tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post4104560515055872190..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: Utilitarian Argument Against PolygamyNeil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-58992896762336140222012-03-26T08:22:23.474-07:002012-03-26T08:22:23.474-07:00Even if diminishing marginal utility begins as ear...Even if diminishing marginal utility begins as early as the second relationship, the decrease in pleasure would be gradual. For example, if a relationship causes 10 points of pleasure, at worst, a second relationship might cause 9 points of pleasure and a third 8 points and so on but 19 is greater than 10 so, *if* the increased benefit is worth any necessary costs, a utilitarian would have to ideally favor polyamory. In a monogamous system, one person gets to enjoy a relationship with another, in a polygamous system, several people get to enjoy a relationship with that person. Monogamy promotes intra-sex competition which discourages egalitarianism. The argument that the second partner won't be as appreciated as much as the first doesn't hold anymore weight than the argument that the first will be jealous if their partner has other partners, especially if the second has other partners for whom he or she is their first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-8374744377551516332011-10-01T16:51:41.627-07:002011-10-01T16:51:41.627-07:00Oh, thanks for clarifying that: you're arguing...Oh, thanks for clarifying that: you're arguing against star-shaped graphs, not complete, cyclic or otherwise symmetrical graphs. (e.g. Vs instead of triangles.) As an argument against complete graphs it makes no sense, since everyone can be presumed to be deriving equal happiness from the arrangement. Though if you gave an actual function, I suppose you could then work out the optimal size of group (e.g. is everyone in the world married? Is everyone single? Should everyone be in groups of 5? :)) <br /><br />Since you said "polygamy" instead of "polyamory" maybe I should've realized that.<br /><br />But allowing for people to be different, supposing you have 2 people who each want a relationship with half the energy of that which a 3rd person wants, a V seems like a utilitarian arrangement.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11117729808392600086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-89722376152562680122011-09-23T21:47:01.608-07:002011-09-23T21:47:01.608-07:00This is only an argument against polygamous arrang...This is only an argument against polygamous arrangements of a one-to-many sort where the many aren't allowed to find further partners. If they are allowed to find further partners, you're not really taking anyone off the market in a way that makes declining marginal utility issues apply.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-22143280104180742572011-09-23T11:17:33.392-07:002011-09-23T11:17:33.392-07:00"Better for them to find other people?" ..."Better for them to find other people?" I don't get it. We're contemplating a polygamous system; they can find other people AND add some utility to your life.Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260245860017778409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-65790578698146332062011-09-23T10:40:57.551-07:002011-09-23T10:40:57.551-07:00Did you just inadvertently argue against progressi...Did you just inadvertently argue against progressive income taxation for libertarians though? I mean, separating them from their beloved dollars must be every bit as traumatic as redistributing spouses would be. (Worse, maybe. Most people aren't really cut out for mating for life with each other anyway, but I'm not sure I'd say the same about libertarians and cash...)jack lecounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-18814588194485492342011-09-23T09:42:10.603-07:002011-09-23T09:42:10.603-07:00But you are forgetting about the spouses - doesn&#...But you are forgetting about the spouses - doesn't the quality of their one choice matter? So why lock out the best choices once one person has got them?<br /><br />A system that does this only encourages early, inefficient "ground-claiming" - just like the patent system.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10147864081994944834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-83191533508437953642011-09-23T09:04:00.565-07:002011-09-23T09:04:00.565-07:00Awesome! I had wondered, at one point, what other ...Awesome! I had wondered, at one point, what other arguments could be used against polygamy, besides religious ones.Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09251277990345554094noreply@blogger.com