0

Infidelity is typically regarded as a moral transgression, but it cannot exist without a prior promise of exclusivity.

This prompts the question: why is exclusivity so highly valued in the first place? From a utilitarian perspective, does exclusivity, whether formalized through marriage or established in a less formal exclusive relationship, actually optimize well-being or happiness, or minimize suffering?

What, if anything, is inherently wrong with non-exclusivity from a utilitarian standpoint?

If non-exclusivity eliminates the possibility of infidelity, and given that infidelity is usually associated with psychological suffering, doesn't that present a compelling argument in favor of being non-exclusive?

Improve this question
4
  • 3
    You seem to be assuming that sexual jealousy is a rational choice or that people are capable of controlling their emotions. Neither assumption is plausible.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Sep 3 at 19:26
  • why do you call it "exclusivity" as if marital fidelity were a relation of property right or some hip american slang?
    – user71399
    Commented Sep 4 at 1:57
  • 3
    @andrós I don't understand why you are making such a big deal of the word 'exclusive'. It conveys the idea perfectly well. If A and B are in an exclusive relationship with each other, A and B are committed to not having other relationships apart from the exclusive one.
    – user77058
    Commented Sep 4 at 3:02
  • @Rushi exactly. So, do we only get one of these things, or more than one? Or zero, for some...
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Sep 4 at 11:47

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

I am answering the first version of this question.

Nothing is inherently wrong under a utilitarian framework. Utilitarian judgments are contingent judgments.

You have omitted in the utilitarian calculus the negative experience of the person who is disposed to prefer exclusive partnerships nonetheless being in a non-exclusive relationship. This will not be a good time for them.

But if you are proposing simply changing one's disposition, you also omit the alternative of just eliminating infidelity within exclusive relationships.

You also ask "why is exclusivity so highly valued in the first place?" That is a question about psychology, sociology, biology, and evolution.

Improve this answer
2
  • Sure, there are multiple alternative courses of action. Which one is optimal?
    – user77058
    Commented Sep 3 at 14:43
  • @Lowri Questions are often updated to improve their content, so it is perfectly fine to update an answer to reflect the newer (and hopefully better) version of the question, if you want to.
    – Julius Hamilton
    Commented Sep 3 at 15:19
2

"A eliminates the possibility of B, B is bad, therefore A is good" does not follow.

If drinking bleach eliminates the possibility of bad breath, and given that bad breath is usually associated with psychological suffering, does that present a compelling argument in favor of drinking bleach?

Improve this answer
4
  • Strictly speaking, I wasn't offering a deductive argument, so critiquing the argument based on its logical structure kind of misses the point. Rather, I was making an evidential point that the psychological burden of feeling betrayed would be removed if the expectation of exclusivity was removed, and that is an obvious removal of suffering, which is consistent with utilitarian principles. Your bleach counter-analogy doesn't really work unless you can establish that non-exclusivity is as terrible as bleach. In fact, even your claim that bleach removes bad breadth is highly questionable.
    – user77058
    Commented Sep 4 at 2:48
  • But anyways, can you please edit your answer by making a positive case for non-exclusivity being as terrible as bleach? Your answer actually concedes that non-exclusivity would remove one specific source of suffering, but it never makes a positive case for non-exclusivity causing terrible colateral suffering in other ways as bleach would.
    – user77058
    Commented Sep 4 at 2:48
  • 1
    well people can define their own "utility", can't they @user77058 ? freedom, depth, whatever
    – user71399
    Commented Sep 4 at 3:16
  • @user77058 I said nothing about exclusivity whatsoever. You asked asked whether that was a compelling argument. It is not a compelling argument because it is a fallacious argument. Nothing else to it.
    – g s
    Commented Sep 4 at 15:40