Moral Perfection, What is the Objectivist View of It?

She was pointing out that if one person in a marriage seeks another sexual partner, then the passion in the marriage has gone, however much love may remain. The love is no longer the kind that originally led to the marriage -- whether the partners are willing to acknowledge it or not.

But, if someone's exclusive sexual passion is transferred to a third party as you suggest, but he still finds some value in the original relationship—emotional support, or something—isn't it reasonable for him to want to develop the new relationship while still maintaining the old, for the distinct values he receives from each?

Or would his having to divide his attention in this manner mean that neither relationship would develop to its fullest potential, as you argue above?

Post 41

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:35am

Nature,

Peikoff once answered a question like yours. He said something like: ‘the problem with getting these values from this person and those from another is that you have no complete relationship with either. Imagine if we applied it to sex: I’ll have foreplay with this woman, intercourse with this one, and I’ll orgasm with a third!’

Jon

Post 42

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:10am

Michael,
I fully subscribe to your "three principles of moral perfection" (whatever "moral perfection" is). If I can improve on my own symplistic version, it would be: 1). Be productive (I despise parasites); 2). Pursue one's happiness; and 3). Do not hurt others ("treat others like how you'd like to be treated yourself". Urgh, I can't even remember the original quote!)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 2/16, 7:11am)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 2/16, 7:12am)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 2/16, 7:20am)

Post 43

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:57pm

He said something like: ‘the problem with getting these values from this person and those from another is that you have no complete relationship with either. Imagine if we applied it to sex: I’ll have foreplay with this woman, intercourse with this one, and I’ll orgasm with a third!’

I think that's called an “orgy.” :-P

But the thing is, even in a monogamous relationship, it's still very rare to get all your values from your spouse. If you like football and your spouse doesn't, you'll probably look for a group of friends who share that value and spend time with them instead of your spouse when you want to talk football. Is your relationship with your spouse “incomplete” because you have to seek some of your values with someone other than her?

Post 44

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:06pm

Nature,

It depends if your question is on topic, or not. By which I mean, it depends whether you fuck your football friends and tell them that you love them.

Jon

Post 45

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:08pm

Jon - ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

George

Post 46

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:36pm

Nature,

More seriously, of course we obtain different values from various people in our lives. The question here, and the one Peikoff was addressing, is: Can we experience fulfilling romance from numerous people with various aspects of romantic love coming from each person, and would the experience be equal to a total romance with one person?

Can we say we have a romantic love experience when we have sex with three people—one person who agrees with us intellectually, but hasn’t a clue about us otherwise, another woman who responds as we do to art and music but is anti-intellectual, and another who disdains intellectuality and art but likes football? I admit that it sounds great to me—but I don’t think it can be equated to being involved with one person who understands us intellectually, responds as we do to art, and likes football.

Jon

Post 47

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:16pm

Welcome to the real world, Jon - finding that one may take a lifetime - and then the life is over.....

Post 48

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:25pm

Robert,

She may be hard to find, but harder than three as I describe, each OK with the other two? Come on.

Jon

Post 49

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:26pm

Robert said:
"Should your focus be virtue-centered, or value-centered?"

I say:
I don't see either one of these being in conflict with the other. When you encounter something that has an objective value to yourself, whether it is love, an occupation, a hobby, or a cheeseburger (I'm hungry for something beefy if you couldn't tell :) in order for that value to be fulfilled or to maintain fulfillment one must take action. That action, as long as it is honest and non-coercive is virtue in the sense that it is the means of attaining value. By being virtue-centered, we can be value-centered. I personally think that the future of the Objectivist movement will built on this principle. If people were to understand this crucial link between virtue, morality, and what they want out of life it would have great impact on culture. (this might be a subject for another thread) We must go further into showing people exactly how they can use this morality to improve the quality of their own life, in the same manner that it has improved mine.

Adam

"Monagamy, polygamy, bigamy, I don't care, just give me sex! SEX! SEX!"- Pianoman

Post 50

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:30pm

And isn't that just what an artist - a 'spiritual visualizer' - does, or is supposed to do?

Post 51

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:41pm

I was kind of expecting Joe to jump in here somewhere and declare that moral perfection isn't a state, it's a process!

Post 52

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:52pm

That is a great point Kernon!!!!

Post 53

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 11:44am