RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Marriage

Friday
May 14, 2004

Marriage by Joseph Rowlands

If you see divorce as the cure to a bad marriage, the divorce rate can only be seen in a positive light. It's the divorce that's setting people free, and allowing them to refocus their energies on living their own lives and acquiring their own happiness. Sure, it's pathetic that so many marriages end in divorce, but it's not the divorces that are the problem. It's the marriages! (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (89 messages)

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 4:38am

I'm outraged! I am not a slut! Okay...yeah I am...

Seriously, I don't see what the big deal is. Stay with someone until you don't want to anymore, then get the hell out. It's the reasons for staying or leaving that are important, not the particular label of the relationship you are involved in, and certainly not the manner in which the relationship is viewed or sanctioned by third parties. Anonymous dalliances with the local tavern wenches are a bad idea, but so is suppressing your valid desires for the sake of some "obligation".

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 10:41am

Hi, Joe.

You wrote: >>Rat, a collective can indeed be two. When "the marriage" becomes more important than the happiness of the individuals, and the individuals have to sacrifice themselves for it, you've got a collective. And notice how marriage allegedly fights against statism. Instead of loyalty to the state, you ask for loyalty to the marriage (or to spouse, if you want). You have to live for other people, you're just asking that they go by a different group. You'd trade one form of collectivism and self-sacrifice for another. No thanks.<<

I used to think you were very adept at weaving strawmen to knock down ideas dyspeptic to your Objectivism. But in this case, I must think you have a fundamental ignorance of what we we're talking about. How else to account for your beef against the exchange of loyalty inherent in a marriage?

Objectivist self-interest does not demand that a man exist emotionally disconnected to all others. Loyalty is certainly within the realm of a man's self-interest so long as he rationally chooses the people to whom he will obligate himself. Loyalty is derived from the virtue of independence, in which a man agrees to exchange a presumed trust with another so that he will not find himself dependent upon others whom he does not trust.

Thus, loyalty is perfectly rational. It is the reason why I continue to use the same vendor for certain supplies I need for my factory, even if problems occur in that relationship, because I trust that vendor to do right by me over the long haul. So I vest loyalty in that relationship even if one of his competitors comes along and offers me a better price to break that relationship.

Of course, loyalty only makes sense in terms of a long-standing relationship. If all I'm ever looking for is the lowest price, then I simply play one vendor off another and show no loyalty to anyone. If all I'm after is sexual pleasure, then one-night stands will do the trick. Even if I decided to stick with one gal, there's no need of loyalty if our relationship is contigent -- i.e., once the relationship imposes an obligation upon me, it's over, and vice versa. However, a cheap price every time may actually cost me a lot if I lose reliable delivery of the supplies I need to keep my factory running. Hence, I will show loyalty to a vendor to get something more than what is good for the moment (lower costs) to obtain success over the long haul (sustained productivity).

Similarly, I will a marry a woman in a show of loyalty to her to obtain the happiness that mere sexual pleasure cannot provide. I think you are ignorant of what that happiness unique to marriage is. I may be wrong (and say this without any condescencion), but I'm under the impression that you are a relatively young man, so I understand if you don't know this. I genuinely hope that you will some day.

Meanwhile, Joe, I'll stay loyal to my little collective of two, despite the "sacrifices", while you enjoy all the lovers you can without any sacrifices to that autonomy of yours.

Regards,
Bill

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:28am

Hi, Jeremy.

Yucking it up with Joe you wrote: >>Anonymous dalliances with the local tavern wenches are a bad idea, but so is suppressing your valid desires for the sake of some "obligation".<<

I see a contradiction here. Isn't the reason why one-night stands are bad idea because they are totally devoid of obligation -- even the minimum of making sure you don't pass along in the course of your assignation the hideous veneral diseases that infect you? ;)

Don't you in fact value your relationships in terms of what you are willing to obligate to them? Indeed, can a relationship even be said to exist if there is no mutual exchange of obligations? Obligation is not a dirty word. It what we are willing invest of ourselves to bring about a desired result. I assume you would not balk at the notion of man obligating his time and capital to produce a successful business. Why is obligation to a relationship any different?

