Marrying Non-Objectivists

[Inspector]

Non-marital sexual relationships, on the other hand, though they should also be based on high values, can very much be isolated and short-term in nature, and don't involve life-long considerations like marriage does.

Although the rest of your post looks fine to me, Felipe, I don't agree on that last point. While one can always make mistakes, one should lead one's sexual life in the same way that one lives the rest of one's life: in the long-term and as a whole. Never isolated and short-term in nature.

Also, which parts of the post were addressed to Hunter? Or was all of it?

Edited September 22, 2005 by Inspector

[HaloNoble6]

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with looking at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. ...

OK, good, then this criticism isn't directed at you. It appears we are in agreement on the matter, then, and the only thing left to consider is determining when and how flaws are such that costs outweigh benefits. As I said, I think one has to look at the nature of the flaw. This thread apparently was started from a discussion on the flaw of being religious. "Being religious" is quite vague, and I'd think one would have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

As to Hank/Dagny, so you think she makes an error by sleeping with Hank? So, while you don't think she acted immorally, you think she acted against her best interests? Perhaps you can elaborate. Why is her decision to sleep with him harmful to her?

[HaloNoble6]

Although the rest of your post looks fine to me, Felipe, I don't agree on that last point. While one can always make mistakes, one should lead one's sexual life in the same way that one lives the rest of one's life: in the long-term and as a whole. Never isolated and short-term in nature.

Also, which parts of the post were addressed to Hunter? Or was all of it?

I was writing that post to Hunter as you were writing your first response to me, but you finished before me.

I was not advocating whim-worship, if that's what you're asking. What I'm saying is that while marriage is a lifetime contract, non-marital sexual relationships clearly aren't. Are you implying that we have to have marriage in mind before we enter any sexual relationship at all?

See, if I go ahead and a priori set marriage as the morally proper goal of every sexual relationship, I can then say that any sexual relationship absent this goal is immoral. It appears that you require, for the situation to be moral, at minimum, that people in a sexual relationship not disqualify each other as potential marriage partners. Is that the case? If so, I ask where does the premise come from? Why are sexual relationships absent serious marriage considerations necessarily destructive to one's life in the long run? Basically, why must enjoyment of a rationally-based source of happiness require that the potential for enjoying it for the rest of one's life be present?

I mean, for example, I just bought a new truck. I have dogs, they are messy, I drive hard, I move every two years or so, etc.; I need a tough vehicle. I don't have the time to meticulously take care of every single little thing that goes wrong or gets dirty, so I fully expect to outlive my truck. So, I don't approach buying a car as "it must last me forever, else the exchange is contra my life." However, there are people who have the time and the resources to take care of their car so they, on the other hand, do approach buying a vehicle this way and it actually does out-live them. Does that mean that I'm acting whimsically, without my full life in mind? No, I don't think so. Both they and I are acting on our value-hierarchy, hence we are moral. Now, what is it about sexual relationships as such that require that one have marriage in mind? Why are short-term sexual relationships, based on important values, self-destructive if the parties involved are not considering being together for the rest of their lives?

My view is that while of course one must consider the long-term effects of engaging in a short-term sexual relationship, just as one does with any decision in life, but that this is different than ensuring the existence of at least the potential for a lifelong relationship, much different than saying that every relationship must have the potential of lasting a lifetime.

Suppose our culture had this institution called "farriage" that was a step up from friendship, a sort of contract between friends that wanted to live together for a period of time and share stuff; a step up from a normal friendship, formalized by contract. Would I then have to make sure that every friend of mine be a potential partner for farriage for the friendship to be moral? I don't think so. Marriage is another thing entirerly, and I don't see anything necessarily destructive about having a sexual relationship without considering marriage.

Lastly, I know people living perfectly productive, rational lives that have marriage very low on their value hierarchy. Does that mean that they can't ever engage in a sexual relationship? Are they to remain celibate because they don't have the time or desire for marriage like others do? Perhaps you think something is wrong with someone that doesn't value marriage highly?

[Adrian Hester]

Me: The very fact that you couch your position in terms of risk bothers me. What are you risking?

