An Argument for Marriage
Regarding my last post, more than one reader asked what logical argument, if any, could be made for exclusivity in marriage, or on what possible grounds anything other than the consent of the parties could be contemplated as relevant. The question was further posed on what non-religious grounds such an argument could be made.
By no coincidence, I happen to have such an argument all written out and ready to hand.
It is basically a legal argument from a Stoic viewpoint, since it approaches the case not from a viewpoint of hedonism, but a viewpoint of duty. The limit here is that from its beginnings cannot persuade anyone who does not believe that people have rights or duties or who do not believe that right and wrong exist. Of course, since, from that basis (the chic nihilism of Nietzsche and his epigones) neither hedonism nor any other moral philosophy can be erected, this would make criticism from that basis moot.
Any objections to the epistemology or ontology raised must be dealt with separately. As ever, your humble author welcomes questions and civil comments.
Part I Preliminary Remarks
Part II The Questions — Is Marriage a Contract?
Part III The Argument
Part IV Third Parties to the Marriage
Part V On Matrimony and Fornication
Part VI Conclusion
The basic argument is that since humans are altricial, and childrearing requires permanence, ergo prudence requires matrimony rather than a libertarian contract for the exchange of sexual pleasures in order to achieve its natural ends; and furthermore that the passions of men must be moderated by law and custom to conform to this basic and non-negotiable reality.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
