Objectivist adultery

[L-C]

Quote from the OP: "If you were married to an Objectivist and he/she commited adultery what would you do? Is this a deal breaker?"

How have I not answered this?

[K-Mac]

The OP:

I'd like to get a few opinions on this.

If you were married to an Objectivist and he/she commited adultery what would you do? Is this a deal breaker? Can your spouse still claim to be an Objectivist? I realize that I am leaving out the context so PM me if you would like more detail. I could really use the advice...

Thanks.

Since he offers to provide more detail in a PM, I'm inclined to believe there is actually more detail and this is not just a random scenario. I think it's irresponsible to tell someone their marriage is over and their significant other is never to be trusted again, unless you know a whole hell of a lot more than we do about their relationship.

Some of the stupid, short answers in this thread lead me to believe that some of you either haven't really thought this through and/or you're just throwing out the first thing that comes to your mind based on an emotional response.

[L-C]

I think it's irresponsible to tell someone their marriage is over and their significant other is never to be trusted again, unless you know a whole hell of a lot more than we do about their relationship.

No one can tell him whether his marriage is over, only he can decide that. What we can offer is our own principles and sentiments on the matter. I've offered mine.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

I view marriage as a contract so anything that violates the contract as a no-no; having an affair is a violation of that contract.

On a personal note though I find that the most hurtful thing isn't the affair itself but the lack of honesty and communication; generally speaking if a person has an affair there is some underlying reason for it; even if the relationship falls to pieces, if both sides fail to acknowledge the root cause of the relationship falling to pieces, the next relationship they have will most likely end in the same way.

[K-Mac]

I view marriage as a contract...

If only it were that easy!

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I am interested to know further why adultery is inherently considered unethical. From what I've gathered through reading Objectivist writings, as long as the individual shares the virtues and respects his/her partner, the sexual relationship is OK. Of course, this must also be met with the condition that whomever else you're romantically involved with does not see this as a vice.

In other words, if you're engaged in adultery, and you're not either sacrificing your relationship with your romantic partner, or trying to have your cake and eat it too by valuing the new partner more than your spouse and still remaining involved with that person, then adultery should be permissible, right?

[L-C]

Adultery with permission from the spouse you're cheating on? Well I'd call that a polygamous relationship, I guess.

If you want to have a sexual relationship with someone else, there's no excuse for at least breaking up with your partner first. Cheating is ridiculous.

[bluecherry]

The scenario just presented though was one where the people involved were knowlegeable of and agreeable to the multiple relationships though I think, meaning it was not against their rules. So do you really think this could even count as cheating then?

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Adultery with permission from the spouse you're cheating on? Well I'd call that a polygamous relationship, I guess.

If you want to have a sexual relationship with someone else, there's no excuse for at least breaking up with your partner first. Cheating is ridiculous.

And is there anything wrong with a polygamous relationship, inherently, according to Objectivist ethics? I can't seem to find anything that would back such a suggestion up.

"Cheating is ridiculous" is a poor argument at best. I'm trying to seriously figure out what I consider a significant hypocrisy here, or rather a strange non-adherence to a pretty basic Objectivist principle.

The scenario just presented though was one where the people involved were knowlegeable of and agreeable to the multiple relationships though I think, meaning it was not against their rules. So do you really think this could even count as cheating then?

Well that's my point. Adultery isn't necessarily "cheating." Wouldn't the adultery you're engaging in need to be "cheating" your romantic partner's relationship with you in order for it to be called by that name? All cheating is adultery, but not all adultery is cheating. Would not the latter by appropriate according to Objectivist ethics?

[Jake_Ellison]

Well that's my point. Adultery isn't necessarily "cheating." Wouldn't the adultery you're engaging in need to be "cheating" your romantic partner's relationship with you in order for it to be called by that name? All cheating is adultery, but not all adultery is cheating. Would not the latter by appropriate according to Objectivist ethics?

Cheating on someone means you deceive them. That's wrong. But how wrong, that depends on the situation.

To answer the OP, no, cheating doesn't automatically make one not an Objectivist, or a good person, anymore, but the particular seedy details of the deception might. You'll have to make a determination on the person's character, in light of all the new information which was revealed to you about them, integrate all that new information, and then you will be able to determine if they are still a person you can love, for the rest of your life, or if it would be better for you to move on. I guess you're gonna have to make the decision you made when you first decided to marry, all over again: that, I'm guessing (never been married and I don't intend to get married), takes a long time and a lot of reflecting.

