In this particular post, I shall qualify the term 'adultery' to 'having extra-marital sex without the consent of the spouse, if any, of both parties'. (This doesn't mean I'm OK with "open-relationship" or "swinger-couple". I qualify it for the sake of argument)
Just today, there is this case that a woman trying to justify her adultery act by arguing for 'right of individual choice in sexual relations'. Her neglectful husband did not consent over her extra-marital sexual activities, hence I deem this as a case of 'adultery'.
The Australian reports
What is alarming is that the person involved in the adulterous act argues for a right to have extra-marital sex. And she sublimes it as 'individual's rights'.
Could this be another by-effect of Mill's utilitarian view of ethics, though not necessary has any direct link with Mill?
I think as long as we maintain status quo with the current valuation of ethics based on 'individuals' right', our current political discourse is nothing short of the domestication of 'rights'. Anyone from anywhere can argue for any 'rights'.
Hence, if we want to continue to talk about 'rights', we need to look elsewhere.