RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 7:25am

Link

Edit

Joe,

Thank you for daring to challenge two 'package-deal' collective concepts that even many Objectivists fear to challenge: 'Marriage' and 'Family'.

Many conservatives have long argued that these concepts, not the concept 'individual', form the foundations of a free society. In their own way, then, they advocate their own version of collectivism.

I can see future cultural battles over these collectivized terms as Objectivists seek to replace statist laws governing every aspect of marriage with voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Several recent developments in politics and technology support this position here in the USA:

1. The equalization of the law to recognize for women the same rights as men to own property individually. Amazingly, this legal recognition did not happen in many parts of the USA until the mid-twentieth century.

2. The increase of the life expectancy to spans much longer than when marriage originally arose as a human concept.

3. The increasing openness of the gay community and their demands for the same marital legal perks that straights enjoy.

4. The enormous divorce rate which reflects a wide dissatisfaction with monogamous, lifelong, legally committed relationships.

Dr. Michael Hurd suggests that we scrap marriage altogether. I agree. Harry Browne suggests that a "free" person avoid any legal commitments to a partner altogether. I disagree.

The third alternative is voluntary, well-considered, written contracts built on rational egoism. That is a long article in itself. But face it: If people had to endure as much legal work to marry as they do to divorce, many fewer marriages would happen and the state would involve itself less in our lives.

I suggested years ago on the SOLO list that men should have the same legal leeway as women to forego their rights and responsibilities as parents. Even though one list member called my idea "monstrous", I stand by it.

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 4/10, 7:27am)

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 4/10, 7:29am)

Post 1

Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:57am

Link

Edit

A great article, Mr. Rowlands. Knowing what impact these words, family and marriage, can have on people is vital when trying to make a clear and concise argument. And the same applies to other "magic words," including those that we are fond of as well, like "individualism," "capitalism," and "freedom." We know what we mean when we say these words, but investing too much in the values that these words refer to may cause us problems when we use those same words around others.

I think, though, that you're stripping the word "marriage" of too much meaning. Many people have made the mistake of associating the word "marriage" with a depiction of the relationship's ideal form rather than with the relationship as it truly is. And you've illustrated this point fairly well.

But marriage, within an egoistic framework, is more than "just a ring on the finger" and a way to make breaking up more difficult. Marriage is a formal, and reciprocated, declaration of commitment to another person. The spouses value each other to the extent that they vow to preserve their relationship for their entire lives. That formal declaration represents a firm decision, and if it's deliberately chosen, its long-term consequences must have necessarily been considered by the two spouses. Since marriage is a commitment, the couple can decide upon long-term decisions in full trust that they will continue to support one another.

That trust can be broken, but that's not what marriage means. Just because it's easy to get a divorce doesn't mean that marriage is an empty concept. Indeed, divorce also exists for a reason, the case when two married people can no longer meet their commitment to each other without ruining their individual lives.

If your choice of words reflects an emotional de-tachment from the act of marriage, then I can sympathize. I've known couples who would be better off separated than stuck with each other "for the sake of the children" or because "it's cheaper to keep her" or what-have-you. Nobody should make excuses for prolonging a marriage that's become loveless, lifeless, and beyond what it's worth to repair. But many people become happily married , not because they got something magical out of going through with the marriage, but because they resolved to make their married lives happy, and did so.

Post 2

Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 1:56pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for the comments, Luther and David.

David is right that other terms have emotional connotations as well. I focused on two with positive connotations, but there are those with negative connotations as well.

As for marriage, we could argue forever on that topic. I recognize that during the wedding, there is mutual explicit commitment of ones values in the relationship. If you got rid of the legal or religious nature of the marriage, you could still see weddings happening as an explicit statement of two people's expectation and goal of making the most of their relationship. I see that as an important part of the wedding. I don't see it as an important part of the marriage, though. Your expectation of wanting to be in the relationship forever at the point of the wedding does not translate into a continued desire. The relationship is not derived from that oath. The relationship is, in fact, the way in which the two people interact in the future. If they both put effort into making it enjoyable, then it is an enjoyable relationship. If they both neglect it, it won't live up to its potential. In practice, it works the same way after you put a ring on then before you put the ring on. If there are changes to the relationship, you have to be able to point to those changes. For instance, in the past people would move in together after marriage. That aspect of the relationship changed, and so you could talk about marriage as being a chang in the relationship. Nowadays, people often live together before marriage. Same with having a sexual relationship. In the case where they commit themselves to making the relationship last or be happy, it only changes if they uphold that commitment and it actually changes their behavior.

So my point for both family and marriage is that if you are meaning to talk about the relationships involved, point to the facts of the matter. Don't use an abstraction to say "this is how it should be", and then ignore the details. Just because two people are married doesn't mean anything these days except that there's a ring on the finger, and whatever legal implications it has. Just because people grew up together doesn't mean anything but that they have a shared past. If you want to talk about the relationships involved, you have to move past they symbols of those relationships, and view the facts.

Post 3

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 1:06pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Joe for this great article.
The article you wrote for the Free Rad was equally brilliant.
I never thought about it a great deal before, but it did make my stomach squirm a bit whenever I had the feeling that some partners got excited just at the idea of marriage and not at actually what it meant in terms of their "relationship". You often get the feeling that this type of mentality is often venerated not just by the Church, but also by Hollywood and TV. For example, films such as "the runaway bride" or TV sitcoms such as "friends" are perhaps extreme examples of this.

Post 4

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:54am

Link

Edit

This popped up as a random article. Very, very well put Joe.

Post 5

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 8:23am

Link

Edit

If you think philosophy is to win arguments and crush your opponent, then emotionally-driven statements and a barrage of arguments are the standard formula. If you believe that philosophy is just a kind of mental game you play to show off your intellect, then you might go for complexity, ridiculously long deductive chains, and a vocabulary that makes you sound like you're speaking another language. And of course, if you believe philosophy is a tool of living, and is a means of understanding the world and your role in it, you go with clarity, clarity, clarity.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!

They don't see that the person they're marrying is the same person they've been dating, and that the relationship is only different in that it's harder to break up.

Excellent point!