual unity of the local body and the communion of the saints.
You lapse into incoherence by the end of your post, but I know you haven't read mine because you make the same point I do, only with a tangled attempt to keep using Joe's wording.
Joe is often right, but with the wrong arguments, because he reasons ad hoc rather than systematically. At moments like this, it is not very important, because the conclusion follows from overwhelmingly powerful arguments even if Joe's argument is flawed. The relative unimportance of the point made it worth discussing at some length as an instructive example, but perhaps now we've flogged this one enough.
Cheers,
posted on 02.05.2008 2:46 AMPGE
32
But "a moral obligation" is not merely "something we owe to someone else" (and I doubt Joe meant such) - it is something we owe to someone by virtue of a position or relation. And the relation is that of "future mate" - a completely different relation than that of "future recipient of a check."Moreover, I question whether Joe's point need be given in a Kantian ethical framework; certainly a deontological ethic can be given without resorting to the Kantian categorical imperative. But even that seems unnecessary, for a consequentialist ethic would work. Say I desire a mate with specific qualities (not that unusual). If I am going to be somewhat particular, then it stands to reason that there might be conditions that my future mate might also seek. Whereas I can't think about those very specifically (e.g. I can't tell if my future mate would prefer an extroverted or introverted mate), there are considerations I can think of that would be general. Thus, I have obligations (in this sense) to conduct myself in such a way such that certain consequences ensue: my future mate approves of me and accepts me as a spouse. (The only possible problem here is then the analogy to environmentalism - I don't know that consequentialism will get you there unless you want to achieve the desirable consequence of having your progeny live in a relatively untainted world.)
As it stands, I had previously browsed your treatment of Joe's argument, but I found only things to object to (like the idea of "soul mate" determinism, which I demonstrated to be unnecessary). After reading it more thoroughly, I think your objections are rather weak. For one, judging the two putative obligations (to check-recipient and future mate) on the grounds of the first (as I have previously stated) will only make it difficult to come up with any broadly useful conditions for obligatory action. For two, using the language of "vowing" to be faithful to one's wife doesn't help because a vow is a specific obligation! One can be obligated generally to whomever who would be the future mate and specifically to that person at marriage. The relevant difference would be then in specificity.
Lastly, I think you are dismissing what I said at the end of my last comment too easily by calling it incoherent. It simply is not, and you did not show it to be such. But I will agree that perhaps we don't need to dissect the argument anymore at present.
posted on 02.05.2008 5:16 PM33
and Ciprofloxacin
posted on 02.07.2008 7:28 AM34
My God, this is the most twisted piece of logic I've read in a long time. Temporality is certainly relevant. My commitments are to the person I'm with, not the person who I might be with 30 years from now. What am I supposed to do in the meantime? Anything to keep people from enjoying life with you people, as always. Shackled and chained.
posted on 02.08.2008 4:18 PM35
So wait, you're not planning to get married until your 50s or 60s, and just fool around with whomever until then? And you call that "commitment?"
posted on 02.15.2008 3:05 PM