sex and marriage

Chapter 17 Modern Family (1)
Earlier we have dealt with the mother and father family, and the relation of the family to ancient sexual morality.We shall now move on to the question of the family, since the family is the only legitimate basis for restricting liberty.

It is widely believed that sex and sin are linked, and that making that link, though not an invention of the ancient Christians, was certainly fueled by them and has become part of the automatic moral judgments of most of us.I do not want to waste energy on theological notions, according to which there is something sinful about sex which can only be abolished by a marriage union for the purpose of producing children.The question we have now to discuss is to what extent do the children's interests require the parental sexual relationship to be consolidated?That said, what is the reason we must think of the family as a stable marriage?This is by no means an easy question.

Clearly, a child's benefit as a member of a family depends on the following substitution: We should have an excellent number of nurseries which should outperform most families.We also pay attention to whether the father plays a leading role in family life, because the morality of women is regarded as vital to the family because of the father.We must examine the influence of the family on the individual psyche of the child—a question Freud discussed.We must note the influence of economic institutions in increasing or decreasing the dominance of the father.We must ask ourselves whether we should want the state to replace the father, or even, as Plato said, father and mother.Even though we all think that under normal circumstances parents provide the best environment for their children, there are many other situations that we must also be aware of.Because sometimes one party cannot assume the responsibilities of parents, or both parties are not suitable for raising children, for the sake of the children, it is better to separate from the parents.

Among those who are theologically opposed to sexual liberty, there is a dissenting rhetoric because, in their view, divorce is bad for children.However, this argument is not authentic, because since those who advocate this argument are theological, they not only cannot tolerate divorce, but also cannot tolerate contraception, even if one parent has a venereal disease, and the children may be genetically infected. Sexually transmitted diseases, divorce or contraception are not tolerated.This situation tells us that it is only a cruel excuse to oppose divorce if it is only in the interest of the children.In short, the relationship between marriage and children's interests needs to be discussed fairly.It is also important to recognize that the answer to this question is by no means readily available.Therefore, with regard to this question, it is better for me to say a few words in general.

The family was the earliest institution.As for the reason for the existence of the family, in terms of physiology, it is because the father's help during the mother's pregnancy and breastfeeding is a necessary condition for the child's survival.But, as we have seen from the Trobriander islanders, and the same confirmation can be drawn from the case of the apes, this help was not the raison d'être of the father in primitive societies. , which is different from civilized society.The father in the primitive society does not know that the child has a biological connection with him, thinking that the child is only the descendant of the woman he loves.It was a fact he knew, for he had witnessed the child's birth, and it was this fact that gave him an instinctive connection with the child.At this stage, a man does not pay much attention to the physical importance of maintaining his wife's chastity, although he will also feel instinctive jealousy when he finds out that his wife has a new love.And at this stage, he does not regard the child as his property.The child is the property of the wife and her brother, and his relationship with the child is only emotional.

With the development of intelligence, human beings will eat the fruit of the tree of wisdom in the Garden of Eden sooner or later.The man gradually realizes that the child is the result of his sowing, and therefore, he must guarantee the chastity of his wife.Wife and children thus become his private property, and at some stage of economic development they may be extremely valuable property.He makes his wife and children feel responsible to him through religion.This sense of responsibility is especially important in the case of a child, who, though stronger than a younger child, will eventually grow old, and children will enter into vigorous adulthood.At that time, the children should honor him, which is very important to his happiness in old age.The hadith on this subject is a lie because it says, "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that God has given you." It should say, "Honor your father and mother Parents, let them live long in this land.” We are not horrified by a crime we cannot imagine ourselves committing (such as cannibalism), so we are not killed by ancient cultures. The horror of patricide.

The economic development of ancient animal husbandry and agricultural society brought the family into its heyday.At that time, it was impossible for most people to obtain slaves economically, so the most convenient way to obtain laborers was to breed laborers.In order to convince the children that it is natural to work for their father, they have to draw on all the power of religion and morality to make the family a sacred organization.Later, primogeniture gradually expanded the family unit into a number of subsidiary families.This increases the power of parents.Kings and nobles are mainly based on this idea, and even the gods are no exception, because Zeus is the father of gods and men.

