Greatest good of greatest number - Bentham

A great question.

Human needs can be divided into two parts- essential and non essential. Essential needs like food, clothes, electricity, road, water, pollution etc. are also common needs- everybody wants. The Benthamian Utilitarianism is squarely applicable, when the question involves any of the essential needs.

The problem arises with non-essential needs. It differs from person to person. With development of humanity, share of non essential needs is constantly increasing. Therefore you will find differing interpretaion, different political views, growth of experience industry-- difficult to find things common to a large number of people. Utilitarianism is not very helpful there. In such situation personal liberty becomes very important, as long as it is not encroaching upon any common essential need.

i agree with rajesh kumar.

no mr salvi this principle, is not apporpriate in matrimonial field. only two (the spouses) are in question and nothing else.

Actually once upon a time marriage was a social relation- so family decided to whom to marry, participation of society in marriage, no divorce provision.......... Now it is a legal relationship of two individuals. I think, leave the society, if the relationship can keep two persons happy- i think it is serving its purpose. 

I dont think it will be difficult to to accept a girl with two husbands. It all depends upon the requirement of the society. Any anthropologist will tell you that a hunting cave society was polyandrous. Even today in some tribal societies polyandry is practiced.

Alvin Toffler in "Future Shock" referred to serial marriages in future. The amount of divorce and remarriage and redivorce and re-r-emarriage ... are trend towards serial marriages.

Some people are experimenting in the concept of "polyfamily", consisting of more and one husband and more that one wife simultaneously. https://www.polyfamilies.com/ When you look at the concept closer, it is just like earlier tribal concept of "community children", where paternity was not known and children were regarded as children on the whole tribe. They had this system also in warring "sparatan society". Plato "Republic" also refers to such type of marriages for ruling class.

One should not be very deeply affected by present moral standards of the society. It keeps on changing.  

i support mr rajesh kumar's opinion.

suppose one woman have one husband, and in a particular moment she accept another male as a husband / s*x partner; the first husband now have  two options or choice, either he will continue the marriage alongwith the second husband or he will left the woman. the question of parentity will be decided by the dna test and other scentific method.

the court will have, either no role or a very limited role. all the things will be controled by the persolal liberty of the individuals concerned.

men already got this advantage, now women also have the same status.

once i read such a case. the case was from the dist of madhbani, jharkhand. two very close  friends married a woman with the concent of all the three.they had issues.

though many of us donot like it but it will be included in our future s*x pattern..

Marriage- an enigma. We dont understand it. Further, the morality links it with religion and hence we dont want to discuss it, for it can hurt peoples emotion.

Maternity is known. A mother always knows that this is my child. So she will always take care of her child. How will a father knows that this is my child? Marriage provides this answer. In a marriage where feminine s*xual independence is suppressed, where females are not allowed to meet strangers, where a women is virgin at the time of marriage, where husband has a right to punish adulterous wife---------- these things were provided in marriage so that a man can be convinced that the offspring he is rearing is his child. Otherwise the man has no reason to rear the child.

Now these restrictions on women are not possible in a modern marriage with a modern women........ Hence the crisis of marriage......... hence the Men's Right Activism call to refuse marriage. 

very right you are mr rajesh.

in western countries, people already started refusing to establish matrimonial  relationship. that does not mean that they are refusing to do s*x. they are refusing to establish matrimonial  relationship. where hardels and bindings are much more over the couple. every person likes freeness, irrespective to it's zender. even young   ladies refusing to be a mother. economical prosperities and demand of more and more freeness on s*x, personal liberties; bearing the duties of a child; all these etc,etc, gradually making a marriage unpopular. rate of child birth decreasing. these are coming into the society step by step.

even asian country Japan expericing it now a days.

time coming when all the societies of the world refuse the 'system of marriage' and will throw it into waste paper busket. hardly 50 yaers more, the society will experiencing it. live in relationship will be popular.

this can be avoided by changing the present marriage system, according to the modern era.

Thanks profusely Mr Rajesh Kumar. It was precisely for coming in contact with intellectuals like you that I spend time on this site. Rest all is " just by the way'.