How does Objectivism view adultery?

[Moebius]

After joining this forum, I read up a little bit about Ayn Rand's life. Apparently at one point she was having an affair with a married man 25 years her junior.

So that made me wonder, is it morally right for an Objectivist to engage in adultery?

[DavidOdden]

So that made me wonder, is it morally right for an Objectivist to engage in adultery?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You'd have to be more specific about the case.

[khaight]

So that made me wonder, is it morally right for an Objectivist to engage in adultery?

As is often the case, the answer is "it depends." Objectivism doesn't lay down a set of concrete rules people are supposed to follow, like the 10 commandments. Instead, it advocates a set of principles to allow people to pursue their own life and happiness. In any particular case, you need to figure out how the principles apply.

What this means is that there isn't an absolute prohibition on adultery; instead you need to ask and answer questions like "Am I being dishonest?" "Is this just?" "Am I sacrificing a major long-term value for short-term pleasure?" Etc.

Clearly Rand thought that under some circumstances it *could* be morally right to engage in adultery. Leaving her personal life aside, consider the character Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged. Rearden was one of Rand's major heroic characters, and he had an extramarital affair with Dagny Taggart.

My own sense is that the circumstances which could justify adultery are a lot less common than acts of adultery themselves, i.e. most acts of adultery are not moral. But the significant thing to take away from this is the fact that the Objectivist ethics does not lay down concrete-bound "thou shalt not" rules. If you approach ethics that way, you may want to put some thought into your general method of thinking, because it would indicate a religious influence. I recommend Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lectures as a good place to start.

[D'kian]

Clearly Rand thought that under some circumstances it *could* be morally right to engage in adultery. Leaving her personal life aside, consider the character Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged. Rearden was one of Rand's major heroic characters, and he had an extramarital affair with Dagny Taggart.

I'm not so sure about that. Remember Rearden was a man at odds with himself, which is whay he allowed his family, wife included, to heap abuse on him and to mistreat him. A character like, say, Ragnar, would never have married a woman like Lillian. And if he had done so, perhaps as a mistake, he would have divorced her long before Rearden ever did.

Given who rearden was in the story, not whom he might have been, and who his wife and Dagny were, and the circumstances involved (the first major use of his alloy), I judge he was justified. But it isn't crystal clear.

Now let's look at it another way. A marriage is both a moral commitement and a binding legal contract. People who choose to marry each toher, voluntarily take an oath (the wedding vows) regarding the relationship. one common vow is "to forsake all others," or words to that effect.

Let's agree that one should keep one's word. Is it then justifiable to commit adultery? It depends. Does the other partner keep to her vows too (in other aspects, not necessarily related to adultery)? How does the couple get along sexually? How do they get along in other matters?

I will say this: it is immoral to commit adultery in a frivolous manner. Say on a trip, or because you can, or because you meet someone you'd like to have sex with. Such things are simply a violation of a trust, assuming the marriage proceeds well enough.

Otherwise, it depends on the specifics of the case.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I'd say that it is immoral to lie to your partner, if you want to have a valuable relationship with them. You'd be faking reality if you told them that they were the only one and then went behind their backs to have sex with others. You'd be trying to delude yourself that your partner is involved in a relationship with you while knowing everything about you, you'd have to constantly try to hide your real self from her and feel guilt about it as well, you'd have to constantly supress your real self, your actual self, your SELF.

On the other hand, if you allow your partner to know, both beforehand and afterward, when and if you are going to engage in a sexual/intimate relationship with another person (which was Rand's situation with Branden and his wife and her husband) then you aren't necessarily faking anything, and all parties have the option open to know reality and then make their rational independant decisions based on reality.

[blackdiamond]

If you love your partner, you should NEVER commit adultery, whether or not you inform them about it. [Disclaimer: Excepting life-boat situations, of course, although i can't imagine any such situations right now.]

Exclusivity is part of the nature and meaning of romantic love.

Edited March 26, 2007 by blackdiamond

[IAmMetaphysical]

Blackdaimond: Do you intend on actually supporting your assertion about romantic love?

[Tabitha]

Rand and Branden didn't lie about their affair to their spouses; their spouses gave them "consent." Nonetheless, I question the morality of their affair on two fronts. 1) Although Barabara Branden and Frank O'Connor consented, it should have been patently obvious to Rand and Branden that their spouses were not happy with it. Thinking that their spouses were happy with it would have been an evasion of reality, and 2) if your spouse is not your highest value on the romantic front, why stay married to him/her?

