Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

Rate this topic


Anastassia Florine

Recommended Posts

Kevin, Introspect and imagine yourself in a house with a wife and a second husband. Is that an ideal relationship for you?

It's true that the scenario of 2 to 1 doesn't seem very appealing, though I would hesitate to say that no rational person would find it so. However, introducing several people, or even simply four, into the equation seems to relieve some of the initial imbalances. Of course, the people would have to be compatible, but that's true of any marriage, polygamous or not. I think that the primary danger facing such a union would be jealousy, but I don't think that takes away from the validity of the system itself. Jealousy, it seems to me, is a by-product of insecurity, and can result from many kinds of relationships. And so, a polygamous group would have to be more secure in themselves and in the love shared with their partners in order yo combat the increased risk of jealousy. But doesn't this seem like a benefit, rather than a detriment? I wish that everyone entered into relationships with such a high level of consideration. I won't deny that a polygamous relationship would be inherently more complicated than a monagamous one, and would probably require people of uncommon self-assurance, but I would think that Objectivists of all people would be likely candidates for such security. Which is not to say that in order to be self-assured you have to be polygamous, but that most of the perils of polygamy that I can see stem from a lack of self-knowledge and self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about polyandry?
Now that's just downright sick ;) .
However, I find myself wondering why must one choose a highest value of the opposite sex, apart from hurting the other person's feelings? One presumes that if they enter into such a contract, they don't mind.
I don't know if it's wise to presume that -- rather, I think you should ascertain that it is so, to have no doubt that you're not embracing a contradiction. So if what you're seeking in a relationship is the knowledge that no other person could ever be as important, then monogamy is the only rational option.
Is it not possible that one can be in love with two people at once?
There's something funny about the expression "in love with" -- it seems to mean something different from simply "love". So what is that difference? It seems to me that it is exactly exclusivity. I love my wife, son, daughter-in-law, granddaughter and dogs, but I'm only in love with my wife. So I conclude that it is not possible to be in love with two people at once. Of course, there are these language problems that puzzle me (like finding out that "talking with" means "having sex" -- sheesh! kids these days), but I think that when people make the claim that they are in love with someone, they aren't just saying "I love so and so".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that when people make the claim that they are in love with someone, they aren't just saying "I love so and so".

I agree. I'm not sure I've ever been in love with two people at once ( in fact, I'm not sure I've ever been in love with one person at once! - ha!) but I certainly can say I've had strong romantic feelings for two people at one time.

softwareNerd, I get your point that few heterosexual people would want to enter into a marriage where the multiple partners were those of the same sex. Few people would want to be on the "giving" end of this spectrum. For instance, I would never want to enter into a multiple marriage where I was one of two women married to one man. However, I have often fantasized at how nice it might be nice to have at least two men around to fulfill different desires in my life. Anyone who hasn't had that kind of fantasy isn't serious. *insert image of multiple, beautiful, scantily clad ladies fanning YOU in a hammock*

David, I get your point. I can't think of any situation of multiple marriage that isn't initiated as a result of some wierd religious or tribal rite. And no one can speak seriously of having 27 soulmates, that's just ridiculous. But what about two? The fact that we don't think of this as normal could be because multiple marriage is illegal in most western societies and only the religious wackos are nuts enough to actually follow through with it because they would do whatever God's will is at all costs.

So if what you're seeking in a relationship is the knowledge that no other person could ever be as important...

Actually, if I were interested in marriage (I am not), what I would be seeking is a relationship where no other person could ever be as important to the other person as me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it can be said that polygamy is immoral or can't work without a context. I think that it is quite possible for some rational people to enter into such an arrangement and be happy.

One form of polygamy that I find especially interesting is the Heinleinian Line Marriage. I think the idea has real benefits over a standard two person marriage, if the right group of people could be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something funny about the expression "in love with" -- it seems to mean something different from simply "love". So what is that difference? It seems to me that it is exactly exclusivity.

