noetic10:

Lets be civil,  ,  I aksed the first question.

As soon as u answer mine. . . I would answer urs. . .is that a deal?

I would like to do that, but the answer to your question is dependent on the answer to my question.  That is why I require the exact number and not an estimate.

whats the connection between Jesus meals and the first evolution process?

huxley:


Hello Deep Sight,

I am not being evasive. The questions I ask are prior question to your question and I shall address your question once the most fundamental parts of my questions have been addressed by you. I ask them again in this simple format;

1) Who made this law about the age of responsibility for crime/offense?

2) WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?

The key question is number 2. Once you have address these, I shall answer you question.

Listen: Its simple enough: Its obvious that minors do not have fully developed minds. That's why ALL countries recognise minors as having diminished responsibility. Its much the same way that nature dictates that 9 year old girls dont have fully developed sexual organs. That's why 99% of humanity have laws matching this natural dictate: making sleeping with such a person rape. It might interest you to note that even in Islamic Countries the secular laws prohibit such acts.

You may need to study Jurisprudence a bit, do some research on these subjects: "Natural Law and Positive Law".

Huxley, stop being a coward:

You stated:

huxley:

Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

And i ask:

If there are no human laws, would it be right to kill and eat your wife?

Just answer, please!

noetic10:

whats the connection between Jesus meals and the first evolution process?

Oh there is. Jesus being God, would have compounded this at the start of ALL life on earth.

Deep Sight:

Listen: Its simple enough: Its obvious that minors do not have fully developed minds. That's why ALL countries recognise minors as having diminished responsibility. Its much the same way that nature dictates that 9 year old girls dont have fully developed sexual organs. That's why 99% of humanity have laws matching this natural dictate: making sleeping with such a person rape. It might interest you to note that even in Islamic Countries the secular laws prohibit such acts.

You may need to study Jurisprudence a bit, do some research on these subjects: "Natural Law and Positive Law".

Huxley, stop being a coward:

You stated:

And i ask:

If there are no human laws, would it be right to kill and eat your wife?

Just answer, please!

You are on the right path but you are still wrong. I am really disappointed with your legal training. Do you currently practice in the legal profession? Where did you train?

Think About why mad people are not also held legally responsible for "some" crimes in some legal systems. Man, think!

huxley:


You are on the right path but you are still wrong. I am really disappointed with your legal training. Do you currently practice in the legal profession? Where did you train?

Think About why mad people are not also held legally responsible for "some" crimes in some legal systems. Man, think!

Na wa o, Huxley, this is really becoming embarassing!

You are so scared to answer a simpple question, you are busy talking about my legal training! I have answered your question about three times above and i will answer it again now:

Mad people have the same diminished responsibility that Minors have because it is recognised that they do not have a full grasp of their actions.

That's why Insanity is an absolute defence. To Crystalize it for you, a Mad person is not able to conceive a "mala in se" (an act of inherent evil). He cannot have what we lawyers call a "mens rea" (wicked intenstion/ motive), because he is absolutely deluded and disfunctional. Thus the diminished responsibility.

Huxley, please help me out cos i am begining to see through you finally: you cannot answer a very simple question and you are trying so hard to divert attention from that fact.

The reality is that NONE of the things you have raised have ANYTHING to do with the issues at hand. I only bothered to answer the legal questions just to prove that fact.

Please, please, please, please, in the name of Atheism, or whatever you believe, STOP BEING EVASIVE, because YOUR EVASION IS NOW ASSUMING A VERY COMICAL ASPECT!

Its easy enough:

Here's the question again.

You said sin is meaningless for you. Only crimes prescribed by Human Laws exist for you.

So i ask: In countries where there are no human laws stating that cannibalism/ murder / rape/ are crimes, would that serve to make such acts right in those countries?

In other words: If we do not legislate against murder, would murder be ok?

Please i beg you on my knees, just answwer this question and stop the monkey tactics, ok?

If you cannot answer this question, boy, you have no bizness arguing on this Forum?

Deep Sight:

Na wa o, Huxley, this is really becoming embarassing!

You are so scared to answer a simpple question, you are busy talking about my legal training! I have answered your question about three times above and i will answer it again now:

Mad people have the same diminished responsibility that Minors have because it is recognised that they do not have a full grasp of their actions.

