How does Objectivism view adultery?

[Inspector]

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".

Was your question regarding the brief teaser quote or the whole quote that was in my post here?

[KendallJ]

Was your question regarding the brief teaser quote or the whole quote that was in my post here?

Teaser. Sorry I missed the link. This makes sense to me. I can imagine a senario where adultery would be viable, but it would require such strength of self esteem, and actual valuing of each other, in both partners, that I'd wonder why one needed to go outside of such a relationship. And then you look out at most people and realize that there aren't very many real examples of it.

Do I recall a reference that Rand once commented that such a relationship would only be accomplishable successfully by "giants".

Edited March 27, 2007 by KendallJ

[dan_edge]

My view:

The Morality of Monogamy

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=9047

--Dan Edge

[Moebius]

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.

See, the difference is that other people actually posted constructive links that explains their position, instead of throwing out a broad premise and go "well this solves the moral dilemma" without a shred of explanation.

I was under the impression that this forum is for those that are objectivists or are interested in learning objectivism. If you don't have the time or simply don't feel like rehashing something you felt you've already done before, why bother even jumping into the discussion in the first place?

[DavidOdden]

I was under the impression that this forum is for those that are objectivists or are interested in learning objectivism.

That's correct, and you should understand that I'm not saying I don't have the time to discuss the topic at all, I'm just saying that it would be a waste of my time to discuss the topic with you if you can't understand certain logical relationships. Once you achieve a grasp of those relationships, read the relevant stuff already posted on the prudent predator issue, and initiate a new thread that summarises what aspect of the Objectivist position you reject, it's not worth my time to further engage your unwillingness to grasp those relationships, read the relevant stuff already posted on the prudent predator issue, and initiate a new thread that summarises what aspect of the Objectivist position you reject. That's all I'm saying.

BTW, Objectivism is a proper noun, and in English we capitalize proper nouns.

[Moebius]

That's correct, and you should understand that I'm not saying I don't have the time to discuss the topic at all, I'm just saying that it would be a waste of my time to discuss the topic with you if you can't understand certain logical relationships.

What "logical relationships" are you referring to? This would be the third time that I tell you that I understood exactly what little you have said. You gave a premise (without explanation), and you said "if you accept that premise A is true, the it applies equally to moral question B". I ask you what the logical basis is for premise A, and you go on a rant about how I'm not grasping the relationship between A and B.

And when exactly did I refuse to read the other threads? I will certainly read all the material everybody else helpfully posted, although it may take me sometime to go through the 15 page monster thread to fish out what I need. However I don't see why it's necessary to begin a completely separate thread about a completely separate (albeit relevant) question when this thread already exists.

Again, if you feel like this is a waste of your time, you don't have to discuss it. And your emphasis on the capitalization of Objectivism is dully noted, although I didn't think it was necessary to point out every grammatical or spelling error to all posts I respond to.

[DavidOdden]

What "logical relationships" are you referring to?

The relationship between the broader prudent predator argument and the specific prudent adulterer argument. The latter is entirely, wholely and completely subsumed under the other. Yet you persist in claiming that the prudent adulterer has some separate relevance. If you now repudiate that claim, that's progress.

And when exactly did I refuse to read the other threads? I will certainly read all the material everybody else helpfully posted, although it may take me sometime to go through the 15 page monster thread to fish out what I need.

So apparently, you're still refusing to do your homework as of 17:43 UTC, March 27 2007. Is that a promissory note that you will do the minimum necessary to engage you in a rational argument? More progress!

However I don't see why it's necessary to begin a completely separate thread about a completely separate (albeit relevant) question when this thread already exists.

Sigh. When question A completely. entirely and wholely subsumes question B, it is completely. entirely and wholely a waste of time to duplicate effort on a question that is not in any way, shape or form different from, independent of or distinguishable from the broader question A. And there, I mistakenly thought you grasped the logical relationship between the issues.

