1) How can we distinguish between a good and a bad action?
2) What is my definition of marriage?
Relativity of Actions and Needs
From my understanding of the universe’s puzzle, no act is entirely right or wrong. Any judgment about an act is relative: it depends on the social evolution of human beings, who progress consciously but very slowly compared to the rest of the universe. Good and evil are social conceptions—not universal truths. Words like « good » and « evil » were invented by humans, but the ideas of good and evil, clearly or obscurely, have been shaped to varying degrees by all intelligent social beings. The definition of Good, ratified and approved by the accepted conduct of social beings, is as follows: behavior is considered just when it best serves the developmental needs of a given society.
But what is a need? In the past, needs were mostly determined by the unconscious reaction of the structure (social or individual) to environmental pressures. Until recently, I still thought like Huxley, Von Hartman, and my professor Lum that needs were dictated by environmental pressures; consciousness could perceive, obey, or oppose, but could not influence the course of social development; if it opposed it, it only provoked its own ruin without altering the ideal set by unconscious forces.
Consciousness and Evolution
In recent years, I have concluded that consciousness plays an increasingly significant role in shaping social problems; even if it is currently a minor voice (and will remain so for a long time), it represents a growing power capable of overthrowing old processes and laws, replacing them with new forces and ideals. I know of no perspective more fascinating than the role of consciousness in present and future evolution. I mention it only because, in describing our current conception of well-being, I will again hypothesize that the old ideal has been considerably modified by unconscious reactions.
The question becomes: what is the emerging ideal in our society, an ideal not yet consciously formulated but whose signals we can perceive and begin to discern?
Based on all indicators of progress, this ideal seems to me to be individual freedom; a society whose economic, political, social, and sexual organization constantly ensures and increases the possibilities of its members, where solidarity and continuity depend on the free attraction of components, and never on obligation in any form. If you do not perceive, as I do, that this is the current social trend, you will likely disagree with the rest of my argument. For it would be too easy to prove that maintaining old social divisions into classes—each fulfilling specialized roles such as priests, soldiers, workers, capitalists, servants, herders—is in accordance with society’s growing strength, and thus that marriage is a good act.
My position, the starting point from which I judge good or bad actions, is this: the social trend moves toward individual freedom, implying the realization of all conditions necessary for this freedom to emerge.
Second Point: My Position on Marriage
Fifteen or eighteen years ago, I had not yet left the convent long enough to forget its teachings. I had not lived or experienced enough to create my own definitions. For me, marriage was “a sacrament of the Church” or “a civil ceremony sanctioned by the state,” allowing a man and woman to unite for life unless a court granted separation. With all the energy of a neophyte free thinker, I criticized religious marriage because a priest has no right to intervene in private life; I condemned the phrase “until death do us part,” as this immoral promise enslaves a person to current feelings and dictates their entire future; I denounced the miserable vulgarity of religious and civil ceremonies, which place intimate relationships under public scrutiny, commentary, and ridicule.
I still defend these positions. Nothing revolts me more than the supposed sacrament of marriage; it insults delicacy because it proclaims to the world a strictly private matter. For instance, consider the literature circulated on Alice Roosevelt’s marriage: the so-called “American princess” was subjected to endless obscene jokes simply because the world had to be informed of her marriage to Mr. Longworth.
But today, I do not refer to civil or religious marriage when I say, “Marriage is a bad act.” The ceremony itself is merely form, a ghost, an empty shell. By marriage, I mean its real content: the permanent sexual and economic relationship between a man and a woman that maintains the couple and family as they exist today. I do not care if it is polygamous, polyandrous, or monogamous, nor whether it is officiated publicly or privately, with or without a contract. What I affirm is that a permanent relationship of dependence harms the development of personality, and this is what I oppose.
In the past, I sincerely advocated exclusive unions between a man and woman as long as they were in love, dissolvable whenever either wished. At that time, I exalted the bonds of love—and only those.
Today, I prefer a marriage founded strictly on financial considerations over one founded on love—not because I care for marriage’s perpetuity, but because I care for love’s perpetuity. The easiest and most reliable way to kill love is through marriage, as I have defined it. The only way to preserve love in its ecstatic form—the form deserving a specific name—is to maintain distance. Never allow love to be sullied by the indecent trivialities of permanent intimacy. Better to despise your enemy daily than to despise the person you love.
Those unfamiliar with my objections to legal and social forms may exclaim: “Then you wish to end all relations between the sexes? You want the earth populated only by nuns and monks?” Absolutely not. I do not worry about human reproduction, and I would shed no tears if the last human were born. But I do not preach total sexual abstinence either.
I wish people would approach their instincts normally—not overindulge, not ration, not exaggerate virtue beyond its true use, nor denounce instincts as servants of Evil. In short, I want men and women to live so they remain free individuals, in this domain as in others. Every individual must set limits to their instincts: what is normal for one may be excessive for another; what is excessive at one age may be normal at another. Regarding the effects of normal satisfaction of normal appetites on population, I believe conscious control is possible, as it already exists in some measure and will increase as knowledge progresses.
Marriage vs. Individual Development
“Marriage proponents may ask: what about raising children? Isn’t parenting essential for male and female development?”
Such arguments are made by scientific-minded advocates; religious ones cite God’s will. I focus on the first. They argue that since humans are the highest evolutionary link, social and sexual relationships are dictated by species needs: in animals, the length of learning determines conjugal duration; therefore, in humans, extended learning justifies a permanent family.
But unconscious or semi-conscious adaptation, which determined reproduction in higher animals, does not justify the marriage institution as essential for personal growth. Even “successful” marriages—where couples lived harmoniously, raised children decently, and supported one another—do not, in my view, lead to greater individual fulfillment than less conventionally happy lives.
Reproduction and Other Human Needs
Originally, the drive to reproduce ensured survival. Human instinct followed nature blindly. Yet as consciousness grows—through brain power, knowledge, invention, and mastery of nature—the need for prolific reproduction declines. Fewer children born with greater care increases the chances for survival, development, and fulfillment of projects. Individual development no longer requires many, or even any, children.
Other human needs—food, clothing, housing, sexual satisfaction not tied to reproduction, artistic creation, knowledge, work, and expression—are equally important. Marriage often forces dependence that paralyzes personal growth, particularly for women, but sometimes for men as well.
Sexual Hypocrisy and Cohabitation
Marriage claims to satisfy sexual needs and prevent moral or physical excess. In practice, it often fails. Women, influenced by religious teachings, frequently deny or understate their sexual desire, causing self-deprivation and stunted personal growth.
Early cohabitation—especially at the age of highest sexual desire—leads to irritation, contempt, and loss of intimacy. Even compatible couples rarely remain aligned in desires over a lifetime. Permanent dependence fosters resentment and suppresses individuality.
Examples include Ernest Crosby and Hugh O. Pentecost, whose marriages constrained their ideals and activism. Such stories are common in everyday life: one partner’s development often limits the other’s.
Children and Individual Freedom
Normal desire for children need not justify sacrificing freedom through marriage. Children can be raised in homes, split households, or communities; discovery of life is richer in freedom than under repression. Existing education systems under parental dominance fail to convincingly produce ideal outcomes.
Free unions produce results neither better nor worse; single-parent households are comparable. Love and respect endure longer when partners remain independent, meet less frequently, and maintain individuality. Marriage diminishes love, converts respect into contempt, taints intimacy, and limits personal growth. Hence, I maintain: “Marriage is a bad act.”
Source: MujeresLibres