Un articolo su New Humanist esplora la riflessione morale sulla monogamia nelle nostre società.

For many generations in societies shaped by Christianity, monogamy has been the almost undisputed champion of relationship norms. In Britain and the US, it has been held up as the dominant – really the only – ideal for serious romantic partnerships, toward which all of us should always be striving. According to the authors of a 2019 article in Archives of Sexual Behavior, focused on the US context, a “halo surrounds monogamous relationships . . . monogamous people are perceived to have various positive qualities based solely on the fact they are monogamous.” Other relationship models, or even just being persistently single, have often been seen as suspect, if not morally wrong.

Le critiche, anche feroci, a questo modello dominante, nascono anzitutto nel mondo femminista. Secondo questo approccio, la monogamia nasce per servire gli interessi degli uomini. Il suo ruolo principale è assicurare la paternità dei figli e, quindi, garantire la trasmissione del patrimonio tramite l’eredità. Questa ciritica, però, non è mai arrivata ad oppporsi in principio alla monogamia, ma semplicemente a rivendicare la possibilità, per ognuno, di aderire al modello di relazione che più lo rende felice.

Esistono, però, anche scuole di pensiero che sono arrivate a considerare la monogamia immorale di per sé:

Harry Chalmers, for one. He is part of a growing cadre of philosophers arguing that monogamy itself may be morally wrong. In his 2019 paper “Is Monogamy Morally Permissible?” published in the Journal of Value Inquiry, he argued against a laissez-faire perspective that sees both monogamy and non-monogamy appropriately sitting on the menu of options. Instead, he writes: “We morally ought to reject monogamy.” To be clear, Chalmers thinks people should be free to have one, and only one, sexual or romantic partner in any given period. What he thinks is wrong, rather, is the common practice of placing restrictions on how one’s partner may act with others – in terms of sexual contact or emotional intimacy – as a condition of continuing the relationship.

La conclusione dell’articolo critica queste posizioni estreme, perché non considerano un punto fondamentale: una aperta ed onesta comunicazione.

Instead, as Bryan R. Weaver and Fiona Woollard argued in an important article published in The Monist in 2008, there are good and bad reasons for, and ways to pursue, monogamy. The bad ways involve making unwarranted presumptions, unreflective decisions, or being controlling, possessive or manipulative. The good ways involve clear, upfront communication, respect between parties, and equal standing to decide how things should go.