Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

[Inspector]

Hmmmm, "true, passionate LOOOOve", sounds like "pure" logic and other non-concepts.

This is pretty much an admission that you have never been. Okay, that's further support for my hypothesis.

[~Sophia~]

Of course, I don't agree with everything that you say, like in post number 197. You said "Why is intense love, like the kind Franscisco felt for Dagny, important to a human being? I guess one could live without it but that is not the life I envision for myself." Maybe its me, skimming over that part in Atlas Shrugged (honestly, I never liked fiction of any kind, but I can tolerate literature), but I don't remember that part that well. How do you know what Franscisco felt for Dagny (besides the actions)?

I agree with Rand on this: "If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it." It depends where you place your lover in your hierarchy of values. Your actions follow from that.

Also, you asked the question, "why is intense love ... important to a human being"? I don't know. I do know that its not important to living or to life. I vowed NEVER to have that intense love ever in my life because I am not a slave, nor do I seek a slave. However, if I'm wrong, then reality will correct my errors (which means, no doubt, death).

I am very intersted in hearing your explanation of why you equate intense love with enslavement. I can't relate so I would like to see your analysis.

First of all how do you "allow" a person to become important to you? I don't see how that's possible, the method how an individual can allow another person to become important.

Since you don't wish to have it, how do you prevent yourself from developing that intense love for someone? What actions do you take?

You also said that it requires bravely to allow that person in. To be brave about something means that one would have to make a conscious choice to engage in an action, to know the risk of the action, and then to engage in that action. Because I don't know how an individual can let someone be important to them, to their happiness, therefore, there is no conscious decision to be made. No conscious decision, no bravery.

But it is a conscious choice. It requires trust and certain level of self-esteem. It is a choice to emotionally open yourself up to another person; letting them in. Isn't it exactly what you vowed not to allow?

[Inspector]

"romantic" and "non-romantic" are qualifiers on the term and do not alter the nature of love.

This is emphatically *not* the position of Ayn Rand. This is actually the first (or near, I don't have my notes at the moment) question asked and Dr. Peikoff made the point very strongly that romantic love was considered to not even be on the same continuum as other forms of affection. That's how fundamentally different it is.

This process is not automatic the way you are suggesting. Aside from recognizing values, a person has to open themselves up to the possibility of romantic attraction toward that particular person. It is a mental green light a person has to give themselves. You have to switch from seeing this man in platonic terms (admirering him or even platonically loving him just like I would a woman with similar traits) to thinking of him as a sexual being, object of my desire.

I recognize and aknowledge the values arround me. It is a matter of justice. I call a spade - a spade. But that green light is reserved only for the biggest hero I can find and only for him. It is not through the words that you show what you value, it is through your actions.

Sophia, note how exactly this match's Dr. Peikoff's statement:

Because as you start to find the first one that really attracted you, you would get completely involved with them and until and unless there was trouble with them, your relationship to everybody else would be like a closed book: you could nod at them, and find them attractive, but you’d never get to the point where you’re in love with them.

(emphasis mine)

Of course, it matches my and my wife's experience as well. Even down to the words "nod at them," which we both used independantly to describe this dynamic.

[IAmMetaphysical]

This is emphatically *not* the position of Ayn Rand.

I never said it was. My standard of truth is correspondence to reality, not to the positions or statements of Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff.

The above post is the best example there can be for someone who is dogmatically Objectivist, and knows not how to argue without resorting to arguments from authority.

[Inspector]

I never said it was. My standard of truth is correspondence to reality, not to the positions or statements of Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff.

The above post is the best example there can be for someone who is dogmatically Objectivist, and knows not how to argue without resorting to arguments from authority.

I never said you had to be qua corresponding to them in opposition to how you see reality.

The above post is the best example there can be for someone who is David-Kelley-esque oversensitive/accusatory of dogmatism.

[Inspector]

I am very intersted in hearing your explanation of why you equate intense love with enslavement. I can't relate so I would like to see your analysis.

I can pretty much guarantee it will be a rationalistic one. To have read Altas of all things and come away thinking what he does about the nature of romance. (that is to say, with the exact opposite expressed so strongly and for him to have missed that... I just don't see how it is even possible) I mean it would be one thing if he simply said that he disagreed with the example of romance given in Atlas, but his other attempts to (rationalistically) deduce his whole theory of romance from literally (and ridiculously) interpreted statements out of Atlas and OPAR...

