How does Objectivism view adultery?

[~Sophia~]

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

What people? Rational people don't abuse their loved ones.

But there can be a disconnection between what you actually value and what you say (or tell yourself) you value.

That is why it is important to pay more attention to what people do and less to what they say - I would say especially when it comes to love.

[mrocktor]

Tabitha's statement is standard Objectivism.

And so it is, which does not make it any less bold nor any better supported. I've debated you for hundreds of posts and I'm sure if you had found an argument in the writings of Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff that I had missed, you would have thrown it at me. As it stands, what they wrote on this topic amounts to no more than bold assertions - and the fact that they made them is irrelevant.

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.

Not only does he not know what it means to realy love a person, he is also no true Scotsman.

Stated at least three times elsewhere in the thread.

Which amounts to "I cannot imagine wanting or having sex with other people while in love with someone". It's an argument from ignorance at the root, and worthless.

[~Sophia~]

Not only does he not know what it means to realy love a person, he is also no true Scotsman.

It is a very logical conclusion to think that if someone is still looking for more that they are not experiencing the feeling of full contentment being with one person - their current lover. Therefore if they love their current romantic partner - that love is not of the same intensity as the one Inspector, and others here, like me, are talking about.

I can imagine being interested in having a relationship with two people at the same time but only when each of those bring different things I seek and none of them offer everything I seek.

It is a contradiction of terms "I am fully satisfied with my current lover yet I still have a need (or want) to sleep with other people". If you still have that need obviously you are not fully satisfied as you seek something else, something outside of what your lover is providing.

It is possible that a person never experienced such feeling of full contentment and thus they do not understand how a person may not want to have a relationship with others at the same time. This is one of those things which unless you experience it yourself - it can not be proven to you. Once you do however experience it - anything less would be settling for less.

For those who have not experienced it - it is understandable not to want to accept other's claims about their expeirence on faith. But I would think that when you are faced with the fact that a lot of rational, non-mystical, reality-grounded people report such experience - it would be reasonable to think "perhaps there is something to it, eventhough I have never felt it."

Edited March 29, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

What people? Rational people don't abuse their loved ones.

Nor did I say that they did. Love is not something only rational people can experience.

[IAmMetaphysical]

It is a contradiction of terms "I am fully satisfied with my current lover yet I still have a need (or want) to sleep with other people". If you still have that need obviously you are not fully satisfied as you seek something else, something outside of what your lover is providing.

Do you need only one friend? Should you not have more than one friend as that would signify that you're not totally satisfied with having only one?

[mrocktor]

There is no such thing as "enough" love, no such thing as "enough" happiness, no such thing as "enough" value.

[~Sophia~]

Do you need only one friend? Should you not have more than one friend as that would signify that you're not totally satisfied with having only one?

Are we going to repeat the same arguments back and forth?

It has been pointed out to you many times that the nature of romantic love is different than that of platonic love. Platonic friends and romantic lovers can not be equated. The intimacy is less, requirements although overlapping are ultimately less.

There is no such thing as "enough" love, no such thing as "enough" happiness, no such thing as "enough" value.

How is that not "only a bold assertion" based on never having experienced contentment yourself and ignoring everthing I just wrote in my post?

Incidentally, if that was true - the state of happiness would have been impossible to achieve. Self-esteem would have been impossible to achieve - as it is a satisfaction with oneself (I am enough ...). Another contradiction brought by your point of view.

Edited March 29, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Nor did I say that they did. Love is not something only rational people can experience.

We are not evaluating here the motives and behavior of irrational people. Let's keep the context.

[IAmMetaphysical]

The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet. Now, if my view is irrational and mistaken, it would still not make the emotion I feel for her any less valid or true.

It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love. It is far from supported and even farther from being validated. It has not been shown how a romantic relationship REQUIRES exclusivity, not by a long-shot.

[softwareNerd]

The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet.

Meta, I haven't followed the various threads on this issue closely enough to know if you have already been asked this question, but I'm curious: do you limit yourself to not wanting to limit her choices of other men, or do you actively wish she could have more men in her life, in the way you might wish for her to have other goodies? (I realize everyone is probably tired of this topic, so I'm not seeking any type of explanation, just a factual one-liner reply for my own curiosity.)

[Tabitha]

Are we going to repeat the same arguments back and forth?

It looks like it! After six pages I have yet to be given concrete, specific examples of what one values in other sex partners that they aren't already seeing in the one person, aside from the physical. Instead, I'm seeing a bunch of contradicting vagaries. Two words to describe what's happening here: cognitive dissonance. If those with multiple sex partners choose to think deeply about the nature of romantic love, they would have to change their lifestyle. Why would they want to do that? This thread is turning into a waste of time, IMO.

