Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...

Rate this topic


Anastassia Florine

Recommended Posts

Since this thread seems to be winding down I'd just like to make an observation. Reading the discussion you don't see the advocates of polygamy as a moral and potentially ideal form of relationship arguing that those defending monogamy "just never met someone else they could love as intensely as the first", pitying them and offering sincere hopes that one day they may discover that happiness. You also don't see "if you don't understand why polygamy is good it is only because you never loved two people and thus don't know true love because your experience is limited" or other such non-arguments that would mirror what has been said on the side of monogamy.

Quite the contrary, the arguments for polygamy have been based on principles. Conversely, the essential argument for monogamy is based on unexplainable incommunicable feelings. In other words, mystical. That no rational argument for "monogamy as the ideal" can be made is sufficient evidence that it is not (as an absolute for man). Obviously, in context, it may very well be the best for someone.

Thanks to all those that argued on both sides of the issue for the intellectual challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

You are still being ambiguous. To simply throw a strawman paraphrase up is not cricket. Actually provide a part of his post where he said that.

Since this thread seems to be winding down I'd just like to make an observation. Reading the discussion you don't see the advocates of polygamy as a moral and potentially ideal form of relationship arguing that those defending monogamy "just never met someone else they could love as intensely as the first", pitying them and offering sincere hopes that one day they may discover that happiness. You also don't see "if you don't understand why polygamy is good it is only because you never loved two people and thus don't know true love because your experience is limited" or other such non-arguments that would mirror what has been said on the side of monogamy.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Quite the contrary, the arguments for polygamy have been based on principles.
So is Rationalism.

Conversely, the essential argument for monogamy is based on unexplainable incommunicable feelings. In other words, mystical.

Unexplained does not equal unexplainable.

Obviously, in context, it may very well be the best for someone.

Not according to the polygamists here. Several have said outright that monogamy can never be rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still being ambiguous. To simply throw a strawman paraphrase up is not cricket. Actually provide a part of his post where he said that.

Read his post. It's essence is "Inspector and I have experienced true love and you have not" and "I can't explain it to those who don't already know". That is no straw man.

Unexplained does not equal unexplainable.

Granted. I truly expected an argument from you, or aequalsa or someone else supporting monogamy as the rational ideal. I'm still waiting.

Not according to the polygamists here. Several have said outright that monogamy can never be rational.

That is wrong of course.

Possession is 9/10ths of capitalism, that's mine.

Don't equivocate the noble ownership of things with the despicable ownership of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read his post. It's essence is "Inspector and I have experienced true love and you have not" and "I can't explain it to those who don't already know". That is no straw man.

Granted. I truly expected an argument from you, or aequalsa or someone else supporting monogamy as the rational ideal. I'm still waiting.

That is wrong of course.

Don't equivocate the noble ownership of things with the despicable ownership of people.

In essence, that is not what I am saying.

"If you have felt it, you wouldn't disagree with us, is the thought motivating the statements you respond to." I was not making a statement here, just referring to earlier posts. The rest is my attempt to describe the value I personally have derived from a monogomous relationship in order to display the difficulty one would have in attaining that simultaneously with 2 or more people.

And how about you don't equivocate the voluntary possesion of a lover in a trade for trade relationship with slavery. You know thats not what I or any objectivst would suggest and to say that shows me that you are not interested in an honest debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any body who voluntarily dispossesses themselves is a second-hander.

Well now...I ve moved up in the world. From slave owner to a mere second hander in a day. Some congratulations are in order. At this rate of improvement I'll be John Galt in a week. I have really thick skin if anyone else would like to sling some unsubstantiated ad homs in my direction.

Since this seems to be the end of reasoned debate on this thread I respectfully take my leave.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm. It wasn't an ad hom against you, nor even against "those that dispossess themselves." Someone who wishes to give up their decisions about an entire realm of their lives is living second-hand. They have abdicated their responsibility of thought to someone else.

Who suggested "giving up their decisions about an entire realm of their lives?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The subject line says it really. Is monogamy the only 'ethical' lifestyle open to someone who believes in Objectivism?

I never thought so. But today I got into an unpleasant conversation with a group of Objectivists that felt that this is the case. So much so that in the end, I was compared to a murderer, and asked to leave the group.