I think the very concept of affairs is anti-individualist and anti-self-reliance. If you're unhappy in your relationship and would rather be with someone else, then why not leave it and be with the new person? The chorus of replies is predictible and never-wavering: "because I don't want to give up the security of my relationship," "splitting up would create financial complications," and "I'm afraid to be alone."

Less common is: "well, I love both people, but in different ways." But that just reeks of neediness to me. Maybe it's time to spend more time alone and developing oneself as a productive individual, and less time being wrapped up in "loving others in different and many ways."

The very notion of Objectivists staying in a relationship with which they are not 100% happy (and, to boot, because they don't want to go back to living single -- relying on the self) rings disonant with Objectivism.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Tabitha

[mrocktor]

I fully agree with IAmMetaphysical. Honesty is the virtue to be preserved, because it furthers your own life. Unless you are forced into a situation where being honest is impossible (and I need only mention women in certain middle eastern societies as a practical example), adultery is immoral.

[IAmMetaphysical]

If you're unhappy in your relationship and would rather be with someone else, then why not leave it and be with the new person?

Why make this assumption? Does the existence of Nathaniel Branden make Frank O'Connor totally worthless? Did Ayn Rand really want to leave Frank, was she really dissatisfied with him or did she find another value?

Although Barabara Branden and Frank O'Connor consented, it should have been patently obvious to Rand and Branden that their spouses were not happy with it.

Were there unhappy with it? Did they voice their unhappiness, therefore letting their partners know they were unhappy or did that expect their partners to read their minds? When you are honest with someone about wanting to experience the value of sex with someone other than them, they also should be honest with you about how they feel about it and what consequences that action will ave on their psychology, if they want a completely honest and rational relationship with you.

The very notion of Objectivists staying in a relationship with which they are not 100% happy (and, to boot, because they don't want to go back to living single -- relying on the self) rings disonant with Objectivism.

You assume that a person who wants to have sex with someone outside their primary relationship is not 100 percent happy with ther partner? Would you say that someone who has more than one golf buddy is not 100 percent happy with his most frequent golf partner? What makes sex so fundamentally different (read: other than specifics, i.e. qua recreational activity engaged in with someone you value) from golf?

edit=spellcheck

Edited March 26, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[Tabitha]

(quoting IAmMetaphysical)

Were there unhappy with it? Did they voice their unhappiness, therefore letting their partners know they were unhappy or did that expect their partners to read their minds?

From what I've read (Barbara Branden's book), it was the former. Peikoff believes the latter to be true. As far as I'm concerned, it comes down to little more than "he said, she saids." I would agree with you that people should not be expected to mind read.

You assume that a person who wants to have sex with someone outside their primary relationship is not 100 percent happy with ther partner? Would you say that someone who has more than one golf buddy is not 100 mpercent happy with hsi most frequent golf partner? What makes sex so fundamentally different (read: other than specifics, i.e. qua recreational activity engaged in with someone you value) from golf?

Sex is the ultimate expression of value appreciation, as it involves the body, ergo self, in the most intimate way possible. (This is why Rand argued that sex and love cannot be separated.) One does not become physically bonded with his golf buddies (I would assume...).

[IAmMetaphysical]

I hug my golf buddies all the time!

When I have sex with my gf I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, her value, her chosen values, etc. WHen I have sex with someone else I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, etc. Why does my appreciation of one's girls value make my appreciation of another girl's value worthless? Is it a betrayal of water to appreciate ice? Is it a betrayal of the atlantic to appreciate the pacific? Is it a betrayal of a friend to appreciate your mother, your lover, your other friends?

Edited March 26, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[Tabitha]

When I have sex with my gf I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, her value, her chosen values, etc. WHen I have sex with someone else I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, etc. Why does my appreciation of one's girls value make my appreciation of another girl's value worthless? Is it a betrayal of water to appreciate ice? Is it a betrayal of the atlantic to appreciate the pacific?

I suppose it wouldn't. While I question what's behind the drive to pursue multiple romantic / sexual partners, as I said I think it can signify neediness (I went back and added something about this to my original post -- what's the point of having a partner in the first place if you feel a need to go elsewhere for sex and other perks; why not just live as a single and do the same thing?). I would give you that having multiple partners isn't inherently immoral, but it is not an Objectivist value worth actively pursuing (which, I don't think anyone's arguing anyway).