That's why Insanity is an absolute defence. To Crystalize it for you, a Mad person is not able to conceive a "mala in se" (an act of inherent evil). He cannot have what we lawyers call a "mens rea" (wicked intenstion/ motive), because he is absolutely deluded and disfunctional. Thus the diminished responsibility.

Huxley, please help me out cos i am begining to see through you finally: you cannot answer a very simple question and you are trying so hard to divert attention from that fact.

The reality is that NONE of the things you have raised have ANYTHING to do with the issues at hand. I only bothered to answer the legal questions just to prove that fact.

Please, please, please, please, in the name of Atheism, or whatever you believe, STOP BEING EVASIVE, because YOUR EVASION IS NOW ASSUMING A VERY COMICAL ASPECT!

Its easy enough:

Here's the question again.

You said sin is meaningless for you. Only crimes prescribed by Human Laws exist for you.

So i ask: In countries where there are no human laws stating that cannibalism/ murder / rape/ are crimes, would that serve to make such acts right in those countries?

In other words: If we do not legislate against murder, would murder be ok?

Please i beg you on my knees, just answwer this question and stop the monkey tactics, ok?

If you cannot answer this question, boy, you have no bizness arguing on this Forum?

WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?


Children have not yet developed the cognitive abilities to appreciate the consequences of certain actions.  The generally lack the abilities to apply reason, rationality to assess and appreciate the consequences of their action and behaviour. Culpability and responsibility in secular law is strongly related to the notion of intention, pre-meditation,  [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_%28law%29]capacity [/url] of an individual.  In view of the cognitive demands that these make on the individual, secular society takes the view that minors and the cognitively impaired do not have the mental equipment exercise capacity.  Hence, the notion of  things like age of concent, age of responsibility, etc, etc. These are secular notion - invented by humans.

Now to the main point of the debate.

What makes an act a crime or an offense?  Is it something about the act or something about the perpetrator of the act, or is iti both?  To return to the example of the toddler.

A)  A toddler at a playground is annoyed at one of his playmates.  He picks a rock and hurls it towards his mate.  It hits him on the head, causing some head injuries.  Some hours later, his mate dies from his injuries.

B) An adult at  a disco is annoyed at one of the patrons in the disco.  He picks a rock and hurls it towards him.  It hits him on the head, causing some head injuries.  Some hours later, he dies from his injuries.

Exactly the same scenario - except that the perpetrators are of different ages.   But WHY do we treat these perpetrators differently?  Is there something in NATURE, some natural law,  that mandates that we MUST treat them in different ways?    Would this natural law be grossly violated if we opted to subject both perpetrators to exactly the same legal procedure?

I submit that there isn't.  There is no such natural legal imperative.  Then why do most societies treat these perpetrator in different way? 

Because the better societies are made up of rational beings, who have used their REASON to arrive at human-made imperatives that now dictates that these naturally identical situations are humanistically unidentical.


So humans are able to apply REASON to arrive at LAWS which we all abide by for the interest of society at large.   Just as you parroted without justification, most societies have a notion of an age of responsibility for crimes.  This is not some sort of natural limit, but is arriveed at by universal consent (amongst other things) by the society concerned.

The foregoing shows that REASON can be used to decide whether something is an crime (infraction) or NOT.  If this is so, could REASON also be used to adjudicate on the following?

1) Paedophilia

2) Rape

3) Murder


etc, etc, etc.

I submit that,  YES, we could.  Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.

Do you think that this law would be capable of criminalising rape, murder, paedophilia, and such other vile acts?

Deep Sight,

Allow me to point you to this great legal philosopher  Michael Sandel . You will find him very enlightening.

^^^ So in summary within a nomadic group that has no formal laws, all of the following would be right in your world view:

   1. Murder

   2. Rape

   3. Theft

   5. Random beheading based on a muderous sexual urge

I am sure you are aware that the ancient aztecs practised human sacrifice under their formalized laws.

The rituals were perforced in public at the terrace of a temple and the victim would have a slit made by a sharp knife in his chest, the priest would then reach out and rip the heart out of the body while the victim watched on. The still beating heart would then be squeezed and and held up in the direction of the sun.

This was a legal and legitimate practice under their human laws.

Go ahead Huxley, tell me that it was right, since the human laws permitted it.

Tell me you see no objective, naturally stated evil in such (sin).

You can never win this one.

huxley:

Deep Sight,

Allow me to point you to this great legal philosopher Michael Sandel . You will find him very enlightening.