[~Sophia~]

The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet. Now, if my view is irrational and mistaken, it would still not make the emotion I feel for her any less valid or true.

You may love your GF but based on what you say I can deduce that that feeling of love is different from the one I am trying to describe to you. You mentioned "shackles on her feet" - see that is only true if the other person actually has a need to have a romantic relationship with others. I am not talking about that scenario - I am talking about the situation in which the other person, as well as you, is revolted with the thought of having romantic encounters with other people. It literally feels like a betrayal of yourself to do so. Instead, both partners strongly and equally feel the need to share everything only with each other (physically and emotionally).

It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love. It is far from supported and even farther from being validated.

What kind of validation are you seeking? Do you want a deduction starting from axioms?

It has not been shown how a romantic relationship REQUIRES exclusivity, not by a long-shot.

Romantic relationship does not require it per say but the kind of love I am trying to describe to you demands it. The feeling comes first - the desire for exclusivity naturally follows.

It is not that you are restricting the other person from having other lovers, it is that you personally don't want to share yourself with other people and the other person feels exactly the same way.

BUT by demanding exclusivity you won't necessarily achieve this feeling. You can't force it. Does that help?

Edited March 29, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Tabitha]

(quoting metaphysical)

The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet.

You don't want to "put shakles on her feet," or you don't want to develop patience for a proper romantic relationship? Let's get real. You mean to say, in 100% honesty, that if your girlfriend could choose between you being monogamous and you wanting to sleep around, she'd either be indifferent / pick the latter?

It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love. It is far from supported and even farther from being validated. It has not been shown how a romantic relationship REQUIRES exclusivity, not by a long-shot.

So you WOULD sleep with your golf buddies? Thus, the cycle continues.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Tabitha

[Inspector]

As it stands, what [Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff] wrote on this topic amounts to no more than bold assertions - and the fact that they made them is irrelevant.

What you are claiming is that someone making a statement in full congruence with Objectivism - on an Objectivist forum - is making a "bold claim."

Which is a foolish thing to say.

[mrocktor]

It has been pointed out to you many times that the nature of romantic love is different than that of platonic love.

It has been pointed out that this is a positive assertion about reality, that places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. It has yet to be met. By a long shot, to steal the phrase.

How is that not "only a bold assertion" based on never having experienced contentment yourself and ignoring everthing I just wrote in my post?

So your argument is mystical. There is nothing in reality you can build an argument from, I just have to "feel" it. "Those who have felt it know, and it cannot be explained to those who haven't". Yes, I've heard that sort of argument before.

Now for something completely different. The life of man has no metaphysical limitations as to what can be achieved. A building can always be built higher, we can always travel further, life can always be extended, made more comfortable, more entertaining. Men and women are no different. It is always possible to be smarter, stronger willed, more driven, funnnier, better looking, there is no limit to human virtue, no limit to human achievement. If you stipulate such a limit, again, it falls on you to show why that stipulation is true.

Incidentally, if that was true - the state of happiness would have been impossible to achieve. Self-esteem would have been impossible to achieve - as it is a satisfaction with oneself (I am enough ...). Another contradiction brought by your point of view.

It would only be impossible to achieve if you could only be happy at the top of the scale, so to speak. I'm certain you have experienced varying degrees of happiness, were you not happy all the times you were not at the very apex of the scale? If you, somehow, become happier (I don't know, see your kid graduate from college?) - does that make the rest of your life not happy anymore?

Self worth and self sufficiency is about independence - knowing you are capable of living your life by your own merit. It says nothing about how much you can achieve nor is it dependent on achieving some arbitrary maximum of achievement. Or minimum, for that matter.

Instead, both partners strongly and equally feel the need to share everything only with each other (physically and emotionally).

That may very well be the case, for you. You are asserting that it is right however, that that is as it should be, for everyone. You have no rational basis for this assertion.

What kind of validation are you seeking? Do you want a deduction starting from axioms?

Yes please.

Does that help?

No. We already have amply established that you don't feel like having multiple relationships. We want to know why the nine bejeebers it is immoral.

So you WOULD sleep with your golf buddies? Thus, the cycle continues.

Only a cycle of misunderstanding on your part. Meta has clearly explained that the standard he requires for long term relationship are more exacting than those for sex. Its obvious that the requirements for playing golf are lower still. I'll take the liberty and draw it for you, though I don't speak for Meta:

Long term romantic relationship (highest standard)

Long term friendship, eventual sex (next highest)

Long term friendship (still pretty high)

Long term business relationship (still high morally, more relaxed in other aspects)

.

