RE: Is long term monogamy unnatural for human beings?
April 2, 2018 at 5:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2018 at 5:42 pm by Angrboda.)
Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman monagamous.
It seems that we're arguing at cross purposes here, in that some are arguing that we should seek that state which in some sense is most "natural." Supposedly this comes from the assumption that we will prosper best by practicing those habits which best conform to our strengths as a species. At the same time, we have the somewhat religious notion that transcending our baser, more animalistic nature is what's best for us, in that when we transcend the mundane we are raised to a higher state. It sets up an interesting conflict in that the religious impulse tends to pull in both directions, in that the dictates of natural law should be reasoned out from our basic nature, yet also in line with the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity, that we have a "higher" and lower self, and we should always strive to the higher self so as to be closer to God. This impulse to avoid our "baser" instincts in favor of those influenced by reason and our less emotional impulses seems well preserved in secular society as well, which has typically pitted the habit of reason and rationality against that of our emotions and animal drives. Regardless of its origin, this seems a pervasive prejudice, yet I rather doubt the rationales given for it. I would prefer to think of it as pitting one set of animalistic instincts against another. This not uncommonly happens in nature when a species is drawn towards competing goals, both of which are of benefit to all or some of our species. For the male, the evolutionary pressure to sire as many offspring as possible pushes the species away from long term relationships, yet the needs for a long term parenting commitment due to the brainy nature of our offspring pushes us in the opposite direction. I have the feeling that our idealizing reason over emotion is likely similar in that it is not an example of a clear good which should be pursued regardless, even if such were possible, but rather that we need to balance our needs as emotional creatures and rational ones. In that sense, I think arguments about "transcending" our baser natures are just so much nonsense held over from philosophical assumptions that have outlived their usefulness.
Another aspect of the whole question of what's in our best interests, either individually or as animals, has to include the fact that the male and the female have different priorities in the process of sexual selection and reproduction. It would benefit the male to rape women to maximize the number of offspring a single male can sire, yet it is against the interests of the woman in more ways than one to discourage such practice in favor of stable and exclusive partnerships (for both the pre-natal and post-natal benefit of the child, as well as the individual interest). So ultimately I think there are a number of "goods" which we could aim to satisfy with sexual relationships, and that the nature of those goods has likely varied over time and different conditions. Arranged marriages for political and social advantage have a long history during which such habits were beneficial both to the society, and to the individuals involved. On the other hand, the existence of a unique religious culture that must compete with other religious cultures, such as the mormons, may argue for a situation in which polygamy is best for all concerned. And again, there has to be a consideration of what is in the interests of each sex, as polygamy where the male takes multiple wives tends to be a more prominently represented pattern than that of women taking multiple husbands, so it's possible that nature favors the one example over that of the other. And then, beyond these considerations are those as to which solution we are most likely to be adept at practicing, and in modern society that tends to favor monogamy. So there's no single answer that comes through clearly. Given the abuses of polygamy as practiced by some cultures, such as the Mormons, then polygamy should be avoided. However, if such dangers can be averted, I see no clear cut reason for avoiding polygamy. And again, all this has to take into account the cultural context. In a society that is organized around the kibbutz, or a more communal society than is typical in the West, may argue for different choices.
As far as what's "natural," from what I've read, polygamy is strongly represented in primitive societies. However I don't think our allegedly natural state is necessarily going to be what's most beneficial in any given modern society. So I couldn't plausibly answer yes or no, if the question is meant to imply which is best for our strengths and weaknesses as individuals and as a species. I think there are too many unanswered questions which can't be adequately resolved by appealing to how people live in primitive societies. We don't live in a primitive society today.
Man is polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman monagamous.
It seems that we're arguing at cross purposes here, in that some are arguing that we should seek that state which in some sense is most "natural." Supposedly this comes from the assumption that we will prosper best by practicing those habits which best conform to our strengths as a species. At the same time, we have the somewhat religious notion that transcending our baser, more animalistic nature is what's best for us, in that when we transcend the mundane we are raised to a higher state. It sets up an interesting conflict in that the religious impulse tends to pull in both directions, in that the dictates of natural law should be reasoned out from our basic nature, yet also in line with the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity, that we have a "higher" and lower self, and we should always strive to the higher self so as to be closer to God. This impulse to avoid our "baser" instincts in favor of those influenced by reason and our less emotional impulses seems well preserved in secular society as well, which has typically pitted the habit of reason and rationality against that of our emotions and animal drives. Regardless of its origin, this seems a pervasive prejudice, yet I rather doubt the rationales given for it. I would prefer to think of it as pitting one set of animalistic instincts against another. This not uncommonly happens in nature when a species is drawn towards competing goals, both of which are of benefit to all or some of our species. For the male, the evolutionary pressure to sire as many offspring as possible pushes the species away from long term relationships, yet the needs for a long term parenting commitment due to the brainy nature of our offspring pushes us in the opposite direction. I have the feeling that our idealizing reason over emotion is likely similar in that it is not an example of a clear good which should be pursued regardless, even if such were possible, but rather that we need to balance our needs as emotional creatures and rational ones. In that sense, I think arguments about "transcending" our baser natures are just so much nonsense held over from philosophical assumptions that have outlived their usefulness.
Another aspect of the whole question of what's in our best interests, either individually or as animals, has to include the fact that the male and the female have different priorities in the process of sexual selection and reproduction. It would benefit the male to rape women to maximize the number of offspring a single male can sire, yet it is against the interests of the woman in more ways than one to discourage such practice in favor of stable and exclusive partnerships (for both the pre-natal and post-natal benefit of the child, as well as the individual interest). So ultimately I think there are a number of "goods" which we could aim to satisfy with sexual relationships, and that the nature of those goods has likely varied over time and different conditions. Arranged marriages for political and social advantage have a long history during which such habits were beneficial both to the society, and to the individuals involved. On the other hand, the existence of a unique religious culture that must compete with other religious cultures, such as the mormons, may argue for a situation in which polygamy is best for all concerned. And again, there has to be a consideration of what is in the interests of each sex, as polygamy where the male takes multiple wives tends to be a more prominently represented pattern than that of women taking multiple husbands, so it's possible that nature favors the one example over that of the other. And then, beyond these considerations are those as to which solution we are most likely to be adept at practicing, and in modern society that tends to favor monogamy. So there's no single answer that comes through clearly. Given the abuses of polygamy as practiced by some cultures, such as the Mormons, then polygamy should be avoided. However, if such dangers can be averted, I see no clear cut reason for avoiding polygamy. And again, all this has to take into account the cultural context. In a society that is organized around the kibbutz, or a more communal society than is typical in the West, may argue for different choices.
As far as what's "natural," from what I've read, polygamy is strongly represented in primitive societies. However I don't think our allegedly natural state is necessarily going to be what's most beneficial in any given modern society. So I couldn't plausibly answer yes or no, if the question is meant to imply which is best for our strengths and weaknesses as individuals and as a species. I think there are too many unanswered questions which can't be adequately resolved by appealing to how people live in primitive societies. We don't live in a primitive society today.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