Let me frame my question a little more:

My involvement with Objectivism:

I picked up 'Atlas Shrugged' after being told by several different people that I would like it. I read it, and found that I quite enjoyed both the story itself, and the philosophy of Ayn Rand as expressed through it. As I'm sure it was to most of you, I felt that Objectivism just 'made sense' to me, and started to use it more and more in my daily life.

I have never had a chance to pick up another of her books, as free time is very sparse in my life, though I plan to do so in the future.

Objectivism however is not my only inspiration. I've read over Zen works, the writings of Confucius, Pagan teachings, and a great many other inspirational texts.

My lifestyle:

I don't want to get into too much detail here. Not only have I been recently attacked on this matter (as described above), I frankly think that the details of it are not particularly relivant to the discussion. Suffice it to say that I am in an 'open relationship'.

Here are some relevant wikipedia links for those that may not be familiar with the terms involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_relationship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

As is typical of any type of poly relationship (the former being an instance of the latter class), my SO is fully aware of this and doesn't have a problem with the arrangement. She knew about this before becoming involved with me, and there is never any deception.

Why I do this:

Don't ask. It doesn't matter. It'd be like a gay man trying to answer 'why' he sleeps with men and not women. It simply is. I could pretend to be monogamous about as well as a gay man can play at being straight and having a wife. It would be destructive to my mental health for me to live such a lie.

It's psychologically damaging:

Research from groups such as the American Psychological Association and DNA testing of wild animal families seem to be showing us that at least for some, monogamy is not as has been long believed the only psychologically healthy expression of love. More and more clinicians and counseling psychologists are finding healthy and working non-monogamous relationships.

Previously it was thought that many species of animals were completely monogamous, but we are learning that this is not the case. The evidence is mounting that social monogamy, and sexual monogamy, are indeed very different things and that species can often exhibit the former with little of the latter.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun07/voles.html

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%...%20monogamy.htm

However, you may of course reject the notion that Human behavior should be explained by that of animals, that we are meant to 'overcome' such things. In an effort to avoid debating that, please understand that I put it here as a curiosity, and not a central point of my question.

You would be monogamous if you really loved her:

Please don't even dream of suggesting that I do not love her deeply, or that she is not, as Ayn Rand wrote, 'the highest type of woman can find, the woman admire, the strongest, the hardest to conquer'. She is. I do. Don't presume to understand how my relationship with her works without seeing us first hand.

You're a brainless slut then!

No, I'm not. I'm intelligent and articulate. I've spent many years analyzing my motivations. I do not sleep with everyone I have the chance to. I'm actually very picky about my 'friends with benefits' that I indulge in. And they all really are good friends, people I can admire and see things of value in that I would like to copy in myself.

And the use of 'slut' as a label is name-calling, unless you mean it in the form of 'The Ethical Slut'. (It's a book, and consequently a re-thinking of sexuality and monogamy that came from the book. Though it's rather 'hippie' writing style is a turnoff to many.)

Yes, I do take some simple, possibly 'hedonistic', pleasures in life. But nothing dangerous, harmful or destructive. I've never smoked, never done drugs, never intentionally harmed anyone. Chocolate and caffeine would be my only real 'dirty pleasures'. Is it 'hedonistic' to savor Belgian chocolate? Or is it reverence of the chocolate to enjoy it, to own it?

Ayn's own lack of fidelity:

If the article on Wikipedia is correct, Ayn herself had a significant extra-marital affair with someone she admired, with the full knowledge of her husband:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand:

After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses. It lasted until Branden (having separated from Barbara) entered into an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. The Brandens hid the affair from Rand, and when she found out, she abruptly ended her relationship with both Brandens and with the NBI, which closed. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for dishonesty and "irrational behavior"[39], never disclosing their affair. Both Brandens remain personae non gratae to the mainline Objectivist movement, particularly the group that formed the Ayn Rand Institute.

I would have done the same. Dishonesty in any sexual relationship is a fatal flaw.

