Marrying Non-Objectivists

[hunterrose]

What do you mean by 'fully integrates esthetics'? As far as I know, esthetics (as a philosophical field) is yet to be thoroughly covered. Even the key question 'what is beauty?' is yet to be answered.

True, but whether or not anyone has bothered to "integrate" esthetics is irrelevant; if being "fully integrated" is a necessary condition for marriage, it would be immoral to jump the broom until such questions had been resolved.

Since the original context was religion, I'd like to focus on that one aspect of being a "non-Objectivist".

I think it would be useful for those arguing "it's okay to marry a Christian" to clarify the following: at what point will you draw the line? And, how do you answer Inspector's point that a belief in God is a very fundamental issue: an important, non-trivial reflection of a person's rationality?

Focus granted.

I have to take a stance similar to Ms. Snow here. Token theism isn't a problem in a spouse IMO. A spouse may believe there is an intelligent designer, but not know or care what the designer wants from us. She may not desire such a unprovable theory be taught.

Or the spouse may espouse some nominal form of Christianity or some innoculous version of Shintoism.

While perhaps silly, I wouldn't regard such theism as a deal-breaker to marriage.

[Adrian Hester]

You haven't been uncivil to me, so far, thank you. But I would think it would take a little more explanation then you had given before you accuse someone of rationalism on the scale you did.

Reread the passage I quoted. It's blatantly rationalistic.

Why does he have to marry the non-objectivist? Why can't they just date until she rejects an idea as completely wrong and utterly harmful as theism?

And, dang, I still consider myself a "student" of Objectivism! So you might want to be a little more specific about the status of the theist in the example.

(Italics added.) You're missing a lot here. I wasn't talking about marrying a theist, I was responding to tommyedison's blanket claim that a fully-integrated Objectivist would be immoral to marry a student of Objectivism, any student of Objectivism as such, anyone at all besides another fully-integrated Objectivist. Theism wasn't involved.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[Inspector]

You're being off-topic and digressing, but no part of Objectivism is optional to Objectivism.

If there's any intellectual dishonesty, it'd be on your part. You imply that philosophical "peripheries" are "optional" in a marriage partner.

[insulting Childishness]

So no part of Objectivism is, in your view, optional. Okay, good.

Where does Objectivism say that "Hugo over Dostoevsky" is a MANDATORY position? Please provide a quote.

[JMeganSnow]

*dons Moderator hat* Okay, folks, this thread is getting a bit repetitive and wandering all over the place, not to mention being a highly contentious issue, obviously. If new ideas aren't brought to the table . . . and the participants keep wandering off-topic . . . I'm going to close it. *doffs Moderator hat*

[Adrian Hester]

*dons Moderator hat* Okay, folks, this thread is getting a bit repetitive and wandering all over the place, not to mention being a highly contentious issue, obviously. If new ideas aren't brought to the table . . . and the participants keep wandering off-topic . . . I'm going to close it. *doffs Moderator hat*

I'd not object.

[Inspector]

Namely, the dividing point comes for people whose belief in God is, to them, completely trivial. Personally, I wouldn't have discovered that these people exist except that they comprise the majority of my family and the people I know here in Dayton.

I'll call such people Deists, for now, if that will suffice? The only difference between my position and yours, it seems, is that I would consider it a bad idea to MARRY a deist and to live the rest of one's life sanctioning and accepting their belief. To say, in essence, "I know theism is wrong and I know how harmful it is, but I am prepared to live and love this person for the rest of my life, even if they never change that belief."

and the lovely one here "Non-Objectivists are necessarily unworthy people", ignoring the fact that Non-Objectivists created the U.S.A. and, in fact, darn near close to everything worth having in life.

Now, back up for just one second! Let us put some context in that statement which was taken out of it.

My position is that AN OBJECTIVIST, who is of sound mind and therefore capable of presenting the Objectivist position to his partner (i.e. the absolutism of reality and impossibility of theism), HAS presented said position. He has eliminated the possibility that the partner has made a simple error of knowledge. He has ARGUED the point COMPETANTLY and yet his partner still evades the falsehood of it.

This person is "unworthy" of MARRIAGE. I never said anything about it blanking out whatever other achievements they might have. I never said that the founding fathers were a bunch of morons. In fact, if you had READ what I said, I specifically warned people that such was NOT my position.