In this way, cultural development strengthens family cohesion.Since then, however, there has also been a reverse phenomenon, in which the family has become blurred in the Western world.The reasons for the decline of the family system are partly economic and partly cultural.A well-developed family is very unfit for a townsman, or for a man who earns his living by seafaring.In all previous ages trade has been a major factor in the development of culture, because it brought people into contact with the customs and customs of other peoples and enabled them to eliminate racial prejudices.Thus, it will be seen that among the seafaring Greeks there was much less domestic restraint than among their contemporaries.We can also see the influence of seafaring on freedom from family ties in Venice, Holland, and Elizabethan England.

Of course, most of these are off topic.The only relevant thing is that when one member of the family goes out for a long time, while other members stay at home, he is undoubtedly freed from the shackles of the family, and the cohesion of the family is correspondingly weakened.The influx of rural populations into cities, which is characteristic of periods of cultural growth, had the same effect as maritime trade, namely, a weakening of family cohesion.The other was the effect of slavery, which was perhaps more important in the lower classes.The master pays little attention to the family relationship of his slaves. He can match male and female slaves as husband and wife according to his own wishes. At the same time, he can also have sexual intercourse with any maid he likes.Of course, these influences will not weaken the cohesion of the noble family, because the establishment of the noble family is based on the desire for family status, and the victory of family rivalries in the urban life characteristic of antiquity - much like the second half of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Urban life in Italy of the era.However, in the early days of the Roman Empire, aristocracy lost its place because Christianity, which ultimately prevailed, was at first a religion of slaves and the proletariat.The former weakening of the power of the family among the various classes of society was no doubt due to the fact that ancient Christianity opposed the family and imposed a moral standard which put the family in a secondary position.Its position is so low that it did not exist in the previous moral standards, except for the Buddhist moral standards.In the Christian moral standard, what is important is not the relationship between people, but the relationship between the soul and God.

However.The case of Buddhism reminds us that we cannot place too much emphasis on the purely economic reasons for religion.I don't quite know what the situation in India was like when Buddhism spread.As for whether Buddhism's emphasis on the individual soul is due to economic reasons, at the same time, I also doubt whether there were such reasons at the time.In fact, when Buddhism prevailed in India, it was originally a religion of the powerful, so that the idea of ​​the family should have been more beneficial to them than to any other class.Later, however, people generally began to look down on the real world in favor of soul salvation, and as a result, the family was given an extremely neglected place in Buddhist moral standards.With the exception of Muhammad, all the great religious leaders (if Confucianism can be called a religion, Confucius is among them) were generally very indifferent to society and politics, because their purpose was to bring the soul to achieve Purification as good as it gets.

The religions that have been produced throughout history are, contrary to the religions that preceded history, all centered on the individual, and they all believe that a single person can fulfill all his responsibilities in a solitary life.Of course, these religions also believe that if a person has social relations, he must fulfill those social relations and recognized responsibilities.However, they generally do not regard the formation of social relations as a matter of responsibility.This is especially true of Christianity, which has historically been against the family.We can see this admonition in the Bible: "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of being my disciple." This sentence means that a person should do what he thinks is right, even if his Parents think it is wrong - this kind of concept is unacceptable to the ancient Romans and conservative Chinese.

In Christianity this tinge of individualism gradually weakened all social relations, especially among the most zealous.In Catholicism the influence is less than in Protestantism, where the element of confusion is most evident in the principle that we should obey God rather than men.Obedience to God actually means obedience to conscience, but people's consciences are very different.Therefore, when there is a conflict between conscience and the law, the true Christian will feel that he should respect those who obey his conscience rather than the dictates of the law.In ancient cultures, the father is God, but in Christianity, God is the priest, so the authority of the father is weakened.

The decline of the modern family system is undoubtedly largely due to the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but the decline began long before the Industrial Revolution.The decline of the family institution stems from the theory of individualism.Nowadays, young people insist on choosing their lovers according to their own wishes, rather than obeying the orders of their parents.Gone is the custom of married sons living in their parents' home.It has become a habit for the son to go out to earn a living as soon as he graduates from school.In the past, as long as children could work in factories, they became a source of income for their parents until they died of overwork.But the Factories Act had abolished this form of exploitation, despite the protests of those who made their living by it.Since then, children have changed from a means of earning a living to an economic burden.At this stage, people knew how to use contraception, so the birth rate began to decline.It is generally accepted that, regardless of age, human beings have children according to their economic status.In any case, this applies to the Aboriginal people of Australia, the textile workers of Lancashire, and the nobles of England.I dare not claim that this notion can be confirmed theoretically, but it is certainly not far from the truth.

(End of this chapter)