Is it a betrayal of a friend to appreciate your mother, your lover, your other friends?

Again, you're putting platonic love (friends) on the same level as romantic love (lovers). (Have you read Rand's Romantic Manifesto?)

The characters in Rands novels who had affairs did so out of discovery that they did not share the same values and convictions as their partners. Rand herself came to discover that her husband was not as "heroic" as she had originally thought. Right or wrong, from an Objectivst standpoint, this is what fuels affairs: a realized mismatch of values (and therefore, the fading of romantic love).

What made you seek other romantic partners outside of your girlfriend? Are her values and convictions not the highest?

Edited March 26, 2007 by Tabitha

[JMeganSnow]

I don't worry too much about the morality of adultery because I'm well aware that another person isn't yours except by their consent and that said consent can be withdrawn at any time. What does worry me is the underlying assumptions that result in adultery. It's not so much that adultery is *necessarily* symptomatic of something specific like dissatisfaction with the relationship, it's that it's symptomatic of a rift between emotion and thought, not to mention between words and action. As such, I wouldn't be so concerned if someone failed to resolve it and did something erratic than if they showed no signs of trying to come to resolution.

In other words, it's one thing to have an affair while you're confused and trying to sort out what state of affairs (sic) will make you happy, it's another thing to accept this transitory state as a default with which you are happy.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I would give you that having multiple partners isn't inherently immoral, but it is not an Objectivist value worth actively pursuing

While I agree that actively pursuing multiple partners is not mandatory, I don't see how, if it is a value, its pursuit is immoral. How can pursuing a value be immoral, isn't that the basis of morality? Obviously if its pursuit involves the sacrifice of a higher value then it would be immoral, but it does not necessarily involve sacrifice and I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place.

While I question what's behind the need to pursue multiple romantic / sexual partners, as I said I think it can signify neediness (I went back and added something about this to my original post -- what's the point of having a main partner in the first place -- why not just live as a single?).

Of course it can signify neediness, but it need not do so necessarily. A number of rational pursuits can be undertaken irrationally by irrational people for irrational reasons, it doesn't make the rational pursuit of such immoral.

I have my gf because we intend to be together for the rest of our lives, but at any time if she stops being a value to me or vice versa we will end it and go our separate ways. We are together as long and as much as we are values to each other. In a way, we are both "living single", in the sense that we aren't committed to "always be with each other, under any circumstances." We enjoy each other, and spend a lot of time together, we love each other, and have amazing sex! What significance would commitment add to this relationship except a pretense at ownership and sacrifice?

[Tabitha]

Sorry; I added more to my previous post as you were writing your response. I need to stop doing that!

[IAmMetaphysical]

What made you seek other romantic partners outside of your girlfriend? Are her values and convictions not the highest?

I really do not seek them, but I have the option open if I ever find one, because it would be a value to my life. My gf is amazing, and I'm not sure what you mean by "highest." Do you mean "is she the best woman in the world"? Perhaps, I wouldn't know, I haven't tried dating all the women in the world. I know that she is good and thats enough. Do you mean "does she have the characters that you value the most"? She contains the most important and at least one of the ones that are optional, e.g. while I value small breasts and large breasts, she has only large breasts. She is not as fit as I would want her to be, but she is working on that. In the same respect I am not as fit as she would want, but I am working on that. In terms of strictly voltional aspects, she is perfect. The most important criteria for me in choosing a life partner is their level of morality. In terms of a sexual partner, my criteria are a little less strict.

[Tabitha]

While I agree that actively pursuing multiple partners is not mandatory, I don't see how, if it is a value, its pursuit is immoral. How can pursuing a value be immoral, isn't that the basis of morality? Obviously if its pursuit involves the sacrifice of a higher value then it would be immoral, but it does not necessarily involve sacrifice and I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place.

I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place.

I would argue that hedonism or any other form of whim-worshiping is immoral. What long range goal or value is one fulfilling by having muliple romantic / sex partners?

The most important criteria for me in choosing a life partner is their level of morality. In terms of a sexual partner, my criteria are a little less strict.

But Objectivism doesn't distinguish between "life" (romantic) partner and sexual partner. They are one in the same. (When you say "life," I'm assuming you mean romantic or primary.) To have sex with someone whose values are in your estimation not surpreme is immoral (to the self).

