Question In Western culture, polygamy is generally considered immoral. Is there sufficient justification for this classification? Can it honestly be said that polygamy is wrong? I don't only mean one man/many wives but all the various possible arrangements of multiple partners, for instance one woman/multiple husbands, multiple husbands/multiple wives, etc.... There are some economic advantages to multiple adult partners living together. Take for example a situation where a man has two wives. The man works and so does one of the women. You now have a dual income household. The second woman does not work, but instead stays home and cares for any children and housekeeping duties. What would normally fall on one woman (working, housekeeping and child-rearing) is divided between two. It is assumed that all parties are consenting adults who consider themselves equal to one another. This has the added advantage of reducing the child day care costs so often frustrating for households with just two parents who both work.

Accepted:
May 18, 2006

Comments

I am inclined to think the original ground for anathematizing polygamy may be found in religions that oppose it for doctrinal reasons. I would be willing to wager that these same reasons continue to be the main source of such opposition. But it is not the only reason to be wary of polygamy.

As a matter of fact, as it has actually been practiced (and is practiced in parts of the world where it is legal), it is almost always configured in ways intended to advantage men--at the expense of women. (A very dramatic example of this, involving a fundamentalist wing of the Latter Day Saints [Mormons] in Utah is not much in the news, for example.)

As you say, there can be prudential advantages to being far more open about marital arrangements. But there can also be significant prudential disadvantages, as well: The more people intimately involved in a single household, the more potentials for serious conflict are added. Unless one lives in a society in which the relevant sorts of arrangements are well supported and accepted, I am inclined to think that even consenting adults who wanted to attempt such relationships would end up finding them very difficult to sustain. After all, even monogamous marriage, which is well supported in our culture, is often very difficult to sustain!

I also think the idea of "consenting adults" in cases like these can be less than perfectly clear. When one becomes intimately involved with one or more others, there can be tremendous pressures on one to go along with what the others might like or prefer, so even "consent" in such cases is not entirely free or perfect.

But despite all of these concerns, I am still inclined to agree in principle with your view: If adults wish to configure their lives and most intimate relationships in a certain way, and all concerned are well-informed and give consent, I see no ethical problem with their pursuing their preferences--despite my reservations about the practical difficulties they are likely to face.

You might want to consult question #341 on this web site. There I wrote, in response to the obverse question, "Why monogamy?", the following wiseacre answer that, nevertheless, contains some truth [which answer I have mildly revised, since it was first written on November 3, 2005]:

Here are some standard replies to the question "Why monogamy?" (some worse than others): (1) Why not? [Vy a duck?] (2) Monogamy reduces your chances of contracting an STD; polygamy implies that you must trust more than one spouse or mate to be sexually faithful and to practice safe sex effectively if not faithful. (3) Monogamy is better than polygamy because you barely have enough time and energy and money for one relationship, let alone two. [Woody Allen: You want an orgy? We can barely get 4 people together for bridge or bowling.] But: it is not necessarily true that it is more difficult to get along with 2 or 3 or 4 spouses in one dwelling than with only 1. The presence of the other spouse(s) may very well defuse tensions that arise most powerfully in the binary pair, when 2 and only 2 people are stuck with each other and their faults every day and night for eternity. [See Soren Kierkegaard, although he advises to bring God into the binary pair as the third member.] (4) Because God said so, and you shouldn't tamper with Him; see Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles (unless you believe in a 1960s Love God). (5) Because your mama said "monogamy, mein Kind," and you shouldn't tamper with Her. At least wait until she dies. (6) From 4 to 8 years of monogamy are built into us genetically and we shouldn't tamper with Nature. That allows the very popular serial monogamy, which is why Las Vegas was invented and for which Elizabeth Taylor is justly famous. [Can you name all her husbands? I recall only Richard Burton, twice her legally-married mate. A good "Jeopardy" question, the category being: Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor. For why I cannot remember more than Burton, see questions 150 and 599 . ] But the genetic approach seems not to justify polygamy. You can, however, get all the benefits of polygamy by well-timed serial monogamies. (7) Monogamy wins because your Number One/Earliest wife or significant other (SO) says, "no way, Jose" to your group marriage proposal. (8) Monogamy is required because you promised to be monogamous [if you did, and the question is whether you should] and it is wrong to break promises, ceteris paribus. Can you think of a situation that would permit the breaking? Maybe: your SO already broke it. So polygamy may be OK if all ten of you agree, providing fully informed and voluntary consent. [But consent to what, exactly? It looks like any such consent must be opaque.] (9) Monogamy may be the best arrangement for the rearing of children. Although maternity is not ever in doubt, in some kinds of polygamy severe doubts about paternity can arise, causing interfamilial warfare (and earful), if not infanticide (as in some great apes). Step fathers abuse chldren far more frequently than biological fathers. (The nonbiological fathers in a group marriage are similar to step-dads.) (10) Because monogamy (even if not followed by 50-80% of those who claim to follow it, or at least to believe in it) supports the economy better than does polygamy. I might grant that polygamy is economically better for each family; it does not follow that it is economically better for the society as a whole. And if it hurts the society as a whole, that will undermine how much it benefits each extended family to begin with. [We might have a kind of "Problem of the Commons" here; see question 3.] (12) Monogamy must be the choice, because in true love and true marriage, there is a union of two into one flesh (Genesis, Kant) or into one mind (Montaigne, Shakespeare) that is disrupted when one party even glances sideways at a third party (ergo Matthew 5:28-30). Indeed, if there is a true union, the glance becomes logically impossible. So the third person in a polygamous arrangement will be totally ignored (but he or she will have control of the clicker).