[Trebor]

And is there anything wrong with a polygamous relationship, inherently, according to Objectivist ethics? I can't seem to find anything that would back such a suggestion up.

In his podcast, Episode 20 — July 07, 2008, at about 07:42, Dr. Peikoff says a bit in brief about polygamous marriages in response to the questions:

1. "Is there a proper government role in regard to a minor marrying, even assuming the parents consent?"

2. "What about other types of marriage, between consenting adults, for instance, gay marriage, polygamist marriage?"

Edited July 29, 2009 by Trebor

[bluecherry]

I find that that podcast response doesn't fully answer the question. Peikoff's objection to the question of if marriages between more than just two people at a time should be upheld by law is that he sees it as supporting promiscuity. First off, isn't that trying to get the government to get into areas of moral favoring it doesn't belong, to refuse to uphold contracts between consenting adults with no rights violations because it thinks they are not doing what is best for them? Second of all, he just assumed they were being promiscuous. That is not obviously the case at least. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar there can be many at least very seemingly serious relationships among more than two people simultaneously. If there is something which makes these relationships promiscuous anyway in spite of being taken very seriously by the people involved, then more needs to be said to explain how this is and until such explanation is given, it is just an assertion.

[Trebor]

I find that that podcast response doesn't fully answer the question.

I agree, the podcast doesn't fully answer the question. And I agree with other comments you make.

The question by Andrew Grathwohl was:

And is there anything wrong with a polygamous relationship, inherently, according to Objectivist ethics? I can't seem to find anything that would back such a suggestion up.

I took his question to be about the Objectivist ethical, not legal, view of polygamy or polygamist marriage.

In the context of Dr. Peikoff's response, it is perhaps ambiguous as to whether he was saying that polygamist marriage is immoral and therefore should be illegal, or simply that it is immoral (as promiscuity) with no implication that it should be illegal. I took his comments as sufficient to indicate the Objectivist view of the morality of polygamy, not it's view of the legality of polygamy.

Dr. Peikoff's response on polygamist marriage was, "I have to give you a frank answer. Personally, I would dislike and reject a polygamist as a non-value. That, to me, is just domesticated promiscuity."

He said nothing explicit about whether or not polygamy or polygamist marriage should be illegal.

I take his response as merely one of his own ethical view on polygamy, that it is a form of promiscuity, and therefore immoral. He stressed that it was his personal view. But, given who Dr. Peikoff is — "the world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism" — I take his personal view to be consistent with Objectivism, and I assume that he would have said otherwise were that not the case. However, he did stress the word "personally."

If polygamy is but promiscuity, then it it unethical, in my own view, according to Objectivism. (That leaves the potential that it may not in all cases be merely promiscuity, as you question.)

Perhaps I'm in error, but I did not take his comment as saying that polygamy or polygamist marriage should be outlawed. In fact, I agree with you, and I can't see how it could properly be outlawed, not in accord with Objectivism.

A polygamist relationship is, if no rights are violated, a mutually consentual one among adults. Immoral perhaps (in most or some cases, if not all), but given that there are no rights being violated, then it would not be proper to outlaw polygamy or polygamist marriage.

Too, even if immoral, a polygamist marriage would be a contractual ("marriage") relationship between consenting adults. It may be offensive, it may be immoral, but the government would have to respect and enforce the contract whether or not it is called "marriage."

Edited July 29, 2009 by Trebor

[Trebor]

Related to the topic of this thread, here's another of Dr. Peikoff's reponses.

The question was whether Hank Rearden's extra-marital affair with Dagny Taggart was a violation of Objectivism because it was a unilateral breach of the marriage contract?

Episode 53 — March 16, 2009 at about 4:28 into the podcast, the second question.

And another:

In Episode 46 -- January 26, 2009, at about 11:42, Dr. Peikoff responds to:

"When is sexual exclusivity in a romantic relationship a rational choice?"

And perhaps of interest:

In Episode 64 -- June 01, 2009, at about 15:40, Dr. Peikoff responds to:

"You stated that love is a response to an irreplaceable value, and that morality doesn't necessarily require that one be in love with the person one has sex with, yet ... the Objectivist literature seems to claim that sex without love is improper. For example, in conversation, Francisco says, 'Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.' Here it is clearly implied that having a sexual desire without love is depraved. Is the key to reconciling the conflict, recognizing that there is a more general sense of love which means simply to value strongly, and in this sense of the word, love and sex are inseparable?"

