The Morality of Monogamy

[Thoyd Loki 0]

To be clear, the kind of relationship I am talking about is one that is known from the beginning to be doomed to failure on the basis of an irreconcilable difference of values between the people involved. If you're talking about something else, my advice may not apply.

←

I strike issue with the assumption here that a relationship that ends (before death) is therefore a failure. What is wrong with being romantic partners and then, when the context changes, being really close friends? What is wrong with it not being permanent? What is wrong with it even if the people involved both know it?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

...so they ARE breaking up because of irreconcilable value differences?

←

Inspector, consider these two situations:

1. Two people discover -- after a week or after 50 years -- that they have irreconcilable differences in their highest values (not merely their lowest, such as favorite desserts), so they choose either to not get sexually involved or, if they are already involved, to split up.

2. Two people share the same highest (philosophical) values, implicity or explicitly, but not other values -- such as living in the desert versus the rain-forest -- and cannot reconcile those differences, so they split up after some period of time, for example, at the end of a one-month vacation they have shared in Bermuda (where they met while vacationing alone).

Do you acknowledge the difference between these two situations?

Do you hold that the second situation, a temporary sexual involvement based on love, is immoral?

[Inspector 0]

Rather, they just recognized from the start that they had enough values in common for a romantic relationship of some value, but not enough for one that would last forever.

That's the same kind of relationship I (and I believe others in this thread) have meant all along, as you can see if you go and read my earlier posts.

"Irreconcilable value differences" are your words; I've just explained why they are not mine.

←

I see why you don't use the words (it weakens your position), but you admit that the shoe does fit.

I think that for a person who DOES find their "soulmate," as you put it, having such a relationship in their past makes it a net LOSS over the alternative of sharing themself with ONLY their soulmate.

If their life sucks and they never do find a person worthy of love without irreconcilable differences, then they may be "better off," as you put it.

But I expect more from life than that. (and I got it, too!) I guess it all depends on what you expect from life.

[Inspector 0]

I have a slew of questions on this one.

Does breaking up suck? Every instance?

←

That depends on your premises, I guess. If the relationship was based on the ignoring of irreconcilable differences of high-level values, then it is likely to involve yelling and a lot of grief. The chickens coming home to roost, and all.

What is lost?

The exclusivity of who has "known" one intimately.

How is the "gift" less, now that the man has deflowered himself? 

Because of the exclusivity that was lost. The degree of which would depend on exactly what and how much was shared with others.

Is it a moral loss, a loss of stature of the person (psychologically, self-esteem, sexual potency, will to live, moral integrity) that renders his gift less than if he had somehow had the clairvoyance to see that the first "one" was (now in 20/20 hindsight) not afterall his true "ONE", now that his has slept with the false "one"?

No, it's not a moral loss (meaning he is less moral of a person), but it is a loss of stature. (though not in any of the categories you mentioned) And don't tell me it required "clairvoyance." He knew the risks and he pays the price for his mistake.

Why does the first relationship have to be regretted?

Because it was based on the values that he thought made that other person his "one." Since he was mistaken in thinking that the other person was his "one," then all that he gained vanishes.

Suppose you were eating a delicious cake... sure it tasted a little funny, but surely that's nothing.... then you discover it's actually not a cake, but something awful instead. How do you feel about having eaten that cake?

How was this man supposed to know that the relationship was doomed if he thought she was the "one"? 

Life is not without its risks. There are plenty of ways he could have known, however. The time and effort he spent "getting to know" his mate would allow him to know this. Exactly how hard to detect was this problem that caused them to break up? We don't know, as that was not part of the example.

Would it always be the case that what you get isn't as great as what you lose? (Remember the nature of Ed from OC's example was not of any sort of depraved nature.)

In this example, the man is under the impression that the woman is his "one." He has a LOT staked on this. You're a married man, Thoyd, so you should know how unappealing the prospect of losing your "one" is.

Can there be no such thing as a part of one's life shared (though not the whole of it) with another in love, sex, respect and values, that ends not only amiably, but as a plus that adds to ones "reserves" of positive experiences in one's life?

I don't treat sex so lightly, as if it were merely "something" to be shared. It's the highest thing to be shared and I'd feel like a fool if I shared it with anyone but my highest.

[Inspector 0]

Inspector, consider these two situations:

1. Two people discover -- after a week or after 50 years -- that they have irreconcilable differences in their highest values (not merely their lowest, such as favorite desserts), so they choose either to not get sexually involved or, if they are already involved, to split up.

