Monogamy

[Jeff250]

[A] The whole thread has been about how monogamy is generally better than the alternative, that it's the ideal that makes the most sense to strive for. I repeat: GENERALLY better.

There are in fact circumstances in which some couples break up for non-extreme reasons and end up both having better sex lives wherever else they go.

Nobody has said or even hinted that they can *prove* that it's *always* best for *everybody in every circumstance* to be monogamous, so why are you chiding Kilarin for failing to do so?

Lothar, it's a little late to try to recast what the entire thread was really about. If you wanted to discover what my disagreement, in particular, was with Kilarin, you could have read my final post before yours:

"Since it seems all we're doing is repeating our arguments, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether there can be non-extreme circumstances for a monogamous couple to break up and still move on to have better sex/relationships."

My position on this issue is still the same. Besides, I don't even think that you and Kilarin are agreeing:

Lothar: "I repeat: GENERALLY better." and "There are in fact circumstances in which some couples break up for non-extreme reasons and end up both having better sex lives wherever else they go."
vs. Kilarin: "But my advice is still that you should NEVER leave your spouse because you get bored (or for any OTHER trivial reason)."

If we are supposed to pursue monogamy because it is in our best interests, then why should we pursue it when it's not in our best interests? Assuming that Kilarin isn't intentionally giving bad advice (which I hope is a safe assumption ), we can infer from Kilarin's statements then that he must think that monogamy always is in our best interests in non-extreme circumstances.

Either that, or the only other thing that I can think of to get Kilarin out of this is that he believes that we can never really predict what is better or not for us, so we should always just choose the one that is generally better, i.e. we are never smart enough to make the right decision, so we must always side with the one that usually is. I suppose that this would be an opportune time for you to chime in Kilarin, but I don't think that this position would work either. First of all, I don't even really like the statistics supporting this, because all they really show is that, at the bare minimum, people usually don't break up monogamous relationships at the right times, not that it shouldn't be done at all. Such breakups should be pursued rationally, not not at all. Secondly, I really don't think that this ambiguity represents every situation anyways, since often times there is a clear choice concerning which will serve our interests. If this is the path that anyone wants to maintain, I'll explain more what I mean.

[C]The whole thread has been about how monogamy is generally better than the alternative, that it's the ideal that makes the most sense to strive for.

I think we should also do a terminology check:

i·de·al (-dl, -dl)
n.

1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection.
2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ideal

It makes very little sense to say that monogamy is "GENERALLY" better than not, and then to say that it is an ideal, in the very same sentence. This misuse of terminology is probably a source of a lot of the confusion too.

The only real ideal presumed here is happiness (or one's best interests, or something like that), and, due to the nature of this topic, happiness as its manifested in love and sex. This is already presumed when Kilarin appeals to these things as the reasons for following monogamy in the first place, so surely they are greater than it.

So, to conclude and answer your questions in brief:
(A) Your summary of the main point of the thread is not obvious, since it seems to be at odds with Kilarin's statements. Moreover, if that is the main point of the thread, then I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I still do with Kilarin.
(B) I'm not chiding Kilarin for that, but I am chiding him for his advice to "NEVER" break up a monogamous relationship due to non-extreme circumstances. Assuming he's not intentionally giving bad advice, we can infer that he thinks that it's always better to not break up a monogamous relationship for non-extreme circumstances, or that we never have the faculties to discern when to, but I don't think that either of these situations represent the facts of the matter.
(C) Monogamy is not an ideal in the traditional meaning of the word, and it often makes sense not to strive for it, i.e. striving for monogamy is often unideal.

[Kilarin]

we can infer that he thinks that it's always better to not break up a monogamous relationship for non-extreme circumstances,

Yes. There are circumstances which merit the destruction of a marriage, and I will not attempt to define those rigidly since I think its an area with a lot of grey. But I feel that breaking up a marriage for trivial reasons is a mistake. (And this seems so inherently obvious and logical to me that I have a hard time understanding how it can be a point of contention)

Which does NOT mean that you can't recover and go on to another relationship. Perhaps even a successful one.

So I don't think I'm in disagreement with Lothar on this. Its better to try and make your current relationship work. Thats how a monogamous relationship WORKS, you have to WORK at it. But no, it shouldn't shock us if we hear stories of people who DID break up a marriage for trivial reasons but still managed to make the next relationship work.

Back to Drakona's excellent point on trying to make the "shoe fit". Switching shoes makes it harder and harder to get the shoe to fit. But you may be several shoes in before you REALIZE this and stop switching and give your foot and the shoe time to adjust to each other.

Or as Cuda pointed out, a marriage is about so much MORE than just sex. Walking out because you are bored is exactly the WRONG way to have a succesful marriage.

Still repeating myself, so I won't elaborate any further.

