The Morality of Monogamy

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What you are "FOR" is a minor issue as compared to your brazen assertions of the universal consequences for those who do not abide with what you are "FOR." I say "brazen assertions" instead of "arguments" because assertions are all you have provided in support of your claims.

I challenge you to present a rational argument in support of your claim that there was a reduction in "relationship intensity" between Dagny and Galt due to Dagny's prior relationships with Francisco and Rearden. I challenge you to present a rational argument in support of your claim that I would have "more happiness" than the exquisite happiness I have now had I not had a prior love relationship before marriage. And by "rational argument" I do not mean you assuming what you are to demonstrate, nor do I mean shifting the responsibility onto others with a sort of 'why can't that be so?' Provide an argument, not about what you are "FOR," but as a rational justification for the claims you have made as to the negative consequences for all those whose actions do not strictly abide with the actions of your own. Rationally justify the supposed "reduced intensity" between Dagny and Galt, and rationally justify why I personally would have "more happiness" than I have now.

Do this adequately and I will publicly apologize to you right here. But if you fail to do so I will no longer permit you to make these assertions on this forum.

Very well. Do you agree or disagree that a monogamous relationship is more intense than other kinds? i.e. that the partners offer and recieve higher values from and to each other in a monogamous relationship?

←

Excuse me, but I asked you to present a rational argument in support of your claims, not to engage me in a piecemeal question and answer session. If you have a rational argument, then present it. And, when you do so, please be direct and to the point. Not a lecture, not your opinions or feelings, but a rational argument to support the claims outlined above.

[piz 0]

I'll address this post, but I don't think there's any value in my continuing in this discussion after this because I don't know how to make my position any clearer.

I would basically agree with this, but it seems that you are willing to out-and-out ignore the physical side. This goes against the idea of integrating mind and body, so it doesn't sit well with me.

Yes, I agree with the statements by Dr. Peikoff that sex is primarily a spiritual act. But that does not make it entirely one.

←

I'm not ignoring the physical side. It's just that you haven't in any way shown how having engaged in the physical side in one relationship lessens a later one, except to claim that it does.

Michael, this is not about denying lesser values. It's about attaining a higher one.

←

Again, you haven't shown how postponing sex until one finds one's soulmate makes it a greater value to have sex when that soulmate is found, except to claim that it does.

All this talk of monks and asceticism makes no sense to me. Unless I'm a monk because I'm exclusively with my wife?

←

Our particular discussion was not about non-monogamous relationships, it was about the effect on a later monogamous relationship of having had sex in a previous monogamous relationship, unless by "exclusively" you mean never having had sex before your wife. (And, by the way, I never said anything about monks or asceticism. Take care with attributions.) Now, surely you're not extending "monogamous" from "only one partner at a time" to "only one partner ever," are you? Not suggesting that sex with my former wife is somehow cheating on my future soulmate? Because if prior relationships lessen later ones, that seems to be the implication.

Why is it that a man is faithful to his wife, whom he loves, in your view? Every day he's going around "denying lesser values."

←

No he's not. Because he's committed to an exclusive relationship, because he's chosen that particular value, an essential of which is exclusivity, any potential other partners are no value at all to him, not lesser values he might engage in. It's not at all the same as maybe eating at McDonald's some days when his taste is of the caliber that only Cipriani fully satisfies it. But that has nothing to do with previous relationships, which is what you and I were discussing, not non-monogamy.

Is "denying lesser values" intrinsically bad? Hmmm? 

←

I never said anything about intrinsicism. Nor did any of my argument imply that denying a lesser value is necessarily bad, only that pursuing a lesser value is not necessarily bad, nor necessarily affective of greater values.

Look, it's simply a clear fact to me that absolutely nothing about my future relationships will be lessened because I've had sexual relationships in the past. I know this, for two primary reasons:

• I had those past relationships and I can project what resulted from them into what may come in the future.
  
• Even more conclusively, when I did get married to my soulmate that relationship was in fact not lessened because I had relationships previous to the marriage. (Again, the fact that we split up later means nothing to the fact that I was certain she was my soulmate at the time we got married. That is, if we hadn't split up, if we had remained soulmates to this day, the effect of my past relationships on my marriage would have been exactly the same as it was for the time that we were soulmates, i.e. no lessening or loss.)
  

That latter is a real world, actual occurrence, not a hypothetical or a projection. It's a fact that prior relationships caused zero lessening of my marriage. It's as much a fact as that you possess eyes. If it's a fact that one relationship wasn't lessened by prior relationships, then it's a fact that prior relationships don't of necessity lessen later ones. What more is there to say about it?

[Paul's Here 0]

-------------

Considering the context of this discussion in general, and considering the specific context of the recent interchanges in particular, I take Paul's comment of "asceticism" to be directed towards being "severely abstinent," one of the meanings of "asceticism" in the Oxford English Dictionary. I do not think that Paul meant to associate your view with the overall philosophy of asceticism, but just the particular form it takes in regard to abstinence. At least, that is how I read it.

