The Morality of Monogamy

[Free Capitalist 0]

What is the essential distinction between a moral argument an a life-advice argument?

This is a big deal, and maybe a key to resolving this whole conundrum. A life advice would be something like this: "Always look at both sides of the street before crossing", "Don't follow a strange man offering you candy", or some years later, "If a girl looks pretty but trashy, she's not worth your time", and "If you wait for the very special girl, you will have a very special time with her". Violating these suggestions does not, in any way, concern anything related to immorality. It's just good common sense, but that's only realized with age and experience, and philosophy has nothing to say about it, either way.

[Inspector 0]

Inspector,

That which enhances life is the good, and that which does not is bad.  I do not see how sex with someone you value, according to your standards is subjective.  If it was "sex with who ever and I do not know why", that would be subjective.  Know your standards and values and be able to explain why, even if only to yourself, that is objective.

←

Ray:

You need to listen more carefully to what I say: I quoted a passage that you wrote. That is specifically what I was referring to. This is now several times (in this thread and otherwise) that I have said something fairly direct that you didn't grasp. Is there anything I can do to help you to understand what I am saying?

[Bill Bucko 0]

Roark did not see Dominique again at the quarry after taking her, and he left the quarry after almost a week. As Roark leaves the quarry, we hear his thoughts on the train.

"Half an hour later Roark was on a train. When the train started moving, he remembered Dominique and that he was leaving her behind. The thought seemed distant and unimportant. He was astonished only to know that he still thought of her, even now."

That doesn't sound to me  like thinking about "his life partner."

←

"Distant and unimportant"--only in comparison with the earthshaking break in his career!

I think the passages you quote in post #214 support the view that it never had the status of just a 'one night stand," in Roark's mind. Nor did he show any interest in such a thing, when the daughter of a client signalled she was available.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I think the passages you quote in post #214 support the view that it never had the status of just a 'one night stand," in Roark's mind. 

←

No one here whom I can recall -- least of all me -- ever attributed a "one night stand" to Roark and Dominique.

[Inspector 0]

What is the essential distinction between a moral argument an a life-advice argument?

This is a big deal, and maybe a key to resolving this whole conundrum. A life advice would be something like this: "Always look at both sides of the street before crossing", "Don't follow a strange man offering you candy", or some years later, "If a girl looks pretty but trashy, she's not worth your time", and "If you wait for the very special girl, you will have a very special time with her". Violating these suggestions does not, in any way, concern anything related to immorality. It's just good common sense, but that's only realized with age and experience, and philosophy has nothing to say about it, either way.

←

I'm thinking we have a new thread here.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

If I remember correctly, life is the standard and the value, it is both. So to achieve a value is to achieve life. And, as always those values must be tied to reality.

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying, but it is not from a lack of trying to understand you.

[Inspector 0]

Inspector,

If I remember correctly, life is the standard and the value, it is both.  So to achieve a value is to achieve life.  And, as always those values must be tied to reality. 

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying, but it is not from a lack of trying to understand you.

←

Okay, I will be more specific:

you can set your standards in every field according to your own morality

That statement right there is the one I have concerns about. It is not the position of Objectivism that a person's morality is a subjective thing that can be set to whatever a person wants. Morality is Objective and based on FACT, meaning it is set on what is in fact in a person's self-interest, not on whatever that person wants to set it to.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Okay, I will be more specific:

you can set your standards in every field according to your own morality

That statement right there is the one I have concerns about. It is not the position of Objectivism that a person's morality is a subjective thing that can be set to whatever a person wants. Morality is Objective and based on FACT, meaning it is set on what is in fact in a person's self-interest, not on whatever that person wants to set it to.

←

You may be making the least charitable interpretation of what Ray wrote. Perhaps he is simply saying that we are guided by our morality in setting the standards for what we value in different areas of life, i.e., work, friendship, love, recreation, etc.

I grant that Ray, at times, could benefit from greater precision in what he writes, but generally speaking he has demonstrated he is on the right track for things. Perhaps you misinterpret his meaning here.