I said that such a person was not "marriage material" for an OBJECTIVIST, with the implied assumption that he has PRESENTED Objectivism to his partner! How on EARTH does this say ANYTHING about people that existed BEFORE OBJECTIVISM?!? "Worthiness for marriage" is NOT an out-of-context absolute; it cannot be separated from the context of the individuals involved!

(Italics added.) You're missing a lot here. I wasn't talking about marrying a theist, I was responding to tommyedison's blanket claim that a fully-integrated Objectivist would be immoral to marry a student of Objectivism, any student of Objectivism as such, anyone at all besides another fully-integrated Objectivist. Theism wasn't involved.

Okay. Even then, is there a gun to his head or something? Why can't he WAIT until she catches up? Until he is SURE that she has not rejected anything?

*dons Moderator hat* Okay, folks, this thread is getting a bit repetitive and wandering all over the place, not to mention being a highly contentious issue, obviously. If new ideas aren't brought to the table . . . and the participants keep wandering off-topic . . . I'm going to close it. *doffs Moderator hat*

I don't have any "new ideas," personally, I've just spent my time here clarifying and re-clarifying what exactly my position IS. And still a lot of people don't seem to understand it, you included.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Inspector

[Adrian Hester]

Okay. Even then, is there a gun to his head or something? Why can't he WAIT until she catches up? Until he is SURE that she has not rejected anything?

Well, I think many people are too eager to marry in the first place; we'd probably agree there. However, given a proclivity to marry more readily than you'd ever do, I don't think marrying a student of Objectivism would necessarily be immoral. But here it becomes a question, I think, of how ready you are to solemnize a deep longterm romantic relationship with marriage. My views on that are probably laxer than yours but stricter than most people's.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[Inspector]

Well, I think many people are too eager to marry in the first place; we'd probably agree there. However, given a proclivity to marry more readily than you'd ever do, I don't think marrying a student of Objectivism would necessarily be immoral. But here it becomes a question, I think, of how ready you are to solemnize a deep longterm romantic relationship with marriage. My views on that are probably laxer than yours but stricter than most people's.

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.

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.

[hunterrose]

The only difference between my position and yours, it seems, is that I would consider it a bad idea to MARRY a deist and to live the rest of one's life sanctioning and accepting their belief. To say, in essence, "I know theism is wrong and I know how harmful it is, but I am prepared to live and love this person for the rest of my life, even if they never change that belief."

You haven't said how a wife's theism (in every possible variation) is harmful to the husband.

My position is that AN OBJECTIVIST, who is of sound mind and therefore capable of presenting the Objectivist position to his partner (i.e. the absolutism of reality and impossibility of theism), HAS presented said position. He has eliminated the possibility that the partner has made a simple error of knowledge. He has ARGUED the point COMPETANTLY and yet his partner still evades the falsehood of it.

*Sigh*

You, being of sound mind, should have no problem with this contradiction/evasion

[Inspector]

*Sigh*

You, being of sound mind, should have no problem with this contradiction/evasion

With what? Be more specific.

You haven't said how a wife's theism (in every possible variation) is harmful to the husband.

Dr. Peikoff, however, has. Did you read it?

[Adrian Hester]

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.

The very fact that you couch your position in terms of risk bothers me. What are you risking? Your principles? Only if you're not well-enough integrated to know when to break off such a relationship. Your happiness? Presumably a person you love makes you wonderfully happy and there are no fundamental conflicts between your views of life, and for many people that's quite sufficient grounds for marriage. You seem to have the view that a romantic relationship is ideal (and thus marriage possible) only if there's some sort of fusion of the two of you, so that any "poison" in the other person's makeup can all too easily seep into your bloodstream too. You talk as if you're not just responsible for your own character but for the other person's as well, and if (as might happen with other beings having free will) you turn out to be mistaken, then it's your own moral failing. It's a dark, suspicious, indeed pessimistic view of humanity, and I don't share it. I don't consider marrying someone you love greatly without being absolutely certain (in the sense that you seem to demand of well-nigh a rigorous logical demonstration, but that is perhaps just your emphatic tone) you know every working of every cranny of their character to be so great a risk.