[IAmMetaphysical]

I never said you had to be qua corresponding to them in opposition to how you see reality.

The implication is that since it is not the position of Ayn Rand it is not true, hence your standard of truth is "that which corresponds to the position of Ayn Rand." If this is not your position, you're bringing it up is IMPLYING that it is. I am not interested in Lockean or Aquinas-like interpretation of dogma. If you disagree with my view of romantic love, then explain your position. Simply saying that Ayn Rand disagreed is dishonest and lazy. If she did disagree and you insist on piggybacking on her mind, then give her ARGUMENTS. Explain the nature of romantic love, and how it is not like all other love *fundamentally*. Simply stating that Dr. Peikoff said so is not good enough.

EDIT: I also find it incredibly humorous that you don't even understand why David Kelley is wrong.

Edited November 6, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Inspector]

The implication is that since it is not the position of Ayn Rand it is not true

Perhaps if you like jumping at shadows, it is. I won't even respond to comments like this from you anymore. If it makes you feel like a big man to make them, then I can't stop you; but as far as I am concerned, your opinion of how I think is so far off base that it doesn't even deserve acknowledgement.

EDIT: I also find it incredibly humorous that you don't even understand why David Kelley is wrong.

Oh, so sorry my liege. I should have said, "followers-of-David-Kelley-esque."

Go pound sand.

[RationalBiker]

And yet again another topic involving sex and/or romance begins to degenerate into ad homs.... how surprising. Stop attacking each other.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I would just like to say that my accusation of dogmatism was an attack on his argument, and not on him, so it was not an ad hom. "Go pound sand" is.

However, I realize that the discussion of dogmatism and rationalization is outside the scope of the thread (somehwat) so I will refrain in the interest of gaining a better understanding between all of us.

[Kevin]

That might make sense, intuitively, if you are thinking about just friends, people who you like but don't love. The point is that love is a whole different story.

I wonder if anyone who is advocating polygamy has ever actually been in love.

I guess my big question here would be, why? Why can one like people more or less equally, or in different ways that make hierarchical positions inappliccable, but not love them in the same way? The only clear answer I've seen so far has been circular- that "love" itself requires that kind of singluar focus, otherwise it wouldn't be real love. But that's not an answer, it's just semantics. What about real love makes this so? Also, you've said this several times, in one form or another, and maybe you intend it more as an aside than an actual argument, but your doubts about the sincerity of polygamous love, or the awareness and experience of those involved, isn't any more effective that a Christian saying to me, "but don't you feel the presence of God? I don't understand how you can miss it. Yoiu must not be looking hard enough" You may feel very strongly about the inherent wrongness of polygamy, but simply stating that you find it unviable doesn't really advance your position.

[aequalsa]

I guess my big question here would be, why? Why can one like people more or less equally, or in different ways that make hierarchical positions inappliccable, but not love them in the same way? The only clear answer I've seen so far has been circular- that "love" itself requires that kind of singluar focus, otherwise it wouldn't be real love. But that's not an answer, it's just semantics. What about real love makes this so? Also, you've said this several times, in one form or another, and maybe you intend it more as an aside than an actual argument, but your doubts about the sincerity of polygamous love, or the awareness and experience of those involved, isn't any more effective that a Christian saying to me, "but don't you feel the presence of God? I don't understand how you can miss it. Yoiu must not be looking hard enough" You may feel very strongly about the inherent wrongness of polygamy, but simply stating that you find it unviable doesn't really advance your position.

I can't, of course, answer for Inspector, but I think the difficulty he(and I) are up against in defending monogomy is that the reasons are largely experiential and difficult to concretize. I suspect that he and I might both be fortunate enough to have a shared experience which makes the benefits of a single love glaringly obvious. Love might not even be the right word for it. An obsession would be more correct. Like a career that truly moves you. If you have felt it, you wouldn't disagree with us, is the thought motivating the statements you respond to. When you are really passionate about someone in the way I mean, wanting another is an impossibility. The mention of sharing them, as Inspector said in a previous post, causes you to take immediate notice of where you left your firearm. If you haven't been jealous of a traffic light because it keeps the two of you apart for 3 extra minutes, then I'm sorry and hope you get to experience that kind of affection.

