You Have A Choice: Philisophical Arguments for Monogamy and Non-Monogamy

Monogamy is an accepted and enforced institution that many find unfair or unwise. They question the reasoning behind monogamy in this day and age when single parents are ubiquitous and birth control is over 99 percent effective.

Is Monogamy the Only Moral Choice?

The problem is that monogamy is considered the only moral sexual relationship choice 

• You ought to get married
• You ought not to cheat on your partner even when it seems that there are many other acceptable alternatives

Monogamy seems to be just a way of claiming ownership to someone else’s sexuality, and as such should not be forced upon everyone.

Relationship Choices

If you view relationships from the perspective of having a duty to care for everyone, there are several types of sexual relationships to choose from:

• To be in a committed monogamous relationship without fear of being property
• To have multiple sexual partners
• To be in any form of polyamorous relationship without fear that your choice is immoral

John McMurty’s Critique of Monogamy

Philosopher John McMurtry’s argument against monogamy is highly focused on autonomy, rights, and rationality. He argues that monogamy is the least rational of all of the other possibilities out there, and that the state sets the terms for the contract of monogamous marriage rather than the two rational agents entering into the contract, and that the contract gives each partner exclusive rights to the other’s sexuality that cannot be given. In a nutshell, McMurtry is using the second Categorical Imperative—respecting human dignity and not using people as means to an end—to argue that monogamy, at least in its current form, is not morally acceptable.

SEE ALSO: If you want to get more from your life, and are looking for concrete action steps to get you there, check out our Request a Coach page. It’s a “cut the fence-sitting and take action” way to tackle your issues and actually find success. You’ll be matched with the coaches most suited to you to get you from where you are to where you want to be. To get off the fence and start to take action, click or tap here.

Even though it seems that marriage is the next logical and moral step after falling in love, monogamy may not be the best choice for everyone. Monogamy is a cultural requirement enforced by religion, government, and common sense that we take for granted and, as McMurtry explains, it is problematic because it is an overarching form of social control. It takes away our autonomy by forcing us into a contract that may not even be rational.

Four Principles of Monogamy

McMurtry gives four principles of monogamy in defense of his view:

• The partners are required to enter a formal contractual relation, the terms of which are set by the state, not the individual
• The number of partners involved in the marriage must be two and only two
• No person may participate in more than one marriage at a time or during a lifetime
• No married person may engage in any sexual relationship with any person whatever other than the marriage partner

The last three principles set up a system of ownership that violates the second Categorical Imperative, in which treating a human being like property is not respecting his or her dignity. These principles endanger affection between partners and creating a loving environment for child rearing rather than fostering them, which are the main reasons for monogamy.

The contractual agreement between parties alienates them from their responsibility in the relationship and restricts their freedom. Because by restricting the number of partners, this restricts the scope of an adult support system for both children and parents, while restricting sexual contact to only one partner promotes jealousy and insecurity.

Multi-partner Relationship

A multi-partner situation gives the participants full responsibility for the relationship, gives the children a larger support system and more loving environment, and lessens jealousy and sexual insecurity. All of this leads up to the fact that monogamy is simply a form of private property.

The essential principle of monogamy, according to McMurtry, is “the maintenance by one man or woman of the effective right to exclude indefinitely all others from erotic access to the conjugal partner.” In a monogamous relationship each partner owns the other’s sexuality. Monogamy is an institution that does not treat human beings with dignity but treats them as property and takes away their autonomy by forcing them into a pre-designed contract as if they are not rational free agents. By this argument, McMurtry says, monogamy should not be the only choice given us by society, nor should it be forced upon us as it may not be the right choice for all people and may in fact be more harmful than it is helpful.

Problems with McMurty’s Theory

Many of the assumptions in this article are gendered because the foundation of the article is based on Traditional Western Ethical Theory. And just like all Traditional Western Ethical Theory, this article has problems with how it pictures a person and how it pictures rationality.

SEE ALSO: If you want to get more from your life, and are looking for concrete action steps to get you there, check out our Request a Coach page. It’s a “cut the fence-sitting and take action” way to tackle your issues and actually find success. You’ll be matched with the coaches most suited to you to get you from where you are to where you want to be. To get off the fence and start to take action, click or tap here.

