Both parties have admitted to committing adultery when their marriage had ceased to function as a warm and living relationship. As far as I’m concerned that’s their business, not mine … just as the fact that I was in a relationship with someone else before my marriage was legally over is none of their business.
As far as I’m concerned people who break drink driving laws or drive dangerously are far more morally reprehensible than someone who commits adultery.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
My views on Boris was that he was unfit to continue as PM because he lied. But I justify that to myself, given that i lie and the whole world lies, by the 'fact' that he lied to Parliament. I know he lied elsewhere and all that is documented, but his lying to Parliament broke rules that said he should resign. I honestly don't care that he may have lied to his wife (ives) or to his boss or to.. well, not quite true, but all those other lies just seemed to prove to me that he was a serial liar - but still my issue was with the proroguing, Partygate and stats misrepresentation.
To bring that round to Charles, or any leader or role model, unless it states in the job description that certain rules can't be broken, then it becomes iffy as to what constitutes (intended) a 'sackable' offence doesn't it? Public opinion may force an action, but is it being said that any public figure can't commit any 'misdemeanour'? Could Charles have speeding tickets for instance? Is being divorced an issue?
I argue against myself here, as I think any policeman caught breaking the law should be punished more harshly than a civilian committing the same - because they enforce those laws - but simply because some people put Royalty on a pedestal, can they not be human? Otherwise aren't we saying that Royals have to be morally 'non human' - and isn't that then just an insane projection of unsustainable moral values on someone?
Sorry if I'm protracting this, but I find these morality type chats fascinating.
I'm now lost. are you saying that because a punishment is wrong, the act is ok?
Can't you separate the act from the punishment and judge each on it's own merits?
To me, adultery is NOT just the definition of the word. Adultery that causes damage to either party to me is morally wrong. There are times where:
- An external relationship may not include sex, but still do damage to a relationship
- An external relationship may have the consent of all the parties
Legally, I know the definition (basically sex with a 3rd party), but morally it is in the action isn't it?
I split with my first wife and we waited two years before getting divorced. Both of us, in that time (between marriage finishing and divorce), had other relationships - although neither of us had other relationships while we tried to keep the marriage going. So we both committed adultery in the definition of the word.
I don't know enough (and don't want to know) about Charles and Diana to comment on their marriage and what occurred when and who consented to what.
Similarly,I know stealing is wrong and has a punishment, but morally if someone steals to feed someone who is starving, it isn't morally wrong IMO. The word has a definition, but is in the action and circumstance isn't it?
That goes for virtually all the moral arguments. Would it have been OK to kill Hitler - was it ok to kill Bin Laden? ... but we have to have laws. Some kids at 16 are adult, some are still children at 30.
As for punishments being inappropriate - crime-punishment is set in an era. Public opinion helps set punishment levels. Just read the Old Bailey archives to see what the punishment for stealing was in the UK. Weren't witches still hung in the 18th century? Another no crime, insane punishment - you don't have to go back to 600BC to get examples.
Historically adultery, especially by women, was frowned upon and forbidden because husbands had to be sure that any children of the marriage were his because of the male inheritance laws. Men endeavoured to make the punishment so awful as to warn women off committing adultery. Similarly sex by men with men was forbidden as it would not result in children and therefore the religious leaders would not be able to recruit more believers.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
The Old Testament is a bunch of fables, not history.