[CDN_Merlin]

Or as Cuda pointed out, a marriage is about so much MORE than just sex.

If sex is a problem in a marriage, it's 90% of the marriage. If sex is good in a marriage, it's only 5%.

[Flabby Chick]

Cudas post is cool. I got a lot of respect for you sunshine, even though we probably disagree on around 90% of subject matter discussed here. Like Loth and Drak.

I would like to say though that you can't predict love, it comes from places that don't conform to rules as we'd like. You can be in love with your mrs and then boom! You find it hits you somwhere else. It sounds simplistic, which it probably is.

Zeo ze maspeek.

[CUDA]

Or as Cuda pointed out, a marriage is about so much MORE than just sex.

If sex is a problem in a marriage, it's 90% of the marriage. If sex is good in a marriage, it's only 5%.

Ya but that could be said about anything in a Marrage. from finances to how to discipline your children. Marrage an Monogamy are a commitment and a commitment is a choice.

Main Entry: commitment
Function: noun
1 : an act of committing:an agreement or promise to do something in the future;

this is our problem with society today. too many of us will make a promise with little or no intention of keeping it. so your Marrage has a few bumps. get over it thats life. some people treat a marrage like they do their cars, a new model comes along and it looks good, so they trade the old model in not realizing that in a few years another new model will come along. but they forget to realize that they will soon be an antique and the new models will be harder to come by. you made a commitment (promise)or vow to love honor and cherish for as long as you both shall live.

Main Entry: vow
Function: noun
: a solemn promise or statement; especially : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition <marriage vows>

the problem is there are too few people with the character and moral fortitude to fullfill those promises and Vow's. they just want to

get thier rocks off

that seems kind of shallow to me.

[Flabby Chick]

..but love will wipe out all of the above..(apart from the rocks bit)

Vows and commitment are lightweights when opposing love. I'm not talking about having a drunken shag here. Do you know what i mean?

[Kilarin]

Vows and commitment are lightweights when opposing love.

They shouldn't be.

[Flabby Chick]

Why not?

[Kilarin]

Flabby Chick wrote: Vows and commitment are lightweights when opposing love.
Kilarin wrote: They shouldn't be.
Flabby Chick wrote: Why Not?

Because Love is a choice. If I make a vow to my wife to stick with her, and her only, till death do us part, I should stick by that vow, no matter who else comes along and captures my fancy. That is what true love is about. It's not a sudden surge in the gonads, it's about a lifelong commitment. Otherwise, why bother with the vow? If you only mean \"Until someone better comes along\", then don't lie to people with the \"Till Death do us part\" oath.

And to put it on a purely practical level, if you drop a spouse because you have suddenly falling \"in love\" with someone else, what guarantee does the new spouse have that it won't happen again?

[CUDA]

..but love will wipe out all of the above..(apart from the rocks bit)

Vows and commitment are lightweights when opposing love. I'm not talking about having a drunken shag here. Do you know what i mean?

so what your saying is that when you marry "assuming" you were inlove when you did so. and you make a promise/vow/commitment to that person for as long as you both shall live. that is someone else comes along that you now "feel" that your "inlove" with that that promise/vow/commitment that you made to the other person who you were inlove with at one point in your life doesnt matter?

QUOTE:
loved, lov·ing, loves
v. tr.

1. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person):
2. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
3. To have an intense emotional attachment to.
4. To embrace or caress.
5. To have sexual intercourse with.
6. To like or desire enthusiastically.

this is love, when you Truly love someone you do not discard them like a used pair of underwear. you work at it daily. even to the point of spreading a little BS if required to make the other happy. love is a choice. when you find a person attractive, you chose to get to know them. when you know them you chose to love them. when you love them you chose to marry them. when you marry them you make them a promise/vow/commitment and you SIGN a contract (your marrage license) with them for life. think about it

[Jeff250]

Yes. There are circumstances which merit the destruction of a marriage, and I will not attempt to define those rigidly since I think its an area with a lot of grey. But I feel that breaking up a marriage for trivial reasons is a mistake. (And this seems so inherently obvious and logical to me that I have a hard time understanding how it can be a point of contention)

Which does NOT mean that you can't recover and go on to another relationship. Perhaps even a successful one.

What do you mean by a "mistake"? Say a married couple IS presented with a decision to break up the marriage over non-extreme circumstances that, if they did so, would ultimately benefit both of them over staying in the relationship. Where is the mistake in breaking up the marriage? Is there a mistake in breaking up the marriage in itself? Is it a mistake for the couple or anyone to think that this situation can exist?

[CUDA]

Its not that easy. my first question would be are there children involved? because now the breakup of that relationship effects more than just the couple. how many years have they been married? you cant blanket statement it like that. there are numerous issues that must be takin into account. very very few marrages disolve the way you are trying to portray, most are not amicable. you entered into a contractual agreement when you said \"I do\" and you cannot easy break that agreement without it costing you financialy

[Kilarin]

What do you mean by a "mistake"?

