Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

Rate this topic


Anastassia Florine

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Giving life is good… but quality of life counts too. It’s true that if there’s the more quantity there is potential for more quality, but that doesn’t mean there is more quality… then again quality of life includes being allowed one’s own lifestyle, and polygamy is a lifestyle…

Discuss. ;)

This is ridiculous! The reason polygamy is wrong is because your wife should be your "highest reverence". In short, you can only have one highest best most perfect person who you want to be with - by definition. So polygamy simply is not a valid choice, morally. Of course it is a lifestyle, so is being an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My identity is based on my values, my ideas and my experience - not my genes as such. For me having children is not of paramount importance - it is the replication of my values that counts.

Practically, I can see many flaws with choosing to have your own children when there are plenty of unwanted children out there; surely it would make more sense to bring up a child that already exists, whom otherwise will most likely grow into the antithesis of your values, than to create another. If I was to have children, i'd adopt - if I wanted to have lots of children as a liftstyle choice - i'd still adopt, but given my conception of identity you might as well just open a school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Practically, I can see many flaws with choosing to have your own children when there are plenty of unwanted children out there; surely it would make more sense to bring up a child that already exists, whom otherwise will most likely grow into the antithesis of your values, than to create another. If I was to have children, i'd adopt - if I wanted to have lots of children as a liftstyle choice - i'd still adopt, but given my conception of identity you might as well just open a school.

I think there is a great deal of validity in adopting children, don't get me wrong, but if your values include your physical appearance and ability to create offspring (i.e. the ultimate act - sexual/emotional/intellectual/values combined) then wouldn't there be a great many reasons for bringing a child into the world regardless of the fact that there are plenty of unclaimed children in the world? Their need for parents, and the possibility that they will grow up to be the antithesis of your values doesn't nessecitate a claim by them on you to adopt them... that sounds far to much like duty to me.

On the other hand, there are instances in which people either can not have children or for whatever reasons (health, age, aesthetic, genetic etc.) don't want to bear there own children, and then adoption is a wonderful oppurtunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever have children they will be my own children simply for the fact that I want to be the one creating the environment they grow up in from the very first day. I want to be there to answer the question "why?" in every instance they see something disgusting in the world. There is a lot of validity in adoption if you think it's for you, but that's no reason to say people shouldn't have children of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elle:

"Their need for parents, and the possibility that they will grow up to be the antithesis of your values doesn't nessecitate a claim by them on you to adopt them... that sounds far to much like duty to me."

It has nothing to do with need Elle: Such a child has no moral claim on me If I decide to raise children. It is a matter of preference: It depends how much emphasis you put on your child being genetically similar to yourself. My argument is that the genetic continuation of yourself may be neglible compared to that of your ideas, and thus - why go through 9 months pregnancy, why take a genetic gamble (child could have any of a number of conditions you hadn't considered) when there is a healthly child (if thats what your looking for) of an extremely young age, whom you could raise to equal effect.

BreathofLife:

If I ever have children they will be my own children simply for the fact that I want to be the one creating the environment they grow up in from the very first day.

I should think that a few months of life spent in an adoption agency center would be harmless: when you consider the effect that a teacher/school or a book can have on a child during its upbringing - being quite so extreme is unnecessary.

BreathofLife:

"There is a lot of validity in adoption if you think it's for you, but that's no reason to say people shouldn't have children of their own."

Perhaps it is: what is a good reason to procreate? I would be interested to read detailed answers to this.

At the very least my argument puts adoption in a much more preferable light than it is today: where it serves as the last option for many infertile couples. I would think in a more rational society individuals would choose to adopt more often and the number of people overall having children would decrease. (I thinking of unwanted pregnancies here - rational people presumably take responsibilities for their actions). (Where it became evident that population is decreasing: i.e. a shortage of orphans, there would be ample reason for procreating yourself.)

Incidentally, BreathofLife, given your name Id be interested to here your views ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just had a baby ( well my wife did ) I can say that its a very fulfilling experience to be part of the process from the very start. That is to include leading a healthy lifestyle before procreation and doing your very best to make a healthy baby.

I am am not against adoption but it is more expensive, time-consuming, and not quite as fulfilling as having one of your own. Plus I know the genetic history of my baby so I know what problems to look out for and what they might be good at. For me I feel the chances of my child being objectivist are much higher than one I would adopt. Environment is big but genetics do play a role too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik: "...not quite as fulfilling as having one of your own."