Philosophers are not infallible:

Modern Objectivists are starting to come to the conclusion that Homosexuality at least, may not be as 'immoral' as it was once labeled by Ayn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%2..._homosexuality:

Objectivist psychologist Michael J. Hurd supports gay marriage as falling under the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily. Unlike Rand, however, he does not view homosexuality as immoral, stating that "a gay marriage... though unconventional and highly controversial, can be a loving and highly satisfying union between two individuals."

Objectivist psychologists Ellen Kenner and Edwin A. Locke express opinions similar to those of Hurd.

In the same vein, the Dali Lama is a great man, but he does organize terrorists. (Possibly rightly, for the retaking of Tibet.) Gandhi did amazing things for India, but was oddly fond of having enemas. Our heroes, even Ayn, are people too. Sometimes their emotions get the better of them.

Why I keep referencing Homosexuality:

I use homosexuality as one example of a non-traditional sexual relationship. Something not strictly 'one man, one woman'. It is currently moving closer to acceptance than are many of the other fringe sexualities. (Poly, Kinky, Submissive) I hope that other groups will begin recognizing the healthiness of other forms of relationship.

Separation of one's reflexive instinct, from one's reason:

I suspect that much of our infatuation with monogamy is historical and cultural. People everywhere reject that which they do not recognize. Even we, as Objectivists, do this. It's a very natural reaction, but we need to be aware of it so that we can monitor it. Are we labeling something 'immoral' because it confuses us, because we cannot fathom why someone would do it? Or do we rightly label it as immoral for being damaging to another's rights, property or livelihood?

Traditional relationships work too!

Please don't think I'm trying to advocate any kind of alternative lifestyle for any of you not already having one. The typical traditional relationship works for a great many people. I would never try and tell you who to sleep with or how to handle your private affairs. All of the lovely arguments for why monogamy can be a beautiful thing are ones I agree with.

Dan Edge had a good post here that describes his position well:

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

But my only real reply to it is, "I'm glad that works for you. But what is healthy and happy for you, may not be healthy and happy for me. People are different. We all have slightly different needs to keep us happy. Sure, we all need food, but I need steak, and my SO needs pasta, or we're both cranky. You need a monogamous relationship to make you happy, and I wish you a long and happy and loving one. But please don't presume to be certain you know what it takes to make me happy, and people like me. We may be a small percentage, but we are not damaged and we are not broken, and we are not immoral, just because you don't understand us."

But the children!

Everyone likes to do things 'to protect the kids' when it comes to sex.

Well, for myself, I have none. I've chosen to have none. (This will also boggle many people. Deal with it, it's my choice.) So don't do anything 'in the name of the children' when it comes to condemning my lifestyle.

Edited by Ash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is monogamy the only 'ethical' lifestyle open to someone who believes in Objectivism?
I don't know what this "lifestyle" stuff is about, but Objectivism doesn't hold to the "sanctity of marriage" idea that's popular with conservatives.
I've read over Zen works, the writings of Confucius, Pagan teachings, and a great many other inspirational texts.
This may well be, but why would you admit to that in public?
As is typical of any type of poly relationship (the former being an instance of the latter class), my SO is fully aware of this and doesn't have a problem with the arrangement. She knew about this before becoming involved with me, and there is never any deception.
That's the basic requirement in terms of the "do to others" question.
Why I do this:Don't ask. It doesn't matter.
(We discourage shouting) But it does. Ethical questions are not whether you're doing wrong to another person, they're about whether you're doing wrong to yourself. You seem to think that the answer is not obvious, and we're willing to help, but you gotta give us something to work with. So if you're deceiving yourself, or trying to destroy yourself, or whatever, then that is very evil. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but if you don't know in detail why you do what you do, and if you are in fact evading some important fact about your life, then we can't tell you whether monogamy is the only moral option for you. If you are rationally certain that this is right for you, then I don't understand why you're asking. And if you're not certain, then I don't understand why you're not telling.

Mono-whatever and poly-whatever aren't intrinsically good or bad, and whether they are good or bad depends on the context of the person. If you've found a person who you enjoy being with but you are not certain that this is The Perfect Person and Life Partner, then it's probably a good thing to consider other potential people. If you're not up-front about that with your SO, shame on you, you unethical slut. That is, it's not just the sleeping around where you need to be honest.