I mean that its the wrong method of dealing with minor marital problems.
To pick a trivial analogy: When you are programming, you don't abandon an important program just because you got a syntax error when you were compiling it. If you do, you will probably never learn how to program. The proper, rational, reasonable method of dealing with a few small syntax errors is to track them down and fix them. Abandoning the program is a "mistake", it's the wrong way to approach the problem.

Say a married couple IS presented with a decision to break up the marriage over non-extreme circumstances that, if they did so, would ultimately benefit both of them over staying in the relationship.

The hypothetical can't be answered.

If they stay together, you say that, hypothetically, the break up would have benefited them.
If they break up, I say that, hypothetically, sticking it out and learning to make THIS relationship work would have been better.

We can't answer the hypothetical because neither of us can prove the others hypothetical wrong.

I've already presented my arguments for why I think that sticking it out and making the current relationship work is the best solution. What are your arguments for why abandoning a marriage for trivial reasons would be a good idea?

[Zuruck]

The sanctity of marriage ended when America turned it into a version of the dating game.

[CUDA]

The sanctity of marriage ended when America turned it into a version of the dating game.

OMG!!!!!!!!
ZURICK AND i AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!!!
HAS HELL FROZEN OVER?!?!?!?!?!

[Jeff250]

If they stay together, you say that, hypothetically, the break up would have benefited them.
If they break up, I say that, hypothetically, sticking it out and learning to make THIS relationship work would have been better.

We are appealing to empirically observable facts here, right? Like pleasure, etc.? Either it will benefit them, or it won't, right? I'm fairly sure we can tentatively agree on something here, like happiness or pleasure, to use as the gold standard.

What are your arguments for why abandoning a marriage for trivial reasons would be a good idea?

If monogamy should be pursued because it benefits us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc., then it should only be pursued when it does benefit us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc. Even if breaking up the marriage for any reason.

[CUDA]

but how can you tell if you are benefiting from monogamy if you are unwilling to follow through with it by taking what you think is a better opportunity?? this is not like a job offer where a prospective employer offers you more money. you cannot know if you or both of you have benefitted from the change in the relationship until years after. marrage is not about what I can get out of it. it is what you put into it. because if BOTH of you try to please the other instead of trying to please yourself you will be sucessful and happy in your monogamous relationship

[Kilarin]

We are appealing to empirically observable facts here, right? Like pleasure, etc.? Either it will benefit them, or it won't, right? I'm fairly sure we can tentatively agree on something here, like happiness or pleasure, to use as the gold standard.

But as Cuda pointed out, there is no way to answer the "what might have been" question. I can ALWAYS say, "They would have been happier together", and you can always speculate "they would have found another better relationship". There is no way to compare the two results because they are mutually exclusive. They did one or the other, not both.

If monogamy should be pursued because it benefits us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc., then it should only be pursued when it does benefit us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc.

Cart before Horse. As I have said repeatedly, YES, I believe that Monogamy will benefit us in empirically observable ways. Monogamous couples are generally happier with their sex lives for example. But I NEVER said that was the ONLY reason for being Monogamous. From MY perspective its actually evidence that we were meant to be Monogamous, not the other way around.

Yes, this strategy will work great for a non-Christian, but its not going to work for anyone who isn't actually interested in loving their partner altruistically. If you are only interested in getting good sex, you will probably NOT have a happy Monogamous relationship (and therefore won't get the best sex)

But again, I'm repeating myself. We seem to be going in circles and I'm not entirely certain where the miscommunication is.

[Jeff250]

But as Cuda pointed out, there is no way to answer the "what might have been" question. I can ALWAYS say, "They would have been happier together", and you can always speculate "they would have found another better relationship". There is no way to compare the two results because they are mutually exclusive. They did one or the other, not both.

It looks like you're taking up the argument that I alluded to a couple of posts ago now--that we are never smart enough to predict which decision will be the most fruitful, so in cases where choosing against monogamy would be better for our interests, we still would never be able to recognize the reality of such a situation, so we should always choose in favor of monogamy to gamble on the safe side? Is this your position? Or close to it?

Cart before Horse. As I have said repeatedly, YES, I believe that Monogamy will benefit us in empirically observable ways. Monogamous couples are generally happier with their sex lives for example. But I NEVER said that was the ONLY reason for being Monogamous.

Of course not--but I am attacking what you're presenting here in this thread. You're more than welcome to appeal to the Christian God to solve the problem, and you will be self-consistent, but it won't be very compelling of an argument to anyone who doesn't already believe in the Christian God and already believe that monogamy is always ideal anyways. Is your claim not that one can and should always follow monogamy to better one's empirically observable interests without appealing to any other factor? It's that argument that I'm attacking.

