How does Objectivism view adultery?

[Inspector]

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.

If you can't see how statements from Dr. Peikoff are helpful to a thread that is asking what Objectivism's position on something is, then I don't think I'll be able to make it any clearer for you.

[Prometheus98876]

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.

DO you understand what I am saying? It seems to me that you might actually.

I am also failing to understand why you seem to think anyone here might shun pleasure? How and where is that implied?

[dan_edge]

Michael,

I think you will find that when you fall in love with your ideal woman, you won't want to have sex with any other woman for the rest of your life. And you won't want to share her with any other man.

I offer arguments for why sexual exclusivity is a value in my essay The Morality of Monogamy.

(I finally figured out how to use links!)

--Dan Edge

[blackdiamond]

Just to change the flow of the discussion a little bit ...

To those who are pro-adultery (sometimes), why do you think it would be immoral if your partner did it without informing you, before and/or afterwards?

I think Michael specifically stated this, and yet claimed he sees no difference (essentially) between such romantic partners and golf buddies. Would you also think it is immoral for your gold buddies to play with someone else (when they go on holiday to Kenya, for example) without informing you?

Or, even if the word is not "immoral", why would you think it is important that they inform you? (And how can you fail to grasp the ESSENTIAL difference between romance and other partnerships even just starting from this fact alone?)

Inspector: i also followed your polygamy link and read a few pages. Well. I can only echo Tabitha: yikes! indeed.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think you will find that when you fall in love with your ideal woman, you won't want to have sex with any other woman for the rest of your life. And you won't want to share her with any other man.

I know you probably had good intentions, but look at this carefully and try to see why to someone who loves their gf immensely, how insulting this statement is.

[Inspector]

I know you probably had good intentions, but look at this carefully and try to see why to someone who loves their gf immensely, how insulting this statement is.

Insulting? You sleep with other people. Don't be surprised if people think you must not love her all that much. Certainly not people with stated premises like the ones here. Your view, which allows for that sort of behavior, is not our view. We do not agree it is possible to love someone greatly and deeply and not particularly care to be exclusive with them, sexually. It certainly isn't possible under our premises. And of course my opinion is that our premises are correct and yours are contradictory.

So really, you're going to get comments like that here. The point isn't that it is insulting. The point is that we really think your claim is impossible. At least, under our understanding of the word "love."

So you find our position insulting. Well, to tell you the truth, personally I find your position positively disgustingly perverted. But you know what? I don't particularly want to be personal about it. I am prepared to live and let live. You have your views which I think are wrong and I have my views that you think are wrong. And we're obviously not going to get anywhere talking about it, if previous discussion is any indication. So let's just not interact on this subject anymore, unless we really think we have some new angle that will change someone's mind.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Inspector

[dan_edge]

Michael,

I did have good intentions, and I meant no offense. But I understand why you took my statement the way you did.

You say you are truly and deeply in love with your girlfriend, but you would not care (and would "smile" at her) if she slept with someone else. If this is the case, then we don't understand each other at all.

--Dan Edge

I will make a bold assertion here:

The question of whether or not to pursue a long-term, sexually exclusive love relationship is not morally optional (under normal circumstances). It is irrational to say "I'm not interested in romance," it's irrational to say, "I'm interested in romance, but not long-term romantic love" and it is irrational to say, "I'm interested in long-term romantic love, but not sexual exclusivity." I contend that a long-term, monogamous, romantic love relationship is absolutely essential for a full and happy life. Choosing anything else is like choosing a lesser form of life. It's like a genius aspiring to be a janitor. It makes absolutely no sense to aspire to mediocrity in life. That's what one is doing when he decides never to pursue romance, or to pursue of lesser form of romance when he has the potential for more.

(Please do not take too much offense, Michael. This is my philosophical position, not a personal attack. Read my essay!)

--Dan Edge

[Moebius]

Hey Inspector, from your quote on another post:

His answer was NO, 99.99999% of the time. He gives, as an example of .00000001%, Rand herself who could not find a man to match her unprecedented intellect did have an affair while married. She had two different men that represented, Peikoff presumes (and clarifies he wasn't ever told the details), two different top values and was "torn" between them. Even this, he stresses, was and must be a temporary arrangement that must come to an end, as it did when Rand chose to end hers. Rand was, in his exact words, “a provably unique woman.”

It seems like Peikoff is saying that when someone commits adultery, it's morally wrong almost all of the time. Yet Rand is exempt because since she's a genius, she got to cheat. The assertion here seems to be that if your intelligence is above a certain quotient (and/or if you're unique enough?), you're allowed to have two different top values and therefore commit adultery. That seem like a extremely weak argument, as well as an extremely biased one -- I wouldn't know what Rand scored on an IQ test, but I don't see why its relevant in a moral argument, or that if it's even the case that her intelligence is "unprecedented" (I mean I'm sure she's very smart but...).

Furthermore, from what I understood Rand carried on the affair with Nathaniel Brenden for several years, and ended up breaking it up only because Nathaniel in turn cheated on her with a younger woman. That certainly doesn't seem like a "temporary arrangement".

