Analysis Of The Act Of Polyandry

875 Words4 Pages
Polyandry is a form of marriage where a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry was derived from greek where is means “many men” There is another form of polyandry known as “fraternal polyandry” where a woman is married to two or more brothers and it is believed by majority of anthropologists to be encountered frequently. In the Hindu epic, Mahabharata a woman by the name Draupadi marries 5 brothers known as the Pandavas. However, it should be noted that Draupadi was also known as Panch-Kanya (The Five Virgins) of Hindu epic, as is her Mother-in Law Kunti whom Draupadi loved very much. However, these epics are written for a purpose but definitely not for the purpose of encouraging polyandry. Nevertheless, polyandry has been…show more content…
His gist is that privacy should be respected which makes him moderate moralism, law should only intervene when society won’t tolerate certain behaviour, law should be a minimum standard not a maximum standard and act as general guideline. Is the act of polyandry tolerable by the society? In some society it is tolerable but in some they will not. However, to abolish the act of polyandry will also intervene with the privacy on the individuals. Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done? A reasonable man will not think the act of one woman marrying more than one man as reasonable as this will cause…show more content…
Therefore, Devlin would have thought the same for polyandry. Polyandry conviction should be held only when its violation become intolerable and Devlin argues that majority view in morality still prevails but in R v Bisgop finally it was held that homosexuality was an amputation against character. Nevertheless, Devlin would have thought that majority will think polyandry to be immoral
Open Document