[Inspector]

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.

Your happiness? Presumably a person you love makes you wonderfully happy and there are no fundamental conflicts between your views of life, and for many people that's quite sufficient grounds for marriage.

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

That's twice you've spoken as if the methods and beliefs of "many people" are a metaphysically given fact, adn furthermore, a justification. That's not right.

You seem to have the view that a romantic relationship is ideal (and thus marriage possible) only if there's some sort of fusion of the two of you, so that any "poison" in the other person's makeup can all too easily seep into your bloodstream too. You talk as if you're not just responsible for your own character but for the other person's as well, and if (as might happen with other beings having free will) you turn out to be mistaken, then it's your own moral failing.

But you ARE responsible to judge a person for what they are. Your responsibility is directly proportional to the amount of effect that other person can have on your happiness. Your spouse is THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON ALIVE as far as your happiness is concerned, so you had BETTER be prepared to make an accurate judgment of their character.

It's a dark, suspicious, indeed pessimistic view of humanity, and I don't share it. I don't consider marrying someone you love greatly without being absolutely certain (in the sense that you seem to demand of well-nigh a rigorous logical demonstration, but that is perhaps just your emphatic tone) you know every working of every cranny of their character to be so great a risk.

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..........

Oh wait... THERE ISN'T. I've asked for such a reason several times to both you and hunterrose, and no answer has been given.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Inspector

[hunterrose]

With what? Be more specific.

My post, page 3

Dr. Peikoff, however, has. Did you read it?

Peikoff speaks about the consequences to the theist.

As he didn't touch it, you have to show how those consequences inevitably flow over onto the theist's spouse.

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..........

Oh wait... THERE ISN'T. I've asked for such a reason several times to both you and hunterrose, and no answer has been given.

Gaining more knowledge is a never-ending process, and any person's definition of what is "sufficient" is highly subjective.

[Inspector]

Hunterrose, I have no interest in continuing this exchange with you. If you can't see that it's a bad idea to marry someone who holds that kind of idea, then by all means, go ahead. Do it. You will get what you deserve.

[JMeganSnow]

I'd like to add something here about evasion, if I may.

In order for marriage to a non-Objectivist (in the context of this thread, a theist) to constitute an act of evasion, there must be some truth that one is wilfully ignoring or blanking out. No examples of that truth have been proffered; the evasion has been proffered as an unreduced concrete, as self-evident with no further examples.

What, exactly, would one be evading when marrying a theist? What would make the act one of evasion? I can think of a few options.

1. One could claim that one's spouse is not actually a theist and refuse to acknowledge that fact. No one has upheld this position. I, personally, have advocated MOST strenously that no relationship of any kind with ANYONE can be successful if it is not based upon the most scrupulous honesty possible, and that includes refusing to fake the evidence of one's partner's beliefs. No evasion there.

2. One could claim that one's spouse's theism will have no effect on them, or on you. I have not claimed this, either, although you might have to read my posts closely in order to discern that. What I have claimed is that, if you take the effort to acknowledge the likely effects and prepare to deal with them, that their theism does not have to be the be-all, end-all of your relationship; that it does not have to become a source of major conflict, or indeed, of any conflict. Again, no evasion.

3. Finally, one might say that you could be evading the fact that the relationship with a theist would not be "perfect"; that there would remain, in the end, some differences between you. Personally, I think that this stance in and of itself constitutes an evasion of a VERY important consideration: there will ALWAYS be differences between you and your spouse. At the very least (speaking generally here) you are opposite sexes! That's a HUGE difference, a difference on a metaphysical order, and it is this difference that makes the relationship desirable in the first place!

Let's examine the track record of the opposite stance, here.

1. Proponents of the idea that Objectivists should not marry non-Objectivists ignore (that is, evade) the existence of a HUGE number of HIGHLY successful marriages between people of different beliefs. While we don't have the luxury of the actual presence of an Objectivist/non-Objectivist mixed marriage here to give us some better evidence, the simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of actual evidence indicates that mixed marriages are no more likely to fail than any others. So 50% of marriages end in divorce? That means 50% don't! Personally, I consider a 50% success rate in so difficult an undertaking to be quite high! If I had even odds of winning the lottery, I'd surely jump for it, and as far as I'm concerned a loving relationship is an even better thing to have!