[Inspector]

Yet Rand is exempt because since she's a genius, she got to cheat. The assertion here seems to be that if your intelligence is above a certain quotient (and/or if you're unique enough?), you're allowed to have two different top values and therefore commit adultery.

That's been oversimplified to the point where it has become incorrect.

That seem like a extremely weak argument, as well as an extremely biased one

Because it's a straw man.

If the problem is my paraphrasing, then sorry about that. But your attitude seems to indicate you are here to snipe and not to learn what was really meant. So I'm just going to say if you want to know, then buy the lecture. It's less than $15.

[Moebius]

That's been oversimplified to the point where it has become incorrect.

Because it's a straw man.

If the problem is my paraphrasing, then sorry about that. But your attitude seems to indicate you are here to snipe and not to learn what was really meant. So I'm just going to say if you want to know, then buy the lecture. It's less than $15.

If it is oversimplified, then it is only because your paraphrasing is oversimplified. That is, unless I misunderstood your post, in which case feel free to correct me.

I'm certainly not sniping, and you've made an incorrect assumption on my attitude. I'm willing to listen to any elaboration you care to provide, and if it is in fact a reasonable one, I will indeed accept it as logically sound. At the moment though I really have no desire to dole out $15.

Of course, if you're unwilling to expand on your position, then by all means don't. Simply take my post as a reminder that you've made an extremely poor job of presenting Peikoff's position.

[Tabitha]

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

Of course they have value in the short range. Having orgasms with multiple people not only serves no purpose, but is disasterous as (rational) sex cannot be separated from emotion. Again, what reasons are there for having sex with multiple people, other than "it feels good" or "different people are better / worse at different sex acts," or "I value large breasts, and also small breasts" (that last one is your quote!)? You have yet to shed light on the different value bases of your girlfriend vs. your other sex partners -- specifically.

On a different note, you stated that you have been "insulted" in this thread on at least two occasions. If your position is correct, why do you allow yourself to feel insulted? (Remebering here that emotions can be explained by thoughts.) Don't you think that says something?

Edited March 28, 2007 by Tabitha

[mrocktor]

but is disasterous as (rational) sex cannot be separated from emotion

Non-sequitur. You can love multiple people, you can value multiple people. Where is the argument supporting your bold assertion?

[Inspector]

If it is oversimplified, then it is only because your paraphrasing is oversimplified.

Then my paraphrasing is not sufficient for your purpose. (which seems to be to understand the unique circumstances of Ayn Rand) But my purpose wasn't to express that; it was to add sufficient context for the rest of the quote. To give you a basic idea of what had been said before. If you want to know more, then the best thing to do would be to buy the, rather inexpensive, lecture.

(rational) sex cannot be separated from emotion

Tabitha's statement is standard Objectivism. You are the one making a bold assertion.

[Moebius]

Then my paraphrasing is not sufficient for your purpose. (which seems to be to understand the unique circumstances of Ayn Rand).

But the bottom line is that Peikoff thought that Ayn Rand did in fact have two different sets of highest values, correct?

So then, it is conceivable that someone else could as well, right?

Because this would be different from the other case Peikoff used of a soldier long thought dead coming home. In that case the soldier's wife only had ONE set of highest values, except she applied it to two different people.

Oh, and you don't have to keep insisting that I buy Peikoff's lecture or emphasizing its relative cheapness. I don't have any plans currently to spend my money that way. Again, if you're unable (or unwilling) to elucidate Peikoff's position, don't. But stop telling me to buy something, especially after I've already said I don't want to.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Insulting? You sleep with other people. Don't be surprised if people think you must not love her all that much. Certainly not people with stated premises like the ones here. Your view, which allows for that sort of behavior, is not our view. We do not agree it is possible to love someone greatly and deeply and not particularly care to be exclusive with them, sexually. It certainly isn't possible under our premises. And of course my opinion is that our premises are correct and yours are contradictory.

I wasn't talking to you so I don't care whether or not you want to discuss it with me or not, its hardly a secret that we do not like each other.

I wasn't insulted, but his statement was insulting as it insinuated that I don't love(value highly with emotional responses) my gf. I find that laughable, but just as if someone would make light of the value of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, or Objectivism a la Stephen Colbert, it is disgusting and offensive when people make light of my feelings for my gf.

I did have good intentions, and I meant no offense. But I understand why you took my statement the way you did.

You say you are truly and deeply in love with your girlfriend, but you would not care (and would "smile" at her) if she slept with someone else. If this is the case, then we don't understand each other at all.

I know Dan, there was no offense taken.

I am truly, madly, deeply in love with my gf, and that's why I would smile and be happy at her experience of pleasure. I value her too much to ask her to sacrifice a value for my sake or for any reason. Maybe an elaboration is in order as to what types of behaviour I would not accept from her. If she were to have self-sacrificial sex, irrational sex, or sex with someone I thought was not good enough, then it would be a problem for me. This doesn't mean she has to gain my approval before having sex with someone, only that she knows my standards and that they are reality oriented and moral and that they coincide with hers anyway.