I can see what you mean, but it seems kind of arbitrary to me. I would say the fundamental difference between the love you have for lots of different things and the love you share with this one specific person is essentially the sexual aspect. Obviously no one would loook askance at you loving many people in your life, but the idea of sexual, romantic love with multiple partners is less readily acceptable. I guess I don't see why adding the physical aspect would suddenly call for exclusivity. Why do people feel that they should be looking for the one person that is most important to them, and why is it in this context rather than a platonic one?

To answer Softwarenerd- not necessarily. I do think it's possible that given the right people I would find more satisfaction and fulfillment in such a scenario. The point isn't that one is inherently better than the other, but rather that monagamy has been plugged as the only viable option for so long that I wonder if the underlying reasons have become obscured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's possible that given the right people I would find more satisfaction and fulfillment in such a scenario.

Amen brother. Actually, we have been speaking in sort of nebulous terms as far as partners fulfilling different needs, so I’ll be very specific. I think the ideal number of husbands would be 5. Details below. Men, if you want to snag the girl of your dreams, pay attention. You are about to get some serious insight into the female brain. :P

1) an older man (sugar daddy) – worldly-wise, obviously someone with more money than me!, has distinguished grey hair, can teach me to dance and can take me out to nice restaurants. Is a wine snob. Has taken beautiful photographs of many places he has visited – basically, everywhere. Owns huge sailboat named “Incommunicado” which we live on. Is willing to pamper me like a princess and cater to my every whim.

2) a brainy guy – someone who knows how to fix things and put things together and takes charge without asking or assuming that I can do it, even though I can. Also knows a lot about a diverse array of topics. Someone I can debate with. (This is the husband who obviously refuses to put up with any of my crap – in many ways, he is the opposite of husband number 1.)

3) a metrosexual – someone bordering on gay. This husband is interested in buying facial and haircare products (for himself and also for me), reciting poetry, going on shopping sprees for very cool shoes (for me) and hawaiian or floral print shirts (for him) and encourages shopping tendencies by jumping up and down and squealing when I come out of the fitting room. (I may be willing to forego this husband, as I have a wonderful gay friend who serves the purpose. However, none of the other four husbands will be allowed to take on this role or buy me any clothing or cosmetic products whatsoever. If they do, it will be insulting and a sign that I am the ugliest girl on earth.)

4) a cowboy/knight in shining armor – complete with chivalrous attitude and southern or Australian accent. May possess pickup truck that is actually used for pickup-truck type activities, and accumulates mud, which may be substituted for the horse. Possession of both horse and truck would be ideal.

5) a seducer – self-explanatory.

If I find someone who fulfils all of these criteria and actually falls madly in love with me, I will marry him.

Somehow I doubt this will ever happen. :P

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about polyandry?

Personally, I have two favorite desserts. I really like cheesecake with fruit topping and Pepperidge Farm white cake with coconut frosting. I like both of them. A LOT.

I think friendship is a better analogy. Although people talk loosely about having a 'best friend', it would be absurd to demand that a person chooses a single, exclusive member of the same sex to be their Best Friend ("could you really split your highest valuation of friendship between 2 people?!"). I dont think that I personally could share a girl I valued with someone else, but because I dont tend to feel this way about other things which I intensely value, I'm willing to admit that this is probably down to cultural conditioning (namely that I've been told since childhood that love = monogamy). To use an example which is perhaps overplayed, I doubt the Greeks would have had similar feelings (nor, I assume, would members of societies where polygamy is the norm).

~~

From a moral point of view, I think all that really matters is that you value your partner(s), and that you value them for the right reasons (exactly the same as when it comes to choosing friends). Making an exclusive choice isnt really necessary - we dont artifically enforce exclusivity in other areas of life, and there isnt really any objective justification for doing it here either (unless you want to start introducing considerations from evolutionary psychology relating to pair-bonding, which can be a fairly slippery slope). On a sidenote, I think that if you really want to make a serious arguement that monogamy is superior to polygamy, then youre going to need science to support your claims, not philosophy. I would want to see actual research from psychology/evopsychology which supported the claim that humans are happier in monogamous relationships, not philosophical speculation and anecdotes.