←

-------------------------------------

Thank you Stephen, that's exactly how I meant it (although I don't have the Oxford dictionary). There are some words that have philosophic meaning and ordinary dictionary meaning. I think my statement in the context of this thread was clear that I meant the latter.

If Inspector was offended, then, I'm sorry for that. One of the consequences of the impersonal means of communication through computers is that there is no chance to hear the expression of a person's voice or to give rapid feedback if one could see that the other person is offended when no offense was intended. That is why I make it a general rule when communicating over the computer to try to never be offended unless clear, unambiguous, and decisive statements are made.

[Inspector 0]

What more is there to say about it?

←

Then let me ask you one question: During the time period when you were certain that your ex-wife was your soulmate, how did you evaluate the relationships you had had previous? How did you feel about them?

One member, Ray, has told me that he is to this day proud/fond of his past, even though his wife is, in his evaluation, his soulmate. Would you say you felt the same way at that time that he does now?

I'm not asking to fuel further debate; as you have said you are finished expressing your position. I am genuinely curious.

[Inspector 0]

If Inspector was offended, then, I'm sorry for that.

←

I see how you meant that now, and although I don't agree with the characterization, it isn't the insult I interpreted it as. So thank you for clearing that up.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Those are not "evidence." The book example refers only to a specific fact, which I have addressed: that the highest form of intimacy is still shared exclusively.

←

They are evidence against the assertion that prior sexual relationships diminish the value of later sexual relationships.

As for the personal examples: all that those amount to is: "well, I FEEL fine with what I did." What people feel is not relevant as it is based on what premises they hold.

Does this mean that how you feel about pre-marital chastity isn't any kind of evidence that what you say is true? Then what reasons DO you have to support an assertion that other people question?

No attempts have been made to address the WHY. WHY isn't a further intimacy achieved by the method I illustrated?

"Why isn't" is asking for proof of a negative, which can't be done. The onus of proof is on the one making claims about "further intimacy."

[Inspector 0]

Very well. Do you agree or disagree that a monogamous relationship is more intense than other kinds? i.e. that the partners offer and recieve higher values from and to each other in a monogamous relationship?

←

Excuse me, but I asked you to present a rational argument in support of your claims, not to engage me in a piecemeal question and answer session. If you have a rational argument, then present it. And, when you do so, please be direct and to the point. Not a lecture, not your opinions or feelings, but a rational argument to support the claims outlined above.

←

My attempts to present my case in whole were previously met by the declaration that I had not in fact presented an argument. Since you have not been forthcoming about WHICH part of my argument is not convincing, I have to present it step by step until you disagree.

If you don't like that, then you should have been more forthcoming. If you are still not willing to be, then I will end this by stating that I HAVE presented my argument and it is unnecessary that I repeat it.

If that's that, then so be it.

[Inspector 0]

They are evidence against the assertion that prior sexual relationships diminish the value of later sexual relationships.

←

I already posted an argument where I showed that they were not that, but merely evidence that the highest part of the relationship is not diminished. Did you miss that?

Does this mean that how you feel about pre-marital chastity isn't any kind of evidence that what you say is true?  Then what reasons DO you have to support an assertion that other people question?

Of course it does. I have already posted them.

"Why isn't" is asking for proof of a negative, which can't be done.  The onus of proof is on the one making claims about "further intimacy."

It would be, if I hadn't already posted an argument which has not been responded to. I'm not asking for a proof of a negative, which is impossible: I'm asking for someone to look at my argument and point out the flaw, if any.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Excuse me, but I asked you to present a rational argument in support of your claims, not to engage me in a piecemeal question and answer session. If you have a rational argument, then present it. And, when you do so, please be direct and to the point. Not a lecture, not your opinions or feelings, but a rational argument to support the claims outlined above.

←

My attempts to present my case in whole were previously met by the declaration that I had not in fact presented an argument. Since you have not been forthcoming about WHICH part of my argument is not convincing, I have to present it step by step until you disagree.

If you don't like that, then you should have been more forthcoming. If you are still not willing to be, then I will end this by stating that I HAVE presented my argument and it is unnecessary that I repeat it.

If that's that, then so be it.

←

(Note: I had deleted Inspector's post here because of poor attributions, but I have fixed the attributions and restored the post.)

I take Inspector's response as evidence that he is unable, as challenged to do so, to present a rational argument in support of his claims. As I stated when I made this challenge to Inspector, he is to present a rational argument or stop making his claims. This is notice then, as moderator, that Inspector is to stop making these claims in this thread. Any post that does not abide by this will be deleted.

[piz 0]

Then let me ask you one question: During the time period when you were certain that your ex-wife was your soulmate, how did you evaluate the relationships you had had previous? How did you feel about them?

One member, Ray, has told me that he is to this day proud/fond of his past, even though his wife is, in his evaluation, his soulmate. Would you say you felt the same way at that time that he does now?

I'm not asking to fuel further debate; as you have said you are finished expressing your position. I am genuinely curious.

←

With your permission I'll post the PM you sent me and my reply, which in effect answers this question.