So in marriage, that obligation is loyalty to your wife to achieve a happiness you will not obtain elsewhere. Nothing un-Objectivist about that. Indeed, marriage is the rational way to apply our sexuality, because it puts sex in service to our reason -- i.e., we pursue sustained happiness in our sexuality over momentary pleasure in it. Thus, we are human beings rather than animals enslaved to the gratification of our appetites.

I suspect Rand, despite her personal mistakes, would approve of the choice to obligate oneself as a human being rather than liberate oneself to be an animal when it comes to sex.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 6/02, 1:41pm)

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 2:55pm

Bill,

your valid desires. Key phrasing.

As an example: Say your marriage has grown stale, for whatever reason. You meet a woman at work who turns out to be everything you've ever wanted. You realize your wife will not achieve those things you find most appealing in a partner. Do you stay with your wife because of an oath of fealty 10 days or twenty years ago? Or do you decide to fulfill your valid desires to be with someone you can truly be happy with? Obligations are not things we owe to others. We only owe things to ourselves--things meaning truthfulness, consistency, personal courage, and commitment to our values. A wedding vow may have been a solemn oath when it was given, but people change over time. Torturing yourself by staying in a lackluster relationship, whatever its nature, serves nothing and no one. One night stands can be bad ideas because rarely do they provide for the depth of knowledge of your partner, who could turn out to be a raving lunatic. It's not because they lack obligations--I walk around all day lacking obligations. It's because sex is the physical expression of love (not the physical expression of obligations to others) and love is what we feel for those that represent our highest values. Love is a feeling we accept on our own without duress or guilt, towards another person. There is no obligation to love others.

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 4:27pm

Jeremy...you dirty slut. For shame.

Rat, you uphold loyalty as some unthinking virtue that automatically produces happiness. Virtues are contextual.

It's obvious that you uphold loyalty as the reason for staying in a marriage, and not happiness. That's why you still promote this false dichotomy of sleeping with just anyone, and picking one person despite whether she continues to make you happy or not. It's like being in love with the idea of being in love. You're obsessed with the effects, ignoring the causes that would make them virtuous in the first place. You want a permanent relationship, as if that were an automatic sign that the relationship is good. You want loyalty, regardless of whether it is deserved. You've got a child's view of marriage. You're obsessed with symbols, and the substance is easily sacrificed.

Seriously, do you really think that just locking two people into a relationship (i.e., loyalty), automatically makes it a happy relationship? Just because it's too much trouble to break it off automatically makes it worthwhile? I feel sorry for you and everyone else who thinks happiness is this kind of witchcraft, and just by creating the right symbols it magically happens.

Jeremy's last post was right on the mark. But only those people who see happiness as a worthwhile endeavor will appreciate it. Those people who think that keeping a ring on the finger necessarily means you're still in love will cower in fear at the thought. It's not happiness or romance that they want. It's security. It's the mindless, effortless security of knowing someone will always be there to take care of you. It's a view driven by fear, not love.

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 6:00pm

I hate to step on anyone's toes but, after reading every post again, but I will defend Regi by saying once more that there are little to no fundamental differences in principle between his position and the majority of posters. Bear in mind that I am judging his position from the majority of his arguments rather than some of his unqualified assertions. Like Joe and Elizabeth said, the confusion does indeed come from the differences in how each "side" (for lack of a better term) chooses to define "marriage". Regi argues that marriage is not and should not be the license or certificate the government grants, a position that I now think is consistent with the principles of Objectivism. He acknowledges that for the majority of society, the opposite is the case, which is why Elizabeth and I chose to apply society's definition when we were arguing with Stolyarov and, to an extent, Regi. He even goes as far as to acknowledge (to my surprise) that sex for pleasure in itself is not immoral or irrational, and that a proper judgement depends on a deeper context.

On the other hand, there are three key points of disagreement that myself and, I am sure, the majority of posters on this thread have with the others:

1. Mr. Stolyarov's argument that marriage should be sponsored by the state, the reason being is that it promotes long-term relationships, and that anything else is hedonism (which I think is a false dichotomy).
2. Citizen Rat's argument that marriage is one of the essential private social institutions that not only precedes (and is not primarily based on) romantic love but serve as a defense against tyranny, and that sex outside of marriage as an institution is hedonism (I'm not even going to touch any of these arguments with a ten foot pole).
3. Stolyarov's, Rat's, and Regi's claims that the longevity of a relationship is a rational value, and that anyone who gives up on a marriage is probably not trying hard enough or did not pick the right person in the first place.