edit: Regarding anecdotes, I think this is one of those cases where instrospecting our own beliefs about what it would be like to share a partner proves very little, since our beliefs are likely to have been heavily affected by the strong bias Western society tends to have towards monogamy. I know mine have been anyway.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I find someone who fulfils all of these criteria ...
Problem is, he's the guy with multiple, beautiful, scantily clad ladies fanning HIM in a hammock :P , while a fully-clad one is supervising the house-staff, and a Paris-Hilton (yuck) look-alike is off somewhere getting into trouble he can't complain about, because her dad's millions bought the hammock. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) an older man (sugar daddy) – worldly-wise, obviously someone with more money than me!, has distinguished grey hair, can teach me to dance and can take me out to nice restaurants. Is a wine snob. Has taken beautiful photographs of many places he has visited – basically, everywhere. Owns huge sailboat named “Incommunicado” which we live on. Is willing to pamper me like a princess and cater to my every whim.

2) a brainy guy – someone who knows how to fix things and put things together and takes charge without asking or assuming that I can do it, even though I can. Also knows a lot about a diverse array of topics. Someone I can debate with. (This is the husband who obviously refuses to put up with any of my crap – in many ways, he is the opposite of husband number 1.)

3) a metrosexual – someone bordering on gay. This husband is interested in buying facial and haircare products (for himself and also for me), reciting poetry, going on shopping sprees for very cool shoes (for me) and hawaiian or floral print shirts (for him) and encourages shopping tendencies by jumping up and down and squealing when I come out of the fitting room. (I may be willing to forego this husband, as I have a wonderful gay friend who serves the purpose. However, none of the other four husbands will be allowed to take on this role or buy me any clothing or cosmetic products whatsoever. If they do, it will be insulting and a sign that I am the ugliest girl on earth.)

4) a cowboy/knight in shining armor – complete with chivalrous attitude and southern or Australian accent. May possess pickup truck that is actually used for pickup-truck type activities, and accumulates mud, which may be substituted for the horse. Possession of both horse and truck would be ideal.

5) a seducer – self-explanatory.

Sweet... I fit 3.5 out of 5. I'm definitely not number 1, and only about half of 3. Definitely have the horse and truck thing down.

:P:P (<closest thing to a cowboy smiley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the fundamental difference between the love you have for lots of different things and the love you share with this one specific person is essentially the sexual aspect.
So let's rephrase this question: is polygamy always immoral, vs. is having an affair always immoral? Immorality enters the picture when there is dishonesty (with self or others). Having sex isn't the same as marriage, so the immorality of the clandestine affair comes (mainly) from the clandestine, and not the affair; or, from self-deception (for example believing that your wife actually accepts your affair which she knows about, when in reality you have simply manipulated her into allowing you to have a mistress). I don't see any basis for claiming that having sex with two people is automatically immoral: it depends on the context, what assumptions are attached to having sex and/or other assumptions about your relationship with these people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any basis for claiming that having sex with two people is automatically immoral: it depends on the context, what assumptions are attached to having sex and/or other assumptions about your relationship with these people.

That seems fair. Why do you think it is that monogamy has become the norm in society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it is that monogamy has become the norm in society?
That's one for a cultural historian. I would start by researching church law starting with St. Augustine, which is, I think, where this norm originated from in our society. Another fork of research would be to see whether there is a Roman legal basis, having to do with inheritance and property (to eliminate conflicting claims).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing metaphisically given demands that you choose a single person to devote your life to. As Hal mentioned, there is no reason why your "highest valued person" has to exclude other people from living with you, having sex with you or whatever.

Obviously, as David noted, honesty is where the crux of the matter lies. If all the people involved are truly in agreement with the arrangement, it is *good*. The fact that someone may not imagine themselves in such an arragement is absolutely irrelevant.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that someone may not imagine themselves in such an arragement is absolutely irrelevant.
Irrelevant to the question of whether it is ethical. However, it isn't relevant to the question of whether it is practical (which is simply a different perspective to the same question).