Edited March 26, 2007 by Tabitha

[blackdiamond]

Blackdaimond: Do you intend on actually supporting your assertion about romantic love?

Hi.

Firstly, i must announce from the onset that i wont take part in the specific discussion of the Ayn Rand affair, etc, but will discuss the general principles of what i think about adultery. [if you are curious to know why i wouldn't like to discuss the Rand affair specifically, it is simply out of respect for her.]

Back to your question. I think it is common sense that exclusivity is an essential part of romantic love. Just introspect about it.

If your girlfriend comes to you and says, "Hi honey, I've been meeting your best friend of late over lunch to discuss Objectivism and i think he's such a wonderful guy. Lately, we've discussed the idea of him and I having some sex and i want us to start next weekend if it's okay with you; which means we might have to reduce the number of times you and i do it because i can't handle doing it too many times." How would you feel about that?

Just to continue with my fictional story, imagine she comes back after the first such encounter with your best friend and you curiously ask her, "so, how was it?" And she says, quite honestly, "oh, it was fantastic; I've never had such great sex in my entire life, honey! it was... ooh ... i can't describe it!"

Then you meet your best friend and he tells you, "man, your girlfriend is really great; why didn't you tell me she was that passionate? Dear Lawd!"

I imagine you would feel terrible about her telling you in the first place that she wanted to have sex with your best friend - or with any other man for that matter.

Would you feel the same way if your gold buddy told you he wanted to play golf with your best friend?

Why not?

I suggest that you first introspect about this a bit before we get into an argument over words. Can you articulate *reasons* for the difference in the way you would react to the golf buddy's announcement and your girlfriend's announcement? (This is how we can begin the essentialisation process for the concept of 'romantic love').

[Qwertz]

I'm with David on this one (see post #2).

What is adultery, and how does one commit it? Is the difference between lying about sexual exclusivity and having more than one simultaneous sexual relationship a relevant or significant difference? Does adultery require the dishonesty, or is the sex itself enough? If Dagny is romantically involved with Hank, then meets John and has sex with him, has she committed adultery? Or does she only commit adultery if she subsequently hides her relationship with John from Hank?

I would argue that the deceit is the key factor to adultery. If sex is the highest response to the highest value, an honest person cannot have sex with more than one person at a time, because all values are hierarchical - both cannot occupy that top slot. But in the situation I described above, Dagny does not need to obtain permission from Hank to terminate their relationship before beginning one with John. In such a case, Dagny would only be at fault if she subsequently mislead Hank into believing he was still in that top slot, either by having sex with him, or by failing to tell him that he no longer occupied the top slot as soon as practicable. I think we can all agree that dishonesty outside a coercive context is immoral.

Now let's say that Dagny is still romantically involved with Hank, and meets John, but does not have sex with him. She thinks John might represent her ideal man better than Hank, but isn't sure. She wants to find out, so she asks Hank if she can have sex with John, and Hank agrees. 1) I doubt such a relationship would ever recover, even if Dagny were to find, after having sex with him, that she loved Hank more than John. Dagny would have at least conceptualized some significant factor in which Hank was somehow less-than-ideal, and Hank's opinion of Dagny's ability to judge the character of others would be diminished. 2) Whether or not someone is, to turn a phrase, "dynamite in the sack" is rather less important to the valuation calculus of a moral, rational person than other indicia more readily discernible outside of the bedroom. Dagny has a duty to herself to make sure before she risks damage to her relationship with Hank.

But what if Dagny has sex with John, knowing that she values Hank more than John? If sex is a statement of highest value, then Dagny is deceiving herself, and thus immoral, even if she is fully honest with both Hank and John.

-Q

[Moebius]

A marriage isn't just about having sex with only one person. It's a social contract binding two people together in life. You're linked together domestically, financially, and romantically. It would seem to me that short of something like domestic violence or physically or psychic coercion, violating the terms of marriage would be immoral. Assuming you entered a marriage voluntarily, you would be better off getting a divorce first than betraying your partner.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You'd have to be more specific about the case.

Are there criterias with which to determine when it is okay and when it isn't? Outside of violence and coercion, when is it moral to commit adultery?

[Qwertz]

I fail to see how marriage enters the equation. Are you defining adultery as something only married couples can commit? Because doing so forecloses discussion. If marriage is an exclusivity contract that cannot be unilaterally breached, then any extramarital sex breaches the contract and breaks the promise. The end. In the case of a marriage you have two people who have promised, in express terms, not to have sex with anyone else for the life of the marriage. The complex moral issues arise only where such an express promise is absent. Only then can the question of whether such a promise should be implied arise.