I cannot speak for Regi, but I am guessing it is with the third point in mind that Regi is saying he agrees with Stolyarov and Rat. His views are in contrast to the first two points, so I suppose it is very misleading for him to say he agrees with them. As for the third, I think it is simplistic to say that one should find the one true love that you will be for better or for worse until death do you part. I congratulate them if they accomplished this, but from my experience it is not that simple. People change, for better or for worse, and so do the nature of relationships. It is easy enough to say you will be with someone forever when you first profess your love to them but, like Jeremy said, what if someone else comes along that is a better match? Or, like Joe said, what if the other person is not living up to their end of the bargain?

To use the business example Citizen Rat gave, if that supplier that I depended on for the last 10 years failed to live up to expectations the last year or so, costing me millions of dollars, I would drop that supplier like a hot potato in search of greener pastures. Is it reasonable to foresee how a business partner is going to be like five, ten, or twenty years down the road? Is it possible to foresee, for example, a change in management, strategy, or technology that may be detrimental to our business relationship? What if, ten years down the road, I see some up-and-coming entrepreneur entering the scene and I learn developed a process that can put out twice what my current supplier does for the same price? Is it reasonable for me to stay with my current supplier out of "loyalty" or "obligation"?

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 7:08pm

Hi Byron, Bill, and Mr. Stolyarov,

Since I do not believe we have a major disagreement I am only going to say something about this:

3. Stolyarov's, Rat's, and Regi's claims that the longevity of a relationship is a rational value, and that anyone who gives up on a marriage is probably not trying hard enough or did not pick the right person in the first place.

This is not exactly my position. My idea of marriage is not something resulting from some ritual or state sanctioning (or licensing), but the inevitable consequence of two people who discover their life can no longer have meaning without the other, so long as both are living and nothing else bars their union. The "longevity" of that kind of marriage is the result of the fact it is what both desire. This is only possible between two people who are reasonably competent, intelligent, and objective enough to take the long view of things before making choices.

But, even though it is what both want, and both know what the ultimate value that union is to them, it does not happen automatically. Nothing of value in this life just happens. It does take thinking and work. Just as anything else people do that is going to last longer than a night, a week, or a few months, there will be temptations to do something rash that will spoil the greater prize, there will be discouragements that make one want to give up, and there will be times, when tired or out-of-sorts one won't "feel" like they are in love, just as a parent does not always "feel" very loving toward a child, even though they know they would die rather than let anything happen to that child, no matter how they "feel" at the moment.

Mr. Stolyarov may mean more than this, but I think Bill (Rat) has this same idea in mind when he talks about making a marriage work. It really amounts to a very simple principle--to those who have found a love that cannot for them possibly last long enough, there is nothing worth the risk of loosing it, no work too hard, and no price to high. To loose that would be the greatest sacrifice they could make, and they will not make it.

I'm sure you know people in the service who have thrown away a promising career over some stupid temporary fit of temper or desire to do or enjoy something that, compared to the career they threw away, wasn't worth their time or effort. Many people throw away a marriage they are perfectly happy with, and will never be as happy again without, over some desire, temporary problem, or misunderstanding.

Now I am going to say something about human nature that may surprise you. Many people whose marriages were arranged for them, and many others who marry for reasons other than that mutual love I have described, have discovered that after awhile they do love each other in just that way I described, and both could not imagine being able to live, or at least enjoy life without the other. Now, why do you suppose that is?

For those who cannot see any value in marriage, who never find anyone they value so highly life has no meaning without them (or no one finds them that valuable), or who are just unwilling to expend the effort and self-discipline necessary for the realization of any long term value, marriage is probably a mistake. So long as one assumes marriage means being tied to someone unwillingly for longer than they like, they ought not to get married.

Those who cannot see the value of marriage, however, ought not criticize those who have found the happiness which is only possible in that true romantic love that cannot last long enough. It is a little like a tone-deaf man criticising the opera lover from spending his money on "something so foolish." It would be foolish for the tone-deaf man to spend his money on opera, but for the opera lover to give up opera to save money would be both foolish and immoral.

