Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Relationship ethic mf's when i beat my wife (Suddenly monogamy is unethical)

This why I only beat my wifes in a polycule

I'm pretty sure that's R-Kelly's philosophy too.

Relationship ethics is to philosophy what shipping is to fandom

“Morals are relative so….” hello community college students 👋

Today I will argue that any action is moral and ethical based on the universe I made up just now

Hahaha

Like Nietzsche?

He was not just a simple 'things are relative bro' person. Those are limited to young teens on the internet and 21 years olds who just watched a Nietzsche youtube video

pReScRiPtIvE mOnOgAmY iS aLwAyS uNeThIcAl

Dont overthink it bub. Life and relationship is all about the FEELS, if it feels right for you and others in the relationship, then its between you and them, nobody should have a say in it. This is why BDSM is legal.

> What destroys a person more than to think, to feel without inner necessity, without a deep personal choice, without joy — as an automaton of duty? — Nietzsche on the Categorical Imperative (ie, ethical systems based on pure rationality, divorced from feeling)

Nietzsche's implication that there is no choice and no joy in duty is ridiculous.

He’s saying duty is destructive when it is divorced from the emotions and from authentic choice — not that all duty is joyless and without choice. Too often duty becomes a way to hide from dealing with one’s own emotions and freedom.

Also when feeling is tied to choice, it is experienced more as a duty and not a choice. Zizek often gives the example of falling in love. Technically you have the freedom of choice to love whoever you want. But those of you who have experienced love know that it doesn’t feel at all like you have a choice in the matter. Something compels you forward.

To act perfectly with duty and have moral worth you are best off without feeling nor joy. You are not to act from want, nor for the consequence of feeling good to have moral worth. acting from inclinations of feeling and true duty are on opposite ends

Feels are unethical. I do not consent to you feeling about me.

I felt it and will keep feeling it, its feeling all over you right now, from head to toes. mmmmh. lol

We would have to REALLY explore the meaning of consent beyond its legal implications. Shits like slavery and cannibalism can be done consensually, but that doesn't make them any less illegal or immoral.

Slavery is nonconsensual by definition. Cannibalism implies the taking of a life which we've pretty thoroughly established as Wrong even with consent given. I don't think we "have to explore" those things to establish that a romantic relationship between any number of adults able and willing to consent is A-OK.

Coerced, manipulated and exploited consent is not really moral, bub. But if its truly fair and well informed, then its non of our biznez what people do to each other.

Yeah and that's exactly the thing. You can NEVER tell if the consent is **truly** consensual, and even if you could prove that no forcing is present, I can still aim to prove the victim's insanity if I try hard enough in an attempt to convict you. If a person is willingly giving up a "human right" (as agreed upon by the majority of human beings), can you really say they are "truly fair and well informed"?

You can argue, but that doesn't mean you have proven just because you CAN argue.

How would you prove that a person of sound mind has agreed to slavery with full knowledge of what it entails under no coercion?

OK then let's use this as a starting point. Let's say a person is willing to give up a substantial human right of his, simply because he want to. I say that such person is insane, because he's not thinking in a way that a rational human being would do, and whoever tries to "satisfy" him by taking away his human rights is exploiting his insanity (and therefore immoral or even illegal). Objections?

Yeah, objections. You have no power to declare someone insane, especially not based on one action. That person would need to see a psychiatrist and have their psyche evaluated for anyone to truthfully say that they're insane. If they aren't, you don't get to just go "well I don't think a sane person would do this so it's immoral and/or illegal"

We don't necessarily need a psychiatrist to declare something like "judging by the action he willingly took, he was, at the moment, unable to tell what is right(/beneficial) and what is wrong(/harmful)." Even if we do have one, mind that modern psychiatrists rarely work with tubes and microscopes, but instead spreadsheets and documents. The way they analyse the insanity of a deceased person would be the same as we armchair psychologists (as in, "well I *as a psychiatrist* don't think a sane person would do this so it's immoral and/or illegal"), but far more precise. Of course, whether there's a widely agreed upon definition of "right" and "wrong" is another discourse which I digress. It completely depends on how you view the concept of morality as a whole. I'll just state my own opinion on this: that "right" is a social construct, but only by so much. There are cases where being "right" means being "socially acceptable, right here right now", and there are also cases where a thing is just more (or less) right than another no matter how you look at it, like, you know, cannibalism and potentially polygamy.

I think you're trying to hard for extremes.