[Lothar]

Lothar: "I repeat: GENERALLY better." and "There are in fact circumstances in which some couples break up for non-extreme reasons and end up both having better sex lives wherever else they go."
vs. Kilarin: "But my advice is still that you should NEVER leave your spouse because you get bored (or for any OTHER trivial reason)."

If we are supposed to pursue monogamy because it is in our best interests, then why should we pursue it when it's not in our best interests?

Do you acknowledge there's a difference between "it's possible" and "it's recommended"?

Like I said, it's possible there will be couples that break up for stupid trivial reasons and yet somehow they will end up with much better relationships AND much better sex lives. But, like Kilarin said, I wouldn't recommend breaking up for stupid trivial reasons.

Why is it so hard to grasp "it's possible for this to happen, but don't plan on it"?

If monogamy should be pursued because it benefits us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc., then it should only be pursued when it does benefit us in empirically observable ways, like pleasure, etc.

1) As far as I can tell, nobody said the above empirical observations are the ONLY reason for monogamy, only that they are one reason.

2) Even if they were the only reason... I don't think you've presented a compelling case for their being situations in which people could break up a relationship for trivial reasons AND be moderately certain that breaking up would be better for them (in the above, observable ways) than staying together. In order to counter what Kilarin is saying, you need all of that. You can't just have situations where it's POSSIBLE; you need at least a small measure of certainty -- otherwise, it would be silly to advise someone to take that action.

3) My position is not, as you said in your last post, that "we should always gamble on the safe side". Gamble however you want; it's your life. My position is just that the smart decision is to aim as close as possible to monogamy. But nobody ever said you have to make smart decisions ;)

Is your claim not that one can and should always follow monogamy to better one's empirically observable interests without appealing to any other factor?

Nope. Rather, it's that monogamy generally does lead to empirically better results, that it's smart to go with what seems to consistantly work out best, and that it's not very smart to deviate from that without good reason. Don't make it any more than that.

[Lothar]

To further clarify:

consider an analogy with \"staying in school\" vs \"aiming for monogamy\".

- generally, people who stay in school do better than people who don't
- in some extreme circumstances, dropping out is actually and obviously the right decision
- in some cases, people who have dropped out for non-extreme reasons have ended up doing very very well for themselves.
- it's smart to stay in school unless you have good reason not to. (Note that \"I'm bored\" is not a good reason; in your above \"I'm bored\" arguments you seem to be hinting that there are additional, unstated reasons above and beyond simple boredom. The additional reasons you're not stating may or may not be good reasons; I'm not going to make a categorical declaration either way.)

[Kilarin]

Is your claim not that one can and should always follow monogamy to better one's empirically observable interests without appealing to any other factor? It's that argument that I'm attacking.

I think Lothar summed up pretty well what I obviously have NOT been stating very clearly.

[Jeff250]

Kilarin, it takes two to tango, but I think we are making some progress here.

1) As far as I can tell, nobody said the above empirical observations are the ONLY reason for monogamy, only that they are one reason.

It doesn't matter as long as you are arguing that one can come to the conclusion that one ought to always practice monogamy by appealing solely to empirical consequences. You might think that you ought to because God tells you to too, but that's not on trial here.

2) Even if they were the only reason... I don't think you've presented a compelling case for their being situations in which people could break up a relationship for trivial reasons AND be moderately certain that breaking up would be better for them (in the above, observable ways) than staying together. In order to counter what Kilarin is saying, you need all of that. You can't just have situations where it's POSSIBLE; you need at least a small measure of certainty -- otherwise, it would be silly to advise someone to take that action.

Before I even try, there is one thing that needs to be clarified--what exactly defines an extreme vs. non-extreme or trival reason? Can you first differentiate between these without appealing to which one is a legitimate reason to break up a marriage? I mean, I'm afraid that by you even classifying it as a "trivial" reason to break up a marriage, you've already defined it to be one that will never be a legitimate reason to break up a marriage, so any attempt to provide such an example would be fruitless.

Besides, I've come to think that calling some reasons to break up a marriage extreme vs. non-extreme or trival is a meaningless distinction in the current context anyways, don't you think? I mean, there are either profitable reasons or unprofitable reasons, right? It might make more sense if you can define it by appealing to something outside of the question at hand.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I'm going to give an example. Say that one person is cheating on another. Is this an extreme reason or not to break up a relationship? Can this be answered without appealing to whether or not it is a legitimate reason to break up a relationship? Now what about a situation where one individual in a relationship is in a coma from which he/she may never awaken? How do we decide if this is an extreme or trivial reason?