Regi

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 8:14pm

Joe:

You have a bad habit of inverting what I write into an untruth. For example, you claim: >>It's obvious that you uphold loyalty as the reason for staying in a marriage, and not happiness.<<

What I actually wrote is: >>I will a marry a woman in a show of loyalty to her to obtain the happiness that mere sexual pleasure cannot provide.<<

Plainly what I stated is that loyalty is a means to end: Happiness.

Because I know you are intelligent enough to understand what I write, even when I am making a nuanced point, it is a fact that you are being dishonest when you impute ideas to me that I have never expressed. All you have in a forum like this is the integrity you can display by what you write. Why you would want to squander that upon me, I have no idea. I probably should take the sacrifice of your on-line reputation as a compliment, but I don't want it.

Once again, I'll advise you to do yourself a favor, Joe, and ignore me if you can't respond to me without compromising yourself.

Bill

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 8:34pm

Jeremy:

You ask: >>Say your marriage has grown stale, for whatever reason. You meet a woman at work who turns out to be everything you've ever wanted. You realize your wife will not achieve those things you find most appealing in a partner. Do you stay with your wife because of an oath of fealty 10 days or twenty years ago?<<

We're talking past each other. Do whatever pleases you. It's none of my business, so you don't need my affirmation of your choices.

Likewise, I'm not asking your approval of my choices. All I have done in this thread is report that there does exist a happiness that is unique to marriage and that is well worth pursuing. The dirty little secret is that it requires an OBLIGATION to make it work, such as livening up a romance when it inevitably runs a little dry, but then few things that are worthwhile come without effort.

I don't think you disagree with this, Jeremy. You and I are merely mincing the word "obligation". I say I obligate myself to my wife; that I am loyal to her. You say that your only obligation is to yourself, but I assume that includes your honor, which will cause you to do right by your wife. So the result is the same, however we express it.

Regards,
Bill

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:08pm

Hi, Byron.

You said you disagree with me on the following: >>2. Citizen Rat's argument that marriage is one of the essential private social institutions that not only precedes (and is not primarily based on) romantic love but serve as a defense against tyranny, and that sex outside of marriage as an institution is hedonism (I'm not even going to touch any of these arguments with a ten foot pole).<<

One quibble. I wrote that one of the great advances of the modern era is that romantic love was joined to the institution of marriage. I put that change on par with the Enlightment and the Industrial Revolution in improving the human condition.

As for not touching what I said with a ten-foot pole, what I have written is well understood by friends of liberty. I think you'll find some persuasive arguments for this in the writings of Burke, Tocqueville, and Hayek, just to name of few who have described the importance of civil society in restraining tyranny in government.

Another perceived disagreement: >>As for the third, I think it is simplistic to say that one should find the one true love that you will be for better or for worse until death do you part. I congratulate them if they accomplished this, but from my experience it is not that simple.<<

Of course, it's not easy, Byron. A happy marriage requires work. Seldom are two part perfectly mated, so disagreement is natural. (The plus side is that it often opens your eyes to new perspectives.) But why is this astonishing? Why should anyone be surprised that succeeding in a relationship as important as marriage involves some blood, sweat, and tears? I know I'm stating what I'm sure is obvious to you, but I just want to make clear that none of us -- and I'll be presumptious enough to speak for Regi and Stolyarov on this point -- is saying that marriage is simple.

Finally, you say: >>To use the business example Citizen Rat gave, if that supplier that I depended on for the last 10 years failed to live up to expectations the last year or so, costing me millions of dollars, I would drop that supplier like a hot potato in search of greener pastures. ... Is it reasonable for me to stay with my current supplier out of "loyalty" or "obligation"?<<

I don't let matters get that far out of hand. I stop the bleeding before it's a problem. I have had to use alternatives at times to replace an otherwise solid vendor who ran into a rough patch. But I have found that giving the old vendor the inside track (i.e., loyalty) to earn the business back has rewarded me. You have to be firm in business and make sure that your expectation are known and that you are serious about them. But ruthlessness seldom pays. You burn a bridge only when dealing with outright dishonesty. To do otherwise is usually letting your ego get boosted at the expense of profits.