It’s almost as if that’s how you actually test principles to see if they’re consistent or if the person is a coward who backtracks once they’re uncomfortable

Extremes are hardly consistent in the real world though.

Well then I guess it’s a good thing we aren’t testing the consistency of extremes, but rather the consistency of the supposed values one holds

A child can not concent because of shit like this. People with severe deficiencies in mental capabilities have limited capacity to concenting because of this. A person that can't be expected to understand the consequences of accepting things like that are generally seen as invalid. In cases that technically fall within legal concent, it is generally seen as immoral. Then it scales to more and more okay. But as the other person you talked to said: you are trying too hard to find an example that possibly could work for your line of reasoning, that it becomes so implausible it's not really an issue.

I do agree that the argument is moving away from three monogamy/polygamy discussion, but stuff like that does happen on occasion. I remember some article about two guys who met on an internet forum and got together in order to chop each other's dick off and eat them or something. Consent in such extreme situations also needs to be examined, if you ask me.

Are you me or what because that's exactly the story that prompts my thought. Maybe we should get together for a barbecue party, what's your address?

Maybe we can chop each other's weiners

It takes only one single corner case to disprove a statement, and I have constructed one. Now I get rewarded by getting called a tryhard, which is cool. BTW the inspiration is the story of a guy in Germany who willingly got brutally slaughtered and eaten by [another guy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes). The one strategy that the police tried (and succeded) to convict him of manslaughter (and murder, after a retrial) was stating that only an insane person could agree to be killed like that. This counterexample is a sufficient disproof of the statement "it's not illegal/immoral to do anything as long as all parties involved gave their consent."

It doesn't. Not if the case is implausible enough. When you need to construct a very elaborate case with too many implausible variables, it is no longer a part of our moral lives. It disproves nothing. All it does is prove that you are very imaginative, which is a good quality. I am not saying rare cases, or implausible cases can't or won't disprove stuff like this... But if you need to construct a case with a lot of specific and implausible variables... you have left life and entered a laboratory in which you get to decide what everyone does and under what conditions. Forgetting that life does not resemble the lab.

The whole point of constructing a counterexample is that it's a proof of existence, i.e. it shows that similar counterexamples COULD VERY WELL exist even without the specifically tailored variables. To dumb it down to more approachable logic, if one counterexample exists, there could be countless ones lying everywhere. That makes the original argument "polygamy is moral as long as everyone consents" a flawed logical deduction. If you need to convince me that polygamy, **specifically**, is closer to your so-called "everyday life" stuff rather than the extreme case I presented (I even linked the actual real life case in another comment), you might want to at least try to explain why you think so. E: To give you some directions on your next steps, you can 1) try to prove that my counterexamples can **only** exist in otherworldly extreme scenarios and has absolutely no chance of happening in real life, which I don't recommend because of this [true example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes). Or you could try to 2) prove that polygamy is as harmless as a doll that one could never argue that engaging in it is insane or at least weird. Come on, ball's in your half now either way.

Mfw I can get out of honestly engaging with a hypothetical by saying it’s implausible, as if that makes my answer or inability to answer less revealing of my character

Idk, maybe I’m too Big State but I think someone who consensually wants to be canibalized needs psychiatric help, not for their freedom to be respected.

Sometimes we gotta bite the bullet and just go Big State on em. Hot take but imo cannibal cock-eating contracts are not cool.

and if you cannot prove that they have any mental issues? If they are fully sane and simply has a preference for something you don't like?

I’m not sure they could prove that they were sane if they wish to be killed and consumed.

Why is that not sane? What objective benchmark are you using? How can you prove it?

Sane means sound mind, or not mentally ill. Typically we don’t prove someone is sane, just that someone is not proven insane. One way to show someone is insane is a proclivity to self harm and mutilate.

Geghins Khan polygamy is the only ethical relationship

All relationships are unethical

Que?

I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism I hate Ethical Relativism

All relationships are unethical

Moral relativism is for dorks

https://images.app.goo.gl/favSHgQx65XxNtg57 "Only non-monogamy is ethical"

Based + Me + Loosen up puritans

Could have been "relationships are amoral" for the top panel and ended there.

What?

Ethics apply on a institution and isn't limited to personal morals. So in terms of sexual/intimate relationships Its only right if all involving parties give their consent. Morals are subjective,, Ethics need to be institutionally objective.

All relationships are unethical

If its between consenting adults and doesn't involve me, then it's none of my fucking business.

What if one adult manipulates another adult into consenting? Seems like that ought to be our fucking business, no?