3) My position is not, as you said in your last post, that "we should always gamble on the safe side". Gamble however you want; it's your life. My position is just that the smart decision is to aim as close as possible to monogamy. But nobody ever said you have to make smart decisions

But if you're going to pursue monogamy *strictly for the argument given in this thread*, saying that you're going "to aim as close as possible to monogamy" though is really just to say that you are going to pursue monogamy, except when you believe that it isn't in your interests, right? (Yes, I realize that you likely have other reasons to as well, but once again I think that these are outside the scope of this thread.) If this is right, then in what do those reasons for breaking up a marriage consist? I think that we should investigate this, except without using words like extreme or non-extreme or trival, unless we can first give some meaning to them from outside the question at hand.

[Shadowfury333]

I think that we should investigate this, except without using words like extreme or non-extreme or trival, unless we can first give some meaning to them from outside the question at hand.

How about this:

Extreme situations: Abuse, Neglect, Affair
Trivial situations: Boredom, Little sex

I'm sure there is more to add, but I hope this helps define some examples.

BTW Affair could be worked through in some situations, but I still consider it extreme.

[Kilarin]

1) As far as I can tell, nobody said the above empirical observations are the ONLY reason for monogamy, only that they are one reason.

It doesn't matter as long as you are arguing that one can come to the conclusion that one ought to always practice monogamy by appealing solely to empirical consequences.

But it IS important that the entire idea is pointless to anyone who doesn't intend to love their spouse altruistically. You don't have to be a Christian, but if you are ONLY interested in yourself, Monogamy will not do much for you.

Thats why attempting to limit this to "good for me only", or "profitable vs. unprofitable" reasons won't quite work. YES its good for you, but its only good for you if you care more about whats good for someone else. If you try and turn this into a completely self centered model, then I freely admit that it is a waste of your time. Monogamous relationships don't WORK that way.

what exactly defines an extreme vs. non-extreme or trivial reason? Can you first differentiate between these without appealing to which one is a legitimate reason to break up a marriage?

Nope, won't even TRY that. shadowfury333 gave some good examples, but there is a lot of room for opinions and disagreements here. I feel safe in saying that adultery and physical abuse are on the extreme side, and that boredom is on the trivial end of the spectrum. The stuff in-between is very complicated.

And, actually, probably the only reason we are having this discussion right now is because "boredom" was used as an example. Boredom is so OBVIOUSLY trivial, that I don't think there will be much disagreement on that point. If you walk out on a marriage because your spouse has committed adultery, or beat you up, you have a reasonable chance of finding another spouse who won't do those things. But periods of Boredom happen in EVERY long term relationship, and walking out for that will simply set you up for exactly the same failure in your next attempt.

Perhaps we could use that as an initial guideline? Anything that is likely to happen in MOST (if not all) long term relationships is a trivial reason to break up a marriage? I think we should leave "extreme" reasons undefined, as we will NEVER get a consensus on exactly where the line is.

Now what about a situation where one individual in a relationship is in a coma from which he/she may never awaken?

"I want a good sex life" can not be used to keep a marriage together in this situation. I clarified previously that even with a sexually disabled but conscious spouse, one couldn't use "I want a good sex life" as a reason for staying together. One has to go beyond that. I think one SHOULD go beyond that, but it is a different argument.

The "Monogamy for good sex" argument applies only to people who are actually interested in "LOVING" their spouse, and who's spouse is capable of having sex. That covers most of us. Beyond that, YES, I think that if you love your spouse, the relationship should be MUCH more important to you than just good sex. But that IS a different argument.

[snoopy]

The key difference in the two perspectives here is one of attitude. I'll start with the assumption that we are, by nature, social beings. Thus, we need each other to reach an ideal state, we are not islands. Another way to state what Kilarin is getting at is to say that we achieve greater pleasure (in general) when we dedicate ourselves to pleasing another person, and the dedication is reciprocated. Point being, we are better pleasured (sexually and otherwise) by other people than we can pleasure ourselves. If we try to take that from others, we temporarily get what our body wants, but our heart doesn't get what it wants. I takes a meaningful relationship to feed the heart, and meaningful relationships take time.

So, I would propose that a very clear line can be drawn between where it is justified to end a marriage and where it is not. It is justified to end a marriage when one of the two people has ceased trying to please the other person, and is only looking out for themselves. The only reason that a person would be more pleased outside of a marriage is because one of the partners has already ceased to dedicate themselves to pleasing the other.

The fundamental reason why monogamy is better is because you are not seeking to please yourself, your partner is seeking to please you, and vice versa. You can claim that this is possible outside of a monogamous relationship, but I contend that it's inherently impossible.

[Jeff250]

But it IS important that the entire idea is pointless to anyone who doesn't intend to love their spouse altruistically. You don't have to be a Christian, but if you are ONLY interested in yourself, Monogamy will not do much for you.

