RoR: Forum

hello, Bill,

"what is the essence of Objectivist sexual morality?"

we can easily attain this, very broadly (I havent the time right now to come up with a detailed analysis) by looking at relevant principles.

given that the purpose of an objectivist morality is to further the self interest of the person who is acting, the same principle applies to sex acts as well as to any other sort of act: what type of sexual activity best furthers your own long term happiness?

beyond this point, if you want precise specifics of what exactly such entails, i'm not prepared to give a blanket "to do list". such would require some fairly high level research into psychology which I have not done, assuming it is even coherent to postulate such a list: it may well be the case that this varies from person to person, depending on particular context and sexual preferences. or it might be universal. I dont know: further research into psychological effects of given sexual behaviors is required. now of course, we can immediately rule out any behavior that would lead to the likely contracting of STDs as irrational, which would rule out undiscriminating promiscuity (if not promiscuity with people you know) and probably prostitution also. we can also safely say that marriage, in its current form, should be disposed of: as a handmaiden of the state, managed by the state, marriage is, well, an unnecessary infringement of the state. there may still be use for the ritual of marriage, but it should be removed from its current status as a government managed institution. it is not the place of the government to keep tabs on who is with who: the only proper purpose of the government is to protect us from force and fraud.

this doesnt really tell you that much, and I really don't have time to postulate an objectivist sexual ethic in much more detail right now (maybe later), but I hope this functions as a start.

Post 61

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:59am

Greetings.

Mr. Sacks: the first 2 paragraphs on abortion are from The Objectivist, the next 1 is from The Ayn Rand letter, and the rest are from The Objectivist Forum (which may have been spoken, but the first 3 are written).

Mr. Stolyarov: Very well. I have reviewed your evidence, and grant this point. So there are 3 more written paragrafs on abortion plus (if mine is non-repetitive) a fourth. Four paragrafs on abortion: compared to a book on selfishness, a book on capitalism, a book on epistemology, four novels, none of which make mention of the abortion issue, though they mention plenty of other issues in which I agree with Rand. Do you see how infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential an Objectivist's stance on abortion is in evaluating his general adherence to the filosofy?

(Let us say 4 paragrafs roughly equals a page. Rand wrote some 3500 pages, if not more, during her lifetime. If I grant that I may find in Rand's writings the rough equivalent of another five pages on which we diverge in some way, we still agree on 3494/3500 of what Rand wrote. This is equal to about 99.83%! Where I come from, that is A+ Randian thinking! :) )

As for the marriage paragraf, from the Playboy interview (http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html), much of what Rand states there is entirely in accord with my views on the issue. For example:

“I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives -- a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state.”

I have, to Mr. Rowlands' repeated dismay, constantly emfasized this: a person must wait until he is absolutely certain of optimal compatibility between him/her and his/her partner before endeavoring to marry, so that marriages are not begun with the intent to be dissolved sometime in the future.

As for "homosexual marriage," Rand detested homosexuality on an ethical and moral level, though she would never consent to politically oppressing homosexuals. She thought that sexual orientation was an entirely private matter, and anyone who publicly flaunts such orientation deserves the social scrutiny that it brings about. She would certainly not have consented equating homosexual unions with real, heterosexual marriage. (I have here only stated Rand's views on the matter; in my opposition to homosexual marriage, I prefer not to go into the issue of whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral-- my argument rests on the fact that homosexuals are not heterosexuals, and their relationship is inherently different!)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store

Author, Eden against the Colossus

Post 62

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 10:03am

Hi, Robert.

>>this doesnt really tell you that much, and I really don't have time to postulate an objectivist sexual ethic in much more detail right now (maybe later), but I hope this functions as a start.<<

Actually, you have said a lot. I think you are exactly correct when you say that the starting point for an objective sexual morality is the answer to the question: What best furthers your long-term happiness?