This would seem like a no-brainer to me. The answer to the question is the same as the answer to the question of "Why not engage in sex and marriage with random strangers, or, for that matter, a villain? What could possibly go wrong?"

In the case of a woman, she risks her physical well-being, as well.

It would seem a no-brainer to you because of the misanthropic view of humanity you see fit to argue from. You have said in this thread that "99.9% of the people I meet, see, and talk to are in messed up, broken, dysfunctional, or sham relationships" (#37). To you most of them, I take it, are "animal" who "cannot be convinced with reason" (#56). Most of humanity to you ranges from seriously damaged goods to ravening beasts, and those who have not yet subsided into ravening beasts are slowly being poisoned into them by their irrational ideas, and if you get too close to them they'll drag you down too. In other words, most of humanity is a threat, however insidious, and as a result, you seriously think that marrying anyone who is not a fully-integrated Objectivist is equivalent to "engag[ing] in sex and marriage with random strangers." And you add that if a woman marries someone who's not a fully-integrated Objectivist, she stands a significant chance of being beaten into the bargain.

I most assuredly don't share this view of humanity. What I'm discussing is marriage with someone you know well enough and have been with long enough to know how she will act day to day and in challenging circumstances (this last taken very widely). I consider that a sufficient basis for deciding about marriage; the major risk then is that she will change over time in ways that will prevent us from continuing the marriage. (Which is always possible because people possess free will.) As to your view that the risks that are philosophically significant include beatings, being reduced to a purposeless shell, and all the dangers of promiscuity, that's so far afield it only suggests that you view your interlocutors little better than you do the rest of humanity.

It's your example: does the man KNOW that his partner holds contradictory or false beliefs, or is he merely ignorant of them?

I said, "Presumably...there are no fundamental conflicts between your views of life."

I also note you appear to be saying that an emotion alone is sufficient cause for marriage, or at least that "for many people" it is "quite sufficient grounds."

I suspect it appears that way to you because you're convinced that only a rank emotionalist would disagree with you. Read it again: "Presumably a person you love makes you wonderfully happy and there are no fundamental conflicts between your views of life..." Why would this not be "quite sufficient grounds for marriage" if the person makes you happy enough? (And I don't consider the other person's making me happy an irreducible primary either.) I doubt our positions are that different in actuality; there's a great difference in emphasis, however, because you view other people as much more of an active threat than I do.

Well go ahead, then. Love, have relations with, and marry whoever your "gut feeling" tells you to. Don't be too sure of the facts before committing. Rush in! After all, there's some REALLY pressing reason why people need to act RIGHT NOW and can't wait until they have more knowledge before committing themselves..........

That sort of sarcastic nonsense is so far from my position it's not even insulting, just tedious.

See, I'm not going to grant such a proclivity as a "given." At some point, taking a big risk becomes immoral. The way you've worded your example ("student of Objectivism") is too vague to guess at just how much risk is involved, and so I couldn't rightly say if it's anywhere near being immoral.

But that is not the argument I was addressing. Tommyedison didn't say anything about the morality of taking big risks; he was discussing relative degrees of happiness. His argument was simple, clear, and explicit: The mere possibility of ideal happiness trumps the actuality of nonideal happiness by its nature, so pursuing nonideal happiness (even when there's not someone more ideal to pursue) is immoral.

I think the poster is going to have to answer for himself as to what he meant by that statement. I'm not ready to conclude it was rationalism yet.

Which of his words were unclear to you?

Edited September 23, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[Inspector]

Alright, let me try to put it this way:

I consider the quality of a sexual relationship to be the most important part of it, and I consider exclusivity to be the major defining factor in what makes sex so special.

To illustrate my point, let's take an example that nobody here would advocate: the hippies and their "free love." (i.e. a bed-hopping escapade with no standards at all). If a man who otherwise posessed values were to do that, he would de-value himself. He would be a "cheap commodity." If he were to suddenly meet a potential parter of real value, he would be unable to say, with the sexual act, that he loves that other person. It could not be a unique expression of THEIR love.

Now, nobody is advocating that.

But I think that quality is so important to sex that if one had a strategy that would give him the possibility of a better, deeper relationship, it would be a much greater value than any enjoyment he would gain with the "in the meantime" type relationship.