.

Golf buddy (has to play a good game and be decent company for a few hours)

.

.

Casual interaction (choosing a cashier at the supermarket)

.

.

One time interaction

[Inspector]

Now, if my view is irrational and mistaken, it would still not make the emotion I feel for her any less valid or true.

I'm not so sure about that, generally speaking. It would depend on the precise mistake or irrationality involved. Some of them would in fact make it less valid or true.

[~Sophia~]

So your argument is mystical. There is nothing in reality you can build an argument from, I just have to "feel" it. "Those who have felt it know, and it cannot be explained to those who haven't". Yes, I've heard that sort of argument before.

I would like to see a proof of the fact that love exist starting from axioms. Imagine explaining that to someone who has never felt it. Show me how it is done. Another example of this would be trying to prove the feeling of cold or pain to someone who never felt it.

Rand said that nothing is self-evident but the material of sensory perception. Love is self-evident.

And I did explain to you the logic behind choosing exclusivity. You just ignored it. Please consider the whole of my argument and not just the things you feel you can attack.

It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love.

The fact that both of you deny a difference between platonic and romantic love is shocking to me. You truly don't see a difference between the love for a friend, a child, and that for a lover?

Edited March 30, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

The life of man has no metaphysical limitations as to what can be achieved. A building can always be built higher, we can always travel further, life can always be extended, made more comfortable, more entertaining. Men and women are no different. It is always possible to be smarter, stronger willed, more driven, funnnier, better looking, there is no limit to human virtue, no limit to human achievement. If you stipulate such a limit, again, it falls on you to show why that stipulation is true.

There are many metaphysical limitations comming from the fact that life is limited in time.

Edited March 30, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

Meta, I haven't followed the various threads on this issue closely enough to know if you have already been asked this question, but I'm curious: do you limit yourself to not wanting to limit her choices of other men, or do you actively wish she could have more men in her life, in the way you might wish for her to have other goodies?

For the most part, I do not wish to limit her experience of value. I do not necessarily recommend that she actively search for lovers, but if I ever came across an amazing man that I know she would love, then I'd introduce them. I do take pleasure in her experiencing pleasure, whether by my hand or by anothers, but I would not force her to pursue another relationship if she did not want to. In the same respect I do not actively pursue other women, but if I came across an amazing woman I would pursue a sexual/romantic relatonship with her. I do not think it is an obligation to have sex with as many people as possible, only that if it is a value and if she wants to do it, I am no one to stop her, and to sacrifice the value that is my relationship with her because she wants to engage in rational, life affirming activities with others would be against my self interest. I do not believe that I have a claim on her life or her choices. As long as she is rational, she is a value to me. If she becomes irrational, by having promiscuous irrational sex, then she will cease being a value to me and our relationship will dissolve. I make no demands, but I also make no compromises or sacrifices, and vice versa.

If those with multiple sex partners choose to think deeply about the nature of romantic love, they would have to change their lifestyle. Why would they want to do that?

The same could be said of you. Such fallaciousness isn't becoming.

You may love your GF but based on what you say I can deduce that that feeling of love is different from the one I am trying to describe to you.

I don't think the feeling is that different, I just think it is accompanied by other feelings (such as jealousy) in your case. I may be wrong, in which case, if you do not experience jealousy at the thought of your man having wonderful sex with another, then correct me.

see that is only true if the other person actually has a need to have a romantic relationship with others. I am not talking about that scenario - I am talking about the situation in which the other person, as well as you, is revolted with the thought of having romantic encounters with other people. It literally feels like a betrayal of yourself to do so. Instead, both partners strongly and equally feel the need to share everything only with each other (physically and emotionally).

I have no problem with a situation like that. I think it is totally fine to make that choice for yourself, to choose not to, or to not be interested in having sex with anyone but one's life partner. I just think that it is self sacrificial to not allow the other person the same free choice. To demand that you be someone else's one and only, and restrict them from the value of other relationships, at the cost of not being with them is to lose the value that is their relationship for the sake of their lack of sacrifice(as it would be for them to not engage in the rational enjoyment of their life with others that they want to engage in.)

Romantic relationship does not require it per say but the kind of love I am trying to describe to you demands it. The feeling comes first - the desire for exclusivity naturally follows

Can you at least try to describe the feeling?

BUT by demanding exclusivity you won't necessarily achieve this feeling. You can't force it.