In response to your own question you mentioned a number of interesting things. For instance, you suggest prostitution would be immoral because it fails to further long-term happiness. If so denouncing and discouraging the practice by non-forcible means would be appropriate, even if outlawing it would not. On the flip side, I would state that fidelity is fundamental for long-term happiness and that marriage is the ideal means of institutionalizing fidelity. Because of their essential morality, advocating and encouraging fidelity and marriage, again by non-forcible means, would be appropriate.

This would not necessarily mean that adhering to lesser standards of sexual conduct, such as cohabitation, are immoral -- only that they are less than ideal. There may be a number of valid reasons for not adhering to the ideals of fidelity and marriage, the most important of which is that you have not found the right person to make such a commitment to. However, I think it is important that you do not lose sight of what the ideal is, even if you are settling for less at the moment.

I understand that some Objectivists here have different ideas as to marriage, but I don't understand the vehemence of some who disagree -- unless, it is their belief that making any judgment that one sort of sexual relationship is superior to another is beyond the pale. In other words, they believe any judgment beyond the issue of consent is inherently oppressive. It is this belief I identify as antinomian, and I think it is inconsistent with objective morality generally and Objectivism in particular.

The origin of this antinomianism is leftist, even if some its Objectivist adherents don't recognize that. Its purpose is to break down our ability to objectively distinguish between the normal and the abnormal and thus our ability to defend what is in our best interest. Once we cannot defend our best interest, the compassion-mongers of the left will tell us what that is -- which, of course, will be their interest, nor ours.

I realize, Robert, I am making a number of links here to chain the vociferous objections here against traditional sexual mores to some unsavory agenda of the left, but that linkage is there even if every link in the chain is not fully aware of it. Objectivists, of course, pride themselves on their rationality in these matters, which is why I have not hesitated to take some of the folks here to task when it is apparent to me that they have not thought through their denouncements of contributors like Stolyarov.

Regards,
Bill

[P.S. I posted this at about the same Mr. Stolyarov posted his message about Rand's comments on marriage. Looks like the old gal and I are in accord on the subject. ;) ]

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 8/04, 10:09am)

Post 63

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 10:39am

G Stolyarov II said: "I prefer not to go into the issue of whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral-- my argument rests on the fact that homosexuals are not heterosexuals, and their relationship is inherently different!)"

I'm trying to understand why anyone gives a shit about this? If we assume that the role of an appropriate government as it relates to this is only in handling the legal dissolution of such a union, then what does it matter what the race, color, sexual orientation is of the parties involved? The fact that heterosexuals and homosexual is different and that marriage was such and such a way traditionally has absolutely no rational bearing on the issue! This line of reasoning could lead to all sorts of other crap. What your black and she's white?!?!?! That's against tradition, so you can't be married!

Oh, and no Citizen Rat, this isn't a "straw man." It's a simple reduction of the issue to its basic premise.

Post 64

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 12:35pm

Hi, Ethan.

>>Oh, and no Citizen Rat, this isn't a "straw man." It's a simple reduction of the issue to its basic premise.<<

And that premise is what? There is no human nature? So there is no normal behavior? There are no objectively discernable needs to accommodate our nature? No needs once sated that let us flourish as our nature allows?

If human nature is plastic, if it has no form, then Objectivist morality is pointless. Only if there is no human nature can you properly claim that we can make no distinction between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one, or for that matter one between you and your dog.

However, human nature does exist, and we must reckon with what is it, and not what we wish it would be, if we are going to find happiness in this life. It is because human nature does exist, it has qualities we can objectively identify, that we can say this is normal and that is not. It is why we can say that marriage is the ideal state between a man and a woman, because it is the realization of the full potential of the normal and natural complementarity between the sexes.

Now, Ethan, if you want to hook with your dog, go for it. If you want to call it marriage, be my guest. But pay me the respect of not being fooled into believing what cannot be a marriage is in fact a marriage.