Traditional western ethical theory assumes that people have no need of other people, as Hobbes demonstrates perfectly with his social contract theory. You are worried about other people attacking you and therefore just want to be left alone to do your own thing.

McMurtry argues that this is exactly how we should deal with sexuality: Everyone should simply be left to do their own thing. Hobbes also points out that everyone is more or less equal where power is concerned with the equality principle. So, both the woman and the man in McMurtry’s monogamous relationships are assumed to have the same amount of power.

However, almost all of the language and examples he uses to describe the ownership that each person has over the other in a monogamous relationship are directed toward women. He talks about daughter sales, bride exchanges, and the extreme importance of premarital chastity, which is almost always a burden of the woman—because, lets face it, how can you prove that a man is not a virgin? McMurtry’s picture of the person, based on Traditional Western Ethical Theory, is a completely false and impossible representation that can be harmful. What about those who are incapable of being a rational agent? And what about people who do not have power?

Picture of Rationality

McMurtry’s picture of rationality, like Traditional Western Ethical Theory, is that people are rational and that this reason can be the basis for morality. However, this means having to leave out the following emotions:

• Love
• Anger
• Empathy
• Sadness

This picture leaves out care, and narrative reasoning as well as what we care about or how we make sense of the world through stories and images. It excludes, just like the private sphere of society, the private sphere of intellect. McMurtry even uses feelings of jealousy to bolster his argument that monogamy is harmful. Without feelings we have no reason to care and without care why does the right thing matter? What do we care if our spouse is murdered or cheating? Why do we even want a relationship with another person if not for the feelings we have for them?

Emotions are the basis for human understanding of morality; it feels wrong to hurt someone. While the role of emotions and other forms of reasoning are ignored, rationality is overly attended to. Horrible, immoral acts have been brought about through reason, such as the oppression of women and minorities and genocide. Just because these things are rational does not make them moral, which means that rationality is not the only player in the ball field.

While McMurtry is horrified at the prospect of two rational, autonomous human beings being forced into a contract in which they have no say over the terms, he completely ignores the rational, autonomous human beings that are being forcefully excluded from entering into that contract.

Gay marriage, a type of monogamy, is simply not mentioned anywhere in this article. Just as the assumption is made that women have power equal to men’s, it is assumed that monogamy, especially marriage, is a heterosexual concept. Even when McMurtry discusses extended marriages between more than two people, it is discussed in terms of heterosexual relationships. The assumption that monogamy is heterosexual not only propagates oppression of GLBT people, but also hurts the argument. If limiting sexual relationships to only monogamous relationships is harmful, then the limitation of sexual relationships to only heterosexual ones is just as harmful.

Getting rid of monogamy

Another assumption that the article makes is that getting rid of monogamy—or at least getting rid of forced monogamy where it is the only choice available—is actually good for everyone. While polyamorous relationships in many forms would undoubtedly be more common if monogamy was done away with, promiscuity would probably be the most common form of sexual relationship.

Unfortunately, McMurtry does not even consider the fact that promiscuity can lead to many undesirable and harmful outcomes and that it may simply be hanging women out to dry. Sexual intercourse, oral sex, and even genital rubbing has some pretty nasty side effects. Some STI’s, such as herpes, cannot be cured, while others can be deadly if not treated.

Monogamy severely reduces the risk of spreading or contracting an STI. Also, women contract STI’s from men more often than men contract STI’s from women, so getting rid of monogamy not only increases the risk of STI’s in the general population, but it increases the risk of STI’s in women more than in men. And while McMurtry talks about the enriched environment for having children in a multiple partner relationship, he totally leaves out the risk of pregnancy when talking about promiscuity. Who gets stuck with the pregnancy after a one night stand? The woman. And who gets away with no side-effects? The man. The fact of the matter is that sexual freedom is not equal for men and women, and McMurtry does not even start to consider this in his article.

SEE ALSO: If you want to get more from your life, and are looking for concrete action steps to get you there, check out our Request a Coach page. It’s a “cut the fence-sitting and take action” way to tackle your issues and actually find success. You’ll be matched with the coaches most suited to you to get you from where you are to where you want to be. To get off the fence and start to take action, click or tap here.