2. Two people share the same highest (philosophical) values, implicity or explicitly, but not other values -- such as living in the desert versus the rain-forest -- and cannot reconcile those differences, so they split up after some period of time, for example, at the end of a one-month vacation they have shared in Bermuda (where they met while vacationing alone).

Do you acknowledge the difference between these two situations?

Do you hold that the second situation, a temporary sexual involvement based on love, is immoral?

←

Yes, I see the difference.

Yes, I would think so... since they SHOULD stay together! Why on earth would living in a desert or rainforest be more important than sharing one's life with someone who shares all your ESSENTIAL values?!?

...but that's probably not what you meant?

[dcyphyr 0]

That depends on your premises, I guess. If the relationship was based on the ignoring of irreconcilable differences of high-level values, then it is likely to involve yelling and a lot of grief. The chickens coming home to roost, and all.

The exclusivity of who has "known" one intimately.

 

Because of the exclusivity that was lost. The degree of which would depend on exactly what and how much was shared with others.

No, it's not a moral loss (meaning he is less moral of a person), but it is a loss of stature. (though not in any of the categories you mentioned) And don't tell me it required "clairvoyance." He knew the risks and he pays the price for his mistake.

Because it was based on the values that he thought made that other person his "one." Since he was mistaken in thinking that the other person was his "one," then all that he gained vanishes.

Suppose you were eating a delicious cake... sure it tasted a little funny, but surely that's nothing.... then you discover it's actually not a cake, but something awful instead. How do you feel about having eaten that cake?

Life is not without its risks. There are plenty of ways he could have known, however. The time and effort he spent "getting to know" his mate would allow him to know this. Exactly how hard to detect was this problem that caused them to break up? We don't know, as that was not part of the example.

In this example, the man is under the impression that the woman is his "one." He has a LOT staked on this. You're a married man, Thoyd, so you should know how unappealing the prospect of losing your "one" is.

I don't treat sex so lightly, as if it were merely "something" to be shared. It's the highest thing to be shared and I'd feel like a fool if I shared it with anyone but my highest.

←

I would like confirm, in my own experience that what Inspector here says is true.

I've been in this position, "having eaten the cake" and wishing i could have it back, not to have it again- but to never have had it.

So much time was lost, so many things must be unlearned.

However, I could and should have known better- so rationally I pay for my mistakes.

Even though I was tricked , I should have realized the fundamental beliefs of that person would eventually lead to that.

I don't hold them unaccountable for their beliefs, but I hold myself accountable for overlooking the obvious, for allowing faith one last stronghold in my mind.

Amen Inspector.

[Inspector 0]

Amen Inspector.

←

Thank you. The good news is, that now you are wiser and can move on with your life. The world is now your oyster!

[Free Capitalist 0]

I do have to say that, while I've been generally in disagreement with Inspector in this thread, I completely side with him on the importance of making each sexual encounter special, and each relationship most valued. This especially applies to the very first relationship, to the very first sexual encounter, which is (or at least should be) the very epitome of exclusivity and personal triumph. Virginity has been considered holy since time immemorial, and most of the people that viewed it so were the very opposite of Christian prudes. There's something special and valuable in "the first time", and I would disagree with those who say otherwise.

Boy, this thread really intends to cover every aspect of human sexuality and intimacy, doesn't it? Hmm, this also just occurred to me: maybe we should consider "maturity ratings" for threads! I'd rate this thread here as Rated R, only read by those teenagers who are supervised by adults. That'd certainly be a sight to see.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I see a lot of question-begging going on here -- i.e., ASSUMING what one is trying to prove.

That depends on your premises, I guess. If the relationship was based on the ignoring of irreconcilable differences of high-level values, then it is likely to involve yelling and a lot of grief.

←

This ASSUMES that the irreconcilable differences are ignored which usually is not the case. Sometimes the differences involve differences in age, desire for marriage or children, careers that keep people geographically apart, etc, that are acknowledged by both partners from the beginning.

What is lost?

The exclusivity of who has "known" one intimately.

This ASSUMES that lack of exclusivity is nothing but bad, but that is the issue to be proved.

How is the "gift" less, now that the man has deflowered himself? 

Because of the exclusivity that was lost. The degree of which would depend on exactly what and how much was shared with others.

This ASSUMES that exclusivity is always a value, but that is the issue to be proved.