The same goes for relationships -- just substitute profits for happiness.

Regards,
Bill

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:33pm

Hi, Regi.

I should've read your eloquent post first and save everyone the trouble of my hammering the same point about marriage requiring work. Thank you for saying better for me than what I said myself.

One paragraph of yours is especially good: >>Mr. Stolyarov may mean more than this, but I think Bill (Rat) has this same idea in mind when he talks about making a marriage work. It really amounts to a very simple principle--to those who have found a love that cannot for them possibly last long enough, there is nothing worth the risk of loosing it, no work too hard, and no price to high. To loose that would be the greatest sacrifice they could make, and they will not make it.<<

Anyone who is secure in his independence knows that the commitment marriage requires him to make to another does not compromise his self-interest. It enhances it. That commitment, if rationally made and maintained, rewards him with an invaluable partner in the pursuit of his goals.

You also made an interesting observation: >>Now I am going to say something about human nature that may surprise you. Many people whose marriages were arranged for them, and many others who marry for reasons other than that mutual love I have described, have discovered that after awhile they do love each other in just that way I described, and both could not imagine being able to live, or at least enjoy life without the other. Now, why do you suppose that is?<<

Which supports the point you and I are making. Marriage is a rational enterprise. Two people committed to its success will make it work and so enjoy the success of that endeavor. In many ways, the popular conception of marriage as a match made in heaven (or perhaps Galt's Gulch for Objectivists) is almost adolescent in its unworldly expectations. Disappointment is inevitable, and because perfection isn't had, it's time to quit. This isn't to say finding the right partner isn't crucial to a happy marriage. Rather it is to say that who makes the right partner may be something other than the stuff of fairy tales and Harlequin novels.

Regards,
Bill

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 1:18am

What too many people practice nowadays, is simply abandonment... abandonment that is then consolidated as "divorce".

It's a sad state of affairs, the way that people engage in so much profound fraud, in such areas as intimacy. What's worse still, is a culture that stigmatizes real honesty or that puts people in positions whereby they feel that they must lie.

At any rate, I've been a victim of this. You act in good faith throughout, making stronger and deeper trust attachments, only to be abandoned without any apparent reason. This destroys the human psyche in every important way. And we as a society say "Oh well, shut up and accept it... This rottenness, everybody does it, and therefore it's actually okay. Mind you, we're all now lonely and paranoid and dying of stress-related diseases due to the psychological landscape of today, but hey... Who are we to complain?"

As I said, moral relativism... postmodernism.

This is not a nation that puts a premium on logical dialogue, between any two people in any context, much less marriage. We continue to be a religious-mindset nation that focuses on the notion that "only GOD can know why"... Who are we to inquire? It's all in GOD's hands, we can do nothing. It's JEEEEEsus... it's VOOOOdoo... Nothing to do but sit huddled in a cave, in the dark, naked, rocking oneself back and forth in the dark, giggling like a lunatic, praying to JEEEEEsus and eating one's own feces".

Mmmm boy; now THAT is the power of religion: to drive you insane, and make you think it's for the best.

If marriage were not intertwined with religion, then it could become more of an institution based on open and sincere logical dialogue between two people. But it cannot ever be centered around logic, so long as religion is in the picture. Because logic is for priest-kings to employ in secret, and disguise as "God's will"... logic is not for followers of the religion; they are supposed to relish a role of being sheep.

Far fewer unviable marriages would occur in the first place, if logic and logical dialogue were enshrined as the sacred cows of our culture. People would understand each other much better before becoming attached, and if, upon understanding, it was then obvious that they were philosophically compatible, then they would get married.

Far fewer divorces would happen if this were the case. In fact, in those relationships that occur between individuals in our culture who DO cherish logic, I would suspect that much, much less divorce occurs.

But even if, let's say, divorce were inevitable, then the cultural emphasis on logical dialogue between people would compel one or both unhappy members of a married couple to reveal their true frame of mind and heart to the other, to such a degree that the problems could actually be addressed and remedied, or if no reconciliation were possible, that divorce must occur.

Under these circumstances, a divorce could occur with the full awareness and understanding of both parties that it actually is an importantly good thing, and the bulk of hard feelings would not arise.

