Why monogamy is natural

[tonyrey]

When an individual’s benefit conflicts with the benefit of society much depends on who the individual happens to be. A criminal wouldn’t be concerned in the slightest - provided he isn’t detected exploiting the honesty of others.

No response…

If “good” is what is subjectively acceptable everything is “good”!

No reasonable response…

If
you can show me anything that Jesus taught that a reasonable person could not have arrived at by himself or herself, then you’ll be ahead of the curve. Let me know…

Your question takes for granted the beliefs and values you have inherited from a society based on Christian values. If you had been brought up in an illiterate tribe far from civilisation it might make more sense… Even the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Christ that we are all children of the same Father and not related solely by an accident of birth which entails no obligations whatsoever.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So far, there has been no serious objection to Mr. Witte’s thesis. There have been some distractions (including examples of the natures of various non-rational creatures). However, I have yet to see anyone propose a purely rational objection to monogamy.

From what I’ve seen no one objects that monogamy is a natural arrangement. It seems that the objection is to whether it is the only natural arrangement.

 

[Bradski]

Your question takes for granted the beliefs and values you have inherited from a society based on Christian values. If you had been brought up in an illiterate tribe far from civilisation it might make more sense… Even the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the teaching of Christ that we are all children of the same Father and not related solely by an accident of birth which entails no obligations whatsoever.

So let’s take those Christian values that you believe I have inherited out of the question.

Can you show me anything that Jesus taught that a reasonable person, without any preconceived knowledge of Christianity, could not have arrived at by himself or herself?

 

[Portofino]

When an individual’s benefit conflicts with the benefit of society much depends on who the individual happens to be. A criminal wouldn’t be concerned in the slightest - provided he isn’t detected exploiting the honesty of others.

Let’s put it as simply and concretely as possible. I’ll start with the health of a body.

If the subjective goal of an individual is to keep that body alive, then nutritious food is objectively more conducive to that goal – i.e., more healthy – than rat poison.

We can question, “why do we have the subjective goal of wanting to keep the body alive?” but that is a rather theoretical question (a product of leisure time, which is a good thing, and of folks like us who aren’t constantly struggling to stay alive). If we were to ask this question to someone starving in the Third World–from what I understand, there is a much lower incidence of suicide in the Third World than in western, industrialized nations-- we might feel ashamed for doing so. The subjective desire to stay alive is nearly universal in human beings, as well as living creatures generally. To this extent, it is an objective human goal (i.e., not particular to me, but to the majority of human beings). And, as stated above, if the goal is to stay alive, there are certain things that objectively harmonize with this goal (food and water, clothing, shelter), and other things that are objectively harmful to it.

Now to society. The metaphor is simple – a violent criminal is to the health of a society what rat poison is to the health of a human body. This is why the prohibition against violent assault, murder, and theft, is universal in human societies that do not break down into chaos. If a criminal’s subjective whims clash too greatly with the “subjective whims” of other individuals who make up a society – if you want to count “staying alive” as a subjective whim, despite its near universality – then that criminal is forcibly removed from society, for the safety and security of his neighbors.

In connection with this, I do not ask why the Hippocratic oath states, “I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.” Thank God for our health care profession, which does not depend upon any religious belief. If a man is having a heart attack, medical professionals will rush him to a hospital where he will be treated.

You could have a society where medical professionals rushed to the healthy, in order to beat them senseless and leave them for dead. You could have a society where a fire department’s job was to start fires, preferably with as many people inside the building as possible. But, again, this would be “legitimate” in the same way that you can have a society where individuals will go to a restaurant to eat garbage and swallow sharp objects, topping it off with an espresso shot of rat poison.

If that were humanity’s preference, it would be a perfectly fine one. But it is not, and there is no danger --belief in God or not – of finding that “eating garbage and swallowing sharp objects” will become the new rage, or that the medical profession will lose its faith and begin doing everything in its power to worsen the health of its patients; or that the laws of a society will suddenly mandate violent crime, on pain of imprisonment for those who live too peacefully.