Is it a moral loss, a loss of stature of the person (psychologically, self-esteem, sexual potency, will to live, moral integrity) that renders his gift less than if he had somehow had the clairvoyance to see that the first "one" was (now in 20/20 hindsight) not afterall his true "ONE", now that his has slept with the false "one"?

No, it's not a moral loss (meaning he is less moral of a person), but it is a loss of stature. (though not in any of the categories you mentioned) And don't tell me it required "clairvoyance." He knew the risks and he pays the price for his mistake.

A loss of stature? Is he less tall for it? Or does this mean MORAL stature? If so, it contradicts the statement that it is not a moral loss. This also ASSUMES that prior relationships are a "mistake" which is the assertion to be proved.

Why does the first relationship have to be regretted?

Because it was based on the values that he thought made that other person his "one." Since he was mistaken in thinking that the other person was his "one," then all that he gained vanishes.

Again this ASSUMES the conclusion being asserted: that there is no lasting value to a relationship that ends. If there IS lasting value, then "all he gained" DOESN'T vanish.

Suppose you were eating a delicious cake... sure it tasted a little funny, but surely that's nothing.... then you discover it's actually not a cake, but something awful instead. How do you feel about having eaten that cake?

This ASSUMES the "cake" was "something awful" which is the assertion being questioned. The "cake" can be pretty darn good even if it isn't the best one ever made.

Also, while you can't have your cake and eat it too, you definitely can have a piece of "cake" today and a different piece of "cake" some other day.

[dcyphyr 0]

I do have to say that, while I've been generally in disagreement with Inspector in this thread, I completely side with him on the importance of making each sexual encounter special, and each relationship most valued. This especially applies to the very first relationship, to the very first sexual encounter, which is (or at least should be) the very epitome of exclusivity and personal triumph. Virginity has been considered holy since time immemorial, and most of the people that viewed it so were the very opposite of Christian prudes. There's something special and valuable in "the first time", and I would disagree with those who say otherwise.

Boy, this thread really intends to cover every aspect of human sexuality and intimacy, doesn't it? Hmm, this also just occurred to me: maybe we should consider "maturity ratings" for threads! I'd rate this thread here as Rated R, only read by those teenagers who are supervised by adults. That'd certainly be a sight to see.

←

One of the great things about this forum is that such things can be discussed so openly. How often is it that such things are discussed without it drifting into playboy stupidity? I think its awesome.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Yes, I would think so... since they SHOULD stay together! Why on earth would living in a desert or rainforest be more important than sharing one's life with someone who shares all your ESSENTIAL values?!?

←

Dominique was willing to marry Roark if he would give up architecture. Would you say then that, "They SHOULD stay together! Why on earth would being an architect be more important than sharing one's life with someone who shares all your ESSENTIAL values?!?"

[Ed from OC 0]

I've been in this position, "having eaten the cake" and wishing i could have it back, not to have it again- but to never have had it.

←

While that situation is certainly possible, it is far from the usual case. One can have fantastic memories to look back upon for the rest of one's life, some wonderful experience that can be a very special treasure. That is what I am arguing to defend.

Any relationship can end painfully, but one needn't focus in retrospect on the bad. Yes, sometimes a partner turns out to be so horrible that one wishes to undo the entire thing (for example, Cheryl's relationship with Jim Taggart). But being careful and rational (including keeping context!) minimizes the chances of one being deceived by a partner, and increases the chances of a long-term successful relationship.

[Ed from OC 0]

This ASSUMES the "cake" was "something awful" which is the assertion being questioned.  The "cake" can be pretty darn good even if it isn't the best one ever made.

←

Amen, sister!

To take the analogy a bit further, one can discover a great chef and think she is the most amazing thing in the world, but later find out you can't make it to the bakery anymore, or she loses interest in baking altogether, or you happen to discover another chef that is even better, in which case you don't want to go back to the original chef, and so on.

My point is that in life, context is king. There can be very real, moral, and intense reasons for going elsewhere -- i.e., the metaphysical/existential context. Also, context applies to epistemology: the chef one visits depends on one's knowledge, including that of other chefs and of the nature of cooking and of what you want from a chef.

And, of course, context applies to values: what may seem trivial to one person (such as a relationship ending because they want to live in different areas) may not be to others. A life in the rainforest may be an essential for a biologist, but an astronomer may need the empty desert, for example.

As another poster pointed out, context also applies to time. What stage of life are the people in? Are they both able to put in sufficient time and energy to the relationship? If one partner is soon leaving to serve overseas, is the other partner okay with that? Is a relationship with a known expiration date acceptable to them?

