Are human beings naturally monogamous?

[ketalis]

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.

Very well put. I claimed humans rejected polygamy after gaining self-conciousness, but this theory sounds more plausible. The alpha male system was unable to cope with collectivization of humans so it was replaced by monogamy.

I've said it before and I'lll say it again, any opinion about whether either system truly "works" is simply a byproduct of one's own sexual experiences, and expectations regarding future sexual experiences.

PS. What's with the moral/religous (ie DOGMATIC) debate? If anything, it is the least applicable subject to this topic.

 

[Narz]

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.

My cats have souls. They don't need your God. My old landlord's dog probably would have saved me from a burning house. Most (wo)men probably wouldn't. If modern man is so much "nobler" than primitive man when has he systamically slaughtered his "less noble" brothers all across the Earth (from North America to Australia and all places in between).

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.

All men do what they want. Except some fear their primal nature and try to cover it up with morals. Still, by denying their animalistic nature they become more disconnected and vicious than an ordinary man who can accept himself. I find most religious people far more vicious than a so-called soulless animal.

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.

Clearly the institute of marriage does not lead to optimal happiness in the majority of people.

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.

Dude, what's with "materialist", are you trying to insult me. All men do what they want whether they take responsibility or claim they are taking orders from Big Boy in the sky.

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.

Not sure exactally what you're saying here but whether people follow cultual trends or an ancient book either way they are personally responsibile and are doing what they want (choose) to do.

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.

Eh?

 

[classical_hero]

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

And you will see the problems that it caused. The fact that Abraham and Sarah used Hagar to be the one who would provide Abraham with the promised Child. But God always said that Sarah would be the one who was the bear the child of promise. So when Sarah did bring a child into the world, her child was kept being taunted by Ishmael, Sarah saw that things had to changed and basically forced Hagar away from where she was working. The fact that Abraham had a concubine cause problems in the family. Every time you do see a person in the Bible having more than one wifeor even having concubines, it always leads to trouble.

 

[Abaddon]

Its a balance.

There are benefits for the man to spread his seed as much as possible, but benefits if the female can keep hold of her man.

In reverse, if the male stays to look after his offspring, the chances of success are higher, and if the female goes with multiple mates, chances of finding a more successful match are increased.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Are human beings naturally monogamous?

Generally speaking no, but many are, which explains all the 'somebody done somebody wrong' songs.

 

[Taliesin]

Dude, what's with "materialist", are you trying to insult me. All men do what they want whether they take responsibility or claim they are taking orders from Big Boy in the sky.

I'm definitely not trying to insult you, but to make a distinction between accounts of the world. Men do usually do what they will, though I tend to believe there is such a thing as weakness of will. But a materialist thinks there is no real difference between following instinct and obeying reason in the form of a moral code or of submission to an intellectual discipline, because both are equally just doing what one wants to do. A theist will say that moral or reasoned behaviour is a different kind of thing than instinctive behaviour, not simply a more refined version of it. Thus there can be (and is) value in acting in certain ways, even against one's instincts. That's the difference to which I'm referring. My point in the paragraph you quote is that a materialist (and you do seem to be one, or at least to hold a generally materialist worldview, correct me if I'm wrong), by putting all action into one category, is not in a position to say that instinctive behaviour is normatively better than accultured, because all action is based on the same rationale (do I want to do X?) and thus equally valid. You could say it's descriptively better, that is, that it usually makes people happier to act on their instincts, but then you'd have to hold that most people on the planet stubbornly resist their own happiness all the time by choosing culture-motivated action.

Clearly the institute of marriage does not lead to optimal happiness in the majority of people.

That's not clear at all. I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to it (or a secular replica of it), and most faithfully, is evidence that it makes people happy. Just about every kind of sin is committed by a significant portion of the population, when they think it will make them happy, so the fact that this one isn't suggests that most people simply don't think it will make them happy.

 

[Narz]

I'm definitely not trying to insult you, but to make a distinction between accounts of the world. Men do usually do what they will, though I tend to believe there is such a thing as weakness of will. But a materialist thinks there is no real difference between following instinct and obeying reason in the form of a moral code or of submission to an intellectual discipline, because both are equally just doing what one wants to do. A theist will say that moral or reasoned behaviour is a different kind of thing than instinctive behaviour, not simply a more refined version of it. Thus there can be (and is) value in acting in certain ways, even against one's instincts. That's the difference to which I'm referring. My point in the paragraph you quote is that a materialist (and you do seem to be one, or at least to hold a generally materialist worldview, correct me if I'm wrong), by putting all action into one category, is not in a position to say that instinctive behaviour is normatively better than accultured, because all action is based on the same rationale (do I want to do X?) and thus equally valid. You could say it's descriptively better, that is, that it usually makes people happier to act on their instincts, but then you'd have to hold that most people on the planet stubbornly resist their own happiness all the time by choosing culture-motivated action.