These are the only things that any of us can agree upon, anyway. When we try to go beyond this basic humanistic ethic – talking about whether it is lawful to eat shellfish, or sausage on Good Friday, or non-halal meats, or beef from the sacred cow – consensus breaks down, and we are left-- ironically – with our subjective religious convictions.

 

[Sair]

Let’s put it as simply and concretely as possible. I’ll start with the health of a body.

If the subjective goal of an individual is to keep that body alive, then nutritious food is objectively more conducive to that goal – i.e., more healthy – than rat poison.

We can question, “why do we have the subjective goal of wanting to keep the body alive?” but that is a rather theoretical question (a product of leisure time, which is a good thing, and of folks like us who aren’t constantly struggling to stay alive). If we were to ask this question to someone starving in the Third World–from what I understand, there is a much lower incidence of suicide in the Third World than in western, industrialized nations-- we might feel ashamed for doing so. The subjective desire to stay alive is nearly universal in human beings, as well as living creatures generally. To this extent, it is an objective human goal (i.e., not particular to me, but to the majority of human beings). And, as stated above, if the goal is to stay alive, there are certain things that objectively harmonize with this goal (food and water, clothing, shelter), and other things that are objectively harmful to it.

Now to society. The metaphor is simple – a violent criminal is to the health of a society what rat poison is to the health of a human body. This is why the prohibition against violent assault, murder, and theft, is universal in human societies that do not break down into chaos. If a criminal’s subjective whims clash too greatly with the “subjective whims” of other individuals who make up a society – if you want to count “staying alive” as a subjective whim, despite its near universality – then that criminal is forcibly removed from society, for the safety and security of his neighbors.

In connection with this, I do not ask why the Hippocratic oath states, “I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.” Thank God for our health care profession, which does not depend upon any religious belief. If a man is having a heart attack, medical professionals will rush him to a hospital where he will be treated.

You could have a society where medical professionals rushed to the healthy, in order to beat them senseless and leave them for dead. You could have a society where a fire department’s job was to start fires, preferably with as many people inside the building as possible. But, again, this would be “legitimate” in the same way that you can have a society where individuals will go to a restaurant to eat garbage and swallow sharp objects, topping it off with an espresso shot of rat poison.

If that were humanity’s preference, it would be a perfectly fine one. But it is not, and there is no danger --belief in God or not – of finding that “eating garbage and swallowing sharp objects” will become the new rage, or that the medical profession will lose its faith and begin doing everything in its power to worsen the health of its patients; or that the laws of a society will suddenly mandate violent crime, on pain of imprisonment for those who live too peacefully.

These are the only things that any of us can agree upon, anyway. When we try to go beyond this basic humanistic ethic – talking about whether it is lawful to eat shellfish, or sausage on Good Friday, or non-halal meats, or beef from the sacred cow – consensus breaks down, and we are left-- ironically – with our subjective religious convictions.

Good response. The only trouble is, as far as I can see, that for those who insist (as many here do - there have been at least a few threads dedicated to this notion) that meaning and purpose have to come from beyond the world we experience, then the near-universal goal of living things to stay alive really :: a “subjective whim”, since it doesn’t serve any eternal or transcendent end. The argument seems to be, “Well, of course we value our lives, but why would/should we if they just end with bodily death?” That, as you rightly point out, is very much a first-world question to ponder!

 

[inocente]

We can question, “why do we have the subjective goal of wanting to keep the body alive?” but that is a rather theoretical question (a product of leisure time, which is a good thing, and of folks like us who aren’t constantly struggling to stay alive).

The reason is surprisingly simple. Compared with those who have an urge to survive, individuals without the urge take more risks and so tend to die younger and have fewer offspring to pass on their trait. As a result, those with a trait which urges them to survive will always win out, and this simple math explains why the urge to survive is universal in all species.

