# Moral Questions and Happiness



## Confused-one (Apr 7, 2011)

Dear All,

I would like to ask a general question which might offend most of us but I am still going to stick my head out and ask this one so don’t answer this question at once. Think about it and if still feel I am incorrect please enlighten me by showing why and how am incorrect. 

I want to understand a few things. We all agree that most of the men are attracted to beautiful (which can be a subjective term but we all can actually relate to it) women. Also women are generally are attracted (if not always) to men who are financially secure or reflect the traits of provider (does not always mean being financially secure but maybe towering personality and all things we generally associate with masculine personality including dominance and negative triads).

If we try and understand from this then what is love and attraction, we can clearly define there are set of socio-economical security needs and downright physiological need for lust and dominance being presented in the facade of emotions called love and attraction. I know you all want me to eat me for breakfast for making such a statement but picture this. 

Picture this you are a guy you meet a really good looking girl, she sees you as provider. Now you two start dating together or get married at a later stage in life so can’t this relationship be seen as a mutually beneficial business transaction between two individuals who both see a win-win. Now with due course of time these two individuals plan to have a family because of the physiological need for copulation or hormonal reactions kicking in and have a child and this is how a family grows. 

In this whole scenario a third person who can offer better business value proposition the existing relationship will break but like in every other business transaction that value proposition should be significant enough to compel other person to move form his existing relationship because of what we call as “Pro-incumbency effect” in psychology and inertia in physics. Provided the value proposition can offer sufficient force to break the existing inertia we shall be able to move the partner from the existing business relationship (i.e. girl being enough physically attractive or boy being a far better provider) and then current business relationship breaks and we refer it with smooth words like break-up, cheating, divorce etc. 

Now my question to all is that if emotions are nothing but downright ugly responses to changing physiological needs and moral values big word for Inertia in a financial transaction. I want to understand. 

1.	Why would one need to look for love & companionship and all those great English words and rather focus understanding that every relationship is a business transaction if we do not bring value to the table we shall be soon out of business. If have a great value to the table then business (or women in my case) shall be looking out to moving there business towards us. 

2.	Why do we look down upon sugar daddies-Gold-Digger relationships aren’t all relationships more or less same with inertia here and there playing a role? 

I ask this question because I am a 28 year old male who has never been in a relationship all his life but don’t know why still yearns for one. You have all the rights in the world to judge, loathe me but whatever you may think of me it will never make difference to how I feel but if could help me your see your point of view I shall be able highly obliged because problem with my points of view it offer no cushion and hence one always remains secure from being hurt at the cost of never being happy.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

I haven't given enough thought to answer more fully, but my first thought occurred in the last milisecond of reading: if you make the analogy of long term-marriage type-relationships being akin to a business transaction (and I'm not questioning that this will resonate with others than the more hard-bitten among us), can you explain how a business transaction of that type could make you happy (an emotion), or the absence of it prevent happiness?


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Confused-one said:


> If we try and understand from this then what is love and attraction, we can clearly define there are set of socio-economical security needs and downright physiological need for lust and dominance being presented in the facade of emotions called love and attraction. I know you all want me to eat me for breakfast for making such a statement but picture this.


In my opinion, you made one large leap and incorrectly assumed it to be logical. Somehow, you seem to assume attraction's end result will be love, or that the two are the same. That's not the case for most people.

For many, love includes the belief that this person will continue to hold these strong feelings for you even when you reveal unattractive flaws. Trust and integrity are critical elements of the mix for many. So, maybe the looks cause you to notice, and can even lead to an infatuation.

Sure, I make a very comfortable living, but I would never consider marrying a woman just because she looked beautiful. It would go a little farther towards love if I knew she had no interest in counting the cash in my wallet.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Reducing relationships, to one of commodities does not involve looking at the intrinsic values people bring. Sure many men want to marry a beautiful woman, and some women want a confident man etc, but they are not the only traits one can bring, someone must have far more than that for sustainability.

I do not love my fiance for one or two simple reasons, I love him in so many infinite ways. If I was to reduce our relationship to merely a transaction of goods and services I would allways be worried about when he was going to trade me in for a newer model, and he would probably feel the same.

