The Morality of Monogamy

[Ed from OC 0]

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

←

But it isn't that way. I would say to her: "You are the one I want to be with. I am not saying this in a vacuum, out of ignorance or lack of experience, but from the context of my experiences, some good, some bad. I don't want to move on to another lover. You are my favorite. You are the one I want, now and always."

[Inspector 0]

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.

←

I take it, then, that you DO want to use your own experiences as example? Alright, but only because you asked to. I don't want to step on any toes or unnecessarily expose your private life...

For starters, you have no direct basis of comparison with the example I gave: A man who has found his beloved and could say to her that she is the only one for him versus a man who has found his beloved and can't say that.

Whereas your situation, from what I can tell, is that of a man who has had several experiences, thought he found the one for him, but it turned out didn't after all.

If I recall correctly, you grew apart from your wife because you were willing to integrate the principles of a rational life and she was not? Is that correct?

[Inspector 0]

But it isn't that way.  I would say to her: "You are the one I want to be with.  I am not saying this in a vacuum, out of ignorance or lack of experience, but from the context of my experiences, some good, some bad.  I don't want to move on to another lover.  You are my favorite.  You are the one I want, now and always."

←

That's a wonderful thing to say. Would you also add,

"You are so dear to me, so wonderful, that everything before is now insignificant. I would feel ashamed of them if I wasn't too busy being happy having found you."

See, THAT's the key. Focus on the GOOD. (you can deny the power of your mistakes, deny their power to hurt you... but to deny their EXISTENCE is where I say "no, that's not right")

[Free Capitalist 0]

Stephen, could you clarify the sense in which you say you detect malevolence in this latest turn of discussion (about the importance, or lack thereof, of the "first time")? That's a really unusual view, in my experience.

[piz 0]

I take it, then, that you DO want to use your own experiences as example? Alright, but only because you asked to. I don't want to step on any toes or unnecessarily expose your private life...

←

If the discussion goes anywhere I'm uncomfortable I'll say so.

I've reversed the order of your post, so I can address what I think is the more important point last.

If I recall correctly, you grew apart from your wife because you were willing to integrate the principles of a rational life and she was not? Is that correct?

←

No, it started to come apart a few years before I found Objectivism. That discovery helped accelerate the end, but wasn't a fundamental cause of it. For a general sense of how it went, the parallel to the overall progression of Hank Rearden's marriage (though not the specifics), and to the general nature of the personalities involved, is quite remarkable, actually (with the addition of children, of course, and a number of, let's say, "occurrences" about which I ought not to be more specific in a public forum, except to note that I was the innocent party).

For starters, you have no direct basis of comparison with the example I gave: A man who has found his beloved and could say to her that she is the only one for him versus a man who has found his beloved and can't say that.

Whereas your situation, from what I can tell, is that of a man who has had several experiences, thought he found the one for him, but it turned out didn't after all.

←

This is the essential here, much more important than how my marriage ended: It went way beyond "thought he found the one for him." When I said I was certain, I meant it in the full, correct meaning of the term. I had no doubt and was able to tell her that with full conviction. Things changed later, but until they changed I knew I had my soulmate. I was as certain as at least one particular pair of FORUM participants appear, based on their statements, to be about each other. Should they not be having sex because it might turn out later they were wrong that they're "really" soulmates? Given that standard, when would it ever be right for anyone to have sex?

Certainty is contextual. I say that if I was certain that she was my soulmate, then she was. The fact that things came apart later has no bearing on my certainty at the time. You seem to be saying that because later on she was no longer my soulmate it means she never was and that sex should have waited until I found my "real" soulmate. But only the omniscient can predict the future (and, as an aside, I would have had to be über-omniscient to predict that future ).

Now, if you're agreeing that my certainty means I had found my soulmate and the "net loss" comes from my having had sex in relationships before that, that's a different matter (though I still disagree), because it would mean that you'd find no reason for me to regret having had sex in my marriage. But that's not what I get from your words.

[Inspector 0]

If the discussion goes anywhere I'm uncomfortable I'll say so.

←

Okay, then.

For a general sense of how it went, the parallel to the overall progression of Hank Rearden's marriage (though not the specifics), and to the general nature of the personalities involved, is quite remarkable, actually (with the addition of children, of course, and a number of, let's say, "occurrences" about which I ought not to be more specific in a public forum, except to note that I was the innocent party).

I'm having trouble interpreting that... Hank's marriage was, from what I remember, a cold, internally conflicted bit of manipulation and lies from the day they were married. Are you saying that your wife was a manipulating fiend that secretly sought to destroy you, or was that how it differed in the particulars?