Perhaps the reasons you find it more fulfilling are grounded in false premises of the type Ive described. In fact you tell us you believe your child stands more chance of being an objectivist due to your genetic lineage: I disagree - there are susceptibilities for sure - but in such an abstract instance, needless to say one contingent on the choices you make, enviroment is considerably more important. The implications of determinism in your statement are unsettling. Would some races have the genetic capacity to be more objective than others? (Rhetorical question I hope)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that genetics plays an important role in becoming an Objectivist, but it does carry some effects which can be desirable for some people.

Traits like good memory, exceptional intelligence, and other mental abilities may be hereditary to some degree. This point was never proven or disproven, and it has nothing to do with free will.

But even if no mental abilities are hereditary - I think it can be fullfilling to see your nose on a baby, or your spouse's eyes. It's endearing, if nothing else. If you are willing to go through the process of having a baby for these things it's your call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand polygamy.  It's bad enough having ONE woman complaining at you when you're married: but having TWO or THREE??? :blink:  I think any man who subjects himself to that is in for an early grave.

Oh, the Islamic Fundamentalists have a solution for this. You can beat them up if they nag too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand polygamy.  It's bad enough having ONE woman complaining at you when you're married: but having TWO or THREE??? :blink:  I think any man who subjects himself to that is in for an early grave.

There's always Dominique Francon.

Look how many lovers she had! :D

If polygamy, or even multiple partners, for that matter, is a key to one's happiness, then no one has the right to impose mysticist values, such as Christian precepts of marriage, upon such other person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally, polygamy should be allowed. If a man wants to form marital contracts with more than one woman and they agree, that should be his and their right. However, I would agree with the above posts that this kind of relationship is not a healthy one (at least long term) and does not represent the ideal of romantic love. But in a free society there would be no laws banning polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always Dominique Francon.

Look how many lovers she had! :D

If polygamy, or even multiple partners, for that matter, is a key to one's happiness, then no one has the right to impose mysticist values, such as Christian precepts of marriage, upon such other person.

There's a difference between having 3 lovers and having 3 lovers at the same time.

The point that people are arguing from here is that by the nature of love, polygamy won't work for a rational person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it can be fullfilling to see your nose on a baby, or your spouse's eyes. It's endearing, if nothing else.

And don't underestimate the power of that sight! It is the only justification I need for having my own child rather than adopting. Don't forgot too that a child born out of a romantic relationship stands as a symbol of that relationship. I don't mean to reduce a child to a trophy, but seeing my wife when I look into the eyes of my child is highly pleasurable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
There isn't one. But if you are asking "can two women be your highest value?", then obviously not.

Perhaps then I would ask if it's necessary, or even advantageous, to have one and only one focus in this kind of relationship. Meaning, if two women (or men) were to supply essentially equal, but different sources of value and worship, would this be a necessarily bad thing? For one thing, your "highest value" is yourself, correct? And certainly it's not required that your partner occupy even second place- look at Roark, for example. Architecture is more a part of his life than Dagny. So it's more a question of whether or not you value a particular person quantifiably more than any other, and I'm not sure I see why this is necessary. Or more specifically, why valuing one person the most would necessarily prohibit you from having similar relationships with other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about polyandry?

Personally, I have two favorite desserts. I really like cheesecake with fruit topping and Pepperidge Farm white cake with coconut frosting. I like both of them. A LOT.

I'll stop there with the analogy, since obviously, people are not cakes, and I can't really imagine multiple people (men, that is) wanting to live with me under the same roof in a married condition for the rest of my life. However, I find myself wondering why must one choose a highest value of the opposite sex, apart from hurting the other person's feelings? One presumes that if they enter into such a contract, they don't mind. Is it not possible that such people - without any jealousy or possessiveness in this regard - exist? (I am not one of them.) Just speculating.

Is it not possible that one can be in love with two people at once? Of course, this is a different question to: Is polygamy or polyandry (a multiple marriage contract) moral?

Meaning, if two women (or men) were to supply essentially equal, but different sources of value and worship, would this be a necessarily bad thing? ...

So it's more a question of whether or not you value a particular person quantifiably more than any other, and I'm not sure I see why this is necessary.

Perhaps it's not necessary, but in that case I guess you would choose not to marry unless that person (or those persons) felt similarly?

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...