However real relationships are luckily far deeper then that, and bonds are formed and history ends up being shared. I know I'm beautiful,  however for me to have a deep bond needed for lasting love, I know my fiance has to love more then just my out ward appearance. 

If you look at relationships as a business, you end up with a cold impersonal transaction between two people.


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

Confused-one said:


> 1.	Why would one need to look for love & companionship and all those great English words and rather focus understanding that every relationship is a business transaction if we do not bring value to the table we shall be soon out of business. If have a great value to the table then business (or women in my case) shall be looking out to moving there business towards us.


This is so true. Once we stop bringing something of value in to it (whether it's a relationship or a business)....then the partner/s are likely to start feeling jarded, give the offender the boot and begin looking elsewhere for someone who better fits their/it's needs.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

OK, I will have a stab at this for you. 

In the start of the business relationship, the young entrepreneur is fully engaged in catching the most lucrative deals that he can find, eventually he finds a business partner who has an impressive enough ROI (Return On Investment) that he soon thinks that this partnership can be extended to the benefit of both parties.

This initial rush of investing and reinvesting leads to a mutually satisfying accounts ledger, and the checks and balances all look to be sitting easily in the black. The young entrepreneur decides that this deal is lucrative enough that he can sign a long term contract and therefore secure the investments he has thus far made. 

However, in his greed and haste, he has failed to read the fine print of the contract which includes mergers, and share acquisition rights for the partner. It also details splitting of equity and diversification of the portfolio. This process also leads to a refinance option and a balloon payment that will deficit the account a long way and lead to a regulatory payment schedule owing to the diversification option. 

Business expansion is inevitable and the entrepreneur is left looking for other investment opportunities that will top his failing account. This is in contradiction to the exclusivity clause signed by him in the initial enterprise bargaining agreement and therefore leads to penalties and withdrawals of the partners invested equities and deposit schedule.

The reduction in investment interest is compounding over time, and can lead to total bankruptcy of the entrepreneur with all stocks and bonds being transferred to the partner, again owing to the legal loophole that was skilfully inserted as a sub-clause in the initial acquisition.

So, as a tip for the young entrepreneur, there are two options. One is to spread your interests and assets and sign no contracts, acquire as many business associates as possible and forego security, or two, risk it all and sign to a single lucrative partner and be extremely thorough when creating the contract to ensure asset protection and assurances, and to protect the investment by ensuring partner satisfaction with frequent schmoozing and an upbeat PR campaign regardless of the economy. 

Hope this is in a language you can understand...


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

^ Great great post


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Confused-one said:


> Now my question to all is that if emotions are nothing but downright ugly responses to changing physiological needs and moral values big word for Inertia in a financial transaction. I want to understand.
> 
> 1.	Why would one need to look for love & companionship and all those great English words and rather focus understanding that every relationship is a business transaction if we do not bring value to the table we shall be soon out of business. If have a great value to the table then business (or women in my case) shall be looking out to moving there business towards us.
> 
> ...


You write 9 paragraphs and thousands of words and completely misunderstand and incorrectly frame the relationship between two people in love as a business transaction akin to a type of prostitution.

If this is as you really believe, or even if this is just an amusing exercise to you, then I see why you've reached age 28 with no relationships.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd bet that most potential romantic partners you encounter glean this transactional way of being and run in the other direction.

A different attitude and genuine set of behaviors would improve your life more than writing essays reducing romantic interaction so coldly.


----------



## AltoSax4ever (Feb 23, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> OK, I will have a stab at this for you.
> 
> In the start of the business relationship, the young entrepreneur is fully engaged in catching the most lucrative deals that he can find, eventually he finds a business partner who has an impressive enough ROI (Return On Investment) that he soon thinks that this partnership can be extended to the benefit of both parties.
> 
> ...


I had to read that a second time just to make sure I understood it!!! Beautiful, simply beautiful!!! :smthumbup:


----------



## Dammed (Apr 1, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> OK, I will have a stab at this for you.
> 
> In the start of the business relationship, the young entrepreneur is fully engaged in catching the most lucrative deals that he can find, eventually he finds a business partner who has an impressive enough ROI (Return On Investment) that he soon thinks that this partnership can be extended to the benefit of both parties.
> 
> ...



