Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My Ethics Final

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Even though the semester is over, I ended up in an exchange with my instructor. I'm not going to bother continuing with the issue at this point, but I was curious where I (or the intructor) went wrong.

Final Exam Question:

Does sex have a purpose? Is so, what? What types of sexual behavior are morally permitted and why? (Pornography, masturbation, adultery, polygamy, prostitution, etc.)

My Answer:

Sex is the highest act of affirmation between two people who share the same values of life. Such as with all questions of morality, sexual acts are moral so long as they are life-affirming. This will be my premise which states that the values expressed by all parties involved are reflective of man’s nature as a rational being. For this reason, acts like bestiality are immoral because they cannot contain a sharing of man’s rational values. Nor can pedophilia be moral because children do not possess the intellectual faculty to hold rational values. Polygamy should not be illegal, but morally it does not follow from the premises I have stated. My premise is that sex is the “highest” affirmation. If one has multiple partners, by definition, some are going to have higher values than others – and the greatest value for sex will always be with the partner possessing the highest value. So it is not necessarily immoral, per se, but it also is the act of choosing a lower value. Pornography doesn’t represent an expression of life-affirming values as I have defined it, so I would be hard-pressed to consider this moral. The use of pornography tends to vary, so it depends on the definition. If the question is related to nudity in art, then there is no question or morality involved – so long as the artwork itself is life-affirming in value. In all cases, moral or immoral, so long as all parties involved are capable of rational judgment, there is no question that the law has no prevue. And in the cases where rational judgment is present, then any degree of immorality is really rather minor.

Instructor's Feedback

Score: 30/35

Comments: Just food for thought. Who was of lower value Rand's husband or Nathaniel Brandon? She was having sex with both of them at the same time, although it was mostly Nathaniel. You also did not leave open the possibility of equal values. If a person likes two flavors equally, but must choose one, does it follow that the one not chosen is of lesser value?

I Then Responded via Email:

You gave me some good feedback on my Objectivists positions on the final. I do have responses to some of the points you raise, so thank you for helping me to see how I can further support my arguments. Also just as an FYI - the whole Nathaniel Branden affair Rand had is often refered to as some sort of moral condemnation or Rand or is used to somehow point out what people view as being hypocritical on her part. Rand considered Frank O'Conner to be her spiritual equal, but he was not her intellectual equal. She considered that to be Branden and so they entered into the affair (with their spouses's approval) because she wanted to experience sex with an intellectual equal. Context is always very important in Objectivism. So I don't think one can compare values when in the context of spiritual values vs. intellectual values. In the case of an affair - it's just about sex. In the case of polygamy - it's about marriage. If a man regularly has sex with the same 7 women, are they polygamists? Or are they all just doing a lot of sleeping around? So I think it's an equivocation to try to compare an affair to polygamy.

Instructor's Response:

Where does it state that there are different hierarchy of values in objectivism? There is only one set of values. Rand considers the case of someone who chooses his family over his spouse/lover or something like that. She says the fact that he choose his family over the woman shows that he values her less. If you are going to say that there are different motivations for things, that is fine. But you cannot claim that they are different spheres of values and therefore not comparable. What you would want to claim, unless you want to go the hypocrite route which is probably the best, is that it is possible to value two things equally but for different reasons. The consequence of this is that one can love two different people for different reasons equally. There is no reason to claim that polygamy needs to have a specific number of people. Objectivism has to hold that if people want to marry more than one person it is acceptable. It also has to hold that whatever the moral ideal that is the reason for marriage, if it holds for more than one spouse, is a legitimate to marry more than one person. They might say that it is immoral for some of the reasons you mentioned, but it lacks proofs. In order to show that monogamy is the only moral marriage arrangement it would need a theory to show that it is only possible to meet the criteria of marriage for one person. It is doubtful that can be done. They may stipulate it, or do some hand waiving to claim that it is the case, but to prove that is impossible. They can state that it is unlikely, but not that it is going to be 100% that way. Of course there is an additional issue. If it is moral to have an affair, then what separates that from polygamy? There are marriage vows and length of time. So why is is moral to engage in sex for a limited amount of time with one person with your spouses permission, but not be married?
Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your instructor has a point. But your instructor aside, I personally have never accepted Rand's affair with Branden as moral and I would not proceed to defend it. I think she blew it in that instance. I wouldn't say that Frank and Barbara were OK with what was going on, it obviously hurt them deeply, but they were either not strong enough to stand up for themselves or they could not bear the thought of losing the spouses they valued so much (I'm inclined to say more of the former for Barbara and more of the latter for Frank). Rand may have justified it to herself somehow that Frank would not be hurt but I think the evidence is clear that Frank was devastated. I do think it is possible to love more than one person at a time but it is hardly a sustainable or desirable state of affairs, as you can only give yourself completely to one of them, or perhaps incompletely to both of them in which case they both deserve better and should leave you.

Just my pennies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it state that there are different hierarchy of values in objectivism? There is only one set of values.

He mafde an error there. He suggested that a heirachy of values is exclusive to having one set of values. This is false. Objectivism is one set of values with a hierachy.

What you would want to claim, unless you want to go the hypocrite route which is probably the best, is that it is possible to value two things equally but for different reasons.

He made a few errors here. First was to suggest that doing that would make you a hypocrite; it wouldn't. You never syggested two things couldn't be valued equally. Second was to suggest that even if you had said two things cannot be valued equally that saying that would neccesarily make you a hypocrite. It could do so depending on context, but not neccessarily. You could of changed your mind. Changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrite, especially if changing your mind to what is correct. His third error was to say the taking the hypocrite route is probably best. That simply is not true. To take that route is bad.

