ETHICS of Polygamy

Good morning, affirmation :) 1. Your clarification directly contradicts your comments on this very debate, in which you state: "Ethics and Morality are essential[ly] the same thing: derived ‘oughts.'" So, all of the sudden, morality and ethics are vastly different? One can be immoral but not unethical? The shifting advocacy limits our ability to properly debate. Secondly, your analysis on why social acceptability is not a "y," as it were, is significantly flawed. Addressing the Nazi example, most Germans, even those who associated themselves with the Nazi party, were not even indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. They believed in the general political ideology espoused by Nazi political elites because Germany was in ruins after their devastating loss during World War I (see the Treaty of Versailles). Germans were desperate for leadership and some sort of positive change on an individual level. A vast majority of Germans were not party to or even fully aware of the German government's actions against Jews. That is not even close to an example of widespread societal acceptance. Funnily enough, the unethicality of polygamy does represent widespread acceptance, mostly because of current religious doctrine held at least in part, usually in full, of all major religions. The only major religion that is truly and unadulteratedly neutral on the subject is Hinduism, but the practice of polygamy by that religion's practitioners, as cited in round 1, is marginal at best. The consent is extremely vast in comparison to the Holocaust. Also, note the difference between genocide and polygamy. One is clearly different in consequence than the other. That is not to say that polygamy is ethical because it isn't killing anyone, at least in noticeable amounts. It is, however, proof that the ethicality of this action is far more determined by societies than any sort of "natural right" or "natural law" that the affirmation might assert exists. This act doesn't necessarily violate the right to life. But, it has been deemed a point of debate for societies as to its ethicality. Society has decided per my above discussion that this act is unethical enough to write negative state-based and religious-based statutes, even to change the dogma of their own religion to reflect an ethical disapproval of the act. 2. The affirmation's entire stance is tied only to a first-world country perspective. Of course, in the United States, polygamy is much more likely to be the product of consent. However, considering that historians support polygamy to be a creation specifically designed to serve the needs of men and male offspring, history seems to be on my side. Even in the United States, women who escape forced polygamist marriages as part of religious cults write entire autobiographies about how psychologically and physically damaging their "relationships" with their husbands were. Now, consider countries that have changed their views on women's' rights minutely over the last several hundred years. More fundamental societies are highly unlikely to all of the sudden change their entire ideology about polygamy. The United States is, empirically, the freest country in the world. Imagine what forced polygamy is in a nation where accused adulteresses (not tried fairly in an impartial court of law) are taken out to soccer fields and shot. Can you then say that polygamy, upon our assertion that it's ethical, will become a harmonious, loving, consent-based relationship? The fact of the matter is, most of the countries that regularly practice polygamy are exactly those which you describe in your round 1 arguments: third world and some Islamic nations. Because of the governmental systems they exist in and their current economic and social instabilities, they are highly unlikely to be able to process positive social change in the ways you describe. The US can at a much more rapid rate, but that rate is incomparable, even in other 1st world nations.