(Nice post btw ).

 

[inocente]

Good response. The only trouble is, as far as I can see, that for those who insist (as many here do - there have been at least a few threads dedicated to this notion) that meaning and purpose have to come from beyond the world we experience, then the near-universal goal of living things to stay alive really :: a “subjective whim”, since it doesn’t serve any eternal or transcendent end. The argument seems to be, “Well, of course we value our lives, but why would/should we if they just end with bodily death?” That, as you rightly point out, is very much a first-world question to ponder!

Continuing from my post above to Portofino, we value our lives simply because the urge to survive is an inherited trait, end of story.

Which means that all supposed meanings and purposes of life are spurious and we can throw them all away. The real value is simply that it’s in our genes to want to be alive.

Admittedly transcendental beatnik types won’t like this as it puts them out of their job of complicating everything, but whatever.

 

[SonCatcher]

From what I’ve seen no one objects that monogamy is a natural arrangement. It seems that the objection is to whether it is the only natural arrangement.

I think Mr. Witte’s thesis is that monogamy is the natural arrangement for healthy families and society. None of the objectors has presented evidence that other arrangements are equally healthy.

Let’s put it as simply and concretely as possible. I’ll start with the health of a body…

relevance?

Do you mean to suggest that monogamy is the “nutritious food” and other arrangements are the “rat poison”? I would posit that most alternate marital arrangements would be more on the level of “junk food” though some might properly be termed “rat poison”.

 

[Bradski]

Continuing from my post above to Portofino, we value our lives simply because the urge to survive is an inherited trait, end of story.

There aren’t any people who don’t value their lives because…well, they’re all dead. I just love the simplicity of it. It’s Rule Number One: Don’t get killed.

I think Mr. Witte’s thesis is that monogamy is the natural arrangement for healthy families and society. None of the objectors has presented evidence that other arrangements are equally healthy.

I think that he may be right. I don’t think it’s natural per se, but a single partner at any one time seems to be the most beneficial arrangement in today’s world.

We’re certainly not built for monogamy. I’m sure God had something else in mind when he arranged for the male to produce millions of sperm per day and the female to produce one egg per month. From a bilogical standpoint, we (men) are designed to inseminate as many women as possible whenever the opportunity presents itsel. We can be fathers many times a day over a period of 60 years or so. Women get one chance to conceive each month for less than half that time.

That works OK in the natural world, where the male treats all females as breeding units. But we’ve reached the point where we realise that men and women are, apart from the biological differences, equal. So sowing wild oats might have been acceptable even a few tens of thousands of years ago, but it doesn’t work today.

 

[Bradski]

Interesting article on just this topic here: slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.single.html

 

[Portofino]

Good response. The only trouble is, as far as I can see, that for those who insist (as many here do - there have been at least a few threads dedicated to this notion) that meaning and purpose have to come from beyond the world we experience, then the near-universal goal of living things to stay alive really :: a “subjective whim”, since it doesn’t serve any eternal or transcendent end. The argument seems to be, “Well, of course we value our lives, but why would/should we if they just end with bodily death?” That, as you rightly point out, is very much a first-world question to ponder!

Thanks, Sair, for your feedback. I completely agree that – by those standards – staying alive is a subjective human preference; a nearly universal subjective human preference, which gives it a de facto objectivity (“If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”). If even early societies were anything like the scenario I described above – health care professionals finishing the patient off; fire departments starting fires; people drinking poison and swallowing sharp objects – we would not be here to write on this forum.

I also chuckle to myself when I think of that line in the 80’s film Ferris Bueller’s Day off, in this connection. Ferris’ sister is on the phone with the police – she thinks there is an intruder – and she tells them, “I am very cute, very alone and very protective of my body. I don’t want it violated or killed, all right?” The audience laughs at this last sentence; and they laugh because she is speaking of a universal human preference as if it were particular to herself, as if were even necessary to mention. But, of course, it is self-evident.