When I said I was certain, I meant it in the full, correct meaning of the term. I had no doubt and was able to tell her that with full conviction. Things changed later,

I guess here's the key part: were you correct in your certainty, only to have her later change, or were you incorrect in your certainty? THAT's the question behind why I answered you only conditionally.

Should they not be having sex because it might turn out later they were wrong that they're "really" soulmates? Given that standard, when would it ever be right for anyone to have sex?

No, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. People can change, errors can happen, and the standard of certainty is not omniscience.

The rest waits for your answer to the key question. I'm pretty sure about what you're going to say, but I want to wait for you to confirm. If I'm right, then your example is something I hadn't considered with my statement and may be an exception. We'll see.

[Inspector 0]

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.

←

I'd just like to add that such is NOT at all where I am going with this. I seek to give some advice to help people achieve the best that life has to offer; not to degrade those who haven't.

If you have achieved the clarity and consistancy of thought that Objectivism teaches, Piz (and we all seek to!), then you have achieved the ability to seek and achieve the best of what life has to offer you, so there's no reason to get hung up on could'a would'a should'a's. (but as I said, to deny they exist is to give bad advice, among other things)

[piz 0]

I'm having trouble interpreting that... Hank's marriage was, from what I remember, a cold, internally conflicted bit of manipulation and lies from the day they were married. Are you saying that your wife was a manipulating fiend that secretly sought to destroy you, or was that how it differed in the particulars?

←

To answer that:

...If you had the most powerful horse in the world, you would keep it bridled down to the gait required to carry you in comfort, even though this meant the sacrifice of its full capacity, even though its top speed would never be seen and its great power would be wasted. You would do it—because if you let the horse go full blast, it would throw you off in no time....

Some questions I cannot answer directly, lest an internet search put me in a difficult position. (Yes, believe it or not, such is still done on me from time to time, along with other forms of "keeping tabs," desipte the matter being long settled.)

I guess here's the key part: were you correct in your certainty, only to have her later change, or were you incorrect in your certainty? THAT's the question behind why I answered you only conditionally.

←

It doesn't matter whether or not I was correct, what matters is that I was certain based on what I knew at the time, just as Hank was certain at the time he asked Lillian to marry him.

...I'm pretty sure about what you're going to say...

←

Just for my own curiosity, was my answer what you expected?

[Inspector 0]

It doesn't matter whether or not I was correct, what matters is that I was certain based on what I knew at the time, just as Hank was certain at the time he asked Lillian to marry him.

Just for my own curiosity, was my answer what you expected?

←

Hmmm, still confused. What if I asked it this way: was she, at the end, fundamentally the same person as when you asked her to marry you, or did she change into something that you rejected?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen, could you clarify the sense in which you say you detect malevolence in this latest turn of discussion (about the importance, or lack thereof, of the "first time")?

That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about how one looks back at the end of a relationship.

[piz 0]

Hmmm, still confused. What if I asked it this way: was she, at the end, fundamentally the same person as when you asked her to marry you, or did she change into something that you rejected?

←

Address both. I think doing so will show how this is irrelevant to the question.

[Inspector 0]

Address both. I think doing so will show how this is irrelevant to the question.

←

Okay.

If she has been the same all along, then you have an error of knowledge on your part. Dang. You look back on it and say that the value you recieved was based on the incorrect idea that she was something that she was not. No matter how sure you were, the truth is that she was not any good, ever. You can and should look back on it saying, "ewww, I wish that had never happened. But, I will move on with my life."

If she really was good at the beginning, and later changed into bad, then by all means you can look fondly back on the good times. No matter how good she was, people have volition and she could simply have chosen the evil. Dang. But for that time, when she was what she was, she WAS your soulmate and you might have a bit in common with a widow. No regrets here, but man you must wish she hadn't chosen to become evil. But wishing won't make it so, and so you pick up the pieces and move on.

Either way, there's no MORAL blame on you; I see either an error of knowledge or a simple tragedy.

[Paul's Here 0]

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?

←

First, you've assumed (invalidly) that where you live is not an essential value. Second, you've assumed (invalidly) that the only reason to stay together is whether someone shares all your essential values.

[Paul's Here 0]

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.

←

I respectfully disagree with you. The biggest "prize" in life comes from living life and acting within the context of events that occur within your life. Holding out for a Platonic "One" will lead to a life of asceticism, which is not consistent with Objectivism.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] I still think the biggest prize in life lies along the path I illustrated.

←

By "prize" do you mean "value"?

If so, where in your own personal hierarchy of values would you rank this prize, of a romantic relationship with the one woman who most closely matches your ideal?

If not, what distinguishes a prize from a value?

[Inspector 0]

By "prize" do you mean "value"?

If so, where in your own personal hierarchy of values would you rank this prize, of a romantic relationship with the one woman who most closely matches your ideal?

If not, what distinguishes a prize from a value?

