tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post3045855193559473288..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: More on Is/OughtLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-39781928703092546962008-02-11T18:28:00.000+00:002008-02-11T18:28:00.000+00:00You present a reasonable analysis of the monogomy/...You present a reasonable analysis of the monogomy/polygamy problem.<BR/><BR/>I think you've answerred all of my main contentions more than adequately. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>-Rob SchebelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-46576145372633095542008-02-10T19:44:00.000+00:002008-02-10T19:44:00.000+00:00The widespread practice of polygyny--multiple wive...The widespread practice of polygyny--multiple wives--shows that this is compatible with our sexual, conjugal, and parental desires. <BR/><BR/>But one can also see that polygyny has at least two major problems. First, there is often intense sexual jealousy among the co-wives. That's why polygynous marriages have to have elaborate rules for dividing the husband's time and resources among the wives, and why the wives often are ranked, with the oldest wife acting as the dominant wife over the others, while the younger wives are more sexually attractive to the husband. One way to mitigate the sexual jealousy is to have sororal polygyny--sisters sharing a husband.<BR/><BR/>The second problem is that polygyny allows wealthy and powerful men to accummulate so many wives that many men are left without mates. Monogamy is attractive because it equalizes the competition among men for mates, and in that respect is more compatible with democracy.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, polyandry--multiple husbands--is so rare that there are few historical examples, because the sexual jealousy among the co-husbands is too deep. It's easier for women to share a husband than for men to share a wife.<BR/><BR/>Monogamy escapes many of these problems. That's why it's universal--even in societies with polygyny, monogamy is open to most people.<BR/><BR/>There is a clear pattern here that reflects the character of human desires. Monogamy is universal. Polygyny is common. Polyandry almost never works. And although promiscuity is common, no society fails to establish some form of marriage to regulate sexual competition, sexual jealousy, conjugal bonding, and parental care.<BR/><BR/>Deciding what's best in particular circumstances--as in the 19th century American debate over whether the Mormons should be permitted to practice polygyny--is a matter of prudence.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-13012066748147496942008-02-10T17:13:00.000+00:002008-02-10T17:13:00.000+00:00Polygynous societies have existed throughout human...Polygynous societies have existed throughout human history, and some even argue that the U.S. is partly polygynous. So polygyny, or even polygamy, are not incompatible with stable families and societies. But they are both incompatible with conservatism. So I would be interested to hear what exactly a Darwinian conservative would say about this.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, however, I'm still interested in what standard we use to judge which desires are to be followed, and which are to be supressed.<BR/><BR/>-Rob SchebelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-20506501303794867762008-02-10T11:53:00.000+00:002008-02-10T11:53:00.000+00:00I think a naturalist could say that multiple sexua...I think a naturalist could say that multiple sexual partners, or other "bad" desires, are bad because they conflict with other desires of ours. Many partners might satisfy some short-term desire. But it would also affect negatively our long-term desires to have stable families and societies. If we reflected about it, most of us would find these long-term desires more worthy than the sort-term desire of pleasure. I have not completely made up my mind on metaethical issues, but It seems like this answer is as good as "Moorean" appeals to some quasi-mystical metaphysical realm. One could ask the similar question to the Moorean: Which primitive ethical properties exists? How do we know what these command us?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49975159665766552742008-02-08T00:31:00.000+00:002008-02-08T00:31:00.000+00:00Walter's observations make sense to me, and I like...Walter's observations make sense to me, and I like this piece.<BR/><BR/>So only one question remains for me. I don't fully understand how your theory decides which desires should be pursued, and which should not. <BR/><BR/>To use one real-life example, how do you determine whether individuals should be allowed to pursue their natural desires for multiple sex partners? <BR/><BR/>Virtually every society in history has been polygynous, which would evidence that males desire multiple partners. However, there is also recent evidence in evolutionary psych that women desire multiple partners, especially during certain times in their menstrual cycles.<BR/><BR/>How would a Darwinian conservative determine whether men and women should follow or supress these desires? How would a Darwinian conservative determine whether a political regime should allow or disallow polygamy?<BR/><BR/>More abstractly, by what standard does one determine which desires are "good" and "bad?" It would seem that one could not appeal to desires to determine which desires are allowable. It would seem that some other standard would have to be used. I don't think you could use "prudence" in this instance, because prudence seems only to assist the desires not to contradict one another by your account.<BR/><BR/>This is where I'm guessing ethical naturalism becomes problematic and ethical objectivism (like that of G.E. Moore) is truer to our real ethical judgements.<BR/><BR/>-Rob SchebelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com