Ok, I think positions are better explained than before.
You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Ouch. I think this is a misuse of term. For peoples you have statistically prevalent behavior patterns. For persons you have moral decisions. Peoples don't make decisions. May be governements do (rather, leaders do), but not people.
With regard to women - having 4 wives might or might not be practical and/or beneficial to society. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife.
With regard to anarchy: here is the definition -
an\ufffdar\ufffdchy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>
That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down.
<<<<<<<<<
That's what monarchs say. It may even be what bishops (ayatollas) say. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion.
>>>>>>>>
Well, no, they're not *just* logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well.
<<<<<<<<
And I keep thinking that those "other things" matter more in certain _personal_ decisions than all of the above combined.