[Inspector 0]

I grant that Ray, at times, could benefit from greater precision in what he writes, but generally speaking he has demonstrated he is on the right track for things. Perhaps you misinterpret his meaning here.

←

Certainly this is possible, and I sought to word things such that it would be understood that I am still in the questioning phase about Ray's meaning. I don't mean to be "jumping the gun" here.

[dcyphyr 0]

Should then one wait for the greatest value on all levels and entities?  Should one wait until they find the best pizza, car, house, job and everything else until you somehow "know" that it is the right one?  Or should one get the best in relationship to their priorities of values.  Another question, how can one give the best they have to give the first time you do it?  I have almost always in every level gotten better at something the more I understood about it, hence learning as I went along.  Also, why can you only have one or the other?  I do not remember anyone stating that you could not have great and profound sex often.  What about the people that are married and sex often, is it somehow less profound because it is not "rare"?  Can you state that exactly what you hold as a value today is what you will hold as a value 20 years from now?  If not would you call yourself immoral for changing your morals and ethics 

One of the greatest things about Objectivist Ethics is that one sets their own moral standards.  So If one wants to wait for ever or close to it, so be it.  Or you can set your standards in every field according to your own morality, because as Ayn Rand said " The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." 

Again, I do not think anyone here is recommending valueless sex, but sex tied to your own values, and tied to reality.

←

Hi,

actually yes, I think I would take the time to find the best lover, job, house, car and even pizza. If that takes time ..well, believe me -high quality pizza takes time.lol. people aren't pizza. I wouldn't mind someone going thru life constantly upgrading their pizza, but if you tell me I'm just a step on the way to the person you want I'd leave you AND your pizza.I know people can change-boy do I know that! but I'm not looking for a static person- I'm looking for someone going my way.

I think your shortchanging yourself Mr. Ray, but thats your choice.lol, Your probaly saying the same of me.

To your second question, you can't give your best sexual performance the first time- but thats not all there is to the word "best". I've got alot of sexual experience due to a failed relationship,but if I could trade that knowledge for not remembering so much as having kissed that women I would. Even had the relationship ended amicably I'd still believe the best deserved to train me herself:).So much of the experience is the journey I'd prefer it be with the best person especially the parts you only get to take once, ya know.

Just for the record, I don't remember anyone saying you couldn't have awesome sex often either- Especially me! I tried to make that expressly clear, i guess clarity isn't my talent.lol.

As to the rest of what you have said, no- I don't want to wait forever...but If thats what it takes...

[Thoyd Loki 0]

...whoa. Yes. YES. THAT is one of my big points here that I don't think I have expressed enough. THANK YOU.

By waiting for your "one," you can give him or her a bigger/better gift. That's the whole idea behind an exclusive sexual relationship anyway, so why not extend it that next step to its logical conclusion?

←

You are mixing two things here. Your first sentence is about virginity, or chasity. The second is of exclusivity. There is no necessary correlation between these two. A guy could go through 46 girlfriends in 2 years (theoretically I guess) and be exclusive everytime.

And what is up with this "gift"? What does that mean? That draws a complete blank in my mind. I can't even put the word "gift" and "sex" in my head and come up with anything.Again I have to say this smacks of religion. What else can this mean, but making a gift out of virginity? Of chastity? "I haven't had sex in 14 years baby, Merry Christmas!"

You can leave out anything about sexual performance being the gift, I've had hiccups all day and laughing may make them come back.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

This is the third time I have heard you speak in what looks to me like very subjectivist terms. It is possible, I suppose, that you are simply mis-speaking... but....

Objectivist ethics are set with REALITY and FACT as the standard, not whatever one chooses to set them at. Do you agree with that?

←

Objectivist values are always "to whom and for what." Objectivist values are personal, i.e., general principles applied in various optional unique-to-the-individual ways, not "subjective."

Objectivism is a morality of principles rather that rules. The approach is "This is good for you because ...." rather than "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not."

With regard to monogamy, there are loads of good reasons why monogamy is the ideal and is a goal a rational man should aim for. But if that ideal isn't available or is unlikely for a given person at a given time, I don't see any Objectivist "thou shalt not" that rules out other options. After all, "Sex is good."