Please go and wikipedia "Natural Law" and "Positive Law", and get an understanding of the subject, before you post.

Deep Sight:

^^^ So in summary within a nomadic group that has no formal laws, all of the following would be right in your world view:

   1. Murder

   2. Rape

   3. Theft

   5. Random beheading based on a muderous sexual urge

I am sure you are aware that the ancient aztecs practised human sacrifice under their formalized laws.

The rituals were perforced in public at the terrace of a temple and the victim would have a slit made by a sharp knife in his chest, the priest would then reach out and rip the heart out of the body while the victim watched on. The still beating heart would then be squeezed and and held up in the direction of the sun.

This was a legal and legitimate practice under their human laws.

Go ahead Huxley, tell me that it was right, since the human laws permitted it.

Tell me you see no objective, naturally stated evil in such (sin).

You can never win this one.

Did you read my post at all?  Did you read this

Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.


How could you have read this and ask the questions you did?  Are these activities consentual activities, done with the full cognisance of the "victims", without duress?

Let me repeat again:

[size=18pt]
Anything done to anyone without their explicit consent and under duress is a violation of their rights and is therefore morally wrong.
[/size]

Now, tell me how this legitimates murder, rapes, human sacrifice, etc, etc. Man, your legal training was a waste of your time and money, if you cannot grasp this simplest of concept.

huxley:

Man, your legal training was a waste of your time and money, if you cannot grasp this simplest of concept.

Mr Deep Site, I like you and i like your drive to understand life and existence in general. But i see you still carry two baggages in your mind. The heavy baggage of religion (the christian variety0 which like most of us was forcefully imposed on us by our parents and our society, and your lack of science training, as you opted to read Law. But i must confess you have a scientist mind in that you a highly left brained person. I doubt you can you your left hand for anything other than supporting your right hand.

It is a pity you do not understand evolution. Now let me answer the following question you post.

Here's the question again.

You said sin is meaningless for you. Only crimes prescribed by Human Laws exist for you.

So i ask: In countries where there are no human laws stating that cannibalism/ murder / rape/ are crimes, would that serve to make such acts right in those countries?

In other words: If we do not legislate against murder, would murder be ok?

To me sin is also a meaningless term, even in the Bible, sin kept changing meanings. What is a sin by one person or a group of persons becomes god ordained when the exact act is done by other person. Sin changes according to the requirements of societies that defines it.

Let me define what sin is from the evolutionary perspective, Sin is any action that is detrimental to the long term survival of a group of animals or a whole specie.

So taking your example above, cannibalism can be beneficial to the individual in the short run, but will have disastrous consequences to the specie and even the individual in the long run. Because feeding feeding on members of your family or specie would soon deplete the specie to the point that it will be unable to survive and would rapidly go extinct. Also cannibalism would disrupt cooperation and harmony within a population that practices it and survival is better ensured by agglomeration and cooperation of  same species. that is why a hawk will never   feed on the chicks of another hawk but will readily hunt chicken chicks.

Murder follows a similar reason like cannibalism, unprovoked murder of a close family member or clan is frowned at while murder of another race or tribe is tolerated. That is why to the Jewish people of the Bible, killing of an Egyptian or Palestinian would attract only a foot note but the killing of another Jew is regarded as a grave sin even by their God.

There had been worst murders than 9/11 through out history, in Europe Kings could start a war in which tens of thousands of people were murdered defenseless at the wimps of a king or power full lord and no body would consider it a sin.
So you see it was the promulgation of these new laws (sins) that enable our present civilization to thrive.

Again I ask you to Seek further and ye shall find!

huxley:

Did you read my post at all?  Did you read this

Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.


How could you have read this and ask the questions you did?  Are these activities consentual activities, done with the full cognisance of the "victims", without duress?

Let me repeat again:

[size=18pt]
Anything done to anyone without their explicit consent and under duress is a violation of their rights and is therefore morally wrong.
[/size]

Now, tell me how this legitimates murder, rapes, human sacrifice, etc, etc. Man, your legal training was a waste of your time and money, if you cannot grasp this simplest of concept.

Huxley, it has come to it that I have school you -

Your reasoning capacity, is well er. . .  very very suspect. . .

Let me put you through. . .

Here was your initial statement:

huxley:

Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

Understand your statement carefully - you said -

Sin is meaningless. You also added:

huxley:


SIN is a theological concepts whose referent is a God.