Finding someone so exquisite that they deserve all of your attention, coupled with the knowledge that you deserve theirs-and they know it- is so fulfilling there just isn't room in your mind for someone else. The concious and emotional realization that without them, your world would be three shades of grey darker, isn't because there is something wrong with the world or because you are weak or emotionally needy, it's because this one particular value you found in it was just that great. That knowledge of their existence is enough of a value to you that you feel indebted to them...And look forward to spending your life paying off that debt.

It's hard to explain the emotion without reference to the particular. Compare it to art if that helps. Something in certain pieces of art moves you because of all the pieces arranged in a particular way. It's sense of life connects to your own. It might have no impact on someone else because we all have our own particular contexts, but few would deny that art can have that emotional effect, even if the reasons for it are different for each person. Art concretizes abstractions. So do people. And if you find someone who embodies your values completely, then you don't need or want anyone else anymore then you want a meal moments after you finish thanksgiving dinner.

[mrocktor]

Don't take this personally, it addresses your post not you. "Either you feel it and no reason is required to understand or you don't and no reason is sufficient to explain" is pure mysticism.

Edited November 6, 2006 by mrocktor

[RationalBiker]

Don't take this personally, it addresses your post not you. "Either you feel it and no reason is required to understand or you don't and no reason is sufficient to explain" is pure mysticism.

This is similar to what some bikers say when you ask them why they ride; "If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand." I do think they go that one extra step in trying to explain it in the same manner that I make an effort to concretize why I enjoy riding, though I, like them, often fail to explain why it's so moving TO ME. But I never expect that would be sufficient to explain why other people SHOULD enjoy riding as much as I do.

It would be nice to have a practicing polygamist here to explain the value gained from the experience of their relationships as that should be evidence enough if empirical evidence is supposed to be sufficient. But relying on principles alone would suggest that either can (and should) represent the ideal relationship based on one's own life and values. Frankly I'm glad that they have found the ideal relationship FOR THEM. I'm just somewhat at odds with the idea that they think it SHOULD BE the same for (virtually) everyone else.

[Inspector]

I would just like to say that my accusation of dogmatism was an attack on his argument, and not on him, so it was not an ad hom. "Go pound sand" is.

What you said was that I engaged in dogmatism, therefore my argument is invalid. That's an ad hom. (sort of; I mean people can advance invalid arguments due to dogmatic thinking)

I just told you to get lost. That's not a fallacy by which your argument is taken to be invalid. Ad hom does not equal any mean/nasty thing a person can say to another person.

Also, you've said this several times, in one form or another, and maybe you intend it more as an aside than an actual argument

Bingo. From where I'm standing I can see that it is the case, but I unfortunately don't have the ability to show it. I'm not making an argument, per se, which is exactly what I said to JASKN.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Inspector

[Inspector]

Don't take this personally, it addresses your post not you. "Either you feel it and no reason is required to understand or you don't and no reason is sufficient to explain" is pure mysticism.

Who are you talking to and what specific statement are you addressing?

[Kevin]

I make an effort to concretize why I enjoy riding, though I, like them, often fail to explain why it's so moving TO ME. But I never expect that would be sufficient to explain why other people SHOULD enjoy riding as much as I do.

I think this is right on the mark. Aequalsa, it's wonderful that you've found something so moving, and I can't honestly say that I've been seriously drawn to a polygamous relationship, but neither of those things makes polygamy immoral per se. You derive intense satisfation out of this very focused relationship- fine, that's great. But how can you say that one could never derive more satisfaction from a multi-partner relationship? What if there are three people who make me antsy at stoplights? The fact that monogamy is the only way to fly in your book is not itself an argument. It's exactly what I mentioned with the Christian analogy- he may feel sorry for all those people who don't have God in their lives, and may feel that it's the greatest thing ever, but in no way does that validate his point in general, rational terms.

[Inspector]

But how can you say that one could never derive more satisfaction from a multi-partner relationship?

It comes down to the nature of what we're calling love (or romantic love, to be more specific). It's inherent in the nature of love that a monogamous relationship with romatic love is necessarily more satisfying than any other kind of relationship. You'll note that I did acknowledge that it was at least plausible that the dynamic would be different for those who didn't have access to that kind of love.

What if there are three people who make me antsy at stoplights? The fact that monogamy is the only way to fly in your book is not itself an argument.

As I said, that is built into the nature of romantic love. ONE of those three people will be the best, and you should choose that one (again, see Dr. Peikoff’s statement). Then you (and they) will be happiest. But "sharing" is simply incompatible with that kind of love. It would be intolerable for all parties.