[Free Capitalist 0]

Inspector, what I said may or may not deserve a new thread, but at least within parameters of this thread, will you agree with me that you've been promoting good advice, i.e. that waiting for someone special makes the wait worthwhile, rather than a moral precept? Ray has made a really wonderful example here, of a soldier who is away for 11 months a year, and cannot sustain a relationship. What you are talking about is merely good advice (and a true one at that), and may apply in a lot of situations, but it does not apply in the situation of that soldier, which is what makes this whole thing different from a moral precept, which would apply to all, regardless of their circumstances. So I agree with you about the meaning of sex, but I disagree with you about the domain of where it applies. Special, but realistic, examples of, say, Roark, or that soldier, show that you cannot apply that rule across the board.

[Ed from OC 0]

And what is up with this "gift"? What does that mean? That draws a complete blank in my mind. I can't even put the word "gift" and "sex" in my head and come up with anything.Again I have to say this smacks of religion. What else can this mean, but making a gift out of virginity? Of chastity? "I haven't had sex in 14 years baby, Merry Christmas!"

←

THANK YOU for raising this question. I'd like to see this idea of a "gift" through chastity spelled out in more detail by its advocates. Where this "gift" comes from, and what exactly the benefit is, isn't clear to me.

Suppose I'm with someone for a period of time, thinking she is my ideal. Then I discover that she isn't and we break up. Then I meet someone else and think she is my ideal. When I sleep with this second girl, is this gift any lesser than that given to the first girl? Why or why not?

[Inspector 0]

Inspector, what I said may or may not deserve a new thread, but at least within parameters of this thread, will you agree with me that you've been promoting good advice, i.e. that waiting for someone special makes the wait worthwhile, rather than a moral precept?

←

I am open, at least, to the possibility. I won't say until I'm at a conclusion.

[Inspector 0]

You are mixing two things here. Your first sentence is about virginity, or chasity. The second is of exclusivity. There is no necessary correlation between these two. A guy could go through 46 girlfriends in 2 years (theoretically I guess) and be exclusive everytime.

←

Hmmm, that did come out a bit off. Let me try to restate it.

The whole point of a monogamous relationship is that you are making your relationship more special, exclusive, and loving because you are with ONLY your partner. Isn't it better to be able to say "You're the only one for me" than "you're number 54 today, take a number."

Why not extend this across a lifetime?

[Inspector 0]

Suppose I'm with someone for a period of time, thinking she is my ideal. Then I discover that she isn't and we break up.  Then I meet someone else and think she is my ideal.  When I sleep with this second girl, is this gift any lesser than that given to the first girl?  Why or why not?

←

I'm not quite sure. I would be inclined to say "Yes, and that's just one more thing that sucks about breaking up. One more reason to regret that first relationship. One more reason to be careful and seek not to engage in doomed relationships."

Speaking strictly in advice terms, in normal circumstances it doesn't serve your self-interest to engage in such temporary relationships. What you get isn't greater than what you lose.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

Why do you have a fear of loss or pain at the end of relationship? One can either live life and deal with the conseguences, or sit in a bubble because they fear it. One either feels their emotions and uses them, such as, why do I feel that way, or they evade them.

Also, no one that I know of is stating having multilple partners at one time, just having multiple partners over a lifetime. But, even so, you still have not answered my question of Ayn Rand doing exactly what you are stating as immoral.

[Inspector 0]

Also, no one that I know of is stating having multilple partners at one time, just having multiple partners over a lifetime.  But, even so, you still have not answered my question of Ayn Rand doing exactly what you are stating as immoral.

←

Ray,

Re-read what I have posted if you need to. Your questions are so far from what I have stated that I do not know where to begin.

Why do you have a fear of loss or pain at the end of relationship?  One can either live life and deal with the conseguences, or sit in a bubble because they fear it.  One either feels their emotions and uses them, such as, why do I feel that way, or they evade them.