I agree. (depending on the feeling you're talking about, I tend to speculate that this "feeling" is the false self-esteem achieved by believing that one is the best lover in the world simply because the other person is "satisfied" with only you. I don't necessarily propose that that is the feeling you're describing, but in my experience talking to people who want monogamy, that is what they are trying to achieve, but alas they are usually quite irrational.)

You don't want to "put shackles(sic) on her feet," or you don't want to develop patience for a proper romantic relationship?

You're begging the question, hard-core.

You mean to say, in 100% honesty, that if your girlfriend could choose between you being monogamous and you wanting to sleep around, she'd either be indifferent / pick the latter?

I just asked her. She said "Ughh! I don't care," so I guess the answer is indifference.

So you WOULD sleep with your golf buddies? Thus, the cycle continues.

What my esteemed colleague Mrocktor said.

Rand said that nothing is self-evident but the material of sensory perception. Love is self-evident.

Doesn't make it undescribable.

The fact that both of you deny a difference between platonic and romantic love is shocking to me. You truly don't see a difference between the love for a friend, a child, and that for a lover?

The emotional response to values is not different. Romantic love is [emotional response to values]+sex, intimacy. Platonic love is [emotional response to values]-sex, intimacy. Motherly love is [emotional response to values]+nurturing, guidance, etc. "Romantic," "Platonic," and "Motherly" are qualifiers on the emotion of love, they do not change its fundamental nature.

[~Sophia~]

I don't think the feeling is that different, I just think it is accompanied by other feelings (such as jealousy) in your case. I may be wrong, in which case, if you do not experience jealousy at the thought of your man having wonderful sex with another, then correct me.

The feeling must be different in some way for reasons I have already given.

As to the second part, my lover wanting to be intimate with other people would be disappointing and even painful and it would mean something I am not willing to settle for. It would be an indication that I should move on and look elsewere for what I want.

I just think that it is self sacrificial to not allow the other person the same free choice.

I agree and I would not demand it. Both people have to want it and offer it to each other freely.

To demand that you be someone else's one and only, and restrict them from the value of other relationships, at the cost of not being with them is to lose the value that is their relationship for the sake of their lack of sacrifice.

I would have to compromise what I truly want romantically, my top romantic goal, for the sake of staying with this particular person. I am not willing to do such a thing. Again, I would not ask them to sacrifice - I would leave and at this point regardless of the fact if they decided to go through with it or not. Just the fact that they have such a need is a red light for me. I would not pursue this person further.

I agree. (depending on the feeling you're talking about, I tend to speculate that this "feeling" is the false self-esteem achieved by believing that one is the best lover in the world simply because the other person is "satisfied" with only you.

I think you misunderstood what I ment by the word "satisfied" - I ment much more than just physical. But considering just the physical aspect - often a person becomes your best lover (asuming some basic level of compatibility and sexual competency) not because of best sexual skills, when compared to others, but because you are having sex with this specific consciousness. A one night stand with a stranger of amazing sexual skills will not measure even close to that.

(But yeah, of course I am the best in the world! ).

[~Sophia~]

The emotional response to values is not different. Romantic love is [emotional response to values]+sex, intimacy. Platonic love is [emotional response to values]-sex, intimacy. Motherly love is [emotional response to values]+nurturing, guidance, etc. "Romantic," "Platonic," and "Motherly" are qualifiers on the emotion of love, they do not change its fundamental nature.

This is a huge oversimplification.

I do not wish to debate the two of you on this all over again unless I feel I have something new to add.

Edited March 30, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[hunterrose]

Meta, how'd you get drawn into this? You knew what was going to happen

This is a prickly one. I know I'd dislike it if my significant slept with someone I regard it as unworthy, as I suspect you would (I haven't read everything in the thread yet). As for her sleeping with someone else who's worthy...? I have a lot of feelings on that, some of which are neutral, some which aren't. The strongest of these feelings (i.e. not necessarily rational arguments themselves) is... if she wanted to sleep with one of these other worthies (in addition to sleeping with myself), what would it mean for her to say she loves me more than him?

Dichotomies aside(?), this is one of those things in which I theoretically agree with you, but don't think I'd like the implications in practice. I will say that I don't think it's a matter of jealously or irrationality (for me) to be adamantly against polygamy in one's relationship, though I grant that it (along with good ol' prudery) may be a factor with others, perhaps. I'll think more about all of this (although this topic has come up multiple times, as you know! )

I just asked her. She said "Ughh! I don't care," so I guess the answer is indifference.