People may say that true love is a matter of the heart, but the longer I live, the more I see that it may primarily be a matter of logic before all else.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/03, 10:11am)

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 10:32pm

Because it's been a few posts since your address to me, Bill, I'll re-post that entire post:

You write:

Jeremy:

You ask: >>Say your marriage has grown stale, for whatever reason. You meet a woman at work who turns out to be everything you've ever wanted. You realize your wife will not achieve those things you find most appealing in a partner. Do you stay with your wife because of an oath of fealty 10 days or twenty years ago?<<

We're talking past each other. Do whatever pleases you. It's none of my business, so you don't need my affirmation of your choices.

Likewise, I'm not asking your approval of my choices. All I have done in this thread is report that there does exist a happiness that is unique to marriage and that is well worth pursuing. The dirty little secret is that it requires an OBLIGATION to make it work, such as livening up a romance when it inevitably runs a little dry, but then few things that are worthwhile come without effort.

I don't think you disagree with this, Jeremy. You and I are merely mincing the word "obligation". I say I obligate myself to my wife; that I am loyal to her. You say that your only obligation is to yourself, but I assume that includes your honor, which will cause you to do right by your wife. So the result is the same, however we express it.

Regards,
Bill
-----------------

Bill,

No one's asking for your approval, and no one's looking to approve your behavior. Why would you say something like that? Perhaps I'm the only one who can't see the words "Validate Me!" stamped across my forehead?

In any case, where I think the flaw lies in us supposedly "talking past each other" is that you haven't grasped, or I haven't fully expressed (a charge I'll accept, sometimes) what I mean when I say "no obligations but those we choose for ourselves, for our benefit".

Why do you feel an "obligation" towards your wife? Is it because she mistreats you? Is it because she verbally assaults you? Do I value my wife because she's hooked on pain killers and vodka and tends to smack the kids around when I'm not home? Am I attracted to her because I find her revolting?

The answer to all those questions is (or had better be!), resoundingly: NO.

The only people I feel any kind of "obligation" (in quotes because the true obligation is to my own requirement for a good life) towards are those that benefit me, in whatever numerous and personal ways. I don't value people that don't benefit me, in some physical, emotional, psychological, or intellectual manner. Why would I? What's more, why should I? I wouldn't, and I shouldn't, unless I'm a masochistic miscreant hell-bent on self-annihilation because I think the pain and torture of martyrdom makes me into some glorious creature worthy of praise and pity.

You value your wife, and "obligate" yourself to her, because she benefits you--in whatever ways you wish to express it. But the institution of marriage itself holds no value. You could presumably admire the spirit and mind and body of your spouse just as much, or possibly more, without a lifelong commitment solemnized by some arbitrary "vow". I don't often compare relationships to business, but would you as a businessman value an associate who brought nothing to the table? Not even the reliability of an associate that consistently delivers over time and will eventually do so again after the rough patch is passed? I would hope not. I would hope that you'd have nothing to do with a leech of that kind, if only because I admire businesses that thrive.

One passage of yours I'd like to pay particular attention to:
The dirty little secret is that it requires an OBLIGATION to make it work, such as livening up a romance when it inevitably runs a little dry, but then few things that are worthwhile come without effort.

First of all, it is not inevitable that a romance will run dry, or true that this is the only cause for "breaking-up". People can be virtual Romeos and Juliets and still suffer a break because of some damning personal fault of one or the other. In that case, in the event of some momentous error made by one or the other, is there still an obligation to "make it work"? An obligation to whom? Or what? To that deadly little creature inside that says suffering makes one noble? Errors can be worked through, and mistakes can be forgiven, but just because passion exists between the participants doesn't mean you must obligate yourself, or sacrifice yourself, or crucify yourself, for the sake of what might--or even probably will--work out. Once a person ceases to have any value to you, it is time to adjust the relationship. That is inevitable, for a "good life". You must either work it through--because the current situation makes you suffer and you want that value back--or you must break it off. That's a personal judgement to make, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. But it's a judgement you must make for the sake of yourself. We can agree that leaving a stale or fractured relationship "as is" would be of little benefit to anyone, except Dr. Phil.

And another thing before I go:
You write:
You say that your only obligation is to yourself, but I assume that includes your honor, which will cause you to do right by your wife. So the result is the same, however we express it.