I don't know what fear you are talking about. When you say "deal with the consequences," you are implicitly accepting that there ARE consequences to deal with. I am simply making it known what those consequences are and how they might outweigh the possible benefits. Life is as much about knowing when NOT to do things.

[RayK 0]

Inspector,

A consequence is defined as a result, an effect, an outcome, an aftermath or an upshot.

So every thing that one does has a consequence, weather it is good or bad, sometimes, won't be known until one gets into it or after the situation. This is not being implict, this is being objective. I know that every action I take will have a cause and an effect, a consequence.

Also from your earlier post.

"Speaking strictly in advice terms, in normal circumstances it doesn't serve your self-interest to engage in such temporary relationships. What you get isn't greater than what you lose."

My question dealing with the quote from above, was why the fear of a loss anyways. How can you know weather or not the positives will out weigh the negatives and make it a loss. Yes, you can think these things through and decide to not take up the act, or you can come to your own rational conclusion and then move forward, willing to rationally deal with the consequences. I agree that there could be a lose at the end of the relationship, but if that is what keeps you from even trying it, then I would say check your "metaphysical value judgements". My "MVJ" are to make important the good and not to be stopped by the bad or possible bad. Unless through my own reasoning I come to the conclusion that the situation has no other alternative except failure.

One further quote and question.

"When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values." (Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand)

Do you agree with this quote, why or why not?

[Inspector 0]

Inspector,

A consequence is defined as a result, an effect, an outcome, an aftermath or an upshot. 

So every thing that one does has a consequence, weather it is good or bad, sometimes, won't be known until one gets into it or after the situation.  This is not being implict, this is being objective.  I know that every action I take will have a cause and an effect, a consequence.

←

Do you know what "Implicit" means? I suggest you look it up and see that I was simply saying that my warning was a logical part of your own premises.

"Speaking strictly in advice terms, in normal circumstances it doesn't serve your self-interest to engage in such temporary relationships. What you get isn't greater than what you lose."

My question dealing with the quote from above, was why the fear of a loss anyways. 

It is not a "fear" in the sense that one "may" lose certain things, but a CERTAINTY. Because the subject of our discussion is temporary relationships, if one is certain that the relationship is temporary, then one is certain that one will lose some things.

How can you know weather or not the positives will out weigh the negatives and make it a loss.

This is why I add the qualifier "in normal circumstances." Excepting extraordinary circumstances, the end of the relationship and all that entails, coupled with the loss of personal exclusivity of sexuality that I mentioned above, is a greater weight than the temporary physical pleasure gained. Since such relationships of our examples are temporary on the basis of the LACK of value-similarity between the two parties, then the emotional/spiritual value of what is gained is ultimately undercut and destroyed by the fact of noncongruence of values. Since, as Ayn Rand points out, Sex is primarily a spiritual value to the conceptual being Man, and only secondarily a physical one, it is not good to sacrifice the greater spiritual values in pursuit of the lesser physical ones.

It is best to wait for a fulfillment of BOTH that does not involve sacrifice.

Yes, you can think these things through and decide to not take up the act, or you can come to your own rational conclusion and then move forward, willing to rationally deal with the consequences.  I agree that there could be a lose at the end of the relationship, but if that is what keeps you from even trying it, then I would say check your "metaphysical value judgements".  My "MVJ" are to make important the good and not to be stopped by the bad or possible bad.  Unless through my own reasoning I come to the conclusion that the situation has no other alternative except failure. 

But isn't the very premise of failure inherant in such relationships? Isn't that what they are all about? If you are talking about relationships that you are not 100% certain will end in value-conflict and therefore breakup and failure, then we are talking about two differant kinds of relationships.

"When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is of course, a desirable state.  But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper.  I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them.  Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values."  (Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand)

Do you agree with this quote, why or why not?

I do. She is saying it is not bad to base a relationship on "less than total certainty [of success]." I agree, and submit that it IS bad to base a relationship on TOTAL certainty of failure.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Very nice post, Stephen.  I think this is a helpful way to look at how Roark viewed Dominique, although I'm curious why you think that this explanation is somehow against the idea they had sex on the basis of their highest values.  Even though Dominique didn't completely understand the nature of independence, heroism, and the worship thereof, it was nevertheless those values that brought them together, and thus formed the basis for their encounter.