The thing is, I find it hard to believe you'd actually call that a marriage. But you are confused, which is why you did knock down a straw man in response in Mr. Stolyarov, even if that's not what you intended. He was speaking in terms of morality, not legality where the government sticks it nose in. A government issued marriage license at best merely recognizes the union that a man and a woman have already entered. That union is of their own making, and the government's recognition of it neither makes or breaks it (provided of course that the couple have forged a genuine union and haven't fooled themselves into believing the government's approval makes any difference).

In other words, don't confuse the license the government forces a husband and wife to get with the actual state of marriage that exists between them.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. You might find it worthwhile to read what Regi Firehammer has written on this topic in other recent threads He does a much better job than I do in articulating the desirability of marriage in Objectivist terms.

Post 65

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 1:08pm

Citizen Rat said: "It is because human nature does exist, it has qualities we can objectively identify, that we can say this is normal and that is not."

What do you mean by normal?

Do you think homosexuality is a choice or are people born with homosexual natures?

If they are born homosexual do you think they are some how less normal or "botched?"

Ethan

Post 66

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 1:39pm

Hi, Ethan.

>>What do you mean by normal?<<

That which is true to human nature.

>>Do you think homosexuality is a choice or are people born with homosexual natures?<<

Engaging in a homosexual act is always a choice, not a compulsion. As to whether one's desire to engage in such acts arises from nature or nurture, I don't know. I suspect it involves both to varying degrees in different people. I do find it interesting that for political reasons, gays tend to insist homosexuals are born that way whereas lesbians tend to argue its a choice.

In the end it doesn't matter. Human beings are self-aware, volitional, rational beings. People are not slaves to their compulsions, even if they are accidents of birth, unless they choose to be. I am certainly not saying that resisting compulsions is a piece of cake. No doubt some can try the most rational and disciplined soul. But that does not change the fact that we should resist our compulsions unless we rationally determine that following one leads to genuine happiness.

>>If they are born homosexual do you think they are some how less normal or "botched?"<<

Homosexuality is abnormal. How this can be controversial defies reason. Plainly human beings are creatures who reproduce through the mating of opposite sexes. That IS our nature. Adhering to that nature IS normal. Defying it is abnormal.

That said, there is not a human being on this planet who is not abnormal in some manner. For example, I need to wear eyeglasses. So having an abnormality does not necessarily make a person abnormal. However, if a person takes an abnormality as his identity and twists his life around it -- for example, person who has homosexual compulsions choosing to be publicly identified as "gay" -- then a threshold may be reached where it would not be unreasonable to say that that person is abnormal.

And none of this is to say that what is normal is moral and what is abnormal is immoral, though a relationship does exist between these concepts.

Regards,
Bill

Post 67

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 2:02pm

Citizen Rat said: "That which is true to human nature"

Now please define human nature for me.

"Engaging in a homosexual act is always a choice, not a compulsion."

So the same is true for a heterosexual act.

"But that does not change the fact that we should resist our compulsions unless we rationally determine that following one leads to genuine happiness."

So if homosexual realtions makes someone happy, then it should not be resisted? Perhaps your suggesting that no homosexual is genuinly happy. Please clarify this point for me.

"Homosexuality is abnormal. How this can be controversial defies reason. Plainly human beings are creatures who reproduce through the mating of opposite sexes. That IS our nature. Adhering to that nature IS normal. Defying it is abnormal."

But my dear Catholic, sex isn't only for reproduction. If a homosexual is born a homosexual then it would be against there nature to engage in hetero sexual acts. We can't be both rational volitional beings and slaves to our nature.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/04, 2:03pm)

Post 68

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 2:28pm

What this board needs is an "Ignore" feature where one can filter out posts from those whom you have no interest. Some stock market boards have this feature and it seems to work well. Those who are wildly divergent from the mainstream just end up talking to a blank wall and eventually disappear. This is a passive, civil approach where nobody gets insulted. I know of only one person, however, who I would put on my list as there isn't anything that he could say that would be of value to me.

Sam

Post 69

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 2:49pm

Hi, Ethan.

