Dan Moller - An Argument Against Marriage

What is the Bachelor’s Argument?

(a) We dread being in a loveless marriage. (b) Love may not last. (c) So marrying risks ending up in a loveless marriage, which is a mistake

Why don't most people take the Bachelor's Argument seriously?

Like Hume, we leave philosophy behind in everyday life, and marriage is a deep part of most people's lives. Moller only asks whether the argument works in theory

Which marriages does the argument not apply to?

Marriages for money or diplomacy, where feeling don’t matter

What does the first premise say? (Moller)

Love is the necessary basis (sine qua non) of a good marriage

What does Moller say we really want to avoid: entering a loveless marriage or being in one?

Being in one, at any point. If a psychic told us our love would fade in a few years, we'd rethink marrying

What would happen if love were to slowly turn into respect after 60 years?

That wouldn’t seem so bad, Moller is essentially referring to more dramatic cases where love fades/disappears

What kind of "love" does the argument need?

Ordinary feelings, like affection, wanting to be together, and missing each other, not the pounding-heart kind

What is the best evidence that love often doesn’t last?

Divorce rates over 40-50% in places where divorce is easy (no-fault divorce)

What evidence does Moller not rely on?

How long marriage lasts, love being out of our control, or personal stories alone

Why does Moller call divorce statistics "treacherous"?

Strict laws or culture can keep unhappy couples married, and easy laws can end marriages too fast. He assumes these cancel out

How often does love need to fail for the argument to work?

Just is a sizable number of marriages. Unless you’re special, you can’t be “reasonably sure” it won’t happen to you

How does Moller think of the view of the “marriage commitment”?

Even firm intentions can go unfulfilled, and you can see this by looking at people like you

What does the childhood kissing example show?

As a kid, Moller firmly intended never to kiss anyone, but seeing adults should have told him he'd likely change. Spouses can learn the same from others

What problem does Moller raise about promising to love?

You can't intend something you can't control, like your feelings

How does Moller handle the "trial marriage" objection?

He limits the argument to marriages that promise permanence, like most Western marriages

What does the marriage-apologist first argue?

Take your chances: enjoy the good years, and just divorce if love fades

How does Moller reply to the marriage-apologist view (e.g., take the risk and get married and if love fades, divorce)?

That's like taking a bank loan planning to default. Morally serious people won't accept it

What is the apologist's improved version?

It's morally OK (permissible) to break a marriage promise once love ends, so there's nothing to lose by marrying

What are the two usual cases where breaking a promise is OK?

When stronger reasons outweigh it (your wife goes into labor before dinner plans), or when the other person releases you (they no longer want their car washed)

What is the third, less-noticed kind of OK promise-breaking?

When a basic assumption behind the promise turns out false, like a class being canceled or a sister thought dead turning out alive

In Moller's argument, can the marriage assumption of mutual love fail if only one spouse stops loving the other?

Yes. The assumption is that each person loves the other, so it fails if even one stops

In Moller's imagined argument between a husband and wife, how does the wife (who no longer loves him) reply when he says "you promised to stay"?

She says the promise was based on mutual love. Since that's gone, the promise no longer binds her, just like a teacher isn't bound to show up after a class is canceled

In Moller's imagined husband-and-wife argument, why does the wife's reply seem more convincing than the husband's "you promised"?

Few people think one spouse can morally force the other to stay in a relationship against their will

If Moller is wrong and it's not OK to break a marriage vow when love ends, does the Bachelor's Argument against marriage fail?

No. The marriage-apologist's objection fails instead, so the Bachelor's Argument still stands

Moller argues against the marriage-apologist who says you can marry because you can break the vow if love ends. What is his first problem with this view?

It's strange to make a promise based on an assumption you aren't reasonably sure of, and it's wrong to raise expectations you may disappoint

Moller argues against the marriage apologist who says you can marry because you can break the vow if love ends. What is his second problem with this view?

Normal promises state likely exceptions ("I'll see you Thursday if the class isn't canceled"). Wedding vows leave out "as long as we still love each other," which is misleading

What is Moller’s third and most important problem with the marriage-apologist view?

The vow becomes pointless. If you're still in love, you won't leave anyway. If you're not, you're allowed to leave

Against Moller's claim that a breakable marriage vow is pointless, what reply says the vow still matters?

It helps in the murky middle, when feelings are unclear. The vow adds to the hope that the marriage will last, even if it can't guarantee it

According to Moller, why might people wrongly think the marriage vow helps hold together a relationship in rocky times?

They're influenced by the thought "But I promised," which has no force if the vow can be broken when love ends

What is Moller's "Humpty Dumpty" point about hesitating before ending a marriage?

Relationships are easier to break than fix, so hesitating before ending one is just common sense. You don't need the marriage vow to justify being careful

What is Moller's summary dilemma about making a marriage vow?

If you intend to keep the vow, marrying is risky because love may fade. If you don't intend to keep it, the vow is insincere and wrong. If breaking it is allowed, the vow is pointless

What does Moller call a promise that you will only keep if it is convenient?

"Quasi-sincere”

What is Moller's "modest conclusion" about the Bachelor's Argument against marriage?

The argument isn't as trite (obvious,bland) as it seems and may give us reason to reconsider marrying

What is the final objection to Moller's Bachelor's Argument against marriage, and does Moller accept it?

The argument depends on how much you dislike risk, and marriage's upsides (family, security) may be worth it. Moller admits he can't prove the risk isn't worth taking

In Moller's discussion of the risk of marriage, what is the "bias toward the near" (from Parfit)?

We care less about good and bad things the further in the future they are, which may be irrational. This can make us underrate the risk of a loveless marriage years from now

What is Moller's "divine game show" thought experiment about marriage?

You pick a door. Behind one is someone you'll love forever; behind the other is someone you'll never have feelings for, but you must marry whoever you pick, permanently. Would you play?

In Moller's divine game show thought experiment, how can the game be adjusted?

Add more good or bad doors to match the real odds of a marriage going sour

Where does Moller's divine game show analogy fall short for marriage?

Real marriages that become loveless often had years of happiness first, while the game skips straight to the outcome

In Moller's divine game show thought experiment, what would it mean if you didn't want to play?

It would show how you really feel about the risk of marriage once you stop thinking of a loveless marriage as something far off in the future