(Yes, I'm aware that it's not the same thing . . . you can't just pick any random stranger, marry them, and have it work out 50% of the time. But judging another person's character is HARD . . . being right 50% of the time ain't bad . . . and it leaves out entirely the fact that people continue to change and grow over time; the person you thought you married 10 years ago might not at all be the person you ARE married to NOW. Personally I find the idea of a relationship that lasts a significant portion of your life to be unlikely. It's a wonderful thing when it does happen, but one should not take it as given or feel guilt over it. Sorry about the digression, there.)

2. Inspector in particular has said a number of things that he almost immediately retracted. It's made it rather difficult to follow his argument and see the sense of it. Do you take his original statement to be his position, or the new one? Either way, you're evading the fact that he said SOMETHING. Note also that I accurately predicted (and Adrian Hester reinforced my prediction) that his stance winds up logically in a summary condemnation of everyone and everything, whereas mine is an embrace of what IS good, while still insisting on recognizing what is NOT. You can decide for yourself which is healthier.

3. No one has refuted my proffered evidence: it is almost as though they are blanking it out. Why? Because there is no other way to ignore the fact that there ARE so many successful relationships that don't involve Objectivists. If a relationship between TWO non-Objectivists can be successful, a relationship that involves at least ONE Objectivist (granting for a moment the premise that Objectivists have something extra going for them) cannot help but be even MORE successful. Again: no bad thing.

I could go on and on, but I think I've said enough on this particular point.

[Inspector]

I'd like to add something here about evasion, if I may.

In order for marriage to a non-Objectivist (in the context of this thread, a theist) to constitute an act of evasion, there must be some truth that one is wilfully ignoring or blanking out. No examples of that truth have been proffered; the evasion has been proffered as an unreduced concrete, as self-evident with no further examples.

Where did I use the word "evasion?" I thought I explained this one to you...

[JMeganSnow]

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..........

This is downright offensive, not to mention being both a vague threat and an emotional appeal at once.

Why would someone commit quickly? Once you've decided, WHY WAIT?! You don't know what's going to happen in a month or a year or ten years. Note that NO ONE has advocated acting without being aware of the facts. Personally, I hold to the idea that it's better to act decisively than to hem and haw forever, letting opportunity after opportunity slip away. In the words of Robert Heinlein: "It's better to do something constructive immediately than to figure out the best possible thing hours later."

Everyone has a limited amount of time in which to act. Delaying unnecessarily can have far graver consequences than acting just a little too quickly. It is up to the individual to decide which is better in his own particular context, taking into account his own particular interests. No one else can dictate it for him.

Where did I use the word "evasion?" I thought I explained this one to you...

Since you quoted a passage by Dr. Peikoff ABOUT evasion, I sort of assumed that was your stance as well! But then, I should not have assumed any such thing, since you have changed your mind, your stance, your wording, and your basis of argument so many times since this began that no one could possibly sort out what you actually MEANT, only gather that, for some reason, you disapprove mightily!

If you are inconsistent, you should not complain that people misunderstand you.

Oh, and you shouldn't have to explain how to interpret your own words: they should speak for themselves. Bah, I'm getting tired of this.

[Inspector]

2. One could claim that one's spouse's theism will have no effect on them, or on you. I have not claimed this, either, although you might have to read my posts closely in order to discern that. What I have claimed is that, if you take the effort to acknowledge the likely effects and prepare to deal with them, that their theism does not have to be the be-all, end-all of your relationship; that it does not have to become a source of major conflict, or indeed, of any conflict. Again, no evasion.

1. Hunterrose IS claiming that it will have no effect of consequence.

2. You are claiming right there that it won't be the source of any conflict, so long as the Objectivist does.... what? What action is involved in "dealing with the likely effects?" What, precisely, is it that he should do to avoid conflicts? Give up on the stance that ideas matter? Ignore a rejection of reason? Accept without question any decisions made by his spouse on the premise of theism? What?

3. Finally, one might say that you could be evading the fact that the relationship with a theist would not be "perfect"; that there would remain, in the end, some differences between you.

