Marriage is a legal, a religious and a social institution. It can be seen as a social union or legal contract between people and is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. Such a “contract” is often formalized via a wedding ceremony.
But what is the purpose of marriage? Does it make sense to get married? In order to answer these questions one must understand the reasons why people get married. People marry for many different reasons, including political alliances, economic reasons, immigration purposes, social image, spiritual and religious reasons and sometimes even love.
Most Westerners probably like to believe that marriage should be based on love. However, love seems to be the reason which makes the least sense to me, because very often love does not last forever. People change. They grow, and most of all, they grow apart from each other. Does it even make sense to be with one person for our entire life? If love is our main reason to be with a person why can’t we live with that someone happily in a long-term committed relationship without having to get married? Why is marriage necessary in this case? Does marriage really make a difference for a relationship that exists because of love?
In our culture marriage is defined as a “monogamist relationship”, at least from a legal standpoint. This brought another question to my mind. Is it really a natural thing for humans to be monogamous? If we look into human biology, anthropology and sociology, the monogamous human appears as a very weird notion. We are mammals after all and biologists say that strictly sexually monogamous species are almost non existent. Most mammals have just a social monogamy: they pair up to mate and raise offspring, but still have flings.
So why Monogamy?
Evolutionary psychologists explain that monogamy is a breeding behavior that is considered to give offspring a better survival chance. In monogamous couples females receive all the support of the male in raising newborns to adulthood. The human committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved for raising the children and ensuring the presence of their genes in the next generation. In this sense monogamy is “natural” since it arises from a “natural” desire to spread one’s genetic “self” to the next generation.
However, human cultures have evolved so much that, amazingly, there are societies that forced our biology even beyond monogamy into polyandry. The marriage of a woman with more than one husband is extremely rare, but it does exist. There are tribal societies considering that a child could and should possess more than one father.
Christopher Ryan who is a psychologist, explained in his article “Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species” that couples who turn to a therapist for guidance for their marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species and most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is "normal.” Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner are signs of a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo Sapiens.
Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. A non-possessive sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago. When people began living in settled agricultural communities the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and other assets. Also the “natural” desire to pass on those goods to one’s children, an institution was needed to insure that it was truly one’s children to whom the goods would go. Monogamy insured that that the goods will go to the male’s biological children and the legal rights of transfer of property insured that the present generation will be able to determine who in the next generation will have control over the property.
Some might argue that we as intelligent humans are not apes and have the power to choose how to live. This is true. We can choose many things including a decision to lead a sexually monogamous life. We can also choose a married life, which may bring some advantages but also disadvantages along with it. Before getting married people should ask themselves “Why do I want to get married? Why is it important to me?” They should also be aware that they are giving up a lot of freedom to explore their own values, dreams, goals and spirituality. A non-committed person may have a greater sense of self-knowledge. As people mature and also go through the disappointments that sometimes come along with relationships they often start to realize the benefits of being single. I am not arguing against marriage, what I mean is that a mature person, who is single, realizes in a mature way the significance of the freedom of singleness and many people who choose that life are able to live fulfilling and rewarding lives just like married couples. This to me is best proof that there is absolutely no need to get married, at least not for emotional reasons.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Do we have free will?
When I read John Mill’s “on liberty” I asked myself how free do we want to be and how free can we be in a society? How much power does society have over our own freedom and do we have choices that are completely free?
If the world is deterministic, then none of our actions can be seen as free.
If this is the case then everything we chose was already pre-determined and thus we wouldn’t have free will. So how do we know if we are really free? Do we really have free will? And if so, what exactly is “free will?” Rene Descartes identifies free will with the freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not to do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained”.
Part of me, however, wants to distinguish freedom of will and freedom of action. We may be able to have free will but are often limited in carrying it out in part on factors that are beyond our control. There are always external constraints on the range of options we believe to have. Furthermore, by making our free choices we often limit our own freedom. For example, if I make a conscious free choice to get married to a certain person I most likely will not be able to pursue other persons as well as a possible romantic prospect.
