I don't think it's better at all. I think a person can be in a perfectly happy and healthy lifestyle that's monogamous. I've never thought this way of life was superior.
But it IS another viable option. Like vegetarianism when a person's reasons are that they simply don't enjoy eating meat.
Do personal philosophies always have to dictate that one person is right while another person is wrong? Of course, perhaps I'm viewing philosophy as a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. Guidance being the key word here, not rules.
Or maybe I should say that I think it's a choice, rather than a philosophy. The problem I have with calling it merely a choice is that you can also call 'cheating on somebody' a choice or 'killing somebody' a choice.
And the problem with labels is that they often invalidate what a person's actual choice is. Our society is so plagued with what is 'morally superior', even though as a nation we are becoming less religious.
There is still a puritanical view to anything that is outside of the box--outside of what is 'socially acceptable'. Black and white. Right and wrong.
I don't know. I'm not good at semantic arguments anyway.
One: It's a choice. If that is the case, I go back to my other question: can you choose to want or not want this lifestyle, or can you only choose whether you live it?
Two: It's a philosphy. If we view a philosophy as "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs", then we have to parse that, right? Guidance based on what? Guidance about which way of dealing with practical affairs is...more effective?...easier?...less hurtful to others?...more satisfying?...what is your philosophy guiding you towards.
In essense, I think that a simple choice based on desire/preference and the cost/benefit of acting on that desire/preference can be seen quite separately from the notion of a philosophical method of behavioral choice, where there is an implication that one course of action is superior to another on some way...
I guess then, I'll take philosophy out of the equation entirely and focus on choice.
I think you're simplifying choice. I actually think you CAN choose to want or not want a lifestyle. But whether or not this is healthy is a whole different question. People can convince themselves of almost anything...that they're not gay, for example, though they felt inclined towards it before. Some people would argue that they'll be happier and healthier because of this. Others might argue that they've been brainwashed and are only choosing to TELL themselves that A is what they want instead of B. And for some people...maybe they DID actually change their minds. Maybe their preference changed with their personal, psychological or emotional evolution.
The argument leaves no room for 'changing your mind'. I've, for example, seen people "experiment" with lifestyles that work for a little while for them, or work in certain circumstances or with certain people, but not with others. Saying you ARE inherently one way or you ARE NOT is leaving out the people who are on a sliding scale and don't fit neatly into either category.
I don't think that saying one is hard-wired to want or not want something is validating or empowering to either the people who really feel drawn towards a lifestyle or those people who take a more practical approach to their lives and find that one way of living just works better for them than another.
For example, if you had asked me a number of years ago, I would have told you I was hard-wired to only have one partner. Why? Because falling in love made me feel like I ONLY wanted to be with that one person (ahh, NRE). Obviously, I'm not in a monogamous relationship, and I'm aside from the relationship drama that happens in almost every partnership, I feel that I'm very happy in my life...so what does this say about me? If I were in fact hardwired to be monogamous, or non-monogamous, you'd have to say that either I'm now going against my instincts and my own nature by being non-monogamous or that I was wrong before and that THIS is how I really am.
...I don't think either case is true for me. I think there is a third option. Perhaps a scale? I was trying to stay away from the scales, but I guess there's no way to.
Well...I dunno...I don't like the term hard-wired for any of these analysis. Even if I were to argue that one can't control what one wants or desires, that doesn't mean that factors might not change it. Hard-wired suggests immutability, and I don't think that's accurate under any argument. People change tastes all the time...it's just a matter of volition.
Still, I kinda think that what you're talking about *is* a philosophical question. It's just a health issue rather than a morality issue, like becoming a vegetarian because you think it's healthier. You can choose whether or not to engage in that sort of lifestyle, but you can't really, I think, control whether or not you like meat, y'know? So...maybe someone who has a "natural" impulse towards meat avoidance and really likes tofu will have an easier time transitioning to a vegetarian lifestyle, whereas a person who loves meat and really hates vegetables might just as easily believe that a vegetarian lifestyle would be healthier, but might have a harder time making themselves live that way.
The same could probably be said for people who are choosing vegetarianism for moral reasons (cruelty to animals, etc.). If they have the natural taste for veges over meat, it will be easier for them to behave according to their moral philosophy...though a person with different natural tastes might still do it for moral reasons.
So...then...I guess there are four identified factors here that will be measured as far as a choice of lifestyle:
1. Social Acceptability (stigma, approval, etc.) 2. Personal Taste (of the involuntary kind) 3. Moral Philosophy 4. Health Philosophy
One could have, on any given issue, plus, minus or neutral values in each of these four categories. If one comes up with a net positive number once all four are totaled, they will probably choose the lifestyle, if it's a negative number, they'll probably avoid it...