Thats why attempting to limit this to "good for me only", or "profitable vs. unprofitable" reasons won't quite work. YES its good for you, but its only good for you if you care more about whats good for someone else. If you try and turn this into a completely self centered model, then I freely admit that it is a waste of your time. Monogamous relationships don't WORK that way.

Another way to state what Kilarin is getting at is to say that we achieve greater pleasure (in general) when we dedicate ourselves to pleasing another person, and the dedication is reciprocated. Point being, we are better pleasured (sexually and otherwise) by other people than we can pleasure ourselves. If we try to take that from others, we temporarily get what our body wants, but our heart doesn't get what it wants. I takes a meaningful relationship to feed the heart, and meaningful relationships take time.

So, I would propose that a very clear line can be drawn between where it is justified to end a marriage and where it is not. It is justified to end a marriage when one of the two people has ceased trying to please the other person, and is only looking out for themselves.

I'm confused as to both of your positions now. Does consistent monogamy now require a sense of altruism outside of our own interests, or is this sense of altruism still a component of our own interests, i.e. one serves his own interests best by serving others?

[CUDA]

required?? no,
but I think the two go hand in hand. if you are unselfish in your attitude toward your spouse then you main concern becomes pleasing her, assuming that her attitude is the same then she will reciprocate. even if her attitude is not fully unselfish by displaying that attitude towards her she will probably begin reciprocating and the momogamous relation ship will grow. and your desire to please her will grow exponentialy, it feeds upon itself. the reverse can be said if your selfish, your selfishness will feed upon itself destroying that monogamy.

[snoopy]

CUDA put it fairly well. In practice, it's really both. Kilarin is trying to appeal to our own desires to motivate us, by advertizing better sex. The thing is, we naturally are very selfish people, and if we are not making a conscious effort to lay ourselves aside in order to please the other person, we will quickly degenerate into purely selfish actions. Furthermore, I think that achieving the long-term deep satisfaction available through serving a monogous partner requires giving up the immediate, short lived highs provided by our own selfish indulgence. Thus, in achieving the ideal, we must put aside the more clamorous of our desires for the partner. So, in the long term we are serving ourselves, but in the day-to-day living it requires lots of work and self sacrifice. One does serve their own interests best by serving others, but in the moment of being motivated towards selfish indulgence, it seems to be anything but the case.

[Jeff250]

If you are prepared to argue that monogamy ought to be pursued by those who act for their own interests (including, the usual case when doing so consists in acting in others' interests as well), then I think that we still need some way of determining which reasons are productive reasons to end a marriage (such that it would not be in our best interests to end the marriage). Such exceptions have already been noted to include battery and adultery, but how do we know this? The topic of predictability has already come up. Some people can leave a marriage because of boredom and go on to have even happier marriages than they ever would have had before, and others not. However, since it often seems difficult to forecast the future, does this mean that we should never leave a marriage because of boredom? What justifies then leaving a marriage because of adultery and battery--is it because, despite our inability to forecast the future, leaving a marriage for these reasons has a greater probability of working in our favor?

On the other hand, if you maintain that for monogamy to work, we need to appeal to some sort of external altruism, well then we are just disagreeing on facts outside the scope of this thread.

[Kilarin]

Some people can leave a marriage because of boredom and go on to have even happier marriages than they ever would have had before, and others not. However, since it often seems difficult to forecast the future, does this mean that we should never leave a marriage because of boredom?

It's not just the inability to forecast the future that makes this point difficult for us to agree on. It's the inability to know what MIGHT HAVE BEEN. You say that they "go on to have even happier marriages then they ever would have had before", but how can we know how happy thier first marriage would have been if they had stuck with it and worked it out?

The hypothetical is impossible to determine for certain in either direction.

if you maintain that for monogamy to work, we need to appeal to some sort of external altruism, well then we are just disagreeing on facts outside the scope of this thread.

Yes, I maintain that for monogamy to work you actually have to love your spouse in a altruistic way. You have to care more about your spouse than you do about yourself. This does NOT require that you must be a Christian, but it does mean we can't appeal strictly to self interest. Monogamy only works when you actually love your partner.

[Jeff250]

It's not just the inability to forecast the future that makes this point difficult for us to agree on. It's the inability to know what MIGHT HAVE BEEN. You say that they "go on to have even happier marriages then they ever would have had before", but how can we know how happy thier first marriage would have been if they had stuck with it and worked it out?

Right--you would need to be able to forecast at least two different futures to contemplate making any decision and weigh them. What makes this favorable for adultery and battery, but not with boredom? Is it simple probabilities? With adultery and battery, there are graeter chances that breaking up the marriage would be more fortunate than not? With boredom, the odds favor staying in the marriage, so we should not leave it, since we would be unable to recognize the reality of a situation where leaving a marriage due to boredom actually would be fortunate for us?

