How does Objectivism view adultery?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Oh my god man!

She was probably referring to Nathaniel Branden as the mistake. But I don't want to get into a discussion abotu who is on Ayn Rand's side anyway. And who gives a damn what Peikoff says if he gives NO ARGUMENT!?

[DragonMaci]

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.

What if you are in a loving relationship with a person and not married and you cheat? If that isn't adultery what is it?

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.

I heard or read that somehwere, too, not sure which it was, where, or when.

I have been reading this debate but I have felt I have had nothing to add, but now that has changed, so here goes...

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.

They are one and the same for me. I only want to have sex with someone I want to be a life partner and that is the way I think it should be.

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.

I wouldn't encourage it. I want a woman that sticks only to me. If she doesn't I will end the relationship and I'd want her to expect the same from me. If she wanted to have sex with another and lower the amount of sex with me I would question whether or not she truly values sex with me and therefore whether she truly values me.

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

What if she claimed she enjoyed him more than you? Would you still be happy for her? Would you still smile?

Edited March 27, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Moebius]

What if you are in a loving relationship with a person and not married and you cheat? If that isn't adultery what is it?

It's just cheating. An emotional and/or physical betrayal. However it does not constitute adultery.

They are one and the same for me. I only want to have sex with someone I want to be a life partner and that is the way I think it should be.

They're different for me personally. I won't necessarily consider every woman I've ever slept with a potential life partner, although that does not mean I don't value them. The criteria for choosing a life partner and a lover doesn't have to be one and the same. I could highly value some aspects of a woman's companionship even if she's not a suitable long term partner.

However if I were to marry a woman, I am in essentially contractualizing the fact that she is my life partner.

[Inspector]

And who gives a damn what Peikoff says if he gives NO ARGUMENT!?

There is plenty of argument, just not all of it contained within that one statement.

Who gives a damn? Well, apparently the poster of this topic does because the topic is entitled: "How does Objectivism view adultery?" Dr. Peikoff may just be a good authority on the subject of Objectivism. But, who gives a damn....

Edited March 27, 2007 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

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?

When your spouse knows. Also when he/she does not, if marriage dissolution isn't possible.

[blackdiamond]

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

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

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.

You gatta be kidding me. Are you for real?

Let's see ... would this (liberal attitude) apply to your wife as well?

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

Yes indeed, seeing the kinds of things you tell me you believe, i must say in retrospect that i was wrong to assume introspection was your only fault. Your fault has to be much more fundamental than that.

[Qwertz]

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?

If only married people can commit adultery, then the question of morality of adultery is exclusively dependent on the terms of the marriage. The standard form of the marriage contract includes both: a) that the marriage cannot be unilaterally terminated and that sex will be exclusive for the life of the marriage. Under such an agreement, any extramarital sex breaches the contract. To be more accurate, the exclusivity agreement is a material promise which, if broken, causes divorce. You have promised one thing, and done the opposite. A marriage includes a duty of fidelity which, while no longer enforceable as a criminal matter (criminal adultery), is still enforceable as a civil matter (divorce for cause) and may affect division of property (alimony).

So my position is more accurately stated as: insofar as unilateral breach of contract is immoral, so is extramarital sex. But my point was that if you limit adultery to married couples, you are restricting the morality question into a discussion of the morality of breaching a contract which is, I think, an incorrect direction for the thread.

-Q

[DavidOdden]

It's a social contract binding two people together in life.

Also for Tom -- we can assimilate the notion of marriage to "agreement", like a partnership agreement, but I see problems with thinking of a marriage as actually being a contract. Any enforcement of the terms would get us into big trouble in terms of the parole evidence rule. Now, I've had to locate a copy of the legal document a few times (these Norsky immigration guys are funny about that), and there aren't any actual terms, so I'm not sure that there is an actual exclusivity clause in the document. I know that external to the actual document, there's an implicit understanding, but it's kind of like my understanding with my employer, that I'll continue to work there until I decide I can't stand it. Except, of course, that there's no question at all of me not staying with my wife.

Tom, I'd argue that two things are essential to the marriage vs. contract distinction. First, existing law notwithstanding I'd argue that unilateral termination should be allowed in a marriage. Second, there is no real obligation to perform in a marriage, e.g. you're not under contract to mow the lawn, have sex, wash dishes, provide money, raise children etc. There is a comingling of assets deal that needs to be covered in case of dissolution. As a legal institution, I think that latter point is the central point of marriage. Adultery matters only as a species of dishonesty, and then it's not the only form of dishonesty that matters (though it may be the most significant).