[Qwertz]

As a legal institution, I think that latter point [co-mingling of assets] 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).

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?

These are actually the point I was trying to make - if only married people can commit adultery, then adultery must be solely a contract issue. Because adultery is not solely a contract issue, then at least one non-married person must also be capable of committing adultery. I was trying to separate adultery from being purely a function of marriage.

But the thread has moved on, and I am late to the table. I just wanted to explicate that.

-Q

[IAmMetaphysical]

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

Yes, and ask: "What did he do that you liked so much?" in order to learn.

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....

Well I assume that when a person asks "What is Objectivism's view on x" they mean "What arguments does Objectivism have in favor of or against x" But you may be right, some people may just want assertions from Ayn Rand or Peikoff.

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.

I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the sex I am talking about, like that I mean one night stands or sex for physical pleasure's sake or what have you. I don't mean those things. If I meet someone that I would enjoy having a lifelong friendship with and have sex with, then I will do both and enjoy a lifelong relationship with them. I choose to have the sort of lifelong relationship with my gf that includes a family because I like her philosohpy on raising kids.

[Tabitha]

I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the sex I am talking about, like that I mean one night stands or sex for physical pleasure's sake or what have you. I don't mean those things. If I meet someone that I would enjoy having a lifelong friendship with and have sex with, then I will do both and enjoy a lifelong relationship with them. I choose to have the sort of lifelong relationship with my gf that includes a family because I like her philosohpy on raising kids.

You still haven't addressed the problem (from an Objectivist POV) of having different value standards for different "types" of sexual partners; that you don't require your other sex partners to have the values you do for your girlfriend. Yet, according to Objectivism, having sex with anyone other than those who don't match your values is anti-self-esteem and therefore, irrational. I would suggest reading Rand's writings on Romantic relationships, and try to support your argument for non-monogamy with quotes from Rand herself. Until then, it would be impossible for this part of the discussion to continue.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Tabitha

[IAmMetaphysical]

First of all: I use REASON to support my arguments, not Rand. If this is a problem for you then I would be glad to cease the discussion.

You still haven't addressed the problem (from an Objectivist POV) of having different value standards for different "types" of sexual partners; that you don't require your other sex partners to have the values you do for your girlfriend.

The standard of value for having sex with anybody including my gf are exactly the same. The standard for having a live-in lifelong partner with whom I intend to start a family with is at a different level. My gf fulfills both.

Edited March 28, 2007 by IAmMetaphysical

[Tabitha]

First of all: I use REASON to support my arguments, not Rand. If this is a problem for you then I would be glad to cease the discussion.

Reason is non-contradictory, and you have yet to reconcile statements like this:

The standard of value for having sex with anybody including my gf are exactly the same.

with this:

There are certain standards for who I will go to bed with, they are just less strict than who I will choose to start a family with.

(italics mine)

[IAmMetaphysical]

There is no contradiction.

I choose to have sex with my gf by the same standard as I choose to have sex with anyone else.

I choose to start a family with my gf for other reasons.

Having sex with someone, and starting a family with someone are two different things. Different things can have different standards without violating the Law of Identity.

[Moebius]

He's saying he holds someone to start a family with at a higher standard than some he'd have sex with. It's not really contradictory.

[Tabitha]

If your girlfriend is meeting all your needs (high values, etc.), then why are you looking elsewhere for additional romance? What are the other women doing for you that your girlfriend isn't?

(And I just looked at part of the polygamy thread from Inspector's post on page 2 of this thread; yikes!)

[IAmMetaphysical]

Like I said, I am not currently looking elsewhere for romance, but if it comes along I will have the option open for whether or not I would like to enjoy it.

I do not think that "needing" something is the only justification for trying to obtain something. Of course, sex is a psychological "need" but it is also an "end in itself," i.e. its enjoyment is its own reward.

[Tabitha]

He's saying he holds someone to start a family with at a higher standard than some he'd have sex with. It's not really contradictory.