I have not said what you are curious about, but I am really curious about your view of Dominique. I think it would be illuminating if you were to identify which specific highest values Roark responded to that existed and were revealed by Dominique, and do so by reference to the specific words in the quarry Chapter that reveal those highest values in Dominique's actions or words towards Roark..

[ADS 0]

I have not said what you are curious about, but I am really curious about your view of Dominique. I think it would be illuminating if you were to identify which specific highest values Roark responded to that existed and were revealed by Dominique, and do so by reference to the specific words in the quarry Chapter that reveal those highest values in Dominique's actions or words towards Roark.

←

But I don't know why you're asking this, given the quote you've already provided:

Roark awakened in the morning and thought that last night had been like a point reached, like a stop in the movement of his life. He was moving forward for the sake of such stops; like the moments when he had walked through the half-finished Heller house; like last night. In some unstated way, last night had been what building was to him; in some quality of reaction within him, in what it gave to his consciousness of existence.

So, Roark moved forward in his life for the sake of these rare stops; it affected him as deeply as did the Heller house; etc. Given the man Roark is, and given what his architecture means to him, this is pretty good confirmation that Roark's taking of Dominique was based on his highest values. Also, observe that this all occurred "in some unstated way"; so, it's not clear that a perusal of the text leading up to the "rape scene" would give any clearer confirmation of my point than this specific passage, nor provide us with anything more than another trip up the spiral of knowledge on this point.

Also, look at the paragraph directly after the one above:

They had been united in an understanding beyond the violence, beyond the deliberate obscenity of his action; had she meant less to him, he would not have taken her as he did; had he meant less to her, she would not have fought so desperately. The unrepeatable exultation was in knowing that they both understood this.

"...had she meant less to him, he would not have taken her as he did." We find out later in the novel, when Roark refuses to have Dominique, what a woman must mean to Roark in order to for him to take her at all, never mind "as he did" at the quarry.

In light of all this -- not to mention the views on sex that Miss Rand has provided for us in non-fiction terms -- I don't need any more evidence for my position. Miss Rand said that "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being," and the heroes in her fiction do not deviate from this idea. Do you think they do, Stephen?

[free spirit 0]

If it okay to have sex with someone whom you share high values with, but isn't necessarily your ideal, where do you draw the line?

Do you decide whether to have sex with them or not, based on WHICH values they share with you? And if they are high on your hierarchy?

I can admit that there may be some instances where you are in a relationship with someone, and you may think that they are your ideal, but then, as the relationship progresses, you part ways for whatever reason. With this, you couldn't have known.

Should the situation be decided contextually? (As long as it is being made based on values and honestly?)

~C~

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Miss Rand said that "A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being," and the heroes in her fiction do not deviate from this idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[bold added for emphasis.]

I understand that "highest" is an ordinal measurement. I understand that the highest values of a person are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. (Those are philosophical values, that is, personal values that ought to be shared by everyone.)

What I don't understand is this: Is Ayn Rand saying that the proper sexual relationship is one that involves two people who share the same highest values in the highest degree of implementation?

In other words, are there two issues here? First is the issue of finding someone -- or several individuals -- who share one's highest values. Second is the issue of finding one of those qualified individuals who puts those values into practice more than any other candidates.

Given that my question, at this point, is historical (What did Ayn Rand hold, as part of her philosophy?), I think Ayn Rand, at least implicitly, is saying that both measurements are necessary. My proof of this inference is the progression of Dagny Taggart, Ayn Rand's ideal woman, from Francisco D'Anconia to John Galt. The three men of her life all shared highest values with Dagny Taggart -- but John Galt to the greatest degree of implementation.

Do you see problems with this "reading" of Ayn Rand's philosophy of romantic love?

P. S. -- As a caveat, I want to mention, as others have occasionally in this forum, that sharing highest values (and perhaps even their implementation level) is necessary but not sufficient for choosing a sexual partner. Sense of life is the main addition, but there may be other factors as well.