This is once again based on the equation of theism with some kind of unimportant, optional, inconsequential idea, such as hunterrose pointed out. (i.e. Do you prefer the films of Leone or Jackson) As Dr. Peikoff said:

"To deny the absolutism of reason [by believing in "god"] is not a harmless indulgence, like having chocolates on a diet. It is more like taking arsenic three times a day as the essence of nutrition."

1. Proponents of the idea that Objectivists should not marry non-Objectivists ignore (that is, evade) the existence of a HUGE number of HIGHLY successful marriages between people of different beliefs.

As I long ago pointed out, a person who holds highly flawed ideas and his supposed "happiness" in his marriage says absolutely NOTHING about how happy an Objectivist or anyone who takes ideas seriously would be in his shoes. Once again I see the idea of "well, a lot of people do it" as some sort of justification.

Joe Shmoe is "happy" drinking himself into a stupor and beating his wife. At least, he'll tell you he is. He'll tell you his marriage is a HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL one. What on earth does that prove?

But judging another person's character is HARD

Then just give up, if it's too hard for you. Act as if your happiness doesn't depend on you doing it successfully. See how well that works for you. Me, I live a differant sort of life.

2. Inspector in particular has said a number of things that he almost immediately retracted. It's made it rather difficult to follow his argument and see the sense of it. Do you take his original statement to be his position, or the new one?

What new position? What was my original statement and what is my "new" one? So you didn't understand what I meant... that doesn't mean that I've CHANGED my position.

Note also that I accurately predicted (and Adrian Hester reinforced my prediction) that his stance winds up logically in a summary condemnation of everyone and everything, whereas mine is an embrace of what IS good, while still insisting on recognizing what is NOT. You can decide for yourself which is healthier.

That's a high claim, and I see nothing to back it up.

3. No one has refuted my proffered evidence: it is almost as though they are blanking it out. Why? Because there isno other way to ignore the fact that there ARE so many successful relationships that don't involve Objectivists. If a relationship between TWO non-Objectivists can be successful, a relationship that involves at least ONE Objectivist (granting for a moment the premise that Objectivists have something extra going for them) cannot help but be even MORE successful. Again: no bad thing.

1) I answered your "evidence" a while ago. You seem to ignore Post #52 and #53, in which I responded to you directly, and the other posts in which I made those points.

[Inspector]

Since you quoted a passage by Dr. Peikoff ABOUT evasion, I sort of assumed that was your stance as well!

As I TOLD YOU in PM, it is the THEIST who is the evader.

But then, I should not have assumed any such thing, since you have changed your mind, your stance, your wording, and your basis of argument so many times since this began that no one could possibly sort out what you actually MEANT, only gather that, for some reason, you disapprove mightily!

I won't even acknowledge this until you point to something specific to prove it. If you don't feel that's necessary, I'll just start throwing unsubstantiated insults at you and see how you like it.

If you are inconsistent, you should not complain that people misunderstand you.

I have not been inconsisent. Unclear and inconsistent are two very differant things.

Why would someone commit quickly? Once you've decided, WHY WAIT?!

That's a circular statement. Why decide quickly?

Everyone has a limited amount of time in which to act. Delaying unnecessarily can have far graver consequences than acting just a little too quickly.

In the context of our discussion, could you NAME some of those consequences?

Edited September 18, 2005 by Inspector

[HaloNoble6]

This is a very important topic in terms of how one approaches Objectivism and living in general. The thread is closed, but unless Jennifer objects, I'd like to reopen it and attempt to essentialize the discussion and perhaps emphasize the real-life consequences of the various views expressed herein. If I've done nothing but repeat what's already been said, please reclose the thread.

It appears we are discussing what a person who understands the importance of ideas should do within the context of marriage but more broadly within the context of romantic relationships. More specifically, to what extent should one (ethically) engage romantically with a person that a.) commits errors of knowledge (which do not consist of moral flaws) and/or b.) commits moral wrongs. It is also important to keep in mind that the highest form of romantic relationship, marriage, means different things to different people, so perhaps having a clear definition of 'marriage' would help. I can't say that I have a definition I'm confident in, so I'll leave this task to you.