CRIME is a secular concept whose referent is humankind.

Which suggests to the rational mind that you do not believe in wrong acts INDEPENDENT of secular laws made by humankind. Since it is difficult for you to understand basic word sequences, I will rephrase it for you: Since you allude to the absence of an external reference point for wrong acts, and state that the only reference point is CRIME, which you state to be a secular concept of humankind, then it is clear that you deny the existence of independent reference points for right and wrong, other than that which is expressly stated to be so by humankind.

You went further to state:

huxley:


Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.

Inherent in the above statement is a shocking self-contradiction. Listen carefully - you stated "Suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Do you fail to realise that this still holds the society as the only reference point because you have expressly stated -  "suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Thus, you are still refering to decisions of the society!

Let me ask you: suppose the society were to decide otherwise? Suppose the society were to decide that it is not wrong to take actions on people without their consent? Aha, do you see now where you have gone wrong?

Because human history is replete with instances where the society has decided otherwise. Indeed, mornachical, dictatorial and oligarchical regimes have been around much longer than regimes that guarantee individual rights.

Thus, under your reasoning, the societies (e.g: communists regimes, military regimes) decided that it was right to oppress people, to take actions on them without their personal consent. These were human laws, (E.g: Press Limitation Laws) just like the aztec human sacrifices were human laws, in which the society decided.

So when i asked you to go and study natural law and positive law, it was not an insult, Huxley, it was a genuine perception that you do not yet understand those concepts.

Because you need to appreciate that natural law refers to natural dictates of what is right and wrong independent of anything stated in human laws.

Positive Law, refers to the laws made by men.

Thus, once you state, as you did, "Suppose the society were to decide. . ." you are still refering to positive law, and still justifying your assertion that only human beings determine what is right and wrong.

And i asked you: Human Beings decided that human sacrifices were right.

Societies decided that the guillontine was right.

Communists decided that inidividual liberty was rubbish.

Did that make these right? The fact that societies decided (in your words) - did that justify these things?

This flies in the face of your assertion supposing that societies would decide that no actions should be taken without individual consents.

You failed to see that that was still an assertion of positive law.

You failed to see the reverse supposition, namely - "Suppose the society were to decide. . . that Huxley should be beheaded as a sacrifice to the gods. . .

Would that make it right?

Give it up man - it is clear that there are things that are inherently wrong regardless of human laws. That's why Fela stated: "Human Rights na my property. . . you cant dash me my property". He was refering to natural law, and the fact that no human law could take away or give his natural rights.

Therefore your statement "Supposing the society were to decide. . ." is a violent contradiction which shows that you are yet to grasp the principles of natural law.


Get it?

Deep Sight:

Huxley, it has come to it that I have school you -

Your reasoning capacity, is well er. . .  very very suspect. . .

Let me put you through. . .

Here was your initial statement:

Understand your statement carefully - you said -

Sin is meaningless. You also added:

Which suggests to the rational mind that you do not believe in wrong acts INDEPENDENT of secular laws made by humankind. Since it is difficult for you to understand basic word sequences, I will rephrase it for you: Since you allude to the absence of an external reference point for wrong acts, and state that the only reference point is CRIME, which you state to be a secular concept of humankind, then it is clear that you deny the existence of independent reference points for right and wrong, other than that which is expressly stated to be so by humankind.

You went further to state:

Inherent in the above statement is a shocking self-contradiction. Listen carefully - you stated "Suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Do you fail to realise that this still holds the society as the only reference point because you have expressly stated -  "suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Thus, you are still refering to decisions of the society!

Let me ask you: suppose the society were to decide otherwise? Suppose the society were to decide that it is not wrong to take actions on people without their consent? Aha, do you see now where you have gone wrong?

Because human history is replete with instances where the society has decided otherwise. Indeed, mornachical, dictatorial and oligarchical regimes have been around much longer than regimes that guarantee individual rights.

Thus, under your reasoning, the societies (e.g: communists regimes, military regimes) decided that it was right to oppress people, to take actions on them without their personal consent. These were human laws, (E.g: Press Limitation Laws) just like the aztec human sacrifices were human laws, in which the society decided.

So when i asked you to go and study natural law and positive law, it was not an insult, Huxley, it was a genuine perception that you do not yet understand those concepts.

Because you need to appreciate that natural law refers to natural dictates of what is right and wrong independent of anything stated in human laws.