Trying to imagine it makes one take a slice of reality and place it in a context. One might find, for instance, that some contexts which lead to one being up in a hammock with fan-bearing floozies are not practical/ethical ones.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand addressed polygamy in a Q&A session. In Ayn Rand Answers she's offered the polygamy question, and her answer (paraphrased from memory) is something like it's not especially immoral, but it's not a very rational thing to pursue.

But, she envisioned a scenario where it would be possible. A man's wife disappears (somehow), he eventually moves on & remarries, but then the first wife shows up. If all 3 were in mutual agreement, they might find a way to make a polygamous relationship work. But, it's an unlikely scenario, and if it happens again I hope the neighbors would have the presence of mind to call the police ...

My take: what those people in rural Nevada and Utah are doing is horrible - it's like an extreme version of the feminists' nightmare (women living as servile breeders). I haven't heard anything so atrocious as the testimonies of Mormon co-wives that have aired on cable news outlets lately. The other perspective - a "harem" scenario - has all the appeal of an X-Men super-power. It's a fun to fantasize about for a minute, but what's really behind such a desire?

Francisco d'Anconia's words come to mind: "Show me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll tell you everything you need to know about him."

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it isn't relevant to the question of whether it is practical (which is simply a different perspective to the same question).

Introspection about how *you* would feel in such an arrangement can at best tell you if it would be practical *for you*. It's not thinking in principles and in no way will lead to something you can apply universally (i.e. "polygamy is not practical").

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take: what those people in rural Nevada and Utah are doing is horrible - it's like an extreme version of the feminists' nightmare (women living as servile breeders).

While I completely agree that most of those women probably don't want to be there, most of them (except the ones that were not of age at the time they married) made the decision of their own free will as adults. And I imagine that some - probably a minority - are truly happy in that arrangement. Yes, it is a situation that definitely stinks. Yes, many of them probably wish that they had made other life choices at this point. And obviously, the situations they are in now would be very difficult to get out of, but it is not inconceivable for them to do so.

In fact there was a woman on this forum awhile back (chickenbuttlips, if i remember correctly) who left Mormonism and has now been isolated from her entire family and former community. Most Mormons (the main sect) are not polygamous at this point in history so this is not an extreme situation. Still, you get my point that it's not impossible for people to get out of the situations they were in.

The people I really feel sorriest for are Muslim women who do not live in free countries and have no option but to just keep on keeping on. There is no chance of escape out of their situation, except to escape their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Introspection about how *you* would feel in such an arrangement can at best tell you if it would be practical *for you*. It's not thinking in principles and in no way will lead to something you can apply universally (i.e. "polygamy is not practical").

Fair point. Someone interested in the question should also study the practices and experiences of polygamists and understand their contexts. That, coupled with introspection, would give one some of the essential concretes.

However, not to introspect at all (when thinking about relationships) is a mistake. It is not just in relation to this question. People make the same mistake in other questions, like: "why is it good or bad to be a drug-addict", or "why is this movie good or bad", and so on. It is invalid to use introspection as proof, even as a personally-held proof. It is ineffective to use introspective evidence as part of one's polemic, because that throws one open to the critique of "that's just you". So, while not part of a formal argument, it is absolutely crucial to thinking.

Concretizing a scenario where one has multiple wives can be helpful in understanding the pros and the cons.

Further, since a relationship is being discussed, the other question is: is this a relationship that both parties (or all) will enter happily? Thus, on polygamy, it is not sufficient to introspect and ask: would I like to have multiple wives? It's also important to ask: would I like to be one of many husbands. If one finds that one would like the former but not the latter, then one must ask if women would think differently. If they would not think differently, then that makes it impractical.

Since the moral is the practical, if something is moral, one must surely be able to visualize a practical situation where rational people would want to act a particular way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One form of polygamy that I find especially interesting is the Heinleinian Line Marriage. I think the idea has real benefits over a standard two person marriage, if the right group of people could be found.