[Inspector 0]

Dominique was willing to marry Roark if he would give up architecture.  Would you say then that, "They SHOULD stay together! Why on earth would being an architect be more important than sharing one's life with someone who shares all your ESSENTIAL values?!?"

←

Why did she want him to do that? Wouldn't the desire behind that indicate a deep, fundamental difference of core values, which is NOT present in that example, and therefore makes it NOT comparable to Roark and Dominique?

[Inspector 0]

This ASSUMES that the irreconcilable differences are ignored which usually is not the case.  Sometimes the differences involve differences in age, desire for marriage or children, careers that keep people geographically apart, etc, that are acknowledged by both partners from the beginning.

←

...But I was talking about irreconcilable differences of CORE VALUES.

This ASSUMES that lack of exclusivity is nothing but bad, but that is the issue to be proved.

It doesn't assume that; only that the exclusivity was good and that not having it is less good than having it. As I said, if you never do find that "one," then it does you no good, but that's a calculus that people are free to make... but they ARE bound to the consequences. I'm merely saying that the man who has it and can give it to his "one" is better off than the man who has his "one" and cannot give it; but the latter is better off than the one who never finds his "one" and still has it.

This ASSUMES that exclusivity is always a value, but that is the issue to be proved.

That statement was not a self-contained begging the question, it merely rests on that premise.

A loss of stature?  Is he less tall for it?  Or does this mean MORAL stature?  If so, it contradicts the statement that it is not a moral loss.

No, not a MORAL loss. The loss is that he can not say to his beloved that she is the only one who he has ever given his highest gift.

This also ASSUMES that prior relationships are a "mistake" which is the assertion to be proved.

No it does not... but if it is true, then it means that he might have lost more in those relationships (by not being exclusive) than he had to gain.

Because it was based on the values that he thought made that other person his "one." Since he was mistaken in thinking that the other person was his "one," then all that he gained vanishes.

Again this ASSUMES the conclusion being asserted: that there is no lasting value to a relationship that ends. If there IS lasting value, then "all he gained" DOESN'T vanish.

This ASSUMES the "cake" was "something awful" which is the assertion being questioned. The "cake" can be pretty darn good even if it isn't the best one ever made.

No, it does not. It only says that if the relationship is based on the idea that said person was the "one," (which it IS because that's how the example was stated) and it is discovered that that person was not, and in fact NEVER WAS the "one," then those values vanish.

If the relationship was NOT based on the idea that it was the "one," then no you don't have this issue. You DO, however, have several others, as I have been saying.

Also, while you can't have your cake and eat it too, you definitely can have a piece of "cake" today and a different piece of "cake" some other day. 

Yes... that's what you want to tell your beloved. "You're just one 'piece' in a long line of pieces."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

While that situation is certainly possible, it is far from the usual case.  One can have fantastic memories to look back upon for the rest of one's life, some wonderful experience that can be a very special treasure.  That is what I am arguing to defend.

And I am truly flabbergasted that you or anyone else has to make such a defense. This whole "loss" thing smacks of a malevolent sense of life. People change careers later in life; does that magically wipe out the joy and pleasure they took in the prior work that they did? People grow and their interests and personal values can change; ideally growth and change can be accommodated within a marriage. God knows our own growth and change in my own marriage has added greatly to the pleasure we take in each other. But that is not the case for some, and it is not always possible to continue to work everything out. This is not necessarily due to some supposed failure on the part of the couple, but simply due to certain facts. Why should a caring parting of the ways be steeped in hurt and pain, rather than celebrating the earlier joy? Some of these views make me wonder if fear of loss has become more important, emotionally, than standing up proudly and embracing life?

I'm afraid that there are too many out-of-context absolutes floating around here, and some of them may be buoyed up with an underlying malevolence towards life. There is a sense of Plato's forms lurking about. I say celebrate the good and root out the rest.

[RayK 0]

I agree with your last post Stephen and that is why I asked somebody to question their Metaphysical Value Judgements.

[Inspector 0]

And I am truly flabbergasted that you or anyone else has to make such a defense. This whole "loss" thing smacks of a malevolent sense of life. People change careers later in life; does that magically wipe out the joy and pleasure they took in the prior work that they did?