Is the "in the meantime" thing immoral? No, I don't think so. What if someone is trapped in a dictatorship and is sure that they will never find the kind of relationship that they really want? I could hardly fault such a person for "settling."

SPOILERS FOR ATLAS SHRUGGED BELOW

Dagny was clearly not satisfied with Hank (at least, the person Hank was when they started), but she was also under the impression that he was the best the world had to offer.

That was her judgment. Under such a circumstance, the cost-benefit equation changes, so there wasn't anything immoral with what she did. Of course, her judgment wasn't correct. But that makes it an error of knowledge, easily forgiven and easily forgotten. And she was too busy being deleriously happy with John Galt to have given the matter a second thought.

END SPOILERS

Now, that is my attempt to illustrate the value of exclusivity by showing its absence. Also, I have so far mentioned only its effect on your ability to please your partner. (the idea being that your partner will use the same strategy and thus be able to better please you) But that's hardly the only aspect of it.

I think that a lot of this is advocated by people who have (as you put it, "convieniantly") already found the love of their life. The reason for that is not as sinister as you might imagine. In my case, having found her, I realized after the fact that the relationship with her is better than any other relationship I could have had. Not just incrementally better. Not just geometrically better. Exponentially better! So much better that it would make any other seem worthless by comparison. If I had engaged in any "in the meantime" stuff earlier in my life (and, for lack of a better phrase, Thank God I had the sense not to!), then it would be literally worthless to me now. That's how much I love this woman!

To put it another way: imagine if I had the ability to plan my life out in advance, knowing the outcomes. Say that I could choose any number or combination of sexual relationships possible. Do you know what I would choose? One. My wife. Being able to say to her: "I want you and ONLY you and you are the ONLY one for me, EVER" is a greater value than any other possible choice I could have made.

It's not about sacrifice, like you're supposed to give up the "fun" of your sex life to please your future mate. It's about values and recognizing that that kind of sex life is NOT a whole lot of fun, or of any significant value. Certainly not in comparison to the kind that I advocate.

Is it a valid last resort of the desparate, broken man who knows he will never find true love? Sure, I guess. But, man, what a downer! Why would someone want to advocate THAT as the standard, the normal, the thing that young people should "bank on?!?"

Okay, I hope I'm not rambling here. And I figure we're WAY off topic by now. Oh, well.

[Adrian Hester]

In my case, having found her, I realized after the fact that the relationship with her is better than any other relationship I could have had. Not just incrementally better. Not just geometrically better. Exponentially better! So much better that it would make any other seem worthless by comparison. If I had engaged in any "in the meantime" stuff earlier in my life (and, for lack of a better phrase, Thank God I had the sense not to!), then it would be literally worthless to me now. That's how much I love this woman!

Since you didn't have a sexual relationship before her, you simply don't know whether you'd think that or not. Also, while something might be worthless to you now, that doesn't mean it would have been worthless to you at an earlier stage in your life.

It's not about sacrifice, like you're supposed to give up the "fun" of your sex life to please your future mate. It's about values and recognizing that that kind of sex life is NOT a whole lot of fun, or of any significant value. Certainly not in comparison to the kind that I advocate.

How would you know? By your own admission, you don't. You simply don't know whether "that kind of life is NOT...of any significant value." More to the point, it's quite possible to find very great value in a sexual relationship with someone you know you can't have a permanent relationship with, so long as they have admirable qualities. Perhaps it's actually not possible for you, but since your whole position is based on your imagination and nothing more, you don't even know that.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[HaloNoble6]

Alright, let me try to put it this way: ...

It appears that what you are handing out is advice, not moral guidelines, correct? In essence, you are saying that waiting for a partner that is at or close to your ideal makes the attainment of this person better? I'm tending to agree with you there, though I would say that I'm not sure to what extent it makes the attainment better.

There are many common examples of how waiting for something until it's just right makes it a little more special. Like with roller coasters. When I first rode one, I waited until I could ride the fastest one in the park, rather than building up to it with the smaller ones. Again, I think this is just advice, not a moral guideline.