[Moebius]

When your spouse knows.

Is this regardless of the reason why you cheated in the first place?

Also when he/she does not, if marriage dissolution isn't possible.

But this is where it gets murky. In most free societies marriage dissolution is technically possible, but may be potentially cost prohibitive. So if I value, say, my assets or my children higher than the dissolution of my marriage, then according to my rational self-interest it's perfectly moral for me to keep my affairs on the down low. It seems like there would be a conflict between honesty and rational self-interest.

[Inspector]

You gatta be kidding me. Are you for real?

No, he's for real. Just check the length of the polygamy thread I linked to.

[Moebius]

So my position is more accurately stated as: insofar as unilateral breach of contract is immoral, so is extramarital sex. But my point was that if you limit adultery to married couples, you are restricting the morality question into a discussion of the morality of breaching a contract which is, I think, an incorrect direction for the thread.

How is it restricting the morality question into a discussion of contracts when, outside of the contractual issues, everything else that applies to a non-marriage relationship also applies to a marriage?

If you think the only moral issue with cheating on your spouse is contract breaching, then your position would be that any cheating you do as a single man is completely moral, since the marriage contract does not apply.

[DavidOdden]

Is this regardless of the reason why you cheated in the first place?

Yes: I can't think of any reason why not.

In most free societies marriage dissolution is technically possible, but may be potentially cost prohibitive.

Not as far as I know. I don't know the deal with Italian, Maltese and Irish law but I assume that divorce is legal now. Your (following) reason isn't valid:

So if I value, say, my assets or my children higher than the dissolution of my marriage, then according to my rational self-interest it's perfectly moral for me to keep my affairs on the down low. It seems like there would be a conflict between honesty and rational self-interest.

No, you can't value the free sex or a fake relationship with other people like your kids more than you value your own integrity. If the cost of being honest is giving up half ownership in the house so that you can be with the ideal woman that you just found, after you got married, then you should pay that price. You're basically advancing the prudent predator argument, so rather than pursuing its application to the specific area of marriage, I suggest you concentrate on the bigger issue, why the prudent predator assumption is invalid. Then the answer to the adultery question follows trivially from that.

[Inspector]

Yes: I can't think of any reason why not.

How about: the woman you are leaving your wife for is profoundly ugly, awfully immoral, and has a personality like broken glass?

[Moebius]

Your (following) reason isn't valid:No, you can't value the free sex or a fake relationship with other people like your kids more than you value your own integrity. If the cost of being honest is giving up half ownership in the house so that you can be with the ideal woman that you just found, after you got married, then you should pay that price. You're basically advancing the prudent predator argument, so rather than pursuing its application to the specific area of marriage, I suggest you concentrate on the bigger issue, why the prudent predator assumption is invalid. Then the answer to the adultery question follows trivially from that.

As far as I can tell, the Objectivist stance on the prudent predator problem says that doing things that are "morally wrong" is against my rational self-interest. In other words, by doing something wrong, I will make myself unhappy (in the long run). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I don't understand why I can't rationally value my house, my bank account, and my children over the dissolution of my marriage. Are you saying that by preserving my integrity through "honesty" will justify losing my house, my money, and my children (all of which I highly value) because it'll make me happy in the long run? If so, please tell me why?

[DavidOdden]

How about: the woman you are leaving your wife for is profoundly ugly, awfully immoral, and has a personality like broken glass?

Okay, I see. I was actually assuming a context where the fact of being married was relevant. So of course, telling your spouse doesn't magically confer morality on the immoral act of sleeping with an ugly, immoral glass woman.

[DavidOdden]

But I don't understand why I can't rationally value my house, my bank account, and my children over the dissolution of my marriage. Are you saying that by preserving my integrity through "honesty" will justify losing my house, my money, and my children (all of which I highly value) because it'll make me happy in the long run?

Do you at least understand that if you reject prudent predator acts, then you must admit to your wife, regardless of the possibility of financial and social consequences, that you are having n affair. I'm not asking you to accept the Objectivist argument against prudent predators, I'm just asking you to understand the logical relationship between that principle and its use in a marriage. There's no point in nickle and diming this question with unprincipled specific cases like serial marital infidelity as a way of building up a stock portfolio. I don't think there is anything at all that's marriage specific that can be added to this.