I also agree with you that the question, “why should we stay alive?” is a sign that we’ve been well-fed, well-rested – and, ironically, well-educated.

 

[Portofino]

The reason is surprisingly simple. Compared with those who have an urge to survive, individuals without the urge take more risks and so tend to die younger and have fewer offspring to pass on their trait.

This reminds me of an old friend who used to tell me, when she saw me fiddling with a Q-tip, “don’t put anything in your ear smaller than your elbow”

By some accounts, of course, the very development of human rationality was favored because it aided in staying alive (no claws, no sharp teeth, no armor-plated skin, but a high endowment of intelligence and memory). Reason was a survival tool, just as 20/20 vision.

Nice post btw ).

Well thank you

 

[Portofino]

I think Mr. Witte’s thesis is that monogamy is the natural arrangement for healthy families and society. None of the objectors has presented evidence that other arrangements are equally healthy.

relevance?

Do you mean to suggest that monogamy is the “nutritious food” and other arrangements are the “rat poison”? I would posit that most alternate marital arrangements would be more on the level of “junk food” though some might properly be termed “rat poison”.

Your position that monogamy is natural aligns pretty well with the late Stanley Kubrick’s thoughts on the subject. There was an interview he gave some decades ago, where the journalist wrote (of 2001: A Space Odyssey):

"For all their misery, those creatures had at least the warmth and nearness of one another – huddling in the night, there was for them at least that palpable and vivid solace. For that bond – too basic even to be called ‘love’ – there can be no substitute, not can it be transcended: [says Kubrick] “There are very few things in this world that have an unquestionable importance in and of themselves and are not susceptible to debate and rational argument, but the family is one of them.”

Like Freud, Kubrick was a family man (some of those values went into his last film, Eyes Wide Shut) and he did seem to believe that the monogamous nuclear family was “evolutionary” (and, perhaps, necessary not only for social order, but for our collective survival). What does seem indisputable is that a strong marriage cannot exist without trust and loyalty, anymore than a strong friendship can. Whether trust and loyalty can exist in a marriage that does not have monogamy, is an interesting question.

 

[ValPal]

Like Freud, Kubrick was a family man (some of those values went into his last film, Eyes Wide Shut) and he did seem to believe that the monogamous nuclear family was “evolutionary” (and, perhaps, necessary not only for social order, but for our collective survival). What does seem indisputable is that a strong marriage cannot exist without trust and loyalty, anymore than a strong friendship can. Whether trust and loyalty can exist in a marriage that does not have monogamy, is an interesting question.

I’m no expert on the matter, but it appears that as a society grows larger, monogamy becomes the natural course of events. In some primitive societies, there often isn’t complete monogamy. But sometimes this is out of necessity, due to an imbalance of the sexes due to tribal conflicts resulting in less males than females, or necessity to increases genetic diversity. Larger society tend not to have these issues. There are some notable exceptions, such as in the Muslim world, but from what I’ve read on the subject (including books by former Muslims) it doesn’t seem to be terribly common and seems to cause major conflicts between the spouses.

FWIW, this also seems to be supported, indirectly, by stories in the Bible. Polygamy existed early on, not later on as society grew larger.

 

[tonyrey]

By some accounts, of course, the very development of human rationality was favored because it aided in staying alive (no claws, no sharp teeth, no armor-plated skin, but a high endowment of intelligence and memory). Reason was a survival tool, just as 20/20 vision.

Stephen Hawking has made the point that reason endangers the prospects of survival, as illustrated by our own predicament. The amoeba has outlasted many far more advanced beings because it has the merit of simplicity!

 

[Sair]

Like Freud, Kubrick was a family man (some of those values went into his last film, Eyes Wide Shut) and he did seem to believe that the monogamous nuclear family was “evolutionary” (and, perhaps, necessary not only for social order, but for our collective survival). What does seem indisputable is that a strong marriage cannot exist without trust and loyalty, anymore than a strong friendship can. Whether trust and loyalty can exist in a marriage that does not have monogamy, is an interesting question.