As for Dagny/Hank, I think they deserved each other at that point, since they both had not figured out the secret of the destroyer, and they both had worked slavishly to get the Galt line built. I don't think that at that point, nor at any time in her future, was her decision to sleep with him destructive.

[Inspector]

Adrian,

Whew!

Moose (and maybe others?) had mentioned that "people" were "happy" with their marriages despite their defferences. I figure, "what kind of people are these and what is their standard of happiness? Would a comparison to well-integrated Objectivists be prudent, or even possible?"

Unconquered had presented the question of "how can [inspector] say that most people aren't ready for relationships?"

Well, the answer is that a lot of peoples' relationships AREN'T so rosy.

That's my view of how people can be and how a lot of people are. By no means does that mean that people have to be that way. That isn't my view of "human nature;" it's my view of how a lot of people choose to act.

the major risk then is that she will change over time in ways that will prevent us from continuing the marriage

And how would you rate that risk, comparatively speaking, on the following:

1) A person who has been introduced to Objectivism by their partner, has been shown all the basic premises and principles, and has had a reasonable time to think it over... yet, for whatever reason remains a Theist.

2) A person who has fully accepted the basic premises of Objectivism and intends to live their live as an Objectivist.

Now, whatever the debate on how much safer the second person is, I hope we can all agree that the second person IS safer by at least SOME amount. That added safety is the BENEFIT.

Let's look at the OTHER side of the equation: what is the COST of not committing? I have yet to see one materialize, but anyone is free to chime in. The way I see it, if one can add even a small benefit with no discernable cost, then one certainly should!

Now, the final consideration: just what sort of person clings to Theism, even after being exposed to Objectivism? Does such a person take ideas seriously? Is it likely that they are an evader? How do these questions affect their value as a partner?

It appears that what you are handing out is advice, not moral guidelines, correct? In essence, you are saying that waiting for a partner that is at or close to your ideal makes the attainment of this person better? I'm tending to agree with you there, though I would say that I'm not sure to what extent it makes the attainment better.

That is correct, yes. I also don't know the exact extent to which it makes the "attainment" better, but I do know that the "attainment" is SOOOOOO good that anything that makes it better is going to be a major-league-good-thing!

As for Dagny/Hank, I think they deserved each other at that point, since they both had not figured out the secret of the destroyer, and they both had worked slavishly to get the Galt line built. I don't think that at that point, nor at any time in her future, was her decision to sleep with him destructive.

You know, that's a good point. She didn't know that she would become something greater. (Though I do think that she was a bit higher up than Hank at the time, and she knew it.)

Since you didn't have a sexual relationship before her, you simply don't know whether you'd think that or not.

Meaning that I can't know whether I'd think that or not.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the validity of that kind of argument. I don't have to have every idea or thought process validated by literal, direct experience.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Inspector

[HaloNoble6]

Just to tie loose ends, Inspector, were you or were you not saying that every sexual relationship must have marriage as a potential, for the relationship to be moral?

[Inspector]

Just to tie loose ends, Inspector, were you or were you not saying that every sexual relationship must have marriage as a potential, for the relationship to be moral?

No, that's not a moral question. I wouldn't advise one under normal circumstances, however.

[softwareNerd]

Don Watkins has written an interesting blog about this on NoodleFood.

[Inspector]

Don makes an excellant point.

You have to know the WHY. To take any of those statements as an out-of-context absolute, or as a command from the heavens, would be a major mistake that could lead to just as much tragedy as the subjectivist hippies that we all know and hate.

I treat sex and romance with so much reverence and care because if you do it right, it will be the best thing you ever do (or one of them, anyway)... but if you do it wrong, it can be one of the worst.

[Inspector]

Now, if y'all don't mind, I'd rather get back to the good things in life for now. I hope I've been clear enough, but what we've got so far is going to have to do. Later.

[hunterrose]

To put it another way: imagine if I had the ability to plan my life out in advance, knowing the outcomes. Say that I could choose any number or combination of sexual relationships possible. Do you know what I would choose? One. My wife. Being able to say to her: "I want you and ONLY you and you are the ONLY one for me, EVER" is a greater value than any other possible choice I could have made.

