Essay:Non-monogamy as sociopathy

From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay contains the opinions of one or more authors and does not necessarily represent the views of Mises Wiki or the Mises Institute. Mises Wiki essays may sometimes contain opinions that are not widely accepted by Austrian school thinkers, but nonetheless reside on the site to help stimulate critical thinking, constructive dialog, and an open-minded process of creative problem-solving furthering the growth of the body of Austrian school thought.

The DSM-IV-TR says, of people with antisocial personality disorder (also known as psychopathy or sociopathy), "They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship." So much for tolerance of alternative reproductive strategies! Normally, it is best to avoid ad hominem arguments, including appeals to motive, but inquiring into motives can be appropriate when normative discussions are raised, since norms are a matter of personal preference. So it might be acceptable, in this case, to speculate that perhaps some of the psychologists who wrote that, or the people who promoted or accepted that belief system, were motivated by jealousy or envy — jealousy because they couldn't get the exclusive romantic attention of the partner they might have wanted, and envy of those who were able to have multiple partners.

They seem to assume that non-monogamy is harmful to society. What if, as seems to be the case, some people (usually women) prefer, in the absence of the option to have a high-quality mate to oneself, to share a high-quality mate rather than settle for exclusive access to a lower-quality mate? That works to the detriment of the lower-quality mates who aren't chosen, but that's called losing out in competition, not being victimized by sociopaths.

People sometimes lament that chicks often go for "bad boys" (i.e. sociopaths). Perhaps it's partly the way sociopathy are defined. Fulfilling people's desires is considered anti-social. Really, it's part of the broader philosophy that if you engage in a relationship with someone that doesn't fulfil that person's every desire (e.g. to be that person's exclusive romantic partner), then you must be exploiting that person.

Well, if they don't want to be "exploited," why don't they make a different choice? Answer: because they perceive that then they'd be unhappier. It would be praxeologically correct to assume that a person makes a choice because he believes it will relieve his uneasiness more effectively than the alternatives.