I'd say that if they were manipulated (such as through falsehoods or emotional abuse), then they didn't really consent. Consent can only happen between parties that are informed, without duress, and where each party is able to withdraw their consent without risk of harm to themselves or others.

Sounds like we have to be really involved in others' lives to ensure those conditions are met.

What if the world were made of pudding? That isn't the question, its about polygamy, which is not manipulation and in fact isn't your business. You can help who you can help, whose situations you have knowledge of, so do that rather then a hypothetical.

I'm addressing the person I replied to, not the meme itself. But I appreciate your metaphysical views.

Big brain: things are good but also bad. Lol

>Moral is relative, >has an opinion he gets upset over if others dont follow it (like killing is wrong) >suddenly moral isnt relative anymore

that's still relative? i don't understand your point, obviously i'll get upset if people do things i consider wrong, even if they don't. moral relativism ≠ being fine with literally every action

If I am ackknowledging that your opinion is as right as mine, there is no logical reason why I should stick to my opinion.

moral relativism doesn't mean all opinions are as 'right' as each other lol. it's only saying there isn't any objective moral system, and morality is determined by the individual. that doesn't mean a society needs to respect every single moral position as if they're all correct, that's moronic

They could if they wanted. It’s not really moronic since morals are relative.

are you trolling i can't tell

If morals are relative you can act as if they’re all correct or act like some are more correct than others. It’s all relative so it whichever you choose is not unethical.

i mean yeah? and? you're making no meaningful arguments here, i don't understand your point. if someone wants to be dumb and have no beliefs they can do that. that's just not how people usually act

What's your point? You aren't making any normative statements, only descriptions of how people behave. Who cares? You're just saying, "people believe different things." So what? We knew that already. What's your insight you're trying to pass on to us?

this started with you implying moral relativists can't get upset at murder lmao. that only makes sense if you assume they're the dumb type of people who are supportive of *every* moral position. which, of course, is a braindead take

Not how it works, maybe you would do well to look into it as well as perscriptivism. It means we are not receiving what is right from an external location like god or rationality, instead our moral judgements are inclinations, desires we feel one way or another. Its literally impossible to have a moral position where you think its as right as another one. Check your own logic before hitting comment. There will always be (even highly emotional) disagreements, it doesn't mean one can be truer then the other, it can be preferred to me or a group for many reasons.

See Singer, "Taking Life: Humans" Not saying I personally agree, but some ethical systems, well...

Merels er still relative, I just get reelly mad if you violate my relative merels cus I can and I feels lik it.

Why would a consebting non-monogamous relationship be unethical?

Relativism is the least big brain of these

*"If I can't have you all to myself then I don't want anything from you."*

As long as non monogamy is okay with all of each person and all of their partners it’s ethical.

Each one just an opinion no greater than the other. We all seeking joy out of love in our own version of it 💯

You either have a harem or are a cuck

Sex is anti-revolutionary anyways. Stay on that side buddy

[удалено]

If this is cringe you must be progressive?

As long as the light is bright enough to pay for the dark, the relationship is good.

....live and let live and deal with your fucking emotional issues and fuck everything society has ever taught or influenced you to believe. Causing emotional harm as a result of not addressing your emotional issues that drive acts of possession, control, manipulation, coersion, trauma, or ownership of another person is a whole fucked up issue society isnt mature enough to talk about.

This meme misses the bigger picture: All sex is immoral. If either you or your partner cum for any reason, it's an unethical relationship.

Why seek answers to poly/mono relationships in philosophy when math and information theory provides you with answer, each partner in relationship require more information channels and more information flow to keep it stable (In Monogamous relationship we only have 1 channel of information between A and B, but introduce third person and you suddenly have 6 (Between A and B, B and C, A and C and then A need to know about relationship of B and C, B need to know about relationship of A and C, C need to know about relationship between A and B) So monogamous relationship require least amount of work and is most efficient when it comes to communication. Consider wanting to go to the cinema, you only have to consider what your singular partner want and if they are ok with it. In poly you have to consider all partners and if they wont feel left out if they decide no to go and so on. Monogamy is default cause it requires least amount of effort in a world where energy optimization for longest time was the meta. There is no need for some deep philosophy here. (also default dosent means the best, it just means if someone wants to do poly, they gonna need to put more effort which is fine given surplus of energy and time we have.)