Edited July 29, 2009 by Trebor

[bluecherry]

I took the reply from Peikoff as saying, or at least giving good cause to believe it is saying, it should not be a legally upheld contract because the question was about the government's role in different forms of marriage contracts, starting with the underage and moving on to other types of marriage that aren't already legally upheld all over the country. And marriage itself is a form of contract, yes? Then even without taking it in regard to the first question, that it still says forms of marriage means forms of contract and thus it is safe to assume we're talking about stuff the government is involved with.

I agree though that the earlier question was an ethical one, not just a legal one. The answer you gave though was the links to the podcast questions for reference and those seemed to be more legal questions along with when it did touch on the ethical more generally I said why I didn't think it sufficiently supported its ethical assertion of it being immoral because it didn't sufficiently support why it would have to always be promiscuous.

[Jake_Ellison]

Peikoff's objection to the question of if marriages between more than just two people at a time should be upheld by law is that he sees it as supporting promiscuity.

You misunderstood what he said. Listen again, starting with about the ninth minute.

He made two points:

1. Government should never take into consideration Objectivist morality, let alone his personal opinion on polygamy.

2. Given that we are talking about consenting adults, he does not know whether the government should enforce such marriages. He makes it very clear that he tried to figure it out, but he does not have the answer.

If I were to launch into wild speculation, I guess one of the reasons preventing Dr. Peikoff from saying that the government should uphold a polygamist relationship is that it isn't defined well. There are other contracts which a government dedicated to upholding individual rights should not necessarily uphold, such as a person selling themselves into slavery, committing to being savagely beaten every Sunday morning, for a year, and many others. I'm still speculating, but I guess Dr. Peikoff just doesn't know exactly what a polygamist marriage arrangement might entail, so he doesn't have an answer to the question.

That cannot be interpreted as him endorsing the government hunting down and punishing polygamists, just for getting married with two consenting adults. All he said is that he does not know if the government should enforce a polygamist type contract. And I can't say I know for sure either, even though before realizing what a complex issue it is, I was leaning toward saying yes, it's like gay marriage, so let's treat it the same as any other marriage.

But, in the end, it is all besides the point, because the institution of marriage in general should be changed, and written contracts, with specific terms introduced in its place. Then, depending on the contract, legal experts could give rational answers to which polygamist style agreements should, and which shouldn't be enforced by the government.

I took the reply from Peikoff as saying, or at least giving good cause to believe it is saying, it should not be a legally upheld contract because the question was about the government's role in different forms of marriage contracts

No, he said he doesn't know what the gov. should do. As I said, my guess is that's because the whole thing isn't defined clearly enough. (Just saw this post, thought I'd add this, to make it clear that I understand your position fully, and I know exactly where you misunderstood the recording)

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Trebor]

Perhaps I only confused the matter by pointing to that podcast.

Perhaps Dr. Peikoff would find the question — whether or not polygamist marriage should be illegal — of sufficient interest to address in a future podcast. I'll write to him to ask.

I did not find his response to be explicitly clear on the legality of polygamy. I myself cannot see that it should properly be illegal.

[Having just read Jake Ellison's reply, and having listened to that portion of the podcast again, I don't think I'll ask Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff did say, "Taking into account that these are adults, I have to say, I'm very sorry, I do not know. I tried and I can't figure that one out."]

Edited July 29, 2009 by Trebor

[SapereAude]

Perhaps I only confused the matter by pointing to that podcast.

Perhaps Dr. Peikoff would find the question — whether or not polygamist marriage should be illegal — of sufficient interest to address in a future podcast. I'll write to him to ask.

I did not find his response to be explicitly clear on the legality of polygamy. I myself cannot see that it should properly be illegal.

It could in fact be of benefit to "society" if it were legal.

In the case of institutionalized (religious) polygamy it is often the case that the non legal back up wives take advantage of their ability to apply for more govt "entitlements" due to their status as single mothers.

[Jake_Ellison]

It could in fact be of benefit to "society" if it were legal.

In the case of institutionalized (religious) polygamy it is often the case that the non legal back up wives take advantage of their ability to apply for more govt "entitlements" due to their status as single mothers.