-Q

[IAmMetaphysical]

I would argue that hedonism or any other form of whim-worshiping is immoral. What long range goal or value is one fulfilling by having muliple romantic / sex partners?

If sex is not necessarily hedonistic, then sex with someone outside one's "main" relationship is not necessarily hedonistic. There is nothing about having sex with more than one person that makes the act itself immoral, immoral sex rests on different factors like choice of partners, whether or not its divorced from moral value, or sado-masochistic for example.

But Objectivism doesn't distinguish between "life" (romantic) partner and sexual partner. They are one in the same. (When you say "life," I'm assuming you mean romantic or primary.) To have sex with someone whose values are in your estimation not surpreme is immoral (to the self).

When I say "life partner" i mean "someone you intend to be with for the rest of your life, or for a very long time at least." A person who I intend to share my life with in the long run must be very compatible with me in a variety of different ways and areas of our lives. Someone who I choose to have sex with must only be compatible in a relatively smaller way. This does not mean that they will be less in my estimation, only that they do not make a good candidate for living with and raising kids with. There are certain standards for who I will go to bed with, they are just lesss trict than who I will choose to start a family with.

If your girlfriend comes to you and says, "Hi honey, I've been meeting your best friend of late over lunch to discuss Objectivism and i think he's such a wonderful guy. Lately, we've discussed the idea of him and I having some sex and i want us to start next weekend if it's okay with you; which means we might have to reduce the number of times you and i do it because i can't handle doing it too many times." How would you feel about that?

If it was a friend who I thought she should have and would enjoy a sexual relationship with as a value then I would encourage her to do so. If this meant she would be having less sex with me, that would be fine. I would not want her to be having sex with me only because I was the only one available, I would rather she chose me because she finds value in it.

Just to continue with my fictional story, imagine she comes back after the first such encounter with your best friend and you curiously ask her, "so, how was it?" And she says, quite honestly, "oh, it was fantastic; I've never had such great sex in my entire life, honey! it was... ooh ... i can't describe it!"

I would be very happy for her, and smile at her pleasure and happiness.

Then you meet your best friend and he tells you, "man, your girlfriend is really great; why didn't you tell me she was that passionate? Dear Lawd!"

If he was a person I thought she would get value from having sex, I probably would have told him about her.

I imagine you would feel terrible about her telling you in the first place that she wanted to have sex with your best friend - or with any other man for that matter.

I would not feel terrible at all, I would rejoice in the fact that she is enjoying her life, and can accurately gauge a person's worth.

Would you feel the same way if your gold buddy told you he wanted to play golf with your best friend?

I would feel the exact same way for the exact same reasons.

suggest that you first introspect about this a bit before we get into an argument over words. Can you articulate *reasons* for the difference in the way you would react to the golf buddy's announcement and your girlfriend's announcement? (This is how we can begin the essentialisation process for the concept of 'romantic love').

I am offended that you assume that I haven't introspected about it.

[Moebius]

I fail to see how marriage enters the equation. Are you defining adultery as something only married couples can commit? Because doing so forecloses discussion. If marriage is an exclusivity contract that cannot be unilaterally breached, then any extramarital sex breaches the contract and breaks the promise. The end. In the case of a marriage you have two people who have promised, in express terms, not to have sex with anyone else for the life of the marriage. The complex moral issues arise only where such an express promise is absent. Only then can the question of whether such a promise should be implied arise.

Adultery by definition is extramarital sex. You're not committing adultery if you're a single man carrying a sexual relationship with several women concurrently. It's not how I define adultery, it's what the word means.

So obviously I take it that it's your position that extramarital sex is immoral regardless of the circumstances?

[Inspector]

For a quotation from Dr. Peikoff on this subject, see my post here.

Here is the money quote:

So if somebody who doesn’t have fantastic extenuating circumstances [says] ‘I sleep around because I have all kinds of top values’ is just a promiscuous equivalent of a ward heeler in politics; it’s BS out and out!”

(bold mine, other emphasis in original)

I'd also like to point out that I heard once, and I don't remember the exact quote so I will paraphrase, that Miss Rand considered the affair "the biggest mistake of her life."

So anyone who is thinking that her action is an endorsement of a behavior, when it was in fact a huge mistake, had better think twice.