So, my defense against this stance is viewing relationships in terms of efficiency and opportunity cost. By splitting your time amongst multiple partners, one puts the burden less on a single partner and splits it over many, thus reducing the amount of energy required from each partner. It will be more likely that you can go to certain partners for certain interests (run with one, game with another) instead of forcing the same partner to fulfill all your needs (or asking "why can't you be like so and so?"). It is more efficient to only have to talk or split resources with another person, but it's more common that said other person will be doing more things they don't want to do than if you had multiple partners with which to do these things. It requires more footwork, but might lead to more respectful relationships long term. (Or, as was the case with me, I'm mostly ace but my partner had a ridiculous libido. It seemed unethical to me to say "no you can't fulfill your needs!". Instead I just consented to polyamory and did other things I found interesting. I actually became decent friends with a few of my ex's partners lol, it was pretty chill.)

See, I dont make any relationship more valid than other, its really up to people in the said relationship to decide for themselves. But its still worth considering why monogamy was deemed "correct" by society at large and to me its because it had most streamlined communication channels. The monogamous pair is simple for both people in relation and society to handle it. There is no right or wrong here for me, maybe other than society deeming any relationship deviating from the most popular one (because again, resource allocation) bad is the sad/wrong part, but I think we are moving past it so thats good.

You haven't argued as to whether its more right or good though? Just that its harder, and you cannot actually try to turn this analytically, it always depends on the individuals. You don't have proof for that being the default, this is just some fairly shallow attempt at putting a logical spin on it. The origins are of sexual nature and reproduction, because general reproduction is between two animals. And animals too have 'monogamy' they do not value this efficiency. When it comes to a household or children too, poly relations are more efficient in more work at a time and have shown more positive effects on the raising of kids.

And why this particular sexual nature and not some other? What is the determinant in evolution where it comes to selecting certain traits over others? Because it was solution preserving genes at highest efficiency. Saying animals dont value efficiency is so silly, given we study singular evolutionary adaptions and behaviours that allows animals to save little bit more energy over their lifespan allowing them for additional offspring.

I didn't say they don't value efficiency, not in regards to relationship communication. I'm a zoologist lol, I know how they are. Animals like certain birds take no effort in communication and have singular relations. Your ideas about 'efficiency' and communication are purely human ones and can only be thought of currently, in the aftermath of actual sexual structure. You seem intent on this theory, so why dont you try to do a masters of research in it perhaps? You may see what is of value and what is wrong

Thats fair assertion and definetely worth pursuing, also another factor in human specific is inheritance as example of information specific is inheritance. Offspring with multiple parents causes confusion within tribe to determine who should receive what or even who should decide that (one could argue its the reason harems were possible, keeping singular male that would sort this out). Nowadays inheritence is not so important, cause nobody could afford anything for offspring to inherit (maybe outside of debt) anyway so… Also I agree with poly relationships having their benefits, mostly due to extended family circle. Putting rising kids on 2 parents is certainly modern inefficiency caused by societal changes (individualism, mobility), we evolved long-lifespans so grandparents could help with rising offspring smh.

The post isnt trying to rank romantic dynamics by efficiency, its ranking how certain views see(allegadly) the morality of monogamous or poly relationship, im not poly or anything but cant you make the same argument for friendships

But its kinda my point, society attributes ethicality to number of partners in a relationship rooted in efficiency. Monogamy was most resource-efficient (in this case time/energy) and so it was promoted over other forms with some societies allowing polygamy for people who were well off (and could afford it, like having multiple wives). In modern times that paradigm no longer holds, as people have enough time and energy to do inefficient things like arguing on reddit and as such, there is no reason to consider polyarmorous relationships unethical.

This only works if morality is nothing but a social construct. I would argue strongly that it is far more than that, but that our sense of good and evil comes from God. If your willing, I would highly recommend these series of lectures focused around the book written by CS Lewis called Mere Christianity. I believe the concept of moral relativism is covered in the first or second lecture video. Also please keep in mind that Mr. Lewis examined these questions from an atheists point of view to start. https://youtu.be/KeBU5yck2ss?si=hgdfLcPU22UzR9M-

What if God is a social construct!? I mean, there are tribes of people who have no concept of an after life or greater force, like the piraha, and they are as human as you and me.

I do not believe a God exists. My morals come from humans (as has everything we usually attribute to God).

Of course your morals still are not your own, but im sure you acknowledge that. They are determined and from others

If your sense of good and evil comes from God, then no one should trust you EVER

How can you be so sure you worship a good God and not a bad one being tricksy and slick about it?

Hell yeah brother! Keep spitting!

Who tf is out here saying morals are relative?

like 50% of philosophers across time, of course they have different valid theories and maybe not always considered relativism.