[hand raised in eager fashion] Me, me me. I have a quicker solution than instituting polygamy to that problem, teach: let's get rid of welfare.

[SapereAude]

[hand raised in eager fashion] Me, me me. I have a quicker solution than instituting polygamy to that problem, teach: let's get rid of welfare.

That's kid talk ....crazy talk ...

[bluecherry]

1. Government should never take into consideration Objectivist morality, let alone his personal opinion on polygamy.

Agreed.

[Having just read Jake Ellison's reply, and having listened to that portion of the podcast again, I don't think I'll ask Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff did say, "Taking into account that these are adults, I have to say, I'm very sorry, I do not know. I tried and I can't figure that one out."]

Ah, did he say that near the end? I must have stopped before that part then.

This is probably getting off topic even more here now, but exactly why should any contracts not be upheld between people who were both capable of consent and who did give it? If they could and did give consent, how could what goes on from that point forward be a violation of rights? (Assuming here it was people who were competent adults and done in a clearly serious fashion that was hard to mistake for a joke and hard to do by accident.)

[Trebor]

This is probably getting off topic even more here now, but exactly why should any contracts not be upheld between people who were both capable of consent and who did give it? If they could and did give consent, how could what goes on from that point forward be a violation of rights?

I too see no reason "why should any contracts not be upheld between people who were both capable of consent and who did give it".

The only question, with respect to marriage and specifically polygamist marriage is, what's the contract? What is it that all those in the polygamist relationship are contracting with each other for? What is a polygamist marriage or contract? Is that, what they are agreeing to, essentially similar to the typical marriage between two persons?

Without that being objectively identified, indeed, "how could what goes on from that point forward be a violation of rights?"

[bluecherry]

I asked that question first on the basis of some things cited by Jake Ellison in his first post on this page of contracts which should not be upheld. I wanted to first ask why in general there could be other, less complicated questions like that which shouldn't be upheld.

"What is it that all those in the polygamist relationship are contracting with each other for?" Wouldn't a polygamous marriage be a contract to get all the same legal treatments anybody else gets upon marriage? Things like more secure hospital visitation abilities and status as next of kin and other things related to wills and property status and stuff like that. There'd surely be terms and conditions that could come with their agreements too on when they would or would not be willing to stay with each other and would want to keep those legal statuses with each other.

[Jake_Ellison]

The only question, with respect to marriage and specifically polygamist marriage is, what's the contract? What is it that all those in the polygamist relationship are contracting with each other for? What is a polygamist marriage or contract? Is that, what they are agreeing to, essentially similar to the typical marriage between two persons?

It's not. Love between two people is not essentially similar to love between one man and his wives, all living together. I believe that is what stomped Dr. Peikoff: he knows what love between two people is, Ayn Rand wrote extensively on it. What is the relationship like in a polygamist arrangement, psychologically, and from the perspective of morality?

If we look at actual cases, in Utah, or in the Middle East (which is what we need to look at if we want to understand polygamy, not some construct we come up with of what it could be - like the Woody Allen film "Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona" - though I haven't seen it yet, I can't imagine Woody all of a sudden becoming a realist), the situation ain't rosy.

[bluecherry]

"Polygamy" is a word that has no inherent meaning of any specific content of how many people among the at least three are of what sex. "Polygamy" isn't just a guy with a bunch of wives in oppressive social settings. It can be one man with multiple wives, yes, but it can also be one woman with multiple husbands, or any combination of males and/or females with one or more marriage partners as long as somewhere in there at least one person in the group is married to at least two other people. I think the cases of things like the religiously based encouraged polygamy cases are a bad standard to go by judging polygamy as those aren't based on just seeking loving relationships and often many other factors are what determines who ends up with who. There are plenty of people who do have relationships with multiple people at a time though seriously and with the full knowledge and consent of all involved parties without a religious basis to the deal. Those are the ones who I recommend judging upon, the ones acting freely and who do it because they really romantically care for the people they are with as their primary reason. (Also, I have seen that movie. I didn't know when I saw it that it was a Woody Allen film. Hah, that might interest a friend of mine to hear who I told about that movie as she seems to have been enjoying watching some Woody Allen films lately. When I saw the film, there were some things which were a little unlikely in how a couple of the characters first met each other, but how the actual relationship worked was not something unlike things which happen in real life for a number of people.)