Yes, I maintain that for monogamy to work you actually have to love your spouse in a altruistic way. You have to care more about your spouse than you do about yourself. This does NOT require that you must be a Christian, but it does mean we can't appeal strictly to self interest. Monogamy only works when you actually love your partner.

I think that most non-religious people will have difficulty finding a reason to be altruistic. I think that it is still an open question if it's even possible to be altruistic, or if in choosing to be altruistic one is somehow ultimately serving himself. I think that these are interesting questions, but again outside the scope of this thread.

But I think that such altruism as required for monogamy can only arise out of a source of duty. For Christians, this may be God, but for nonreligious people, there isn't an immediately available source of duty from which altruism can spring.

[Kilarin]

With adultery and battery, there are graeter chances that breaking up the marriage would be more fortunate than not? With boredom, the odds favor staying in the marriage, so we should not leave it, since we would be unable to recognize the reality of a situation where leaving a marriage due to boredom actually would be fortunate for us?

The "odds" argument will be sufficient for many. Go back to Lothars "Staying in school" post. (see, I'm TRYING to do less repeating)

But ignoring odds, you can NEVER succeed at ANYTHING if you abandon it for routine events that ALWAYS occur. You'll NEVER learn to ride a bike if you quit every time you fall off. Switching bikes won't help. You'll NEVER learn anything in school if you change schools every time you get bored. You'll NEVER learn to program if you quit each time you get a syntax error.

Regardless of any other reasons, if you abandon relationships because you are bored, you will NEVER succeed at a long lasting relationship because EVERY relationship eventually has periods of boredom. You will have to learn to get over/through the boredom before you can make a relationship work.

I think that most non-religious people will have difficulty finding a reason to be altruistic. I think that it is still an open question if it's even possible to be altruistic

Ha! Yep, that combines this thread and the "who?" thread. Briefly, I agree. You can't get to a stand-alone "ought" without an authority. It doesn't have to be the Christian God, but there has to be something to make "right and wrong" absolute, really real, or its all just a matter of opinion.

HOWEVER, that is a logical conclusion that most Atheists reject. Thank goodness. The sense of the tao, that there really IS such a thing as "right and wrong", and that they really MEAN something, is simply too strongly built into us. Therefore, even the majority of atheist acknowledge altruism as a good thing and think that a marriage should involve actual love beyond the physical.

There are VERY few people who honestly ADMIT that they love themselves more than anyone else. Most at least strive for altruism, even if we usually fail. And I believe that most people entering into a marriage at least INTEND to love their spouse more than themselves. For any of these people, Monogamy is the best option.

[Jeff250]

Regardless of any other reasons, if you abandon relationships because you are bored, you will NEVER succeed at a long lasting relationship because EVERY relationship eventually has periods of boredom.

I don't think that there's anyone advocating that somebody should abandon a monogamous relationship at "EVERY" first site of boredom. Remember, I'm against this whole idea of creating absolute rules in the first place. I think that there would be more variables in play for an individual to end a monogamous relationship due to boredom. For example, if there has been boredom for the last three months, and she is cutting herself, and your female office cohort wants you badly, then you might want out.

HOWEVER, that is a logical conclusion that most Atheists reject.

I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of atheists believe in objective morality, either for or against. How are you coming to this conclusion?

Thank goodness.

Cart before the horse?

[Bet51987]

But I think that such altruism as required for monogamy can only arise out of a source of duty. For Christians, this may be God, but for nonreligious people, there isn't an immediately available source of duty from which altruism can spring.

I just want to get something straight and not out to cause trouble.

Altruism is the practice of placing others before oneself

Are you implying that atheists are different? That we would have difficulty adhering to a monogamous relationship?

Bee

[Kilarin]

I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of atheists believe in objective morality,

Personal experiance only. Most of the atheist I know believe in objective morality.

[Jeff250]

I just want to get something straight and not out to cause trouble.

Altruism is the practice of placing others before oneself

Are you implying that atheists are different? That we would have difficulty adhering to a monogamous relationship?

Atheists have a harder time trying to come up with a reason to justify staying in a monogamous relationship when they don't want to or don't think that it would be in their best interests. This is because the source of duty that one might derive from believing in following God might not be obvious to somebody who doesn't believe in God. Other options for obtaining this duty can come from nature, i.e. ethical naturalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
...but tend to lead to consequentialist theories that deal with what is best for one's own or a group's interests anyways. So these would still be inadequate in explaining why someone should do something, like stay in a monogamous relationship, when it seems to go against one's own or a group's interests. So the problem isn't necessarily that atheists can't act altruistically, but that it is hard for them to justify it.