However, Mill didn’t seem very interested in these questions in his work “on liberty.” His aim was a completely different one. He was not so much interested in the metaphysical aspect of freedom and liberty but more in civil liberties. The questions he asked AND answered:
• How much power should society and government have over its citizens?
• What are and what should be our civil liberties?
Undoubtedly there is a struggle between liberty and society. Civil liberties seem to be set by each government. We define Civil liberties as rights and freedoms that provide individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom and the right to liberty and security, the right to privacy. So interestingly the government decides what our civil liberties are but in the same sense they “guarantee” us the right to liberty and security. We must limit government’s power so that we can preserve our rights. But we must give government enough power to allow it to protect us. Liberty and Authority are thus in constant conflict.
Liberty implies self-government over our bodies and our minds. That gives us individuality. If we lack individuality, we thereby lack freedom, and we thereby lack what makes us human.
No society can be free in which social liberties are disrespected. This is true no matter what its form of government is. So what are these all-important liberties for John Stuart Mill?
• The Right to Privacy
• Freedom of Thought
• Freedom of Publication and Freedom of the Press.
Depriving anyone of the freedom to express her thoughts takes away her civil liberties.
I do agree with Mill that everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.
Although human beings are individuals after all they have chosen (or were coerced) to live within a society, which implemented a set of rules and laws to its members for a better, more harmonious way of living for all of its members. I do agree with Mill on every aspect he discusses in his work. I think freely which leads me to the conclusion that what Mill proclaims as individual freedom is the best freedom we can hope to achieve within a society, ending with his words: “ The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” (John Stuart Mill on “Liberty”)
Having true freedom to me means that we are free emotionally and mentally. Free of judgments and limitations. True freedom is when deep in our Soul, we are content.
If the world is deterministic, then none of our actions can be seen as free.
If this is the case then everything we chose was already pre-determined and thus we wouldn’t have free will. So how do we know if we are really free? Do we really have free will? And if so, what exactly is “free will?” Rene Descartes identifies free will with the freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not to do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained”.
Part of me, however, wants to distinguish freedom of will and freedom of action. We may be able to have free will but are often limited in carrying it out in part on factors that are beyond our control. There are always external constraints on the range of options we believe to have. Furthermore, by making our free choices we often limit our own freedom. For example, if I make a conscious free choice to get married to a certain person I most likely will not be able to pursue other persons as well as a possible romantic prospect.
However, Mill didn’t seem very interested in these questions in his work “on liberty.” His aim was a completely different one. He was not so much interested in the metaphysical aspect of freedom and liberty but more in civil liberties. The questions he asked AND answered:
• How much power should society and government have over its citizens?
• What are and what should be our civil liberties?
Undoubtedly there is a struggle between liberty and society. Civil liberties seem to be set by each government. We define Civil liberties as rights and freedoms that provide individual specific rights such as the right to life, freedom and the right to liberty and security, the right to privacy. So interestingly the government decides what our civil liberties are but in the same sense they “guarantee” us the right to liberty and security. We must limit government’s power so that we can preserve our rights. But we must give government enough power to allow it to protect us. Liberty and Authority are thus in constant conflict.
Liberty implies self-government over our bodies and our minds. That gives us individuality. If we lack individuality, we thereby lack freedom, and we thereby lack what makes us human.
No society can be free in which social liberties are disrespected. This is true no matter what its form of government is. So what are these all-important liberties for John Stuart Mill?
• The Right to Privacy
• Freedom of Thought
• Freedom of Publication and Freedom of the Press.
Depriving anyone of the freedom to express her thoughts takes away her civil liberties.
I do agree with Mill that everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.
Although human beings are individuals after all they have chosen (or were coerced) to live within a society, which implemented a set of rules and laws to its members for a better, more harmonious way of living for all of its members. I do agree with Mill on every aspect he discusses in his work. I think freely which leads me to the conclusion that what Mill proclaims as individual freedom is the best freedom we can hope to achieve within a society, ending with his words: “ The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” (John Stuart Mill on “Liberty”)
Having true freedom to me means that we are free emotionally and mentally. Free of judgments and limitations. True freedom is when deep in our Soul, we are content.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)