Sex is the ultimate level of expression for one's top value. This is where the contradiciton lies. If the person you're having sex with holds your top values, you wouldn't feel the drive to seek these values in other people. Think about it. What values -- specifically -- do you see in your other sex partners that you're not already seeing in your girlfriend, and vise versa?

This is why I find it hard to believe that this isn't just all about getting more sex.

It's also pretty sad and disastorous when people bring kids into the world with sex partners who are not their top values (as your post implies), but I suppose that's another thread topic.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Tabitha

[IAmMetaphysical]

Sex is the ultimate level of expression for one's top value.

Well, we disagree there so maybe that's where the confusion lies. Sex is an act that celebrates the body's capacity to experience and share physical and emotional pleasure.

It's also pretty sad and disastorous when people bring kids into the world with sex partners who are not their top values (as your post implies), but I suppose that's another thread topic.

I explciitly stated that I do not want to have kids with those people who aren't my "top value." Where the hell do you get that I want to have kids with people who aren't?

[Tabitha]

Sex is an act that celebrates the body's capacity to experience and share physical and emotional pleasure.

My philosophy is not one of hedonism, so you're right: this is where the underlying disagreement lies.

I explciitly stated that I do not want to have kids with those people who aren't my "top value." Where the hell do you get that I want to have kids with people who aren't?

I didn't. You likely misread a previous post; perhaps my response to Moebius'.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Tabitha

[IAmMetaphysical]

My philosophy is not one of hedonism, so you're right: this is where the underlying disagreement lies.

So then you shun physical pleasure?

[Tabitha]

So then you shun physical pleasure?

Physical pleasure that is short range (and disasterous in the long range) such as drug use, sex for the sake of physical pleasure, and eating a lot of junk food.

(I'm going to bed, so I likely won't return to this thread until tomorrow.)

Edited March 28, 2007 by Tabitha

[IAmMetaphysical]

So then orgasms have no value to you? Or do you see that they aren't necessarily "short-range"?

[~Sophia~]

So then you shun physical pleasure?

False dichotomy!

[Prometheus98876]

No she is not saying that orgasms have on value to her. Here is what she said, read it again:

Physical pleasure that is short range (and disasterous in the long range) such as drug use, sex for the sake of physical pleasure, and eating a lot of junk food.

Orgasms, are short term/range form of pleasure...however they are not disasterous in the long range (at least as long as the sex act is proper anyway). An orgasm is a moment of intense pleasure, that when involved in a proper sexual encounter is an entirely appropriate and desirable climax to great, valuable experience.

The short term events that Tabitha is talking about are the ones that serve no purpose other than pleasure and actually result in harm, such as taking drugs, and over indulging in food. Even things that cause no physical harm, but mean for instance you sacrifice productive activities to the point where you are no longer useful to yourself or anyone else are immoral,and not justified by the fact that you derive pleasure from them.

Pleasure itself is not a justification for an act, as it is possible to derive pleasure from a self-destructive action. Pleasure may or not be derived from a rational, objectively value, beneficial cause. However it is ethics that determines whether something is approriate, or whether one should value certain avenues of seeking pleasure...not the fact you might derive pleasure from it.

Pleasure is not a replacement for an ethical code.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[IAmMetaphysical]

False dichotomy!

Pleasure itself is not a justification for an act, as it is possible to derive pleasure from a self-destructive action. Pleasure may or not be derived from a rational, objectively value, beneficial cause. However it is ethics that determines whether something is approriate, or whether one should value certain avenues of seeking pleasure...not the fact you might derive pleasure from it.

Pleasure is not a replacement for an ethical code.

This is exactly my point. Having pleasure as a value is not the same as regarding pleasure as the standard of value. I regard pleasure as a value, that serves my life. Tabitha accuses me of hedonism, which regards pleasure as the standard of value. I do not, I regard life as the standard.