I find this idea somewhat appealing. But I think the rarity of such familial arrangements says something about their practicality. It’s hard enough for two suitable people to find each other and get along for a lifetime – how do you manage a dozen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard enough for two suitable people to find each other and get along for a lifetime – how do you manage a dozen?

Like a corporation, with the oldest (competent) family member being Chairman of the Board (and/or President), the other adults being the other Board Members, and children being non-voting shareholders. The continued existence of the family relies more on competent management than anything else. Remember that Heinlein's view is based on the idea of a family as a commerical unit with the purpose of a.) accruing wealth and b.) producing offspring.

I think that this would work fairly well in a farm/frontier community where everyone has a stake in some communal effort (the farm) and there aren't a vast number of options for completely disconnected lifestyles. It also might be an option if there's a seriously disproportionate ratio of men to women, but that's up to the individuals involved. Some might simply prefer to dispense with the romantic relationship thing altogether; many people are happy with this option.

Personally, I don't think I would want more than one sexual partner, because my sexuality involves a tremendous degree of trust. It's hard enough to manage that with just one person, the problem rises to a completely new magnitude when you also have to consider that person's relationship with someone else. At that point, my relation with the first person becomes impersonal and detached. The Mother-In-Law is bad enough, I don't need the Older Wife in the bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this idea somewhat appealing. But I think the rarity of such familial arrangements says something about their practicality. It’s hard enough for two suitable people to find each other and get along for a lifetime – how do you manage a dozen?

I think their rarity is mainly an indicator of how prevalent monogamous religions are. I also think that more people might actually ease tensions. If there are only two people, and they have a fight, there is no way to get distance. If there are 12, it is easy to avoid someone until both parties calm down.

I would love to be able to learn more if any families have done this in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think their rarity is mainly an indicator of how prevalent monogamous religions are. I also think that more people might actually ease tensions. If there are only two people, and they have a fight, there is no way to get distance. If there are 12, it is easy to avoid someone until both parties calm down.

I would love to be able to learn more if any families have done this in real life.

Out of interest, just how prevalent _are_ monogamous relationships? Nominally of course, they are the cultural default. But is a relationship where the man cheats on the woman (or wants to cheat but feels guilty, or would cheat given a suitable opportunity, such as a beautiful woman propositioning him for sex) really a monogamous relationship? And could cheating perhaps be a problem with monogamy in general, rather than with the individual people invovled?

I'm sure there are many people who can be very happy in a monogamous marriage. But this doesnt mean that everyone can. Several people have remarked in this thread that they couldnt personally imagine themselves being happy in a polygamous relationship, but this works both ways - there are probably also people who couldnt be happy in a monogamous one. But since these people often have had it ingrained into their heads since childhood that monogamy is the 'only way' to do things, its possible that they will find themselves forced into a style of relationship that doesnt suit them, with problems likely to arise down the line. I think the key point here is that a great deal of introspection is required to discover what is right for you, with the corollaries that a) you shouldnt place too much value on what other people claim is the 'right' form of relationship, and B) you shouldnt be too quick to assume that what works for you is going to work for everyone, unless you can actually demonstrate that your findings have universal validity.

edit: my initial attempt at using gender neutral pronouns in the first paragraph failed miserably :(. There's an implicit 'or vice versa' there - I'm not suggesting that men are more likely to cheat than women are.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the moral is the practical, if something is moral, one must surely be able to visualize a practical situation where rational people would want to act a particular way.

That is exactly my point. Since there is no principled argument that it is immoral, then it is consequently contextually moral (i.e. - may be a proper choice for some people).

The social stigma associated with polygamy (and to a greater extent polyandry) is, in my opinion, the driving force behind the scarcity of such arrangements. In fact, in many countries they are expressly illegal. I'm not saying that it would be the norm otherwise, rather that it would be more common that currently observed.

As for Mormons and Muslims, the immoral part of their custom is the dependency and subservience of woman to man, not the amount of wives a man has. I'm sure there are plenty of immoral monogamous marriages in their culture.

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...