What would cause me to do right by my wife is not honor or loyalty or commitment, or any other secondary concept. Secondary because these things are borne out of love and appreciation of the value my wife brings into my life. It is my selfishness--my requirement for a happy and full and consistent life--that might spur any "obligation" forward. Nothing else.

Maybe we really were "talking past each other", and mincing the word "obligation". I doubt the first, and maybe the second is correct, but I thought I'd clarify some things anyway.

See ya,
J

"Have you hugged a soldier today?"

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/03, 10:41pm)

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/04, 12:59am)

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 8:26am

Hi, Jeremy.

Thanks for taking the time to expound a bit upon "obligation".

You and I agree that it is foolish for someone to obligate himself to another without the satisfaction of a self-interest. How great an interest is satisfied will rationally determine the extent of the obligation. Marriage, as traditionally defined, may very well be a rational commitment if what is obtained is a lifetime of happiness.

How does a person know he'll receive that in the bargain? On that score, I can only answer for myself, although I don't think my experience is odd or unusual.

Regards,
Bill

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 9:58am

Jeremy wrote: "Have you hugged a soldier today?"

I hugged a sailor last night (female type). Does that count?

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 10:21am

Yes, Byron, yes it does. : P

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 10:34am

No problem, Bill. But I think I was just reiterating what Joe's said from the beginning.

Damn...is that being presumptuous?

Ah well...Peace out!!!

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/04, 11:21am)

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 3:26pm

The obligation in any marriage, is to your values, and nothing more.

A sense of obligation always exists in life, and in one place every time: to your values. As your values change -- if indeed they ever do -- so does your sense of obligation. And just as some values are objective and sane or completely unfeasible and insane, so can the senses of obligation that they compel, be either good or evil.

And of course, all of this is, in turn, ultimately driven by both your inner logic, as well as the weight of the compelling evidence you have received in life, in favor of that inner logic. That's the essence of objectivity and true Objectivism.

If you value little else besides short-range pleasures, and you do not place any value in long-range investing in another human being in spite of any current shortcomings they might have, then yes... a less-than-ideal marriage will be an empty obligation to you.

If you primarily value short-range, constantly enduring, in-your-face pleasures where human relations are concerned, then Jeremy is right... you have an obligation to your values, to leave the marriage.

But I'd also like to point out that it's this same spirit -- that which relishes in the challenge of investment and venture capitalism -- which prompts truly ethical people to stay in a seemingly "bad" marriage, and/or choose to have children. They do not see these things as imprisonments, but precisely the opposite. To them, this obligation to their values is a resoundingly good thing.

It amazes me that many people who can comprehend the joys of venture capitalism, can turn around and think that staying in a "bad" marriage or having children is pointless and laughable. They fail entirely to see that the same spirit drives both activities: the challenge of making something different, rare, and grand out of what simply should not be... just like Howard Roark's buildings. They should not exist at all; but courage, vision, and the burning desire to spite the false notion of inevitability drive his hand.

I understand that some situations truly are hopeless, and warrant abandonment, but you can carry that too far in life, running away from everything and only being only willing to settle for that which, as you deserve, is your right. But perfection all too often must be worked at to achieve, and only rarely falls in your hand like ripe fruit off the vine. I think you will waste your life alone and empty-handed, by not ever learning to discern which situations are amenable to ironing out.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/05, 3:44pm)

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 5:10pm

Orion,

Not that what impresses me should matter to you, but I have been very impressed by our last two posts.

Especially this: People may say that true love is a matter of the heart, but the longer I live, the more I see that it may primarily be a matter of logic before all else.

And this: A sense of obligation always exists in life, and in one place every time: to your values.

And this: ...the same spirit drives both activities [marraige & capital enterprise]: the challenge of making something different, rare, and grand out of what simply should not be... just like Howard Roark's buildings. They should not exist at all; but courage, vision, and the burning desire to spite the false notion of inevitability drive his hand.

Thanks!

Regi

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 2:10am

Reginald,

I'm actually glad you liked them... Thanks for the compliments.

It's a bit hard for me to know whether or not I've accurately communicated my thoughts outwardly sometimes, unless I get feedback. This objectivity business is harder than it looks.