It's exactly what I mentioned with the Christian analogy- he may feel sorry for all those people who don't have God in their lives, and may feel that it's the greatest thing ever, but in no way does that validate his point in general, rational terms.

Careful with analogies like that. Remember that we're talking about things in reality, unlike the Christians.

[Time_Maker]

Sophia: You quoted my question, about how you know what Franscisco felt for Dagny (besides the action as described in the book), however, you didn't answer my question on it. My question was, "HOW do you know".

You also wanted to know why I equate intense love with enslavement. Yes Inspector, it is very rational and using reason . Love is about emotion. An emotion that can lift you up and makes one feel wonderful and completely happy. However, if one gets hurt, or dumped, etc, then one "crash". Crashing means that one is depressed, one eats ice-cream and stays in bed all day, crying and acting like a child.

Now, what does this up and down sound like you to? Its a drug. Drugs changes the way how an individual thinks and feels. The emotion of love changes the way one thinks and feels, ergo, its a drug. I prefer my mind not to be hazy by drugs (either natural drugs, like love, or man made drugs, like cocaine). I've seen it before, and I don't like it.

You also want to know how I prevent myself from developing that intense love for someone. Sadly, I can't prove a negative. How do you let yourself develop that intense love?

You also say that its is a conscious choice to fall in love. How is it a conscious choice? Can I make myself fall in love with you, for example? How can one open up emotionally?

Inspector: Please don't guess what I am going to say, or how I think. You do not know me well enough to start guessing what my response is, or why I will respond the way I do.

[Inspector]

Inspector: Please don't guess what I am going to say, or how I think. You do not know me well enough to start guessing what my response is, or why I will respond the way I do.

I understand it's not entirely fair, but I do honestly want you to re-examine your approach, along the lines I earlier said.

For the record, you have my sincere pity that you so fear attaining any sort of intense happiness that you would dull your goals and life for fear of losing it. I don't mean that as a dig; I really feel sorry for you. I hope you can overcome that.

[IAmMetaphysical]

What you said was that I engaged in dogmatism, therefore my argument is invalid. That's an ad hom. (sort of; I mean people can advance invalid arguments due to dogmatic thinking)

I said that your post was an example of someone engaging in dogmatism. I worded it pretty badly, but that was my point. I apologize for any misconceptions.

"Go pound sand" is an insult, yes, not an ad hom, but it also has no place in a rational discussion about anything, it actually sounds like a concession.

For the record, I am involved in an "open" relationship currently, it is wonderful. We have been monogamous for the past 6 months or so only because we haven't yet found anyone who is worthy of bedding, nor are we really pursuing it to any degree. If this doesn't count as "polygamy" to you, then we have different ideas about what a proper polygamous relationship should be about, like I said before, it is about choice, not about promiscuity. If you have any questions about the relationship and its dynamics, I will be happy to answer, although questions from Inspector will be ignored on that topic.

[RationalBiker]

It's inherent in the nature of love that a monogamous relationship with romatic love is necessarily more satisfying than any other kind of relationship.

If that could be proven by simply making a statement, as you have above, then this whole thread would be unnecessary. Prove the statement and the argument is over.

[Inspector]

If that could be proven by simply making a statement, as you have above, then this whole thread would be unnecessary. Prove the statement and the argument is over.

Oh, I know. Believe me, if I could, then I would. As I said, I haven't been making any further arguments since the post a few pages ago where I said we were at an impasse. I can clarify things down to the level of that impasse, but not beyond it. The statement you're quoting was only meant to show that my position was internally consistant.

[Time_Maker]

I have decided that this thread no longer is giving me value, and I will not respond to any responses further, unless it is something of value to me (e.g. it makes me think, or there is some type of insight that will draw me back in.

Inspector: You said that I suffer from some type of "fear" of attaining intense happiness. You have my sincere pity that you have the power to read things which I do not say.

mrocker, RationalBiker, aequalsa, IAmMetaphysical, and ~Sophia~ (and anyone else who I may have forgot): You have brought up some very good points in the previous posts, that made me think. For that I say, "Thank you". If there are any other points that you would like to make to me about this subject, please e-mail me. If you do write to me, I look forward to reading what you have to say.

Thank you.

[mrocktor]

Who are you talking to and what specific statement are you addressing?

The post by aequalsa immediately above mine. Sorry about the ambiguity.

Edited November 14, 2006 by mrocktor