>>Now please define human nature for me.<<

Well, I could answer with a treatise or a tautology. As I'm not of a mind to provide you with an education, I'll give you the tautology: Human nature is the nature of human beings.

>>So the same is true for a heterosexual act.<<

Definitely.

>>So if homosexual realtions makes someone happy, then it should not be resisted? Perhaps your suggesting that no homosexual is genuinly happy. Please clarify this point for me.<<

They may. I don't know. But I do know that if giving into a homosexual compulsion forecloses for a person the opportunity to realize the ideal in human sexuality, he has probably made the wrong choice.

>>But my dear Catholic, sex isn't only for reproduction.<<

Sex exists for reproduction. Just as eating exists for nutrition. Now we certainly can use these things for other purposes, like pleasure. However, I wouldn't advise eating nothing but cotton candy because it tastes good. Doing so would certainly be contrary to the normal function of eating. It would be perversion that ultimately causes harm.

>>If a homosexual is born a homosexual then it would be against there nature to engage in hetero sexual acts.<<

Sorry, Ethan, but a homosexual is still a human being, not some other type of creature. His fundamental nature is human nature, just like a heterosexual's.

>>We can't be both rational volitional beings and slaves to our nature.<<

Well, in light of your preceding sentence, you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Regards,
Bill

Post 70

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 2:59pm

"Well, I could answer with a treatise or a tautology. As I'm not of a mind to provide you with an education, I'll give you the tautology: Human nature is the nature of human beings"

:-) Hmmm.... "I know why I believe what I beleive" is a line you used before in one of our discussions. Without defining it for me and yet relying on it in your answers to my questions is a nice trick. Please try to answer this question for me so that I can continue to refute your position.

"Sorry, Ethan, but a homosexual is still a human being, not some other type of creature. His fundamental nature is human nature, just like a heterosexual's."

So lets get to the nature question.

"ideal in human sexuality"

What is this ideal?

"Sex exists for reproduction. Just as eating exists for nutrition. Now we certainly can use these things for other purposes, like pleasure. However, I wouldn't advise eating nothing but cotton candy because it tastes good. Doing so would certainly be contrary to the normal function of eating. It would be perversion that ultimately causes harm"

So some homosexual relations are okay, just not all the time?

Post 71

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 6:12pm

Hi, Ethan.

>>Please try to answer this question for me so that I can continue to refute your position.<<

Well, let's talk about human nature as it specifically relates to sex. What are you going to refute? That there are two sexes? That the normal function of sex is reproduction? That none of us would exist if not for these facts? Exactly what level of fact about human nature are you going to dispute, Ethan?

Regards,
Bill

Post 72

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 7:10pm

Citizen Rat:

I said "So if homosexual realtions makes someone happy, then it should not be resisted? Perhaps your suggesting that no homosexual is genuinly happy. Please clarify this point for me."

You replied: "They may. I don't know. But I do know that if giving into a homosexual compulsion forecloses for a person the opportunity to realize the ideal in human sexuality, he has probably made the wrong choice."

So,by your logic, it would be equally un-ideal for a heterosexual not to have children or be married, whether this makes them happy or not.

You see, you wish to hold down people for not fulfilling your definition of ideal. They may be perfectly happy in their lives and choices they make, but to you they are abnormal and should be denied equality. That is the problem with the whole gay marriage issue, its all about something that is none of your business.

If you strip the religious ceremony and government licensing/taxing/etc away from it and bring it down to a voluntary contractual union between consenting parties, then what you call abnormal, un-ideal, un-traditional, and immoral is all crap. People must be free to enter and leave these arrangements.

Human nature be damned. You can't argue human nature must be obeyed on one side, and repressing natural urges on the other in cases of voluntary human intercourse.

Post 73

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:17pm

Hi, Ethan.