I prefer the inductive approach to all questions of morality, so let us start with the essential one: Faced with alternatives, what choice is the most beneficial to you, your life being the standard here? How does a romantic partner bring value to one's life in the first place? I view a romantic partner as essentially inspiration on tap, a metaphysically real representation of who I am--and therefore of who I love--in the person of another. So, with my life as the standard, I first determine, by introspection, what I value about my self, what are my personal sources of self-esteem, and this is what I seek in the person of another.

It appears that some here want intellectuals, while others don't. Let me emphasize that there is no standard set of required things your partner must have in terms of concrete value-manifestations like "artist" or "intellectual," i.e. something's likely wrong if you think we shouldn't settle for anything other than a railroad executive. Presumably we all understand that the good is what's good for man qua man, that successfully living a life proper to man is what brings self-esteem, so I'm not going out on a limb here when I say that the only requirement in choosing the set of traits/values one seeks in the person of another is that they be moral values.

Anyway, so here we have people who presumably have lived and identified the moral values that drive their lives, and now are wondering, how should we go about finding love? There appear to be two answers presented here. While one group says that happiness is not a zero-sum gain, that being with a less-than-ideal person is fine so long as it brings you happiness and is not at the cost of greater happiness, another side, the perfect or bust folk, have come out of the woodworks here, as they usually do when this topic comes up, and said that being with anything less than one's ideal is immoral, that it is settling. I've noticed that, for the most part, the latter folk are people that have already found someone. How convenient.

So, to bring back the thesis of this post, what do these two competing views logically lead to? Which view is truly anti-life? Does one view actually hold suicide, death, as the ideal? What is the validity of the zero-sum view? Why is choosing happiness with a non-O'ist, when not at the cost of greater happiness with someone else (whether O'ist or not), destructive to one's life? Is happiness with a non-O'ist a fantasy?

In my opinion, the latter of these two views leads to a rather ugly form of moralizing, a kin to bible-thumping, that upholds celibacy as the ideal in a world where the odds of finding "a perfect reflection of one's self" are not great; a view that seems to idealize not the achievement of the great value they are claiming one should seek, but the struggle itself, the drudgery of holding out for the one illusive person that is out there for you--an idealization of struggle for struggle's sake.

I've also noticed the trick of claiming that flaws in the person of another will, in the end, necessarily render a sexual relationship with them self-destructive. I say that not quite, that flaws in a sexual partner are accepted at a cost, and the question one faces is: Is the cost, based on the nature of the flaw(s) being accepted, worth the benefit conferred from all the positive things this person brings? I mean, in all other realms of life, we base our decisions upon a cost/benefit analysis, so why in the realm of romantic love are we to toss that to the wind and apply a "perfect" or bust approach?

I guess what this issue boils down to, based on happiness as one's end, is why is choosing happiness with a non-O'ist necessarily self-destructive, without at all considering the cost and benefits of such a decision? Are people claiming there is no benefit at all to be gained from non-O'ists? That only O'ists can have moral sexual relationships? I've seen this question come up numerous times, and apparently it has never been settled. So, here, now, once and for all, why is being with a non-ideal immoral, why is, for example, Dagny immoral for sleeping with Hank, knowing he was commiting errors of knowledge in his ethics? What say you?

[hunterrose]

I agree that a person should marry the "ideal" person. But ideal can be taken two ways: ideal as "having my consummate qualities for a mate," and ideal as "having the "important" qualities for a mate."

I would rather marry someone who consistently pursued attainment of what was objectively and philosophically "right" but never attains "full integration" over someone who accepts Objectivism and proceeds to dogmatically ignore anything that questions that philosophy. Not implying that any Objectivist is such, just making a point.

For me, the pursuit of "the right" is the consummate philosophical quality. Having a person of the same philosophical foundations is equivalent to having a grandmaster as a mate: it's nice, but not a necessary quality of "ideal." IMO similar foundations would be necessary, though what "similar" constitutes is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as the Hank-Dagny question goes, Hank searched for his error, but it didn't "click" for a long while. Hank wasn't evading the truth, he just didn't immediately see it.

[HaloNoble6]

Hunter, what does marriage mean to you? Further, are your standards for picking a marriage partner the same for picking a sexual partner?

As for your comments with regard to dogmatic people, I wouldn't even consider those sorts of people for serious friendships, far less marriage.

