Conceptualizing monogamy as a "restraint" or "restriction" on your partner's ability to take other lovers strikes me as almost guaranteed to produce a lot of fairly obtuse analysis unless we're thinking clearly about what, exactly, we mean by "restraint." My wife is "restrained" by my expectation of monogamy, after all, solely by the possibility that her taking another lover will cause me to do the same, or to withdraw from our current relationship in some other way. It's a reciprocal duty that seems to me more accurately understood as a matter of agreement or contract, rather than me restraining her (or vice versa) in some kind of criminal or regulatory sense of that word. And so then the morality question would become: is it immoral to condition your promise of monogamy, or even the continuation of your affections, on your partners' reciprocal promise of the same? I don't see why it would be, any more than it's not immoral to "restrain" your girlfriend by expecting her to show up at an agreed time and place for your date, and expressing your disapproval when she decides to stay in and watch Netflix instead.
I suppose an answer might be: the moral issue comes from WANTING your partner to be monogamous. But if that's based on the moral principle that "it's immoral to restrict your partner from doing anything that would make them happier," it's a principle that seems to prove way, way too much, since it would seem to prevent people from imposing any kind of preferences on their partners' behavior, romantic or otherwise.
I agree that reciprocality seems important here, though I bet Chalmers could make some kind of reductio like: "Imagine a husband who tells his wife that if she gains five pounds, he'll gain five pounds back, and they both agree that this would be offensive enough to totally destroy their relationship. It sure seems like there's something a little weird about that, even though it's reciprocal—if they were *really* in a loving relationship, why would five pounds bother them so much? It's a silly, trivial constraint, which is incoherent with truly loving disposition." And then he'd argue that monogamy is similarly silly and trivial (whereas date-showing-up isn't trivial)—I think that's the step where he loses me, not necessarily on the reciprocity. Though I imagine you could also bite the five-pound bullet if you wanted to...
Hi Ari, I wanted to reach out and say thanks for the thoughts; much as before, I'm enjoying the debate. It might take a little longer for me to write a response than last time, as I have some other things going on now, but I'll try to engage with this at some point in the near future. In the meantime, be well!
Conceptualizing monogamy as a "restraint" or "restriction" on your partner's ability to take other lovers strikes me as almost guaranteed to produce a lot of fairly obtuse analysis unless we're thinking clearly about what, exactly, we mean by "restraint." My wife is "restrained" by my expectation of monogamy, after all, solely by the possibility that her taking another lover will cause me to do the same, or to withdraw from our current relationship in some other way. It's a reciprocal duty that seems to me more accurately understood as a matter of agreement or contract, rather than me restraining her (or vice versa) in some kind of criminal or regulatory sense of that word. And so then the morality question would become: is it immoral to condition your promise of monogamy, or even the continuation of your affections, on your partners' reciprocal promise of the same? I don't see why it would be, any more than it's not immoral to "restrain" your girlfriend by expecting her to show up at an agreed time and place for your date, and expressing your disapproval when she decides to stay in and watch Netflix instead.
I suppose an answer might be: the moral issue comes from WANTING your partner to be monogamous. But if that's based on the moral principle that "it's immoral to restrict your partner from doing anything that would make them happier," it's a principle that seems to prove way, way too much, since it would seem to prevent people from imposing any kind of preferences on their partners' behavior, romantic or otherwise.
I agree that reciprocality seems important here, though I bet Chalmers could make some kind of reductio like: "Imagine a husband who tells his wife that if she gains five pounds, he'll gain five pounds back, and they both agree that this would be offensive enough to totally destroy their relationship. It sure seems like there's something a little weird about that, even though it's reciprocal—if they were *really* in a loving relationship, why would five pounds bother them so much? It's a silly, trivial constraint, which is incoherent with truly loving disposition." And then he'd argue that monogamy is similarly silly and trivial (whereas date-showing-up isn't trivial)—I think that's the step where he loses me, not necessarily on the reciprocity. Though I imagine you could also bite the five-pound bullet if you wanted to...
Hi Ari, I wanted to reach out and say thanks for the thoughts; much as before, I'm enjoying the debate. It might take a little longer for me to write a response than last time, as I have some other things going on now, but I'll try to engage with this at some point in the near future. In the meantime, be well!
Fascinating essay
Freeze up like stone; freeze up like ice.
He ain't takin' his chances; he ain't rollin' the dice.