Not all of the pieces of McMurtry’s article are gendered, however. He takes into account not only the public sphere, but also the private sphere. He almost has to do this because of the nature of the topic, but it is still worthy of pointing out.

Most arguments from a Traditional Western Ethical Theory standpoint create a divide between the public and the private, which propogates oppression of those within the private sphere. Here, however, the private sphere of relationships, caring, and responsibilities is actually considered important. McMurtry even points out that the restrictive nature of monogamy lessens the responsibility put on the partners of the relationship. The fact that McMurtry is talking about relationships, even if he is not in support of the form that they are being forced into, is a step into the unimportant private realm, as the Traditional Western Ethical Theory calls it.

As I have said, McMurtry uses the second Categorical Imperative in his argument against monogamy. While there are some gendered assumptions that come from this Traditional Western Ethical Theory, it may not be the theory itself that is gendered, but the application of it.

The Humanity as an End version of the Categorical Imperative requires that we respect human dignity and therefore do not violate the negative rights of anyone. Negative rights, such as the right to not be killed, are complimented by negative duties, such as the duty to not kill. In McMurtry’s case, the negative right would be the right to not be owned. By respecting the dignity of all human beings equally, you have a duty to not violate their negative rights. In other words, McMurtry is saying that monogamy, by its very nature, is violating each person’s negative right not to be possessed by any other person. 

Positive Rights

Positive rights are a little different. These refer to things like entitlement and welfare, where we have a positive duty to provide for the welfare of others. Even though McMurtry does not talk about positive rights, the two go hand in hand, at least in the Categorical Imperatives. If you value the dignity of human beings—which we have to, according to Kant—then you will be concerned with their positive right of welfare and not simply with their negative right not to be killed.

Positive rights coming from the second Categorical Imperative, therefore, can be applied without being gendered. It would be almost like care ethics, where everyone is taken into consideration and everyone has a duty to care for everyone else. This would mean universal and unbiased care that is both in the public and private sphere. Thus, it would seem that McMurtry’s article is gendered because of his application of Traditional Western Ethical Theory rather than because the theory itself is gendered.

You have a choice

My resolution to this problem is very similar to McMurtry’s resolution. It seems that McMurtry is right in using Kant’s second Categorical Imperative to analyze this problem, but he went wrong when he forgot to discuss positive rights. His basic argument that the violation of a person’s negative right to not be possessed by someone else is wrong, and that the institution of monogamy does indeed violate this right seems sound. However, ridding society of monogamy altogether would benefit only men.

But, if you add in positive rights to the equation, the answer becomes clear. We all have a duty to care for each other. This means that no matter what kind of sexual relationship you engage in, you have a duty to care for that person, whether that person contracts an STI or becomes pregnant. And if the person becomes pregnant, you have a duty to care for that child.

In this way, sexual relationships do not have to be forced upon us through a government contract, nor do they become detached one night stands where the woman is left pregnant with an STI and the man is never seen again. When you add a duty to care for everyone, regardless of the nature of your relationship, sexual relationships become a choice:

• To be in a committed monogamous relationship without fear of being property
• To have multiple sexual partners
• To be in any form of polyamorous relationship without fear that your choice is immoral or that as a woman you will be left with a baby and have no father to help care for it

You have a choice. The feminist perspective helps flesh out the analysis that McMurtry started. It wasn’t that he was wrong, only that he didn’t do enough. Even with the feminist analysis this is not a complete resolution to the problem of monogamy, but it is farther along the road than when McMurtry dropped it off.

SEE ALSO: If you want to get more from your life, and are looking for concrete action steps to get you there, check out our Request a Coach page. It’s a “cut the fence-sitting and take action” way to tackle your issues and actually find success. You’ll be matched with the coaches most suited to you to get you from where you are to where you want to be. To get off the fence and start to take action, click or tap here.

Bibliography

Mcmurtry, J. (1972). Monogamy: A Critique. The Monist, 578-599.

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. ed. Mary Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Rachels, J. (2011). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw Hill.

If you want to get more from your life, and are looking for concrete action steps to get you there, check out our Request a Coach page. It’s a “cut the fence-sitting and take action” way to tackle your issues and actually find success. You’ll be matched with the coaches most suited to you to get you from where you are to where you want to be. To get off the fence and start to take action, click or tap here.