I do believe that sometimes reason must trump instinct and the desire for long-term gain should trump the desire for short term. Actually perhaps having principles is a good idea, I just think everyone should choose (write even perhaps) their own code rather than subscribing to a code written for them (by others in their culture or religion). I also think all "principles" must be flexable to work in the real world. For example I don't normally steal but if the case arises where I must steal in order to aviod starvation (stranded in the mountains and a unfriendly caravan passes thru or something - unlikely example I know) I will do it without guilt.

That's not clear at all. I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to it (or a secular replica of it), and most faithfully, is evidence that it makes people happy. Just about every kind of sin is committed by a significant portion of the population, when they think it will make them happy, so the fact that this one isn't suggests that most people simply don't think it will make them happy.

My point was that marraige (more often than not) does not work (ends in divorce). I'd be willing to bet that at least a quarter of marriages that do stay together are also unhappy. Not to say marriage is bad, many people gain great comfort in marriage but it is to be noted that it generally doesn't work for the majority of people. I think it is time to expand the types of families that are culturally acceptable, and this is already happening (gay marraige becoming legal, perhaps in Canada polygamy becoming legal). I think people should be allowed to co-house in any way they like and get the same tax-breaks as a single man and woman who choose to marry.

Would polygamy or "marrying by group" (two or more men deciding to live with two or more women and having equal access to each other) work for everyone? Certainly not. Some would find it distasteful, others would not like the competition, many would oppose it on moral grounds. This is fine but I think adults should be able to live however they like (as long as they don't hurt anyone) and find it discriminatory that the government should only reward and recognize those who choose to live out the typical one-man one-woman heterosexual norm.

 

[ironduck]

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.

So did god do the same with other animals on earth? Did he all of a sudden give orangutans their souls as well? Elephants? Dolphins? Did humans only have that soul once they were homo sapiens or before that?

 

[ketalis]

So did god do the same with other animals on earth? Did he all of a sudden give orangutans their souls as well? Elephants? Dolphins? Did humans only have that soul once they were homo sapiens or before that?

I think in religious terms, a soul equates to sentience. Therefore, only humans have souls at this point. He seems to imply that upon obtaining self-conciousness, homo sapiens acquired souls. This was basically my original argument, minus the religious slant. That is, until I read nihilistic's theory, which is far more sound. I quoted it at the top of this page.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

IMHO women are much more incline to be monogamous than men. which is how it should be. men can have as many children as possible throughout their life. whereas women can only have approximately one every year. so it's natural for them to look for a man that will be willing to grant their children a good life.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Before talking about polygamy think if you can get enough money to support all wives and, main thing, think about teriible possability of having 2+ mothers-in-law. IMHO suicide is better.

 

[ketalis]

IMHO women are much more incline to be monogamous than men. which is how it should be. men can have as many children as possible throughout their life. whereas women can only have approximately one every year. so it's natural for them to look for a man that will be willing to grant their children a good life.

True, if you're talking about child bearing. But, the fact of the matter is the vast majority of intercourse is for recreational purposes. So you're right when it comes to marriage, but for casual sex I think both genders are equally predisposed towards promiscuity.

 

[ironduck]

I think in religious terms, a soul equates to sentience. Therefore, only humans have souls at this point. He seems to imply that upon obtaining self-conciousness, homo sapiens acquired souls. This was basically my original argument, minus the religious slant. That is, until I read nihilistic's theory, which is far more sound. I quoted it at the top of this page.

But what exactly is sentience? I have seen a number of different definitions for this. Further, what exactly are you claiming that these advanced animals lack? Emotions? A certain level of awareness? Increasingly it becomes clear that there's not a clear line to draw and that our understanding on the issue is simply not adequate.

I'd really like Taliesin to answer what I asked before because it's one of the weirder things I've read here (not counting the nutcases).

 

[ketalis]

But what exactly is sentience? I have seen a number of different definitions for this. Further, what exactly are you claiming that these advanced animals lack? Emotions? A certain level of awareness? Increasingly it becomes clear that there's not a clear line to draw and that our understanding on the issue is simply not adequate.

I've honestly never seen much divergence of opinion on the definition of sentience. I suppose you could assign an arbitrary intelligence value, but the point is only humans have it. If an alien envoy landed in Washington tomorrow, then two species would have it. I don't think there are any scientific parameters established for sentience, but that's because it would be a waste of effort: the term is virtually interchangeable with the phrase "intelligent enough to establish civilization."

