Are human beings naturally monogamous?

[sanabas]

As most of us can agree, people's opinions on topics are dictated by their subconcious needs.

Nope, I don't agree. That seems to suggest that logic is simply a tool to try and justify an emotion based opinion, rather than a way to look at something and form an opinion objectively.

I don't agree with your other two generalisations either. If you want to reply to this post, please take it to a new thread though, as it's way OT for this thread.

 

[MattJek]

Oh how did I miss this one...

Anyway, how is it not beneficial in modern times? Remember that 'beneficial' here means "beneficial to your genetic code" and not "beneficial to your socialeconomic outlook". In this case, the dirt poor peasant class daddy with 6 (surviving and reproducing) emaciated kids is considered "more successful" than the single child mom with every luxury in the world. We are evaluating stuff in terms of reproductive propogation and not in terms of personal fulfillment.

True, we're talking about spreading your genes and survival, not about child support payments.

 

[Narz]

i really dont think it matters. Humans used to **** in the woods. Obviously, society and culture (not to mention hygine), has showed us that thats a bad idea.

I think Monogomy is one of those inovations

What's wrong with s***ing in the woods?

 

[classical_hero]

It seems to be that most people are forgetting that young women are the major force that is growing as a group that is being more and more promiscious, so the issue does not just effect men.

WRT to my first post, I was taking the issue from a different side issue. I was coming from the view that if polygamy is not natural then monogamy must then be natural. I was taking the issue from reverse.

Now if you take this issue from the Bible's POV, then Monogamy was what was intended and then polygamy is a rebellion from what was intended.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In 5000 years of history regardless of what the societal rules of marriage have been, men and women have had lots of sex outside of monogamous relationships. The facts say, we like sex and will have it frequently with almost anyone who is available. Enforced monogamy is just one of many efforts communities use to reduce the tension produced by uncontrolled sexual behavior.

 

[MattJek]

What's wrong with s***ing in the woods?

I'd like to know that too... and how is monogamy an innovation over polygamy?

 

[Birdjaguar]

... and how is monogamy an innovation over polygamy?

More females in circualtion and available to less fit men. Less competition for females means less fighting between males. Less fighting between men means more effort on productive things.

 

[MattJek]

More females in circualtion and available to less fit men. Less competition for females means less fighting between males. Less fighting between men means more effort on productive things.

Equal distribution to unequal people.... sounds like communism to me

 

[Narz]

Because in ancient times, it was beneficial to be polygamous - in modern times it is not. If you want God to miraculously change our instincts, well, he doesn't quite roll like that.

Of course he doesn't "roll like that" because (IMO) he doesn't roll at all.

(This raises an interesting discussion about whether it was immoral to be a polygamist in ancient times. But that also raises questions about when exactly man became man, when we acquired souls, when we stopped being polygamists, and when God contacted man. )

When "we" accquired souls? When God contacted man? (I thought he created man ), polygamy = no soul?

You're cracking me up Gannon. Good thing I fixed my cats, look like I save their souls.

He did. We fell.

Look, the question is a pointless one. If you're asking what man naturally does, then you're asking about the nature of man. If you believe that man possesses a divine nature, then the behaviour of beasts in his evolutionary ancestry is irrelevant, and morals dictate how he must behave. If you think that man possesses free will, then the answer to the question does not matter, because man has the power to supersede brute instincts. I suppose if you're both a materialist and do not believe in free will, then what is right is what happens, and men always do what they want. In this case, the question is one for sociologists. They tell us that in fact man is mostly monogamous, with some tendency to promiscuity; what they did in the distant past is not particularly germane to what they do now.

You talk about beasts and brute instincts as if they're a bad thing. Why strive against them, clinging painfully to some moral code that has failed to make men happy for two thousand years? I'll take curiosity and the spirit of inquiry and self-understanding over a hard slab of laws any day.

To me at least, there can only be two answers: Culture wins, or instinct wins.

The former seems entirely superior. Culture is nothing but a modification of instinct - we can't let it lose just becuase instinct is persistent.

To me the latter seems entirely superior. And in the end it will trump the former. Think about it, humans lived pretty peacefully (occasional scuffling as chimps will do but mostly in peace) for 1-3 million years of evolution. Then comes "culture", filled to the brim with racism (chosen people), relgion (countless wars) and now pollution, starvation, genocide and all the glories of civilization.

Now if you take this issue from the Bible's POV, then Monogamy was what was intended and then polygamy is a rebellion from what was intended.

Uh-huh, and women have an extra rib too.

 

[Archbob]

By Evolution, no. If we were evolved to be monogomous, people wouldn't be tempted to cheat.

Its wired into every guy's head biologically to do as many fit and fertile women as possible. It society rules that try and in some cases successful at changing the natural inclinations.

 

[nihilistic]

I'd like to know that too... and how is monogamy an innovation over polygamy?

After agriculture and urbanization, the various local alpha males are probably no longer able to 'defend' all their mates. Think about this: In a group of 10 males and 10 females, the alpha male may be able to keep the 9 other males in line. But if you have 5 of these groups close together, there will be 45 males with raging hormones looking for a way out, those 5 alpha males won't be able to defend against 45. Basically, agriculture and urbanization clumped more prople together and forced a more equitable distribution of mates. The doctrine of monogamy probably came after a lot of people already participated it. The moral of monogamy is probably instituted long after the practice of monogamy is accepted. Most probably in the time before civilization that morals always followed existing practice as a validation of such practice instead of moral stated before new practice as a reason to begin practice.