The consequence of this is that one can love two different people for different reasons equally.

This is another error. Every person is different. Even if their philosophy is the same they will still be different; they will have different optional values (eg I highly value horses while many Objectivists and Students of Objectvism do not). Because no two people have the same values they will not meet equally with your values. For example I am going to value a rational horse lover for more than a rational engineer or a rational author, or a rational artist, etc.

There is no reason to claim that polygamy needs to have a specific number of people.

This is a strawman; you never said it had to have a particular number.

Objectivism has to hold that if people want to marry more than one person it is acceptable. It also has to hold that whatever the moral ideal that is the reason for marriage, if it holds for more than one spouse, is a legitimate to marry more than one person.

Wrong, it doesn't have to do anything of the sort. It doesn't have to hold anything. No belief system does. Belief systems are free to hold anything their creator wants, even false ideas. There are no limits on what a belief system "has" to hold. Of course there is one limit on what it should hold, ie, reality. But that is a seperate issue.

They might say that it is immoral for some of the reasons you mentioned, but it lacks proofs. In order to show that monogamy is the only moral marriage arrangement it would need a theory to show that it is only possible to meet the criteria of marriage for one person. It is doubtful that can be done.

I am nit entirely sure, but I think this may be another strawman.

They may stipulate it, or do some hand waiving to claim that it is the case, but to prove that is impossible.

This is a baseless statement with nothing to back it up. It isn't worth a cent.

I think she blew it in that instance. I wouldn't say that Frank and Barbara were OK with what was going on, it obviously hurt them deeply, but they were either not strong enough to stand up for themselves or they could not bear the thought of losing the spouses they valued so much (I'm inclined to say more of the former for Barbara and more of the latter for Frank). Rand may have justified it to herself somehow that Frank would not be hurt but I think the evidence is clear that Frank was devastated.

And just what are you basing that on?

I do think it is possible to love more than one person at a time but it is hardly a sustainable or desirable state of affairs

I don't think Rand ever intended to sustain things as they were.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite right in your argument. I’m not sure what my beliefs are about marriage, but for the rest I am confident. There are ways that the essay could better communicate your thesis, though.

The idea of “life-affirming” needs to be clear. Whose life? What kind of life? Why these?

“This will be my premise which states that the values expressed by all parties involved are reflective of man’s nature as a rational being,” is difficult to read. Your premise is: The values expressed by all parties reflect man’s nature as a rational being. Does this mean that two people cannot have sex if their values do not reflect man’s nature as a rational being? Take James Taggart. He had sex. Did his expressed values reflect man’s nature as a rational being?

“Polygamy should not be illegal, but morally it does not follow from the premises I have stated.” Does this mean that it’s immoral or morally neutral? It seems that you mean it’s immoral because there is only one person who embodies your highest values. Still, I may consider my two women. I couldn’t tell you whom I value highest. Maybe both score a 9.9 on the great-human-being scale. What kind of score do you need for sex? Maybe my evaluation of each is not so precise—they’re both amazing human beings who wonderfully embody some of the greatest human virtues in different ways. You later say, “In the case of an affair - it's just about sex. In the case of polygamy - it's about marriage.” This seems to hinge on the significance of marriage, which is not clear.

“Pornography doesn’t represent an expression of life-affirming values as I have defined it, so I would be hard-pressed to consider this moral.” I wonder how broadly we will interpret “life-affirming”. Is eating spinach life-affirming? If no, then—by your logic—it is immoral. If yes, or some kind of qualified yes, then it seems that one might take some liberties in what, exactly, one calls “life-affirming”. Perhaps fantasizing, masturbating, and watching pornography falls within this scope.

Your instructor’s final response, though, seems very confused. First, I think he’s referring to the example of Rearden, but Rearden chose his family not because he valued his family but because he accepted the looter’s moral code of serving unearned values. He later came to reject the code. I’m not sure how this example illustrates any relevant point.

The instructor says that there cannot be different spheres of value, and I’m not sure what that would mean. Whatever it means, there are certainly different types of values. I value tomatoes and mathematics and to-the-point news reporting, none of which are easily commensurable and all of which I might enjoy simultaneously. I don’t see an inherent contradiction in saying that it is immoral to marry several people but still moral to have an affair; and none of this seems to have an intrinsic bearing on someone who sleeps with several people from day to day. It all hinges on the meaning of marriage.

He also seems to assume that if you love someone then it is moral to marry him. It is at least possible to argue that you can be married to someone you love, then find someone else whom you also love, and in such a situation it would be moral to love and have sex with this second person—but still be immoral to marry him. Again, it depends on how you construe marriage.

I’m not sure how to properly understand marriage, but the following is plausible: Marriage is a commitment between two people to spend their lives with each other and no other. Thus, you may meet someone whom you rate as a 9.9 (or whom you really really super-duper love, or however you want to quantify it), and do not expect to meet anyone who is better, any time soon. Five years later, you meet a 10.0 (or a really really super-double-duper love). But you don’t take this person, because you have invested so much time, emotion, history, plans, and understanding with Mr. 9.9, and so it’s in your best interests to stick with him rather than starting over. But hey, extra-marital sex is still okey-dokey. Here, you don’t need to show that the criteria for marriage only meets one person. It meets both Mr. 9.9 and Mr. 10.0, but it’s a first-come, first-serve, one-place relation.

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...