What is an overview of utilitarian arguments in support of exclusive relationships?

Question

In light of the lack of success with my previous question Is exclusivity optimal from a utilitarian perspective? What's wrong with being non-exclusive?, I’d like to vindicate the topic by asking, in more objective terms, for an overview of utilitarian arguments, if any, that support preferring exclusive relationships (whether it's a formal monogamous marriage or just a committed exclusive relationship) over non-exclusive alternatives. Answers supported by references to philosophy articles authored by ethicists are encouraged.

Answer 1

This article covers some of Bentham's views on the defensibility of marriage along utilitarian lines and this article does the same with Mill, each reference source texts and others' arguments. (I should say that the second article seems more polemical and less exegetical than the first.)

Answer 2

I think it's relevant to look at the anthropology and history, in terms of thinkng about the greatest good for the greatest number.

"A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, and more recently in Africa and the Americas. A further study drawing on the Ethnographic Atlas showed a statistical correlation between increasing size of the society, the belief in "high gods" to support human morality, and monogamy. A survey of other cross-cultural samples has confirmed that the absence of the plough was the only predictor of polygamy"

-from the Wikipedia article Monogomy: Evolutionary and historical development in humans: cultural arguments

Domesticating beasts of burden, agricultural intensification, cities, and writing, arose together in each of the seperate cases of written language emerging. We can look at the Old Testament/Torah for indications how cultural pressures about monogamy shifted as an early city developed, with King Solomon held in highest esteem not least for building the first Temple, but still criticised for having 700 wives and 300 concubines (in 1 Kgs 11:3). The extreme inequality of doing that by Solomon, would have meant huge numbers of poorer men unable to have any hope of marriage or starting their own family. And that is going to result in social tensions, that would make it harder for people to work together. It seems we can see the rise in cultural value of and pressure towards monogamy, in this light.

But between birth control, and genetic testing for parentage, monogamy is not required to ensure patrilinear commitment to offspring, and most sex is recreational rather than reproductive now (and probably through most if human history, just with higher risks of pregnancy). There is an ongoing cultural shift, since the arrival of the contraceptive pill, which it's hard to see the outcome of. Bonobos show that widespread non-monogamy can further cooperation, with sex acting among them in a similar way to grooming fur in other chimps, and largely replacing frequent intense violence seen in other chimps.

A big issue is that now women have much more choice whether to have children, a huge fraction are recognising it as a bad deal, with a huge setback to their personal wellbeing in lost career advancement, expensive childcare, difficulty returning to work, and a background of cultural assumptions that they have an unlimited commitment to give free labour while their offspring are children while getting minimal respect for providing it. Birthrates in every region on Earth except Subsaharan Africa (where infant mortality is still high and antenatal healthcare and family planning access limited) are dramatically below replacement. Historically the burden was eased by extended families, and women not being expected to work full-time as well, and by monogomous support of a partner at very least financially. It is conservative religious groups that have the highest birthrates, Catholics, Mormons, Islamic communities, and 'ultraorthodox' Jewish groups - as an example the birthrate of Haredi Jews in the US is between 6 and 7 children per women vs 1.66 on average. If we don't find a way to share the burden of childcare and it's costs in societies with progressive attitudes towards the status of women, then it's likely there will be a demographic shift towards conservative and regressive views about gender.

I would summarise, that a system of state support and employment reform may be able to stabilise populations in developed countries. Without substantial progress on those, over time demographics will likely result in larger conservative religious populations that emphasise monogamy and greater conformity of women towards traditional gender roles.

Answer 3

According to utilitarian.org:

What is the utilitarian position on monogamy vs. polygamy, marriage and adultery, capitalism vs. socialism, the legalisation of cannabis etc?

It is a common mistake to suppose that utilitarians have a fixed approach to controversial political issues. While utilitarians agree on what the criteria for good social policy are (being its conformability to utility), we freely and commonly disagree on which policies are actually useful. We know which goals we should aim for, but we are no better equipped than any others in politics to decide which policies will, in practice, help us achieve those goals.

However, Andrade[23] seems to address the topic with sustained analysis backgrounded by utilitarianism (albeit only one of his(?) citations refers to this). York[20] is another analysis of your question which seems to cite the same utilitarianist text as Andrade (something Taking Utilitarianism Seriously).

Also, anyway, Bentham himself advocated for a peculiarity in this connection (Sokol[09]):

Therefore in the course of drafting a utilitarian law of marriage Bentham set out an explanation of the pleasures and pains of sexual love. His discussions led him far beyond the confines of legal marriage and into the realm of what would today be described as gender relations. These might be homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous or otherwise, within or outside of marriage. Bentham's views on sex and the principle of utility are made particularly clear when he writes about wives, prostitutes and mistresses, and it was in this context that Bentham made his radical suggestion for short-term marriages. [emphasis added]

Answer 4

There are an important distinctions between:

• What you do yourself
• What you advocate that others do
• What you (via the government) provide legal accommodations for (e.g. marriage)
• What you make illegal (put people in prison or put them to death)
• What is technically illegal but functionally legal because it's not prosecuted (polygamy in the US might largely qualify - this point is probably a whole discussion in and of itself, which I don't have too much to say about)

It's hard to make a case for the illegality of personal sexual and relationship preference between consenting adults. This leans into a more oppressive and dictating style of governance, which has a long history of atrocities and generally going very poorly for a whole lot of people (particularly in regard to sexual and relationship preference).

Utilitarianism seems to make a better case for staying out of other people's business, at least when they aren't hurting other people. And then they'd be more inclined to stay out of your business, and everyone can do whatever makes them happy in the privacy of their own home.

As for legal accommodations (marriage), you could maybe argue that either way, with the primary objection being that the world has a long history of polygyny (one man married to several women), and that history involved a lot of oppression of women, and that's hardly limited to just the past. So one could see the risks of having the government officially sign off on that at this point in time.

As for advocating to others, I'd rather talk about the risks of oppression or neglect, emotional difficulties sharing one's partner with others, etc. (and also about the benefits, sure), and then let people make their own decision about whether that's in their best interest. People might still have strong preferences one way or the other, so specifically or strongly advocating one way or the other could have the side effect of people going against their own preference out of unreasonable fear or social pressure, which could result in reduced well-being for them. If one wishes to make a habit of advocating to others, it's probably worth doing some research, getting some statistics and consulting with some experts. Paired with this, I'd also talk generally about equality, respect in relationships, consent, mental health, etc., so people are better equipped for seeing when they're in a bad relationship and getting out of there (or seeing the red flags early and never getting in there).

As for what you do yourself, the primary concern may be the well-being of the other people involved. But one could also have a secondary concern of increasing normalisation of that in society, which may lead to others adopting it (perhaps not with the same concern for well-being).