Was Roark wrong for sleeping with Dominique pre-marriage, as pre-marriage she was definitely not Objectivist, not "ideal," and not "safe??" Didn't Dominique have a "reasonable" amount of time to realize her error??

If a woman proved god existed, or resolved the gaps in Objectivist esthetics, her philosophy wouldn't be Objectivist. Should such a woman be undesired as a mate to an Objectivist male?

Now, the final consideration: just what sort of person clings to Theism, even after being exposed to Objectivism? Does such a person take ideas seriously? Is it likely that they are an evader? How do these questions affect their value as a partner?

If a person determines that the theist isn't evading, likelihoods don't matter.

[Inspector]

Hunterrose, I don't see as to how you've said one thing just now that merits a response.

[Pancho Villa]

What if god exists?

Then we'd be in a substantially different discussion. Since he doesn't, we're in our current one.

Lets stay in reality, shall we?

[JMeganSnow]

Hunterrose, I don't see as to how you've said one thing just now that merits a response.

Amazingly, I agree. But I find it very difficult to read his posts anyway, hence my strategy of ignoring him.

Inspector, how do you square your comments about waiting for a fully-integrated Objectivist with the claim that YOU are still a STUDENT of Objectivism that you made here. Are you stating formally that you consider that your wife (who must be a fully-integrated Objectivist, by your views) rushed into marrying you? That you are unworthy of HER?!

A fully-integrated Objectivist is NOT a "student" of Objectivism any more, and no wishy-washy "well anyone whose still learning is a 'student'" crap. Ayn Rand established the categories, you should be able to tell whether you are an Objectivist or not.

It's a dramatic signal of rationalism if you have to resort to using examples from a work of fiction. If you're going to tie your ideas from reality, please use examples of real people. *pokes Felipe* Don't encourage it.

By your reasoning, any time you find something better than previous experiences, all those previous experiences become worthless. Only restricting it to romantic relationships is garbage: if said principle is true, it should apply for ALL experiences, not just SOME of them. If not, I'd like to hear why.

Every experience I've ever had, anything I've ever done was either good for me, or bad for me; it improved my life, or didn't. Improvements don't just vanish. If you eat a good meal today, the benefit doesn't go away when you get hungry again. The meal added a few hours onto your life. Likewise with a romantic relationship. Romance doesn't just "make you happy" in some bizarre other-worldly sense. It gives you fuel, a powerful spiritual fuel in reminding you, concretely, every day, that you are a worthwhile person, that you have value and that you are receiving value in return. It is, as Felipe said, an inspiration, as all happiness is. If the romance itself ends, do those things you accomplished, those benefits you enjoyed, vanish? I don't think so. It added moments of joy to your life, and those are more precious than gold.

[Inspector]

Inspector, how do you square your comments about waiting for a fully-integrated Objectivist with the claim that YOU are still a STUDENT of Objectivism

I meant it in the wishy-washy "well anyone who is still learning is a 'student' crap" sense. Did I use that term in a wrong way? (I'll ignore the rest of your speculation, as it has no basis)

By your reasoning, any time you find something better than previous experiences, all those previous experiences become worthless.

I think you're underestimating how much better my kind of experience is.

Every experience I've ever had, anything I've ever done was either good for me, or bad for me; it improved my life, or didn't. Improvements don't just vanish.

But feelings and evaluations do. What you may think is great now may not seem so great in retrospect.

I could go on a bit, but instead I will ask: are you saying that you disagree with my statement? What would you say is the proper attitude for a man in that position?

[Pancho Villa]

A fully-integrated Objectivist is NOT a "student" of Objectivism any more, and no wishy-washy "well anyone whose still learning is a 'student'" crap. Ayn Rand established the categories, you should be able to tell whether you are an Objectivist or not.

I find this absolutely amusing. Why would an Objectivist need an outside reference to determine at which point (s)he is an Objectivist?

But feelings and evaluations do. What you may think is great now may not seem so great in retrospect.

This seems to imply two things:

1) The evaluation of the incident was wrong (ie did not adhere to the facts of reality.)

2) The evaluation of the pleasure is relative to ones own experiences.

The first still presents the same problem - by what objective standard do you judge the person's evaluations to be wrong? And how can they also see that their evaluations are wrong?