The variables that influence the value of each factor could (and probably will) change over a lifetime, and vary between individuals (some people value Social Acceptability higher than others, for example), but the overall shape of the math should remains somewhat the same, right?
Wow...this ends up being strait economic social theory...
But it IS another viable option. Like vegetarianism when a person's reasons are that they simply don't enjoy eating meat.
Do personal philosophies always have to dictate that one person is right while another person is wrong? Of course, perhaps I'm viewing philosophy as a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. Guidance being the key word here, not rules.
Or maybe I should say that I think it's a choice, rather than a philosophy. The problem I have with calling it merely a choice is that you can also call 'cheating on somebody' a choice or 'killing somebody' a choice.
And the problem with labels is that they often invalidate what a person's actual choice is. Our society is so plagued with what is 'morally superior', even though as a nation we are becoming less religious.
There is still a puritanical view to anything that is outside of the box--outside of what is 'socially acceptable'. Black and white. Right and wrong.
I don't know. I'm not good at semantic arguments anyway.
Reply
You've got two different ideas here I think...
One: It's a choice. If that is the case, I go back to my other question: can you choose to want or not want this lifestyle, or can you only choose whether you live it?
Two: It's a philosphy. If we view a philosophy as "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs", then we have to parse that, right? Guidance based on what? Guidance about which way of dealing with practical affairs is...more effective?...easier?...less hurtful to others?...more satisfying?...what is your philosophy guiding you towards.
In essense, I think that a simple choice based on desire/preference and the cost/benefit of acting on that desire/preference can be seen quite separately from the notion of a philosophical method of behavioral choice, where there is an implication that one course of action is superior to another on some way...
Reply
I think you're simplifying choice. I actually think you CAN choose to want or not want a lifestyle. But whether or not this is healthy is a whole different question. People can convince themselves of almost anything...that they're not gay, for example, though they felt inclined towards it before. Some people would argue that they'll be happier and healthier because of this. Others might argue that they've been brainwashed and are only choosing to TELL themselves that A is what they want instead of B. And for some people...maybe they DID actually change their minds. Maybe their preference changed with their personal, psychological or emotional evolution.
The argument leaves no room for 'changing your mind'. I've, for example, seen people "experiment" with lifestyles that work for a little while for them, or work in certain circumstances or with certain people, but not with others. Saying you ARE inherently one way or you ARE NOT is leaving out the people who are on a sliding scale and don't fit neatly into either category.
I don't think that saying one is hard-wired to want or not want something is validating or empowering to either the people who really feel drawn towards a lifestyle or those people who take a more practical approach to their lives and find that one way of living just works better for them than another.
For example, if you had asked me a number of years ago, I would have told you I was hard-wired to only have one partner. Why? Because falling in love made me feel like I ONLY wanted to be with that one person (ahh, NRE). Obviously, I'm not in a monogamous relationship, and I'm aside from the relationship drama that happens in almost every partnership, I feel that I'm very happy in my life...so what does this say about me? If I were in fact hardwired to be monogamous, or non-monogamous, you'd have to say that either I'm now going against my instincts and my own nature by being non-monogamous or that I was wrong before and that THIS is how I really am.
...I don't think either case is true for me. I think there is a third option. Perhaps a scale? I was trying to stay away from the scales, but I guess there's no way to.
Reply
Still, I kinda think that what you're talking about *is* a philosophical question. It's just a health issue rather than a morality issue, like becoming a vegetarian because you think it's healthier. You can choose whether or not to engage in that sort of lifestyle, but you can't really, I think, control whether or not you like meat, y'know? So...maybe someone who has a "natural" impulse towards meat avoidance and really likes tofu will have an easier time transitioning to a vegetarian lifestyle, whereas a person who loves meat and really hates vegetables might just as easily believe that a vegetarian lifestyle would be healthier, but might have a harder time making themselves live that way.
The same could probably be said for people who are choosing vegetarianism for moral reasons (cruelty to animals, etc.). If they have the natural taste for veges over meat, it will be easier for them to behave according to their moral philosophy...though a person with different natural tastes might still do it for moral reasons.
So...then...I guess there are four identified factors here that will be measured as far as a choice of lifestyle:
1. Social Acceptability (stigma, approval, etc.)
2. Personal Taste (of the involuntary kind)
3. Moral Philosophy
4. Health Philosophy
One could have, on any given issue, plus, minus or neutral values in each of these four categories. If one comes up with a net positive number once all four are totaled, they will probably choose the lifestyle, if it's a negative number, they'll probably avoid it...
The variables that influence the value of each factor could (and probably will) change over a lifetime, and vary between individuals (some people value Social Acceptability higher than others, for example), but the overall shape of the math should remains somewhat the same, right?
Wow...this ends up being strait economic social theory...
Reply
Leave a comment