(Please do not take too much offense, Michael. This is my philosophical position, not a personal attack. Read my essay!)

I don't take offense, sorry to get you all paranoid. I have read your essay, and while I may agree with you about the value of psychological visibility, I do not think that the distinction ebtween my gf's existence and mine becomes non-existent. We are two different people and her having sex with someone is not her sullying my image. (That's at least the gist of what I got out of your essay.

Of course they have value in the short range. Having orgasms with multiple people not only serves no purpose, but is disasterous as (rational) sex cannot be separated from emotion.

Why do you assume that the sex I would have with others than my girlfriend would be detached from emotion?

have yet to shed light on the different value bases of your girlfriend vs. your other sex partners -- specifically.

I already told you that the values that make me want to have sex with my gf are the same types of values I would have sex anybody else. I have sex with her and with them for the exact same types of reasons, of course with her there are different emotions to be experienced and she is a different person, but fundamentally the reasons are the same.

On a different note, you stated that you have been "insulted" in this thread on at least two occasions. If your position is correct, why do you allow yourself to feel insulted? (Remebering here that emotions can be explained by thoughts.) Don't you think that says something?

I find it insulting to insinuate to a person that they don't experience a certain emotion, especially an emotion that strong. It is incredibly presumptuous to try to dictate to someone what their emotional states are.

[Inspector]

But the bottom line is that Peikoff thought that Ayn Rand did in fact have two different sets of highest values, correct?

So then, it is conceivable that someone else could as well, right?

I don't think you're correct, but I don't have the time to study the lecture and give you a proper answer.

[Inspector]

I wasn't insulted, but his statement was insulting as it insinuated that I don't love(value highly with emotional responses) my gf.

My position is that your action, sleeping with other women, is incompatible with the kind of love you claim. Just like if a man claimed to love his wife but was nasty and mean to her, constantly insulting her and calling her worthless. My position is that if you claim to love your girlfriend, but think it is okay to sleep with other women, then you don't know what it means to love a person. You may find this insulting, but it is my view and it is apparently the view of others here. As I said, just as you find my view insulting, I find your view disgusting. If you want to emphasize how insulted you are, I will emphasize how disgusted I am. Alternatively, we could both drop it. But my point is that protesting that we insult you is pointless. By our premises, the statement you find so insulting is inevitable. We can't not think it.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Love is not an action, its a re-action, an emotioanl response to values.

Loving someone does not mean you won't beat them or yell at them, people often abuse the things they value.

As I said, just as you find my view insulting, I find your view disgusting. If you want to emphasize how insulted you are, I will emphasize how disgusted I am.

Like I said, I wasn't talking to you. I know you don't care whether you're being insulting or innapropriate or over the line when it comes to rational discussions. I figured Dan might be a little more courteous than you are.

[Inspector]

I figured Dan might be a little more courteous than you are.

If I'm being discourteous for speaking my insulting views, then you're being discourteous for speaking your disgusting views. Can you accept that maybe neither of us is being discourteous and we simply, fundamentally, disagree? And therefore it's a bit pointless of you to cry insult to Dan?

[IAmMetaphysical]

It is one thing to state your views like this: I think that someone who would share their lover doesn't really love them, and to state it like this: I think that when you find a better girl than the one you have, you'll think differently. One is a statement of a view, the other is condescending and has no place in a RATIONAL discussion.

[RationalBiker]

I don't care who thinks they are so "justified" in their OPINION that they can personally insult another forum member, it will stop now or whoever does it again will get a yellow card!

[Tabitha]

Non-sequitur. You can love multiple people, you can value multiple people. Where is the argument supporting your bold assertion?

Stated at least three times elsewhere in the thread. (Go back and read; sorry, but I'm not going to rehash something I've discussed elsewhere for one person's benefit.)

(quoting IAmMetaphysical)

I already told you that the values that make me want to have sex with my gf are the same types of values I would have sex anybody else. I have sex with her and with them for the exact same types of reasons, of course with her there are different emotions to be experienced and she is a different person, but fundamentally the reasons are the same.

What are the reasons?

Case in point.

It is one thing to state your views like this: I think that someone who would share their lover doesn't really love them, and to state it like this: I think that when you find a better girl than the one you have, you'll think differently. One is a statement of a view, the other is condescending and has no place in a RATIONAL discussion.

Wait a minute. I thought having multiple sex partners carried the same emotional import as having multiple golf partners?

Edited March 29, 2007 by Tabitha

[dan_edge]

I don't take offense, sorry to get you all paranoid.

It's good to know you're not thin-skinned. More coming.

--Dan Edge

[IAmMetaphysical]

Wait a minute. I thought having multiple sex partners carried the same emotional import as having multiple golf partners?

My relationship with my gf is about a lot more than sex.

What are the reasons?

Basically, to state it shortly: she is attractive, enjoys sex for the right reasons, is honest, smart, and good at it.

[Inspector]

It is one thing to state your views like this: I think that someone who would share their lover doesn't really love them, and to state it like this: I think that when you find a better girl than the one you have, you'll think differently.

I see. I will have to keep that in mind.