Two just flatly contradicts the idea of objective standards. Nothing of (objective) value becomes worthless in retrospect unless it was actually worthless and one was in error. Essentially you're claiming all other pleasures are worthless because you've found one that is better in all ways and by some absurd amount.

This is patently false: while it would be true to say, for example, that one should pursue this pleasure, if pleasureable stops along the way are possible, and no long-term harm will come from them, why not do so?

[softwareNerd]

If anyone wishes to pursue the discussion of who is an Objectivist and who isn't, there was an earlier thread (link) that might be relevant.

[HaloNoble6]

I appreciate any and all pokes in the right direction.

[hunterrose]

Amazingly, I agree. But I find it very difficult to read his posts anyway, hence my strategy of ignoring him.

How did I get on your bad side, Ms. Snow?

Was Dominique (in her self-destructive mode) Howard's ideal?

If she wasn't, Inspector's implying that Howard should have waited for the "superlative" mate to come along, and not commited relations with Dom that were worthless.

If she was, Inspector's implying that Howard (a fully integrated person) was "settling" for a person NOT fully integrated -> Howard was compromising.

I don't think either of those implications would be correct. Agree?

If you didn't get my point, you could have asked me to explain. If I've said something wrong, you could've said so. And if you didn't care, well, it's kinda rude to strategically ignore that which is difficult

...examples from fiction are bad? Okay.

How could any of my prior relationships become "worthless" if my values are the same?

If even fully integrated people are "still learning," doesn't that mean that a person even more philosophically ideal is always possible?

poke, poke, poke

[donnywithana]

One stops being an Objectivist when one becomes an objectivist. In other words, when one does not need to cite the source of their beliefs, and instead can state them as their own beliefs, then one becomes independent of their banner.

To do something pleasurable that defies virtue is immoral. Thus not all pleasure is virtue, because there can be no contradictions. This does not necessarily mean, however, that dating a non-Objectivist is inherantly wrong.

Philosophical beliefs are not necessarily all that determine the quality of a relationship, especially amongst less activist individuals. Humor, intelligence, taste, etc. all contribute to a good relationship, and do not always rely on one's philosophical background. However, the idea Rand promotes is that as one moves closer to Objective living, the ceiling of one's happiness is raised. For example, a couple with nothing in common can be happy together, but they will never know the happiness of the couple with similar tastes, who will in turn never realize the happiness of the couple with the same beliefs.

The idea is that it doesn't matter where you start. As long as you're with someone, it should be your goal to achieve a unity in worldview. This is not to say that to reach any lesser point is condemnable, but it simply implies that the less your non-Objectivist partner aligns with your beliefs, the less happy you will be able to be.

I'm currently with a girl who loves Rand and agrees with what she's read, but is still on her way to aligning her life with these ideals. Once she asserted that happiness was unfeasible; that she was not as strong and good as the people she read about. I told her that all it takes is wanting what she wants, and being willing to try to get it. I offered her the choice of admitting that she wasn't willing to try for happiness, in which case she should break up with me. Obviously, she chose correctly. But this is what relationships are all about. Could I have given up? Of course; she didn't possess fundamental beliefs I value, but instead of walking away, I made both of our lives better.

So to all of you who said "cut your losses" and "there's nothing but pain in store for you," if you refuse to help others reach the level that you yourself have reached, there's nothing but pain and loneliness in store for you

[Inspector]

Donny,

I think you took the exact approach that I recommended. I hope you're not thinking that I advocated breaking it off with a person like your g/f; I've only said it wouldn't be wise to marry her until she "gets her ducks in a row." Which it sounds like she's well on the way to doing. Good luck!

Also, I agree with your second and third paragraphs.

[donnywithana]

*handshake*

The only problem i have with that idea is that it suggests a finite level of virtue that one must achieve before being "marry-able." I mean, I understand the basic premise of what you're saying, but I'd caution against being too cautious. Life is a journey towards perfection, and it's unlikely any of us will reach it in our lifetimes. Thus, in my opinion, it's the commitment to the journey that makes someone marry-able, if the rest of one's personality is in accordance with the other's values.