>>You can't argue human nature must be obeyed on one side, and repressing natural urges on the other in cases of voluntary human intercourse.<<

I'm curious. Do you subscribe to Objectivism? If so, then how is it you fail to understand that a fundamental aspect of human nature is man's rationality? Because a man possesses reason, he has command over his animal urges. It is not a contradiction of human nature to repress natural urges. Indeed, it is the epitome of it.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. If you are the one un-sanctioning every message I have posted in this forum, stop it. It is a nuisance to have to clear out my inbox with this childish crap.

Post 74

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:18pm

The math:

(Politics) - (The right philosophy) = The world as it is today

Rodney, I do agree with your little equation.

It's important that Libertarianism is given the correct grounding in philosophy. Libertarianism only says what you shouldn't do. Libertarianism alone won't bring Utopia. It will only create the right conditions for a utopia to potentially exist. In order for that potential to be realized, we need a philosophy giving us guidance about what we SHOULD do. And persuading people to accept Libertarianism does in any event require a proper grounding of the politics in philosophy.

What a shame Objectivism is the wrong philosophy ;)

Post 75

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:22pm

Citizen Rat writes, "Well, let's talk about human nature as it specifically relates to sex. What are you going to refute? That there are two sexes? That the normal function of sex is reproduction?...."

Well, YES. That last statement implicitly includes the assertion that sex has one, and only one, natural function in all humans. But in fact sex also has other functions, such as pleasure, and "sexual bonding" (that's anthropological jargon for "romantic love.") And those functions are just as "normal" in the biological sense as direct reproduction.

In the evolutionary context, men frequently and unpredictably died in hunting and in defending their families, while women died in childbirth. Those who had no children of their own were more likely to take care of their siblings' children, than those for whom adopting a child would have meant having less to give to their own natural children. So if your mother died in childbirth, you were as good as dead - unless you had a spinster aunt or a bachelor uncle to take you in, in which case you had a chance to live, grow, and reproduce. It is a biological advantage to have a childless adult relative. The evolutionary result of this fact is that some fraction of biologically normal humans will find it abnormal, for themselves qua organisms resulting from biological reproduction, to reproduce in person. Their natural function is to be substitute nurturers for children whose natural parents are not available to take care of them.

And here is their problem today: if they fulfill their natural function, and adopt and nurture children, the state - for completely unnatural, anti-biological reasons - will prevent them from giving their children a normal family with two married parents.

The reason for this unnatural obscenity is that some politicians and voters regard the different sexualities of different people not for what they are, the natural result of biological evolution, but for something else - the arbitrary creations of a weird god, who judges sexualities good or bad for reasons that we, poor sinning humans that we supposedly are, are just not smart enough to understand for ourselves. Feh.

Post 76

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:34pm

Hi, Adam.

>>Well, YES. That last statement implicitly includes the assertion that sex has one, and only one, natural function in all humans.<<

It implicitly includes nothing of the sort. Reproduction is the natural, normal, fundamental function of sex. All else is, if it is normal, is in service of that basic function. If it is not normal, then it is a perversion of that basic function.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 8/04, 8:35pm)

Post 77

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:38pm

Hi, Ethan.

Disregard the postscript of my last message to you. As I was clearing out my inbox, I saw that the vandal has attained a Three Level, which I believe you do not have. My apologies.

Regards,
Bill

Post 78

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:27pm

"Do you see how infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential an Objectivist's stance on abortion is in evaluating his general adherence to the filosofy?"

No, I do not. If an objectivist believes that abortion should be illegal, then he is not an objectivist at all. He considers it acceptable to enslave pregnant women.

If I held to all objectivist ideas, except that I advocated the genocide of Asians, would you consider it an infinitesimal periphery? I don't think Ayn Rand wrote too much about those who want to murder all Asian people. She may have written one or more articles about racism, but what is that compared to the volumes she wrote?

If you advocate the violation of a woman's right to her life, then you aren't an objectivist. Forcing a woman to have an unwanted child, or punishing her for aborting it is such a violation.

(i stress the word "If", since i don't know for certain that that is your stance)

eli

Post 79

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:38pm