Another debatable view that might stifle the possibility of altruism all together is egoism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
According to egoism, even seeming altruistic acts are done for our own interests, i.e. to get into heaven, to feel good about ourselves, for reciprocation, etc. So in this case, according to egoism, one might stay in a monogamous relationship against all odds to satisfy one's conscience (by doing the "right thing"), for feelings of romanticism, etc.

[Bet51987]

I just want to get something straight and not out to cause trouble.

Altruism is the practice of placing others before oneself

Are you implying that atheists are different? That we would have difficulty adhering to a monogamous relationship?

Atheists have a harder time trying to come up with a reason to justify staying in a monogamous relationship when they don't want to or don't think that it would be in their best interests. This is because the source of duty that one might derive from believing in following God might not be obvious to somebody who doesn't believe in God. Other options for obtaining this duty can come from nature, i.e. ethical naturalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism
...but tend to lead to consequentialist theories that deal with what is best for one's own or a group's interests anyways. So these would still be inadequate in explaining why someone should do something, like stay in a monogamous relationship, when it seems to go against one's own or a group's interests. So the problem isn't necessarily that atheists can't act altruistically, but that it is hard for them to justify it.

Another debatable view that might stifle the possibility of altruism all together is egoism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
According to egoism, even seeming altruistic acts are done for our own interests, i.e. to get into heaven, to feel good about ourselves, for reciprocation, etc. So in this case, according to egoism, one might stay in a monogamous relationship against all odds to satisfy one's conscience (by doing the "right thing"), for feelings of romanticism, etc.

I understand what you were saying and I read the links but to me their too cold, too technical, and devoid of any real feeling. The bottom line to me was the very simple statement posted by Kilarin. ----"The entire idea is pointless to anyone who doesn't intend to love their spouse altruistically. You don't have to be a Christian, but if you are ONLY interested in yourself, Monogamy will not do
much for you."---- Well, thats what I believe too. Altruistic acts are common to both theists and atheists in like degrees so its really not a debating point or that atheists have a hard time justifying.

If religious people want to justify a failed marriage for the sake of a religious directive from god, or simply feel that the eyes of the parish will see them as failures, (group's interests) then they are wrong and I feel very sorry for them for living a lie thats trapping them both in a loveless marriage.

In the grand universe, your life is a mere blink and you should not spend it married to a partner who doesn't love you back. I've seen first hand the pain my mother caused my father and me. I've seem him try as hard as a religious person could do, but she just didn't want to be saddled with a kid and took it out on him. She was such a good Christian. He is happy now with his girlfriend of a few years that he met in church and that I have accepted from the start. He's happy and I am too.

Love and monogomy are not God given and they have nothing to do with theism or atheism but is simply a natural, emotional, evolutionary, process of who we are. In fact, humans don't cut it as well as birds. Its said that birds are the most monogomous creatures in the world and yet they know no God.

Bee

[Kilarin]

your life is a mere blink and you should not spend it married to a partner who doesn't love you back. I've seen first hand the pain my mother caused my father and me.

Like I said, I believe there ARE legitimate reasons to break up marriages, and I wouldn't even TRY to define at exactly what point a marriage should be broken up. I AM willing to say that "boredom" is BELOW that threshold though.

But the entire "when should you break up a marriage" debate only relates indirectly to my original point.

Many people think that they can have sex with someone and its just a matter of "getting their rocks off". It doesn't have any effect on them, or on their future relationships. And this just isn't true. Sex changes you. And every sexual relationship that you have and abandon makes it more difficult to make the next relationship work.

It's like reusing a piece of tape. The first time you stick it down, the tape was clean and new and sticks well. If you peel it up, inevitably the tape keeps a bit of the old surface with it (and leaves some of itself behind). And when you try to use that tape again, its more difficult to get a good bond with the new surface. And after many times of pulling it up and sticking it back down, the tape can no longer bond very well at all.

The more you limit your number of sexual partners, the easier it is to bond sexually and create the kind of lifetime, longterm, loving relationship that generates the greatest level of sexual satisfaction.

Its said that birds are the most monogamous creatures in the world and yet they know no God.

Well, that point could certainly be debated!

[Jeff250]

Many people think that they can have sex with someone and its just a matter of "getting their rocks off". It doesn't have any effect on them, or on their future relationships. And this just isn't true. Sex changes you. And every sexual relationship that you have and abandon makes it more difficult to make the next relationship work.

The last sentence is sometimes true, not always true. There is no reason to think that having a sexual relationship couldn't make a future relationship less difficult, or that ending a relationship with one person could not lead to an even better one. As a matter of fact, it happens all of the time. The solution, then, isn't to embrace monogamy or monogamy plus a list of exceptions full force, nor is it to have a reckless sexual lifestyle, but a mean between the two, where one should decide partners and break-ups rationally.

Well, that point could certainly be debated!

Bet's claim was that birds did not know God, not that God did not know birds.