Previously it was thought that many species of animals were completely monogamous, but we are learning that this is not the case.
That's a lousy argument. No other species of animal can post on the internet, so obviously the rutting behavior of baboons can't be your ethical standard, unless your goal is to live life as a rutting baboon and not as a man. This isn't something that has to do with "overcoming" some primal instinct, because man's behavior isn't governed by instinct. If I were you, I'd forget that kind of animal argument and focus on man's nature.
Don't presume to understand how my relationship with her works without seeing us first hand.
Especially if you're not gonna give us the details.

It seems to me that you don't really have any doubts about what you're doing, and it's always possible that you're evading some important fact, but without further data to go on, I don't see what harm you are doing to yourself. My main concern is your apparent need for validation. Suppose that 50 people replied to your post and all condemned you: would that matter? Would you change your life; if not, why not?

Is it 'hedonistic' to savor Belgian chocolate?
Disgusting. Your only salvation is to discard your chocolates. I'll send you an address where you can ship them for safe disposal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up 'Atlas Shrugged' after being told by several different people that I would like it. I read it, and found that I quite enjoyed both the story itself, and the philosophy of Ayn Rand as expressed through it. As I'm sure it was to most of you, I felt that Objectivism just 'made sense' to me, and started to use it more and more in my daily life.

I have never had a chance to pick up another of her books, as free time is very sparse in my life, though I plan to do so in the future.

Objectivism however is not my only inspiration. I've read over Zen works, the writings of Confucius, Pagan teachings, and a great many other inspirational texts.

:::: SNIP :::::

Even we, as Objectivists, do this.

I think it is incredibly arrogant and naive that you are trying to present yourself as an Objectivist. You admitted to only having read Atlas Shrugged and you insinuate that you receive inspiration from various forms of Eastern thought that are indirect contradiction to Objectivism. Generally when an individual claims to be an Objectivist, it implies that he agrees with all of the crucial principles underlying the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You are more than welcome to be an individual who values some elements of Objectivism along with elements from Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Totemism but it is a contradiction to be an Objectivist and a Zen Buddhist (or any of the other things I have mentioned). Please do not claim to be an adherent of a philosophy unless if you are sure that you agree with it.

But my only real reply to it is, "I'm glad that works for you. But what is healthy and happy for you, may not be healthy and happy for me. People are different. We all have slightly different needs to keep us happy. Sure, we all need food, but I need steak, and my SO needs pasta, or we're both cranky. You need a monogamous relationship to make you happy, and I wish you a long and happy and loving one. But please don't presume to be certain you know what it takes to make me happy, and people like me. We may be a small percentage, but we are not damaged and we are not broken, and we are not immoral, just because you don't understand us."

This sounds Subjectivist to me. If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that the most basic emotional needs of man are a matter of taste and are not constrained by the very nature of man. Needless to say, this is not a claim that I know exactly what actions you should take to live a fulfilling life nor is it a claim that we can objectively reason in a broad context that eating steak is better than eating pasta. I am just wary of the meaning underlying your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We know what Objectivism says about the freedom of individuals to run their own business. This is the ethics of capitalism. Marriage and family can be seen as a business. Just as an employer can hire multiple accountants because there is just too much work to be done wouldn't that ethic carry-over into family so that we can say that a man or woman may want multiple spouses to satisfy a desire for greater variety of sex partners. If it is immoral to have multiple spouses then wouldn't it also be immoral to have multiple cars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what Objectivism says about the freedom of individuals to run their own business. This is the ethics of capitalism. Marriage and family can be seen as a business. Just as an employer can hire multiple accountants because there is just too much work to be done wouldn't that ethic carry-over into family so that we can say that a man or woman may want multiple spouses to satisfy a desire for greater variety of sex partners. If it is immoral to have multiple spouses then wouldn't it also be immoral to have multiple cars?

And if it is not immoral to shoot bullets into the tyres of your car, shouldn't it also be moral to shoot into the legs of your spouse(s)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage and family can be seen as a business.