Just to fan the flames, that doesn't seem like indifference. Sometimes people are indifferent to things... and sometimes they merely put up with things. This is merely of idle curiousity (so don't answer if it's prying on my part), but how do you know she is actually indifferent? At the risk of being highly un-PC, just because a woman says she is indifferent to polygamy doesn't mean she is indifferent to it or that she wouldn't rather a monogamous relationship. Taking it for granted that you know the nuances and contexts of your own relationship much more than we casual forum folks do.

Romantic love is [emotional response to values]+sex, intimacy. Platonic love is [emotional response to values]-sex, intimacy.

Something... doesn't sit right with this to me, either, but I haven't identified it exactly. Something else for me to chew on. Depending on what you mean by "intimacy", I would think romantic love involves much more than an addition of sex and intimacy. I can imagine being intimate and having sexy time with someone who I have a platonic interest in, without it necessarily becoming romantic. I think the gap between the two is larger than sex+intimacy. That may be simplifying your stance here, though.

[Moebius]

While I think that it's possible, it is improbable that everyone will be able to find a partner that matches EVERY SINGLE ONE of his values. Fact is it's really not physically possible for most people to actually meet their ideal mate, let alone necessarily have a romantic relationship with them.

Generally what most of us end up doing is finding the next closest person. Does that mean then that it isn't love? Of course it is. But then it's always possible to find someone else that matches some other sets of values. As far as I could tell Rand herself did it, for the precise reason that she found another man that matched some other part of her values. I don't see how having more than one partner is necessarily immoral or that being in love with more than one person for different reasons is impossible.

[Tabitha]

The same could be said of you. Such fallaciousness isn't becoming.

Well, I'm not concerned with being "becoming"... so I guess that takes care of that. If you can provide a non-hedonistic argument of why people should sleep around, I'd certainly like to hear it.

But before you even attempt to do that again, I'd like to follow up with a comment Inspector made on the previous page. This is an Objectivist message board, not a general philosophical message board. It is therefore the responsibility of the posters to have actually read Objectivist texts, which in your case would be The Romantic Manifesto. I have asked you twice if you had read this, to which you did not reply. Now, if you read the basic Objectivist writings and find a specific point debatable, by all means, bring it on. I have done myself that in previous threads. We are not here to discuss Libertarian metaphysics, dog grooming, or anything else.

Coming here with the expectation that myself or anyone else is going to do your homework and teach you about Objectivism, from its axioms, is not only time-consuming but pointless on our parts. For the same reason I wouldn't go to a Scientology forum and expect people there to take me by the hand and walk me through everything from point one, step by step, I'm not going to do the same here for those that haven't done the backround reading, and who haven't offered quotes or specific ideas (or problems) by the main Objectivist writers for discussion.

On a general discussion board, yes -- it would be incumbant upon me (or anyone else coming from an Objectivist standpoint) to present these arguments from a blank slate. On an Objectivist message board, or on a message board that has any other angle, no. Those of us who are here chose this message board for a reason. If we wanted the tedium of talking Objectivism with those who don't know the first thing about it, we could go to a general message board. I therefore maintain that if you want this part of the discussion to continue, you should read The Romantic Manifesto.

You remarked earlier that you "use reason, not Rand." Aside from the point that anyone could say they use "reason" ("I'm going to blow up this building because my reason tells me to," "I'm going to screw everyone and their sister because my reason tells me to"), such a dichotomy is false. Also, Ayn Rand did come up with the idea of Objectivism, and therefore wrote the bulk of books on Objectivism. Like it or not, that's a fact, and that's what people are here to discuss.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Tabitha

[mrocktor]

There are many metaphysical limitations comming from the fact that life is limited in time.

Very true. And if you were arguing that it is not possible to give multiple partners enough time for their satisfaction, this would be marginally relevant. But that is not your argument, is it?

But before you even attempt to do that again, I'd like to follow up with a comment Inspector made on the previous page. This is an Objectivist message board, not a general philosophical message board. It is therefore the responsibility of the posters to have actually read Objectivist texts (...)

Speaking only for myself, I have read pretty much every word published by Ayn Rand. I know Objectivist Metaphysics, I know Objectivist Epistemology, I know Objectivist Ethics. And Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and your application of Ethics to the matter of romantic relationship does not follow the method of reason that Ethics is hierarchically dependent on.

Truth is determined by reason not by the opinions of Ayn Rand, as her very philosophy makes clear. This being an Objectivist forum you should be concerned about finding a rational argument to support your assertions, as is required by Objectivism. If agreeing with Ayn Rand is more important to you than truth you are no Objectivist, you deny the essentials of her philosophy in order to defend the lowest (hierarchically) and least supported of her applications.

Edited March 30, 2007 by mrocktor