[Moebius]

Do you at least understand that if you reject prudent predator acts, then you must admit to your wife, regardless of the possibility of financial and social consequences, that you are having n affair. I'm not asking you to accept the Objectivist argument against prudent predators, I'm just asking you to understand the logical relationship between that principle and its use in a marriage. There's no point in nickle and diming this question with unprincipled specific cases like serial marital infidelity as a way of building up a stock portfolio. I don't think there is anything at all that's marriage specific that can be added to this.

Well given that you didn't correct me, I assume I got the basic premise of the prudent predator problem correct.

In that case, as far as I can tell, the logical relationship goes something like this: lying to your wife is dishonesty. Being dishonest will make you unhappy because it's against your rational self-interest. Therefore you should be honest regardless of the consequences.

So I guess, no, I still don't understand:

1) Why lying is necessarily against my rational self-interest, even if my financial and social well-being is at stake? Is there no such thing as choosing the lesser of two evils in objectivism?

2) Why can I not rationally value my assets and my children over my marriage dissolution?

[DavidOdden]

Well given that you didn't correct me, I assume I got the basic premise of the prudent predator problem correct.

I just don't have time to correct you, plus I want to separate the wheat from the chaff. C\So check yor assumptions.

I think the problem is that you can't understand the idea that if honesty if a virtue, then honesty about marriage is a virtue. If you don't see how the general / specific relationship works, I'll need help from someone else to try to make this clearer. For example, if I tell you that it's never good to lie, and you accept that premise, can you still conclude that it's okay to lie if it's about marriage and marital property? If so, this is a pretty basic logic issue which we ought to address.

[Moebius]

I just don't have time to correct you, plus I want to separate the wheat from the chaff. C\So check yor assumptions.

I think the problem is that you can't understand the idea that if honesty if a virtue, then honesty about marriage is a virtue. If you don't see how the general / specific relationship works, I'll need help from someone else to try to make this clearer. For example, if I tell you that it's never good to lie, and you accept that premise, can you still conclude that it's okay to lie if it's about marriage and marital property? If so, this is a pretty basic logic issue which we ought to address.

I understand what you're saying perfectly, what little there is that you've actually said. I think you're the one that's not understanding what I'm asking.

All you gave me is a premise -- honesty is good, therefore be honest in all things, including adultery, regardless of the consequences. I'm asking for an explanation of that premise.

[Inspector]

All you gave me is a premise -- honesty is good, therefore be honest in all things, including adultery, regardless of the consequences. I'm asking for an explanation of that premise.

That explanation is far too long to give, here. You should check out OPAR or, from the sounds of it, Tara Smith's new book. There's also a thread going right now on the matter.

[Tabitha]

(quoting Metaphysical)

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.

Again, for reasons already stated here (and also in Rand's own writings), this "free love, sex with detatchment from values" (this "less strict" business) is far more in line with Libertarianism or liberalism than it is with Objectivisim.

[DavidOdden]

I understand what you're saying perfectly, what little there is that you've actually said. I think you're the one that's not understanding what I'm asking.

Okay, so your question now isn't about adultery, and we can close this thread, right? I just want to be sure that you're really squared away on the marriage and adultery issue, and are now focused on the prudent predator question. Inspector pointed you to the current incarnation of that discussion. If you can't get the answer that you seek there, try to identify the fundamental premise in the argument that you reject and rais that question as a separate thread (it makes it easier for people to determine whether they will care or not care). In other words, label the thread clearly as "Another bloody sex thread" vs. "Another bloody prudent predator thread".

[Moebius]

Okay, so your question now isn't about adultery, and we can close this thread, right? I just want to be sure that you're really squared away on the marriage and adultery issue, and are now focused on the prudent predator question. Inspector pointed you to the current incarnation of that discussion.

Well, no, my question is still about adultery. You threw me a vague (and broad) premise. Just because I understand that what little you said and asked for an explanation, it doesn't follow that I'm squared away with anything.

[DavidOdden]

Well, no, my question is still about adultery. You threw me a vague (and broad) premise. Just because I understand that what little you said and asked for an explanation, it doesn't follow that I'm squared away with anything.

It looks like you're going to have to shop elsewhere to find somewone willing to get bogged down in yet another prudent predator argument that starts with a fallacy.

[KendallJ]

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

Here is the money quote:

Inspector, just a question that naturally arises from that quote. What are the "fantastic extenuating circumstances"? i.e. it's a qualified assertion. Can you provide us with some context that explains. i.e. is fantastic = "fantasy" i.e. non-real. Or does it merely mean "exteremely rare, almost to the point of being non-existent".