 

[Narz]

Equal distribution to unequal people.... sounds like communism to me

heh heh, it's true, why should men who don't deserve a woman get one? I feel like that every time I pass high school kids, and see a foolish young girl swooning over some cocky punk kid who will mistrest her. Oh, how I wish I could save them all... the one's over 17 anyway (or 16, depending on the state) and show them what a man is supposed to be (on my private island retreat).

 

[MattJek]

By Evolution, no. If we were evolved to be monogomous, people wouldn't be tempted to cheat.

Its wired into every guy's head biologically to do as many fit and fertile women as possible. It society rules that try and in some cases successful at changing the natural inclinations.

Excellent, you summed up my argument in 3 sentences

 

[Birdjaguar]

Equal distribution to unequal people.... sounds like communism to me

It would be equal if all men and women were equally attractive and fit, but they are not.

Spoiler For Mathilda :

Please excuse my contradicting your sig, but the discussion here demands making an exception to my usual agreement with it.

 

[MattJek]

heh heh, it's true, why should men who don't deserve a woman get one? I feel like that every time I pass high school kids, and see a foolish young girl swooning over some cocky punk kid who will mistrest her. Oh, how I wish I could save them all... the one's over 17 anyway (or 16, depending on the state) and show them what a man is supposed to be (on my private island retreat).

Youre discussing a woman's attraction mechanisms now.... a whole different topic altogether

 

[classical_hero]

Uh-huh, and women have an extra rib too.

That statement is so laughable and so stupid that what I have said was a waste of my time.

 

[classical_hero]

By Evolution, no. If we were evolved to be monogomous, people wouldn't be tempted to cheat.

Its wired into every guy's head biologically to do as many fit and fertile women as possible. It society rules that try and in some cases successful at changing the natural inclinations.

Well then if that is the case, then there would only be one or the other. If man evolved to be promiscious, then everyone would, and the same could be said about monogamy. But we see both being side by side with each other and being contrary to each other. But you are correct that this attitude of promiscuity does stems somewhat from and Evolutionary philosphy.

 

[Narz]

Youre discussing a woman's attraction mechanisms now.... a whole different topic altogether

Yeah, heh heh. Maybe I'll start a thread about that someday.

That statement is so laughable and so stupid that what I have said was a waste of my time.

Women having an extra rib is laughable? Of course. But no more so than saying human's "invented" monogamy after polygamy. We're decesended from apes homeboy, whether you like it or not. And chimps and bonobos are pretty frisky little fellows.

 

[Taliesin]

When "we" accquired souls? When God contacted man? (I thought he created man ), polygamy = no soul?

Accidentally, yes, widespread polygamy was linked with an absence of human soul. Here's the picture: some primates gradually get smarter and begin to stand up, and at some point (I don't know when) God makes them human, a categorical change which brings with it eternal human souls. From this point, humans are divine beings, the same as we are today, and are called to monogamy. Cgannon's question was whether it was immediately immoral to be polygamous, which seems counterintuitive given the instantaneous nature of the change. He doesn't mean that polygamous people now lose their souls, but that monogamy, as part of human identity, was instituted at the same time as human souls entered beasts and made them men.

You talk about beasts and brute instincts as if they're a bad thing. Why strive against them, clinging painfully to some moral code that has failed to make men happy for two thousand years? I'll take curiosity and the spirit of inquiry and self-understanding over a hard slab of laws any day.

A "beast" is just a locomotive creature that isn't human. I kept my language neutral and just presented the options in order to show that the question is pointless. You clearly prefer materialism, and think that men simply do what they want to do, so why not act on the most basic of the wants. Fine, I'm not going to try to change your mind. But then, as I said, the question is a trivial one-- humans are generally monogamous, because they want to be, but sometimes they want even more to act on urges to promiscuity. Then it's not a question about what's "natural", because there is no nature to investigate, but about what people do-- simple empirical data. And incidentally: 1) a thing called a "moral code" is of a nature to be followed, so if it is really a moral code, that very fact answers the question of why we should follow it. 2) this particular moral code has on balance contributed an immense amount to happiness, both in this world and the next, even if it sometimes is difficult for an individual to follow it.

To me the latter seems entirely superior. And in the end it will trump the former.

Okay, but on your materialist account, it doesn't really matter. If men obey their lower instincts, it's because they want to, and it couldn't be otherwise. Ditto if they refer to culture in favour of their urges. If people do in fact act based on the influence of their culture, telling them they should instead obey their instincts is insensible, because it amounts to telling them they should want something else. We'll just have to see how things go, and maybe it will be interesting, but the result is not of moral import on your account: whichever people will have wanted more, that's what they'll have done. Luckily, your account is wrong, and we will achieve transcendent happiness in the end, but even without agreeing with that, you should be able to see why your position isn't one from which you can say X or Y should not be.

 

[Archbob]

Well then if that is the case, then there would only be one or the other. If man evolved to be promiscious, then everyone would, and the same could be said about monogamy. But we see both being side by side with each other and being contrary to each other. But you are correct that this attitude of promiscuity does stems somewhat from and Evolutionary philosphy.

No, thats not true because man has the ability to decide whats right and whats wrong. Our evolutionary inclination is to be polygomous but rules and laws made to protect society dictate that we are monogomous to prevent violence, jealousy, etc, and other things that would hurt the human race.

Ancient Jews in the time of Abraham or Moses weren't even monogomous. Abraham have a wife and a cocubine, clearely not monogmous.