The fallacy of using a metaphor as an argument. David has this right. What makes these in any way like each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

*** Mod's note: Moved post to relevant thread. -sN ***

I am curious to know what Objectivism, or at least other Objectivists, think(s) of polyamory? Perhaps this should be a new topic in a different forum. Someone else mentioned in this thread, in more or less words, no one person can fulfill all of one's needs. We love people for the values they embody, and no one person can embody all values, so why should we not love people for the values they do represent to us, which might lead to open sexual relations with more than one person (as was the situation with Ayn/Frank/Nathan/Barbara. They all consented, there was no deception at the beginning, presumably)? The impression I've gotten reading here, is that it's somehow bad to have consensual sexual relations with more than one person, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. From a polyamoristic point of view, that Ayn Rand had an affair, becomes a "so what" issue. I realize from a 1950's point of view, it's repugnant, but, this isn't 1950. If sex is the highest expression of love, and if we find more than one person worthy of our love, I see no reason to view this in a negative light. "What is given to one, is not taken from another" is a quote that comes to mind (I can't recall the source).

There's a lot more I could say, but I'm restricting myself for now, to gain a clearer view of this limited topic and how Objectivists view it. I don't want to get diverted into side-tracks, at least not in this particular thread (Judgement Day for the Brandens).

Edited by softwareNerd
Added 'moved' notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in more or less words, no one person can fulfill all of one's needs.

Having searched through the other threads myself, I haven't found any post that directly addresses this (or where everyone reaches one conclusion). My personal response to this would be that this statement is inaccurate - and that I, and other members on this board, HAVE found a single person that fulfills all of our needs (intellectually, sexually, etc).

I don't think anyone here considers polyamory disgusting - the debate is whether polygamy is a moral ideal (or, alternatively, monogamy). The Objectivist position is that one is [objectively] better than the other. Is it better to have multiple partners to fulfill your desires, or one person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
In 1994, the University of Chicago Press published the landmark study The Social Organization of Sexuality, the most important survey since the Kinsey report. 9,000 addresses were selected from random geographical locations. The participants, aged 18 to 55 years, completed an hour and a half interview about their sexual practices.

Two authors of that study, Edward O. Laumann and Robert T. Michael, published This book in which they provide deeper analysis of the information obtained in the 1994 study.

In chapter 6, authors examine sex differences in reported sexual behaviors by commitment level (as indexed by relationship status of dating, cohabitating, or married). The authors found that women's, but not men's, reports of emotional satisfaction with a partner are positively associated with relationship commitment. The authors also report that, for both sexes, sexual satisfaction increases with emotional commitment and with the sexual exclusivity of the relationship.

Interesting don't you think?

As mrocktor demonstrated here, "The value of this study to our discussion is precisely zero." because the sample was taken from a monogamous population indoctrinated into monogamy, for which any straying would create immense guilt. No wonder that sexual satisfaction increased with lack of guilt.

However, having sex with someone other than your spouse doesn't trigger guilt in swinger couples. See this study,

The Case of Swingers - Today's Alternative Marriage Styles

which concludes that "If swingers have found a way to stabilize relationships, prolong family ties, and enrich the lives of couples we would be remiss if we did not take their lifestyle and their redefinition of monogamous love seriously."

So let's compare the sexual satisfaction of those who did... not suffer from guilt, to that of swingers. How about that?

"Among swingers, is there a relationship between swinging and marital happiness? Two questions on the survey – one which asked about their relationships before swinging and the other about them after swinging – are cross-tabulated in Table 15. As the data shows, 62.6% of swingers found that swinging improved their marriages/relationships, 35.6% said their relationships stayed about the same, and only 1.7% said they became less happy. Even among those who said their marriages were "Very Happy" prior to swinging nearly half (49.7%) said they became happier. Among those with the most unhappy marriages 90.4% said their relationship became happier after swinging. It appears that, at least among the sample of swingers used in this research, swinging tends to improve the perceived quality of the couples' marriages regardless of how satisfying it was before swinging."

Research from groups such as the American Psychological Association and DNA testing of wild animal families seem to be showing us that at least for some, monogamy is not as has been long believed the only psychologically healthy expression of love. More and more clinicians and counseling psychologists are finding healthy and working non-monogamous relationships.

Interesting confirmation here:

Science News / Gene Linked To Commitment-phobia

smiley.gif

Edited by Live forever or die trying
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...