Category Archives: Morals Ethics

Morals Ethics

Marriage between two people of the same sex: the status argument

Posted on by

In the referendum to make marriage open to two persons of the same sex, fairness and equality means people should vote yes.

I think there are many faults in marriage, and the law should be changed: but the choice to marry should be to a person of the sex that you choose, and not to only the other sex.

Very many writers have shown that arguments against the marriage of two people of the same sex, based on children, on the concept of marriage, and on the structure of society, have no strength at all. We should ignore those supposed arguments and vote yes.

I write about one supposed argument against same-sex marriage that I have not seen closely examined: how some persons married to persons of the other sex are sure that they will lose status, after couples of the same sex can legally marry.

Status (in marriage) in history

I suspect that status for a person who is married has very little real content now. I think it had some meaning in earlier centuries, when the society was tribal. Marriage still has some features that are tribal, but it has lost most of the feature of status.

A married woman was not allowed to own property, up to the nineteenth century. The woman who was married was property of her husband, in many aspects of the law. A young woman was the property of her father until she reached 21 years. This applied to young men also. Society seems to have wanted a woman to get married soon after 21, and then she would become the property of another man (the husband). Society and its members look like they were afraid of a woman being legally independent, and plenty of marriages were just before the woman reached 21.

This looks like people did not like a woman who was legally independent, that they feared what she would do. A woman who became married no longer excited this fear, and became more accepted in society, and was less open to criticism for her status.

Corresponding to the perceived dangerous status of an unmarried woman over 21 was the positive status of a married woman. A woman who married would feel of higher status than a woman living with a man or than a single woman.

Status recently

The law came to let married women own property (late 19th century), to refuse sex to the man she had married (late 20th century), and to divorce the man by the same rules as the man could divorce her, so that the differences of status no longer exist.

But the idea of status that is higher when you are married persists, in the minds of some people. I have heard or read this idea more often from women than from men.

It looks like some people have transferred the status of not being a socially uncontrolled person (the unmarried woman was supposed to be “uncontrolled” in earlier centuries) to a status of being in some way better than some other group(s) of people. Better than whom would the married person be, now? Would a married woman have a higher status than a married man, or the reverse? Both of these would be contrary to the laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender. Would a married woman have higher status than a single or divorced woman, and a married man also higher than a single or divorced man? These are also prohibited by law as they are discrimination by family status.

So, it is hard to support the idea of a status that is at present higher for a married woman or a married man than for some other class of person. So there is not a status that can be lost.

Is the status that some married people claim that they will lose, after two people of the same sex can legally marry each other, the status of a person who because of being heterosexual can marry their chosen partner, which is therefore higher than that of the minority who are homosexual and so now cannot marry their chosen partner? This looks contrary to the law against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, so the law is already against the idea that the status of one orientation would be higher. It also looks a bit petty, as the set of people who would gain equal status is small compared to the set of heterosexuals and so it is no real threat.

 

Conclusion: A woman used to have a higher status by being married, but a married person does not now have any status higher than other people, so there is no status to be lost if the minority of people who are gay are allowed legally to marry a person of the same sex.

 

 

We think…so freedom of expression is good for you

Posted on by

I think.

Other people think and, though not exactly the same as my thoughts, I think people’s schemes of thinking are fairly similar.

I think mostly about doing things, about their advantages and disadvantages. I will later do only a very small portion of these things.

The actions that I later do: while I do some of them soon after I think, there are many that I only end up doing months or years later. For some, the opportunity or the need for the action has not come yet.

From their conversation, I understand that other people do some similar thinking. Their conversations include talk of actions, and alternative actions, of which I have not thought. Some of these are about situations or opportunities that had not come to my mind before I heard them from others.

The bulk of thoughts are about situations and questions that I never face in person

My own spontaneous thoughts about actions in various situations, coupled with what I hear from others about similar and some quite different situations, have throughout life stimulated me to think about the choice of actions in situations that neither I nor the people I meet have experienced.

From that thinking I decide that one or more actions would be wiser than some of the other actions.

I reach these judgements about what I should do, many without testing the choice as I have not faced that situation. I reach judgements that some actions and plans are more sensible and rational than others. I hear other people in conversation also make these judgements. So, much as other people judge things, when I decide that an action or plan is the wise choice, I see my judgement as being a wise choice for people in general.

Thinking is also about knowledge

Some of the time I think about facts about parts of the world, about what is real knowledge about the world. This is important sometimes for the judgements about the right thing(s) to do in a situation.

I, and other people, make judgements about others’ judgements

I come to think that some actions are right for people in various situations (some I have faced, and some not).

I may make sensible judgements, or I may make judgements that are wholly or partly mistaken. I hear other people also considering these matters. They make judgements about what is best to do in situations. As people do not all reach the same conclusions on how best to act (or on what is true), I and every other person can make judgements about other people’s judgements (both their moral judgements and their factual judgements). If you think your idea is right, that implies that you think a contrary idea is at least partly wrong.

Some people don’t approve of people making judgements about other people. Here I am not writing about making judgements about other people, about the person. I only make judgements about people’s ideas or views. If I decide that one judgement or idea of a person is wrong, that is not a judgement that the person is a bad person.

Improving my judgements with help from other people

With people reaching different judgements, some people think that the other people’s rights to hold their own views means it is not correct to say to them that there is any fault with their ideas or judgements.

I think a lot about facts that I can never check out myself; and I reach judgements on what it’s best to do in situations I have not faced. I have reached these judgements in as rational a way as I can. I have a critical voice inside my head that sometimes asks the rest of my mind if I might have things wrong.

My internal critical voice has sometimes led me to change my view. But it is part of me. It can never criticise my views as objectively as another person could. So I value other people’s judgements on my ideas, because I want to get as close as I can to the sensible and correct judgement.

I welcome other people telling my views are wrong. I look forward to their rational arguments or evidence that point to the weak parts of my ideas.

I want this, because I want to reach more sensible ideas. If you respond to the great diversity of people’s judgements by never criticising an idea with which you do not agree, you contribute to other people remaining mistaken. And the social rule to avoid criticising other ideas contributes to you remaining mistaken.

I do not notice people giving the view that it is good to keep to mistaken thinking or actions.

Freedom of expression helps other people

I want to improve my ideas and judgements. I can improve them a lot by myself, while never conversing with other people. But to be sure of improving my ideas, I need to live in a society where people are free to express criticism of my views. These other people who would be criticising my views would be helping me. People have helped me in this way.

I am not alone on this desire about society. I know lots of other people who also want society to have a rule in favour of freedom of expression. If I express my views about their ideas, I could be helping them.

People’s first response to criticism of their ideas is often to feel uncomfortable. But it is not the person’s only reaction. After some seconds or minutes people may listen. At the end people often say that they value the criticism of their idea.

Freedom of expression helps societies

In a society, people will have different views on a lot of subjects. Variety on some subjects may not cause trouble to other people and so not to the society. But there are sure to be some subjects on which it is important that most or all of society will agree, the subjects where people’s actions can harm others or interfere with their rights.

If criticism of other people’s ideas is muted because of a rule that such criticism is wrong, the difficulties that come from lack of agreement will persist.

The people who may end up having to change their views will do this most easily and peacefully if the process of change is peaceful, and if it is a normal process and not one commenced particularly for the particular subject. In other words, criticism and discussion of ideas should be going on all the time in the society.

Freedom of expression is good for all of us, all of the time.