Positive Law, refers to the laws made by men.

Thus, once you state, as you did, "Suppose the society were to decide. . ." you are still refering to positive law, and still justifying your assertion that only human beings determine what is right and wrong.

And i asked you: Human Beings decided that human sacrifices were right.

Societies decided that the guillontine was right.

Communists decided that inidividual liberty was rubbish.

Did that make these right? The fact that societies decided (in your words) - did that justify these things?

This flies in the face of your assertion supposing that societies would decide that no actions should be taken without individual consents.

You failed to see that that was still an assertion of positive law.

You failed to see the reverse supposition, namely - "Suppose the society were to decide. . . that Huxley should be beheaded as a sacrifice to the gods. . .

Would that make it right?

Give it up man - it is clear that there are things that are inherently wrong regardless of human laws. That's why Fela stated: "Human Rights na my property. . . you cant dash me my property". He was refering to natural law, and the fact that no human law could take away or give his natural rights.

Therefore your statement "Supposing the society were to decide. . ." is a violent contradiction which shows that you are yet to grasp the principles of natural law.


Get it?

You have totally misunderstood me here.  Let me make a number of points clear first.  I do not think there is some sort of absolute standards by which to judge morality.


You are calling contradictions all over the place, but I don't see where you have pointed them out.  For instance, se what you say:

Which suggests to the rational mind that you do not believe in wrong acts INDEPENDENT of secular laws made by humankind. Since it is difficult for you to understand basic word sequences, I will rephrase it for you: Since you allude to the absence of an external reference point for wrong acts, and state that the only reference point is CRIME, which you state to be a secular concept of humankind, then it is clear that you deny the existence of independent reference points for right and wrong, other than that which is expressly stated to be so by humankind.

How did I even so much as suggest this?    Some acts can be wrong in themselves, for example slavery.  Although slavery was legal in most country, it is a morally wrong act.   How do I know this?

                                                                           Because it violates the principle of concent


Apatheid was equally wrong because it also violates this principle.

Interestingly enough,  this principle of consent is only recently being adopted into the moral system of many societies.  Why was it not present in many primitive societies?  For instance, why is it nowhere elaborated upon in the bible, for example?

I never said anywhere that anything that is universally decided and adopted by a society is right.  You are strawmaning here.

I give it you you that you are brilliant lawyer. But in the end we are saying the same Thing, Natural Laws ensure survival and thriving of a specie. Naturally man being the most intelligent would have more elaborate Laws both Natural and Positive.

Do you consider sexual fidelity as defined by Marriage to a single partner a Natural law or a positive law?

wirinet:

Do you consider sexual fidelity as defined by Marriage to a single partner a Natural law or a positive law?

Great question, Wirinet. Wish I had thought of that.

wirinet:

I give it you you that you are brilliant lawyer. But in the end we are saying the same Thing, Natural Laws ensure survival and thriving of a specie. Naturally man being the most intelligent would have more elaborate Laws both Natural and Positive.

Do you consider sexual fidelity as defined by Marriage to a single partner a Natural law or a positive law?

Good question.

Since natural laws are inherent, natural dictates of ethics, positive laws tend to follow natural laws for the most part.

We have all agreed that "Do not murder" is a natural law, and it is therefore no surprise that it is a Positive Human Law as well.

However there are many natural laws that may not necessarily be enacted as human positive laws.

E.g: It might be unnatural to be homosexual, but there may be no positive law stating that such is wrong or a crime.

This brings us to another realm of Jurisprudence called "Law and morals."

Basically the principle is that not all immoral acts are illegal acts and vice versa. But law tries to be moral and it is often said that immoral laws are illegitimate and end up being revolted against.

Specifically addressing your question, fidelity to a spouse is not a positive law, because you will find no laws commanding such or punishing the failure to be unfaithful. You will only find such laws under the muslim sharia legal system. It is instructive to note that these are not secular states and thus have sought to merge law and morals based on religion. Thus all things consisdered immoral are criminalised, such as mere drinking of alcohol. In a sharia domain therefore, the fidelity requirement is a positive law, springing from moral codes but not so in the western nations and indeed most of the world.

Fidelity springs from a moral consciousness, and for me, is more of natural law.

It is my personal view that fidelity is a natural law on account of the pain and disturbance that infidelity evidently brings to people. However i admit that this is a possibly controversial area, because many people will insist that it is equally natural for males to have more than one partner.