As for your comments on Hank/Dagny, I agree with you about Hank, but the question of the morality of the sexual relationship is possed with regard to Dagny, because she knew he had errors yet she chose to sleep with him. He in fact was not her ideal, so would you have us condem her for enjoying him in this way?

[hunterrose]

Hunter, what does marriage mean to you? Further, are your standards for picking a marriage partner the same for picking a sexual partner?

As for your comments on Hank/Dagny, I agree with you about Hank, but the question of the morality of the sexual relationship is possed with regard to Dagny, because she knew he had errors yet she chose to sleep with him. He in fact was not her ideal, so would you have us condem her for enjoying him in this way?

Marriage, for me, means a bond with a person who is representative of my highest values.

The sexual partner relationship would be far less exacting, but would follow the same idea. I am somewhat at a loss as to precisely qualifying either, though.

Some examples would be I'd want a marriage partner to enjoy physical activities like hiking and exercising. I wouldn't require that of a sexual partner, though it'd be a plus. I prefer redheads over blondes, but I think it would be absolutely silly to decline on marriage (or any relationship) to an otherwise "ideal" blonde just because she refused to dye her hair.

I feel there are 1) some ideal qualities either relationship would require, 2) some that only marriage would require, and 3) some that are nice, but not required to either. I wouldn't regard this as a compromise, because in each instance I feel that I would be basing a relationship on what I deem desired qualities, though not perfection qualities.

If Hank had been evading his errors, then I'd consider Dagny wrong. I don't believe a non-marriage relationship should necessarily have as exacting standards as a marriage relationship, and I do believe that Hank was representative of a good enough part of Dagny's most important values (though not enough for marriage) to approve of their relationship.

[Inspector]

In my opinion, the latter of these two views leads to a rather ugly form of...

Felipe, those are thoughtful criticisms that I hope will help some of the younger members to think more closely on this issue and not accept what I have to say on a Misintigrated level. I don't think that those criticisms have anything to do with what I have tried to put out as my position, though. That's a complicated answer, though, and I can't seem to be able to express it in a way that everyone understands.

I'll try to list a few facts that might help to enunciate my postion better.

How is what I have said "zero sum?" Does the very fact that I think it is possible to find self-destruction in a relationship make my view one of "death worship?" Do you agree or disagree that a relationship, even on based on valid values, can be a "net loss?"

Why is choosing happiness with a non-O'ist, when not at the cost of greater happiness with someone else (whether O'ist or not), destructive to one's life? Is happiness with a non-O'ist a fantasy?

I thought it was pretty clear that my answer to the second question was "yes," and that that in turn answered the first question.

I say that not quite, that flaws in a sexual partner are accepted at a cost, and the question one faces is: Is the cost, based on the nature of the flaw(s) being accepted, worth the benefit conferred from all the positive things this person brings?

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with looking at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. The question is, under what circumstances, if any, is it possible that the benefits would outweigh the costs? I've heard of a few, very rare and very extenuating circumstances in which they could: ALL of which are based on some kind of tragedy. Under normal (that is, non-tragic) conditions, I don't think the benefits would ever outweigh the costs.

Also, what makes you think that anyone has said that Dagny made a moral error in sleeping with Hank, rather than the OTHER kind of error? (i.e. an error of knowledge)

[HaloNoble6]

You make some good sense, Hunter. Picking a marriage partner definately involves a higher standard. To me marriage is like a calculated prediction, it's basically saying that "I'm not at all likely to find someone that will bring me nearly as much happiness as this person, where the degree of happiness they bring me is based on my life and on the fulfillment of my requirements for a partner." And, since we are not omniscient, we can very much er in this decision (as many bigtime O'ists have, like Dr. Peikoff, who's been divorced).

I'm not sure I'd be quick to condemn Dagny had she decided to marry Hank or Francisco, prior to knowing that a man like Galt existed. I would had she decided to marry them rather than Galt.

I agree with you that marraige should be with one's ideal, but it is in a different sense that I speak of ideal than most, and I think you see this my way. Ideal doesn't mean some vague conception of "perfect" or "flawless," it means, for me, the full meeting of one's introspection-based standards for a partner.

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.