←

I'm sorry for being less than clear, Burgess. I only meant "biggest" in the context of the available options illustrated in this thread (i.e. having a few lesser sexual relationships vs. the final, or just the final, etc.)

[piz 0]

If she has been the same all along, then you have an error of knowledge on your part. Dang. You look back on it and say that the value you recieved was based on the incorrect idea that she was something that she was not. No matter how sure you were, the truth is that she was not any good, ever. You can and should look back on it saying, "ewww, I wish that had never happened. But, I will move on with my life."

If she really was good at the beginning, and later changed into bad, then by all means you can look fondly back on the good times. No matter how good she was, people have volition and she could simply have chosen the evil. Dang. But for that time, when she was what she was, she WAS your soulmate and you might have a bit in common with a widow. No regrets here, but man you must wish she hadn't chosen to become evil. But wishing won't make it so, and so you pick up the pieces and move on.

Either way, there's no MORAL blame on you; I see either an error of knowledge or a simple tragedy.

←

So either way I've made no moral transgression by having sex with my then wife. Now, what would you say that means for my future relationships? Is there a lessening of the value I share with a future lover when we have sex because I've had sex before? Is there that "net loss" you mentioned? Or, as I think, is there just as much value as there would have been had I come to this new soulmate a virgin? Consider when you answer this quote, Hank speaking to Dagny after he's realized that she's found the man she really loves (i.e. Galt, though Hank doesn't know that yet):

What you'll give him is not taken away from me, it's what I've never had.

Also consider that at this point Hank and Dagny have, of course, had sex.

[Inspector 0]

Consider when you answer this quote, Hank speaking to Dagny after he's realized that she's found the man she really loves (i.e. Galt, though Hank doesn't know that yet):Also consider that at this point Hank and Dagny have, of course, had sex.

←

The answer is "yes," and a qualified "yes." HIGHLY qualified. I think that single quote, which I GREATLY agree with, is the key to unwrapping the large part of the disagreement. Because, yes, one cannot share that "first time," one cannot give as rare a gift, on some levels...

...but on the MOST IMPORTANT level, on what really counts and really matters, sex is a spiritual value as well as a physical one, and the degree of the physical value obtained is ENTIRELY dependant on the degree of the intelellectual/spiritual value obtained. In short, whatever you've given to others... the kind that one gives to his highest love will be much MUCH better. And THAT is something one will NOT lose.

That's really the other half of the reason I recommend against the "in the meantime" kind of relationship. You just don't stand to gain that much from it.

Thank you for bringing in that quote, Michael. I hope it really clears things up.

[Ed from OC 0]

 

That's a wonderful thing to say. Would you also add, 

 

"You are so dear to me, so wonderful, that everything before is now insignificant. I would feel ashamed of them if I wasn't too busy being happy having found you." 

 

See, THAT's the key. Focus on the GOOD. (you can deny the power of your mistakes, deny their power to hurt you... but to deny their EXISTENCE is where I say "no, that's not right") 

←

 

No, I wouldn't say that. EVERYTHING is insignificant? I think that's a pathetic self-evaluation. What would that make you? A complete loser until she comes along and turns your life around? I'd never write off decades of my life like that. It would not do justice to the triumphs and the joys I've experienced.

Even if this was limited to past lovers or relationships, I wouldn't so completely dismiss them. There was value in them at the time, and those memories are precious.

And, shame is not the word I would use, unless there was a moral failure on my part. In fact, rather than disown prior experiences, I'd be proud of the joys I was able to experience and give to another person. (That's not to say I would rub it in my partner's face, mind you. Honesty doesn't necessarily imply a lack of tact.)

The fact that an important value wasn't perfect, that I may have made mistakes along the way, doesn't negate the good aspects of those values. The important thing is having a healthy attitude towards values, in which a man can, without undue condemnation or unearned guilt, allow himself to make mistakes or to accept that some situations in life just don't work out due to circumstances beyond one's control. So, for example, if your brand new sportscar is totaled in a parking lot by a drunk driver, it would not be right, rational, or healthy to blame yourself for parking in the wrong place, or not coming to the store at a different time, etc. If you came down with cancer, would you blame yourself?

I don't buy the "blame the victim" premise, and don't think it's appropriate to feel shame for things for which one is not responsible.

[piz 0]

That's really the other half of the reason I recommend against the "in the meantime" kind of relationship. You just don't stand to gain that much from it.

Thank you for bringing in that quote, Michael. I hope it really clears things up.

←

It does, because your statement quoted above that shows the essence of our disagreement and why it will remain a disagreement. The absolutist notion that one should refrain from important, enjoyable, "lesser" values while waiting for some "ultimate" value to come along is unjustifiable, whether we're talking about sex, or chocolate, or self-esteem, or any other value.