Its simple: any natural law enacted into law becomes a positive law as well.

Deep Sight, this is where i vehemently disagree with you. Fidelity to a single spouse is a positive law in some societies but it is a highly unnatural law.

Let me explain,
Studies had shown that our basic natural instinct is polygamy. Even studies of our closest surviving evolutionary relative - the Gorilla had shown that it is unnatural for a male Gorilla to practice monogamy. You have a dominant male controlling a harem of females. Just as it is with the Gorilla, it is part of our Natural Male ego and pride to posses a harem of ladies and that was why all powerful kings in antiquity had tens if not hundreds of wives - and there was nothing unnatural about it. Besides i do not know a religion that expressly ban polygamy.

But us humans (the renaissance Europeans) found out that conflicts arising from multiple wives and fights among men (especially powerful ones) were retrogressing development of such societies. So they realized that promulgating Fidelity to a single spouse would go a long way into easing a lot of conflicts within such societies, coupled with a more stable atmosphere for children to develop. So fidelity was made a Positive law.

But monogamy in some society is not practicable. The Arabs during Mohammad times were always at war, war with each other and war with invaders, so it could be understood that their male population must have been highly depleted.   Now promulgating a degree banning polygamy was not feasible, so you can understand the context into which Mohammad made the Law that allows a man to marry up to 4 wives.

Now even the western world is still grappling with its monogamy laws because it is unnatural to the male specie of homo sapiens. You will see a man marry one wive but keep numerous mistresses. At times also a man will easily divorce when he finds his legal wife sexually unattractive in order to be free to have sex with another.

Yes sexual infidelity in marriage according to western laws is a crime and you can go to jail for it. Even in our laws they is a crime of Adultery which is punishable with up to a maximum of five years ( i think), but i do not think the law had been tested yet. It would be funny for a woman to take her husband to court for sleeping with another woman and charging him for adultery.

I am not in support of polygamy in today's societies but tell you monogamy is positive but unnatural law.

Tell me what you think

Anyone fancies these 20 questions?

I hope I get to ask the remainder of my 20 questions in the new year.

wirinet:

Deep Sight, this is where i vehemently disagree with you. Fidelity to a single spouse is a positive law in some societies but it is a highly unnatural law.

Let me explain,
Studies had shown that our basic natural instinct is polygamy. Even studies of our closest surviving evolutionary relative - the Gorilla had shown that it is unnatural for a male Gorilla to practice monogamy. You have a dominant male controlling a harem of females. Just as it is with the Gorilla, it is part of our Natural Male ego and pride to posses a harem of ladies and that was why all powerful kings in antiquity had tens if not hundreds of wives - and there was nothing unnatural about it. Besides i do not know a religion that expressly ban polygamy.

But us humans (the renaissance Europeans) found out that conflicts arising from multiple wives and fights among men (especially powerful ones) were retrogressing development of such societies. So they realized that promulgating Fidelity to a single spouse would go a long way into easing a lot of conflicts within such societies, coupled with a more stable atmosphere for children to develop. So fidelity was made a Positive law.

But monogamy in some society is not practicable. The Arabs during Mohammad times were always at war, war with each other and war with invaders, so it could be understood that their male population must have been highly depleted. Now promulgating a degree banning polygamy was not feasible, so you can understand the context into which Mohammad made the Law that allows a man to marry up to 4 wives.

Now even the western world is still grappling with its monogamy laws because it is unnatural to the male specie of homo sapiens. You will see a man marry one wive but keep numerous mistresses. At times also a man will easily divorce when he finds his legal wife sexually unattractive in order to be free to have sex with another.

Yes sexual infidelity in marriage according to western laws is a crime and you can go to jail for it. Even in our laws they is a crime of Adultery which is punishable with up to a maximum of five years ( i think), but i do not think the law had been tested yet. It would be funny for a woman to take her husband to court for sleeping with another woman and charging him for adultery.

I am not in support of polygamy in today's societies but tell you monogamy is positive but unnatural law.

Tell me what you think

Thanks, i accept, but note that i had already conceded that its a controversial area and that people would insist that man is naturally polygamous -

Deep Sight:


It is my personal view that fidelity is a natural law on account of the pain and disturbance that infidelity evidently brings to people. However i admit that this is a possibly controversial area, because many people will insist that it is equally natural for males to have more than one partner.