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd really like Taliesin to answer what I asked before because it's one of the weirder things I've read here (not counting the nutcases).

Post of the day award!

 

[ironduck]

I've honestly never seen much divergence of opinion on the definition of sentience. I suppose you could assign an arbitrary intelligence value, but the point is only humans have it. If an alien envoy landed in Washington tomorrow, then two species would have it. I don't think there are any scientific parameters established for sentience, but that's because it would be a waste of effort: the term is virtually interchangeable with the phrase "intelligent enough to establish civilization."

Really?

Webster:

Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Aware:

Etymology: Middle English iwar, from Old English gewær, from ge- (associative prefix) + wær wary -- more at CO-, WARY
1 archaic : WATCHFUL, WARY
2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

From the above, sentience doesn't necessarily mean what you say from what I can tell.

Wikipedia:

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness—the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

Still nothing here that says what you say, rather it says not necessarily faculty of self-awareness.

I don't understand why it's so obvious that humans are 'sentient' and animals are not, I need to have explained what is meant exactly. Just saying 'only humans can build a civilization as far as we know' is certainly true, but doesn't tell me anything about other animals having a soul. It just tells me that humans are more advanced.

 

[Taliesin]

So did god do the same with other animals on earth? Did he all of a sudden give orangutans their souls as well? Elephants? Dolphins? Did humans only have that soul once they were homo sapiens or before that?

All living things have always had souls, where soul is the principle of life (think Aristotle here). So just before beasts became men, elephants and dolphins and orangutans and mushrooms and oak trees and amoebae and hominids all possessed souls-- different kinds of animal souls. The miracle was that God gave the hominids human souls, which are governed by reason and which are eternal. It's not as weird as it sounded. I honestly don't know whether the ensoulment was done all at once, or if it was done one family at a time, or whatever-- that seems a trivial point. An interesting point to my mind is that it must have taken place while Neandertals were still on the planet, which has some weird implications.

 

[nihilistic]

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.

There are two major errors here:

1. Sexual behavior is not a dichotomy of either monogamy or promiscuity. There are at least 3 rough categories of behavior:

a. Promiscuous - Indivduals in this case mate freely and does not distinguish (much) between any two of the opposite sex. This is the free for all type of mating, commonly practiced by say, flowering plants and various animals.

b. Polygamous - Polygamous species differentiate themselves from promiscuous ones in one very obvious way: organization. Polygamous populations are usually tribal, with one alpha male watching over lots of females of he 'tribe', and beta males in some form of a pecking order. A significant number of mammals and certainly most primates are polygamous.

c. Monogamous - This is a bit different than the soial definition of monogamy. These guys don't necesarily stick to one partner for its whole lifespan. Maybe one at a time. Example: penguins.


2. The second mistake you made is this statement: "If man evolved to be promiscious, then everyone would". That is completely wrong. The individual does not evolve during its lifespan. The smallest unit of life that evolves is a population, and there are always variations within a population. And the path that evolution takes is never a monolithic "everyone will be the same" one. Take for example, this following case:


The side-blotched lizard (uta stansburiana) exhibit 3 different subspecies with 3 different mating strategies that co-exist side by side in a rock-paper-scissors styled mating game. Yellow nonagressive (promiscuous) males beat the ultra-aggressive (polygamous) orange males beause the orange males have trouble watching over all their mates. Blue semi-agressive (almost monogamous, maybe bigamous or trigamous) males beat yellow males because they can watch over their females all the time. And in turn orange males beat blue males because they are more aggressive. Read these pages; they are quite interesting:

http://www.indiana.edu/~animal/archive/ABB/1996_1(3).html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00073D8B-26B2-1C68-B882809EC588ED9F

 

[Ayatollah So]

I ment it as in an uncontious way. A modern provider is different from a prehistoric provider. But do men see women different now on an uncontious level, or do they still look for the same things in a mate

Let's take a bunch of wealthy but not very physically attractive men, and a bunch of attractive but not very wealthy men. Match them for roughly equal "people skills". Then introduce them to a smaller number of women and see which group of men does better. Coming soon to a Reality TV show near you!

My bet would be on the hunks.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Still nothing here that says what you say, rather it says not necessarily faculty of self-awareness.

:shakehead So close and yet so far: obviously he meant "sapience". And I think it's plausible that sapience, and its close buddy language, has a lot to do with greater approximation to monogamy among humans than other primates.

For example: "Hey Beta, Gamma! Let's stop taking Alpha's bull****!"
"Hey, you're right!"