←

...And I'm flabbergasted that my viewpoint would be identified as "malevolent," when I am the one advising people to go for the BIGGEST prize in life. Really, honestly, I have never identified this in terms of fear or loss, but in terms of wanting (and achieving!) the BEST in life, and not being satisfied with anything less.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

...And I'm flabbergasted that my viewpoint would be identified as "malevolent," when I am the one advising people to go for the BIGGEST prize in life. Really, honestly, I have never identified this in terms of fear or loss, but in terms of wanting (and achieving!) the BEST in life, and not being satisfied with anything less.

←

It is the way the "anything less" is being treated that concerns me, especially when terms like "immoral" are being bandied about.

Wanting and pursuing the best in life does not rule out seeking or achieving "anything less" in the meantime nor does it render lesser values "immoral." The latter comes from a whole different universe than Objectivism as I know and love it.

[Jay P 0]

I think that for a person who DOES find their "soulmate," as you put it, having such a relationship in their past makes it a net LOSS over the alternative of sharing themself with ONLY their soulmate.

←

That is where I strongly disagree; I do not find any basis in reality for assuming that the fact of having a previous romantic relationship (of the kind being discussed) makes one worse off, or less desirable to a future romantic partner.

[Jay P 0]

While that situation is certainly possible, it is far from the usual case.  One can have fantastic memories to look back upon for the rest of one's life, some wonderful experience that can be a very special treasure.  That is what I am arguing to defend.

←

Yes. I like the way you put that.

Which is another reason I think the kind of romantic relationships being debated here should be, and normally are, a net gain to both partners.

[piz 0]

I think that for a person who DOES find their "soulmate," as you put it, having such a relationship in their past makes it a net LOSS over the alternative of sharing themself with ONLY their soulmate.

←

In my experience, this is most definitely not the case. I was certain that I had found my soulmate when I got married, but I regretted not a single one of the many relationships I had prior to my marriage (not all sexual, but a good number of them). I also held nothing against my then wife for her prior relationships. Now, being divorced and glad of it, clearly I no longer consider my ex to be my soulmate. The only regret, though, that I will carry forward from my marriage was that I stayed in it as long as I did, when it should have been obvious to me that it would have been better to get out.

I certainly won't regret having made love, while I still loved her, to the woman who was my wife. Are you suggesting that I should?

Going forward, I have seen nothing presented here to convince me that it would be improper, immoral, or in any way something to regret to have sex with any woman I have future relationships with, as long as I am honest and the woman means enough to me that sex would be a celebration of ourselves and the values we share, even if she turns out not to be my soulmate. In fact, what I have seen presented here in opposition to the view I just stated is almost insulting, like a moralizing finger being shaken in my face. Frankly, it has to some extent lowered my opinion of some of those who advocate that side of the debate.

[Inspector 0]

It is the way the "anything less" is being treated that concerns me, especially when terms like "immoral" are being bandied about. 

Wanting and pursuing the best in life does not rule out seeking or achieving "anything less" in the meantime nor does it render lesser values "immoral."  The latter comes from a whole different universe than Objectivism as I know and love it.

←

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I've stepped back from "immoral" after some helpful folks gave me a hand with definitions. But I still think the biggest prize in life lies along the path I illustrated.

[Inspector 0]

I certainly won't regret having made love, while I still loved her, to the woman who was my wife. Are you suggesting that I should?

←

By "you" do you mean me? I hardly know enough about your situation to say. I know people in similar situations to you that do have regrets, but it would depend on how and where and why that break was. I can hardly get into such a complicated matter here, and I doubt you would enjoy doing so...

[piz 0]

By "you" do you mean me?

←

Yes.

I hardly know enough about your situation to say. I know people in similar situations to you that do have regrets, but it would depend on how and where and why that break was. I can hardly get into such a complicated matter here, and I doubt you would enjoy doing so...

←

As to that last, I reached indifference on the matter a long time ago. When my experience is useful for my purposes, I use it without concern.

Regarding the rest, this:

I think that for a person who DOES find their "soulmate," as you put it, having such a relationship in their past makes it a net LOSS over the alternative of sharing themself with ONLY their soulmate.

←

reads like a universal claim, not a statement that individual context makes such matters too difficult to address. Based on that, my question (do you think I should regret having had sex with my wife when I was still in love with her?) is rhetorical. I can't see how a yes answer is justified, though.

If you're going to stick with the "contextual" response, though, you'll have to reconcile the apparent contradiction between that and the universality of the original statement. And the original statement, as I said, does not hold in at least one context - mine.