I’m going to stick my neck out here - again - and say that monogamy, as we conceive it in modern society, is very much a social construct, rather than a biological necessity. Not that this means monogamy is a bad thing, by any means - there are plenty of people who desire and even need it - but just that it isn’t a concrete requirement for human flourishing. My own experience and that of many of my friends, not to mention the growing grassroots movement towards polyamory, indicate that human relationships are as variable as human individuals, and that trying to force every person to conform to a pre-ordained model will only end in a spate of misery when individuals feel like they are failing.

What is essential to human flourishing is the recognition that humans need security, need relationships in which they can trust one another. That holds whether the relationship is between friends, lovers, parents and children, or whatever. We all need to know where we stand with others, to know we can depend upon others, whoever they are. No, I don’t think monogamy is the only natural configuration for human sexual relationships - that should be perfectly plain by now - but I do think that honesty, in all our interpersonal dealings, is a requirement for any kind of healthy relationship.

 

[Sair]

Stephen Hawking has made the point that reason endangers the prospects of survival, as illustrated by our own predicament. The amoeba has outlasted many far more advanced beings because it has the merit of simplicity!

And that’s why the amoeba has not had any pressure to evolve complex reasoning faculties in order to deal with other members of its species…

 

[Portofino]

I’m going to stick my neck out here - again - and say that monogamy, as we conceive it in modern society, is very much a social construct, rather than a biological necessity. Not that this means monogamy is a bad thing, by any means - there are plenty of people who desire and even need it - but just that it isn’t a concrete requirement for human flourishing. My own experience and that of many of my friends, not to mention the growing grassroots movement towards polyamory, indicate that human relationships are as variable as human individuals, and that trying to force every person to conform to a pre-ordained model will only end in a spate of misery when individuals feel like they are failing.

What is essential to human flourishing is the recognition that humans need security, need relationships in which they can trust one another. That holds whether the relationship is between friends, lovers, parents and children, or whatever. We all need to know where we stand with others, to know we can depend upon others, whoever they are. No, I don’t think monogamy is the only natural configuration for human sexual relationships - that should be perfectly plain by now - but I do think that honesty, in all our interpersonal dealings, is a requirement for any kind of healthy relationship.

I personally agree with everything you just wrote.

Honesty and trust is a requirement for true bonding; without it, of course, there is mutual suspicion, where you are living more in your head (“where are they going”; “who are they seeing”) than experiencing a free flowing of emotion. Fear is not a positive emotion in a relationship, either.

Between friends, though, it obviously is possible to have more than one of them, and yet not feel betrayed by a friend who has spent time with another friend (although, when I was a young child, I did sometimes feel this way. I was jealous of my friends). There was also more jealousy in terms of wanting to remain someone’s best friend. Eventually, it seems, most of us overcome jealousy and possessiveness in our friendships.

With sexual or romantic relationships, it is very different. Jealousy is more fundamental. The demand of exclusivity tends to come more naturally to sexual relationships. Perhaps it makes sense that we have evolved that way. People have killed over jealousy, and to be betrayed by one’s spouse – or to lose one’s spouse to another – can be among the worst emotional pain there is. The philosopher Ayn Rand had the idea that honesty was absolutely necessary, so she told her husband before she had a an affair – a single affair - with one of her young students, and she told him the reasons why she was doing it (“we are compatible intellectually and emotionally”; “this is no threat to our relationship”; “this is separate and temporary”). It didn’t make it better for her husband, only worse.

But the question of jealousy – not a particularly moral emotion, per se – is an interesting one, when it comes to monogamy.

Of course, there is also the very important question of which set-up is best for raising children; and what does or doesn’t constitute an unstable home environment for that child. The question is, to what extent you can have an open marriage, and still have the children feel that everything is fine (both now, and when they are grown). And if a home environment had, say, one father and two mothers? Could the child love all three of them? A child can love two parents, so perhaps it can love three?