The problem with promiscuity is not the sex, it's the reason for the sex. Promiscuous sex is not based on values and is not a celebration of oneself but a desperate attempt to reverse cause and effect via the impossible goal of achieving virtue through others:

Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it. You want unearned love, as if love, the effect, could give you personal value, the cause—you want unearned admiration, as if admiration, the effect, could give you virtue, the cause...And to indulge your ugly little shams, you support the doctrines of your teachers, while they run hog-wild proclaiming that...your sexual desires, the effect, create your philosophical values, the cause.

Everyone who advocates waiting for one's soulmate ought to pay very close attention to that last part, the claim that "your sexual desires, the effect, create your philosophical values, the cause." It doesn't matter whether you've had sex in the past. What matters is why you're having sex now.

What makes a sexual relationship proper is not that it is only shared with one's soulmate. It's that one has earned the virtues that are properly celebrated in that form. There's nothing improper about a sexual relationship between two people who want to celebrate themselves and the virtue they've achieved, even if they're not soulmates. And, when one's soulmate comes along, nothing is lessened, cheapened, or lost because one has had sex in the past. Even someone once guilty of the most debased promiscuity can rise and become deserving of the tremendous value that is a proper sexual relationship. As long as one has achieved the requisite virtues then the past does not in any way diminish what one has in the present. That's what Hank was talking about when he told Dagny that what she will give Galt is not something taken from him.

Sex is good. If you've earned it, go ahead - have it and enjoy it.

[Inspector 0]

No, I wouldn't say that.  EVERYTHING is insignificant?

←

Of COURSE I did not mean it that way. I meant only in terms of sex and relationships, which was the context in which we were speaking.

How could you be "blaming the victim," if that fellow is, by your definition, NOT a victim?

[Inspector 0]

It doesn't matter whether you've had sex in the past. What matters is why you're having sex now.

...

And, when one's soulmate comes along, nothing is lessened, cheapened, or lost because one has had sex in the past.

...

Even someone once guilty of the most debased promiscuity can rise and become deserving of the tremendous value that is a proper sexual relationship.

←

While I agree with the first and third statements, I don't agree with the second. I don't agree that NOTHING was lost.

It's not IMMORAL to take a risk on an investment and lose. But you don't have to be so averse to calling it immoral that you won't call it a loss.

[piz 0]

While I agree with the first and third statements, I don't agree with the second. I don't agree that NOTHING was lost.

It's not IMMORAL to take a risk on an investment and lose. But you don't have to be so averse to calling it immoral that you won't call it a loss.

←

If you agree with Hank's statement to Dagny, what exactly would it be that's lost, i.e. not available to the later relationship?

[Paul's Here 0]

It does, because your statement quoted above that shows the essence of our disagreement and why it will remain a disagreement. The absolutist notion that one should refrain from important, enjoyable, "lesser" values while waiting for some "ultimate" value to come along is unjustifiable, whether we're talking about sex, or chocolate, or self-esteem, or any other value.

The problem with promiscuity is not the sex, it's the reason for the sex. Promiscuous sex is not based on values and is not a celebration of oneself but a desperate attempt to reverse cause and effect via the impossible goal of achieving virtue through others:Everyone who advocates waiting for one's soulmate ought to pay very close attention to that last part, the claim that "your sexual desires, the effect, create your philosophical values, the cause." It doesn't matter whether you've had sex in the past. What matters is why you're having sex now.

What makes a sexual relationship proper is not that it is only shared with one's soulmate. It's that one has earned the virtues that are properly celebrated in that form. There's nothing improper about a sexual relationship between two people who want to celebrate themselves and the virtue they've achieved, even if they're not soulmates. And, when one's soulmate comes along, nothing is lessened, cheapened, or lost because one has had sex in the past. Even someone once guilty of the most debased promiscuity can rise and become deserving of the tremendous value that is a proper sexual relationship. As long as one has achieved the requisite virtues then the past does not in any way diminish what one has in the present. That's what Hank was talking about when he told Dagny that what she will give Galt is not something taken from him.

Sex is good. If you've earned it, go ahead - have it and enjoy it.

←

I'll second your opinion!!! I agree wholeheartedly.

I think Inspector should realize by now that he's not going to convince too many people that asceticism is a value. If he wants to wait for the "perfect one" then he's free to do so.

[Inspector 0]

I'll second your opinion!!!  I agree wholeheartedly. 

I think Inspector should realize by now that he's not going to convince too many people that asceticism is a value.  If he wants to wait for the "perfect one" then he's free to do so.

←

I don't appreciate you maligning my position by associating it with a philosophy which I do not agree with. I think you're mistaken, but you don't see me calling you a whim-worshipping subjectivist.

I don't need this kind of treatment.