[Inspector 0]

With your permission I'll post the PM you sent me and my reply, which in effect answers this question.

←

Under the circumstances, I'd prefer you didn't. It is Stephen's wish that I not make any more claims, and for you to post them in my staid would, I think, be against his wishes, and this board is, after all, his property.

[Paul's Here 0]

I see how you meant that now, and although I don't agree with the characterization, it isn't the insult I interpreted it as. So thank you for clearing that up.

←

It's very easy to say that you don't agree with my characterization, but you don't offer any contrary evidence. Your position of waiting till you find a lifelong soulmate when confronted with others who are a value to you, is the exact meaning of asceticism (practicing self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline). So where's your disagreement?

[Inspector 0]

I take Inspector's response as evidence that he is unable, as challenged to do so, to present a rational argument in support of his claims.

←

It is evidence of no such thing, only that I am unWILLING to operate under the given situation.

Don't worry about further posts with claims. I am satisfied with what I have written so far, as I said.

(note that I would not have even posted THIS, if it were not for Stephen's action of making certain claims about my abilities)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I take Inspector's response as evidence that he is unable, as challenged to do so, to present a rational argument in support of his claims.

←

It is evidence of no such thing, only that I am unWILLING to operate under the given situation.

As anyone who reads the history of this thread can see for himself, several people have asked for an actual argument and evidence for the latest claims you have made. You failed to do so. My direct challenge to you was just the culmination of what has gone on in this thread for too long; either justify your claims or stop making them. You are free to attempt to explain as you like your continued failure to provide rational justification for your claims, but I think the evidence points to you being unable to do so. But, regardless of whether you are unable or unwilling, I ask that you refrain from making the claims in dispute.

[Inspector 0]

As anyone who reads the history of this thread can see for himself, several people have asked for an actual argument and evidence for the latest claims you have made. You failed to do so. My direct challenge to you was just the culmination of what has gone on in this thread for too long; either justify your claims or stop making them. You are free to attempt to explain as you like your continued failure to provide rational justification for your claims, but I think the evidence points to you being unable to do so. But, regardless of whether you are unable or unwilling, I ask that you refrain from making the claims in dispute.

←

I disagree with your evaluation of the status of my arguments, and will let the record stand for itself. I believe we are finished here.

[Inspector 0]

So where's your disagreement?

←

My disagreement is rooted in claims that I will no longer post here.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I disagree with your evaluation of the status of my arguments, and will let the record stand for itself. I believe we are finished here.

←

That's fine. Since you are finished, I will have the last word. I note that Inspector has made allusions to a supposed argument that he has presented, despite a number of people requesting such an argument when none could be found. One reason, among others, that I choose Inspector as being unable to present a rational argument, rather than his current claim that he is simply unwilling, is that if he truly had previously presented such an argument he could have simply copied and pasted the argument right here in the first place, requiring substantially less effort and substantially less writing than he has done in proclaiming he has an argument that no one can find. Now we are finished here.

[Inspector 0]

if he truly had previously presented such an argument he could have simply copied and pasted the argument right here in the first place,

←

If you honestly can't see an argument, and I am willing to grant that this is possible, then just accept the fact that I don't believe it is worth the effort of explaining it to you under the conditions we have here. To goad me on like that will only make me LESS willing.

At this point, I really have to question why you won't simply let this go without attacking my character. You could simply say, "then let the record stand," just as I did, if you wanted this to end.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

if he truly had previously presented such an argument he could have simply copied and pasted the argument right here in the first place,

←

If you honestly can't see an argument, and I am willing to grant that this is possible, then just accept the fact that I don't believe it is worth the effort of explaining it to you under the conditions we have here.

The "conditions we have here" were sufficient for you to write some 108 (!) posts in this thread, in the latter portion of which you made outrageous claims unsubstantiated by any rational argument. It was "worth the effort" to you, evidently, to continue making your claims even after failing to supply the argument and evidence that several people asked you to provide in support. Now that I focused the issue to the point of forbidding you to continue to make your same claims unless you provide a rational argument to back them up, you now want me to "accept the fact"[sic] that actually providing a rational argument is not "worth the effort" to you. Pardon me, but my incredulity has been stretched to the breaking point and I am not wont to just "accept" what you consider to be a fact.

To goad me on like that will only make me LESS willing.

Goad you on? Well, now it is your turn to try to accept a fact, namely that, believe me, I would be perfectly delighted to not read another word from you in this thread.

At this point, I really have to question why you won't simply let this go without attacking my character.

I have identified a number of facts. If you think those facts go towards your character, then, in your own words, so be it.

You could simply say, "then let the record stand," just as I did, if you wanted this to end.

You said you were finished, and I believed you. I chose to have the last word. If you want the last word then I suggest you do so on your own forum. Now we are finished, in fact. I want no more discussion about this issue on this thread. Not from you, me, or anyone else. This thread can continue with substantive material directly related to the actual subject of the thread, but this is the end of the rest of this talk about what you did or did not do. I will not treat lightly anyone who does not abide with this.