When I was growing up, I essentially was raised by my mother and grandmother. The philosopher Nietzsche – whom I had spent a lot of time studying – grew up in a household run by his mother, his maternal grandmother, and two maternal aunts. Men were absent from the household, because they had died. Some are raised by one parent; some two; and some, three or four (if you count grandparents or uncles and aunts as parents). Some, even, were practically raised by an older brother or sister.

 

[Sair]

With sexual or romantic relationships, it is very different. Jealousy is more fundamental. The demand of exclusivity tends to come more naturally to sexual relationships. Perhaps it makes sense that we have evolved that way. People have killed over jealousy, and to be betrayed by one’s spouse – or to lose one’s spouse to another – can be among the worst emotional pain there is. The philosopher Ayn Rand had the idea that honesty was absolutely necessary, so she told her husband before she had a an affair – a single affair - with one of her young students, and she told him the reasons why she was doing it (“we are compatible intellectually and emotionally”; “this is no threat to our relationship”; “this is separate and temporary”). It didn’t make it better for her husband, only worse.

There’s no doubt that honesty entails a certain amount of vulnerability, but I think that is preferable to the stress induced by maintaining a lie. I have no great respect for Ayn Rand’s views in general, but I’m inclined to think she did right here, at least in being up-front about her intentions. Whether it was right to go through with the affair once her husband made his feelings clear (assuming he did!) is a different question, though.

But the question of jealousy – not a particularly moral emotion, per se – is an interesting one, when it comes to monogamy.

Jealousy is, in general, based upon fear - the fear of losing the loved one, or losing your position in their life, losing your own sense of security. As such, it’s possible to overcome jealousy through honest dealing with others. Not necessarily easy to overcome, but possible!

Of course, there is also the very important question of which set-up is best for raising children; and what does or doesn’t constitute an unstable home environment for that child. The question is, to what extent you can have an open marriage, and still have the children feel that everything is fine (both now, and when they are grown). And if a home environment had, say, one father and two mothers? Could the child love all three of them? A child can love two parents, so perhaps it can love three?

When I was growing up, I essentially was raised by my mother and grandmother. The philosopher Nietzsche – whom I had spent a lot of time studying – grew up in a household run by his mother, his maternal grandmother, and two maternal aunts. Men were absent from the household, because they had died. Some are raised by one parent; some two; and some, three or four (if you count grandparents or uncles and aunts as parents). Some, even, were practically raised by an older brother or sister.

Of course the need for security is particularly pronounced in childhood. Based, again, on my own observations - not first-hand as yet, but of several of my friends - I would say that yes, it is possible for children to love more than two parents. I can’t remember who said/wrote this, but it was in regard to single parents and blended families and so forth - that divorce has replaced death as the phenomenon that “breaks up” families. I suspect that situations like Nietzsche’s were not at all uncommon in past centuries. And it seems that children can be surprisingly resilient, provided they are allowed to have confidence in the care of those adults who have charge of raising them - whether those adults are their biological parents or not.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The reason is surprisingly simple. Compared with those who have an urge to survive, individuals without the urge take more risks and so tend to die younger and have fewer offspring to pass on their trait. As a result, those with a trait which urges them to survive will always win out, and this simple math explains why the urge to survive is universal in all species.

(Nice post btw ).

Not so simple. Young women tend to be attracted to those who are best able to protect them, so risk-takers and physically dominant males have a greater chance of mating and passing on their genes at an earlier age, when becoming pregnant is easier for the female. Those who shy from risk and confrontation may avoid danger, but also avoid talking to the female who could be his mate.

G.K. Chesterton said monogamy is natural because bonding with one other who knows our heart speaks to what makes us happiest, especially when times are rough:

“Through all this ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why, in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy.”