Taking out “in the world” tones it down, in the same way that taking the spikes out of a club tones it down. “Why would anyone...” is still a rhetorical question asserting that anyone who does is a dolt. You do the same in another comment: “Why would anyone make a lifetime commitment?”
Clearly, many people do get engaged, do get married, do make lifetime commitments. A majority of people, even, at least here in the West; I do not know how it is in Slovenia. (The disadvantageous tax regime you have in Slovenia was done away with long ago in the UK: married couples can elect to be taxed as separate individuals.) But saying “Why would anyone do such a thing” does not invite discussion, it shuts it off. If you actually wanted to know people’s reasons, you would actually ask them, and listen to the answers.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
I was interested in the following:
Why do so few people who want to get married question the wisdom of such a step considering its high costs and dubious benefits (in comparison to say cohabitation)?
Why do people in general want to get married? (this is different from the question of whether it is rational to marry)
Is it rational for most people who marry to do so?
I was not specifically interested in why Alicorn wanted to get married. I did want to provoke, maybe even shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts.
When I got married, I thought about this a little, and I concluded that marriage (but not cohabitation) would:
Create a partner with a non-betrayal stance towards me (i.e. would not defect against me in a one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma game).
Signal to others that I and partner had a non-betrayal stance towards each other.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer. I do think that many people go into marriage without thinking of these considerations, and I think that is a mistake. In other words, I think that the answer to your third question is no. But that depends on society’s tolerance of cohabitation, which wasn’t always society’s attitude.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer.
I can think this is because it is an act that is supposed to entail the following:
shared reproductive interests
shared financial interests
at least some pair bonding (Oxytocin makes you love your kdis and love your romantic partner, in extreme cases enough to be willing to sacrifice yourself)
To me, those things are implied by the “non-betrayal” stance. Agreement on childbearing, shared financial interest, and pair bonding (i.e. shared emotional interest) are consequences of the fundamental agreement not to betray. As you note, each of those could be achieved without marriage—but most people act as if this were not possible. I’m just as confused as you.
That is different from noting the incidental benefits of legal marriage—if I die without a will, my wife gets my property. To achieve the same effect without marriage, I’d have to actually create a will. And so on for all the legal rights I want my wife to have (e.g. de facto legal guardian if I am incapacitated). But I want my wife to have those rights because of the non-betrayal stance, and if that wasn’t our relationship, I wouldn’t want her to have those rights.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
Ask as if you did not already have a presumption about what the answer should be. Telling people they’re idiots unless they agree with you will only convince them you are someone they do not want to talk to.
Your latest reformulation is better—the key substitution is “do” instead of “would”. The second and third bullet points are absolutely fine, but in the first and in the final paragraph you’re still sticking your own oar in with “considering its high costs and dubious benefits” and “shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts”. There are, as it happens, people who have thought carefully about what arrangement they want to make on these matters, and without having to be told about cached thoughts either, but you will never hear them with that approach.
No.
Taking out “in the world” tones it down, in the same way that taking the spikes out of a club tones it down. “Why would anyone...” is still a rhetorical question asserting that anyone who does is a dolt. You do the same in another comment: “Why would anyone make a lifetime commitment?”
Clearly, many people do get engaged, do get married, do make lifetime commitments. A majority of people, even, at least here in the West; I do not know how it is in Slovenia. (The disadvantageous tax regime you have in Slovenia was done away with long ago in the UK: married couples can elect to be taxed as separate individuals.) But saying “Why would anyone do such a thing” does not invite discussion, it shuts it off. If you actually wanted to know people’s reasons, you would actually ask them, and listen to the answers.
Ok fair enough, can you propose a better way to ask?
I was interested in the following:
Why do so few people who want to get married question the wisdom of such a step considering its high costs and dubious benefits (in comparison to say cohabitation)?
Why do people in general want to get married? (this is different from the question of whether it is rational to marry)
Is it rational for most people who marry to do so?
I was not specifically interested in why Alicorn wanted to get married. I did want to provoke, maybe even shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts.
When I got married, I thought about this a little, and I concluded that marriage (but not cohabitation) would:
Create a partner with a non-betrayal stance towards me (i.e. would not defect against me in a one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma game).
Signal to others that I and partner had a non-betrayal stance towards each other.
It’s an interesting question why marriage is able to create that first effect, and I don’t have a good answer. I do think that many people go into marriage without thinking of these considerations, and I think that is a mistake. In other words, I think that the answer to your third question is no. But that depends on society’s tolerance of cohabitation, which wasn’t always society’s attitude.
I can think this is because it is an act that is supposed to entail the following:
shared reproductive interests
shared financial interests
at least some pair bonding (Oxytocin makes you love your kdis and love your romantic partner, in extreme cases enough to be willing to sacrifice yourself)
To me, those things are implied by the “non-betrayal” stance. Agreement on childbearing, shared financial interest, and pair bonding (i.e. shared emotional interest) are consequences of the fundamental agreement not to betray. As you note, each of those could be achieved without marriage—but most people act as if this were not possible. I’m just as confused as you.
That is different from noting the incidental benefits of legal marriage—if I die without a will, my wife gets my property. To achieve the same effect without marriage, I’d have to actually create a will. And so on for all the legal rights I want my wife to have (e.g. de facto legal guardian if I am incapacitated). But I want my wife to have those rights because of the non-betrayal stance, and if that wasn’t our relationship, I wouldn’t want her to have those rights.
Ask as if you did not already have a presumption about what the answer should be. Telling people they’re idiots unless they agree with you will only convince them you are someone they do not want to talk to.
Your latest reformulation is better—the key substitution is “do” instead of “would”. The second and third bullet points are absolutely fine, but in the first and in the final paragraph you’re still sticking your own oar in with “considering its high costs and dubious benefits” and “shock people into thinking about it beyond cached thoughts”. There are, as it happens, people who have thought carefully about what arrangement they want to make on these matters, and without having to be told about cached thoughts either, but you will never hear them with that approach.