Mephisto, this one deserves a place in Wall Street Journal. Investment Bankers generally have messed up married life. 

Perhaps they may be able to understand and make amends. My advice option two never fails until you yourself fail it. On the other hand option 1 is doomed to fail in long run 100% of times.


Dear Confused, 

Jokes apart, If I extend your logic then it would go to friendship, relationships with parents and every other relationship you have in this world. Today this is fine but when you are in serious mess this attitude will ensure that you have no support system and will ensure you become escapist.

Finally this approach will ensure you will become a statistic (suicide statistic). I know this might sound wired but people who follow your approach reach mystic heights only to realize that where they are no one is near them, then they don’t know what to do, whom to ask and finally quit on themselves. 

None of us no matter how hard we try will ever be able to explain you how do or what exactly emotions are. My advice to you is first of all get a partner and try falling in love. Next time we talk you would have changed your mind for good.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Margaret Meade suggested that couples marry with a 10 year contract that's mutually renewable. Every ten years you 'renegotiate' your terms. 

It's not as far fetched as it sounds. Marriage as we view it, grew out of cultures where women married at 12 or 13, many died in childbirth, men married at 16 to 20 and if you made it all the way to age 30 or 33 you were 'old'. So women typically didn't stay marry, usually because of early death, more than 6 to 10 years. Men would remarry another 12 -14 year old and keep going until he died in a few years. The idea that people would remain married to the same person for 40 or 50 years was absurd. But now here we are chained to each till death do you part and both of you can't wait for that happy day.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

I have family histories in my ancestry going back to the 1600s. Most of my ancestors remained married from early adulthood through their 70--80s. Rarely did any of them die early or divorce.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Henry V was 15 or 16 when he conquered France.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Runs like Dog said:


> Henry V was 15 or 16 when he conquered France.


More like mid-20s.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

Henry V never conquered France. He was knighted at age 12, crowned at 26, won the battle at Agincourt against the french at age 28, conquered most of Normanby, and was named Heir to the french throne at 30 under the Treaty of Troyes, He married Charles's IVth's daughter, Catherine de Valois at 31, and they had a son (the future Henry VI) before he died of dysentery at age 34. 

People, if you wanna argue history, use the facts. the University of Google is open 24/7...


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

michzz said:


> I have family histories in my ancestry going back to the 1600s. Most of my ancestors remained married from early adulthood through their 70--80s. Rarely did any of them die early or divorce.


I'd say one of us had a pretty unique family history then. I've also got genealogies running back to the mid-1600's and in nearly every generation it's more common to see marriages in young adulthood, but then one spouse surviving the other, often by decades and remarrying--sometimes multiple times.

One of my favorites was named Quiller Garrison and he lived to be 70 something, homesteaded out from Pennsylvania to Ohio and was married 8 times, widowed every single time. He had something like a dozen children from all of that and I don't recall whether his last wife survived him or not....

But the reality was that it was difficult to manage property if you were a widow and it was equally difficult to manage a home and family if you were a widower--marriage often was a combination of affection and business. Hopefully more of the former, but it was an entirely different time than we live in now.


----------



## nala21 (Apr 7, 2011)

Lol Mephisto. Lol. "University of Google..." haha. Love it. Greatest line in a long time.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

whatever, the point is, people and their institutions aren't designed to hitch people together for 30 years.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

Yeah, agreed RLD, I am not going to argue that one with you. Sometimes, tho, it is possible to find someone who actually IS interested in having a good relationship and will work WITH you to keep it alive and good. Someone who will be your friend as well as your lover and confidant.... other times you end up with a howling alley cat she-male in a feminist coating. Unfortunately it is a loaded roll of the dice. 

I actually think the 10 year renegotiation is a great idea... should run it by the wife.... I am suspecting an outbreak of howling alley cat she-male in a feminist coating if I do tho.


----------



## MariaR (Apr 4, 2011)

I guess the real question is how badly do you want to be happy? Not just content and satisfied as the business world and being successful in whatever applicable way provides, but giddy, smiling from ear-to-ear, tell the whole world, everything is rainbows kind of happy?

I've had the giddy kind of happy and feel like I'm back to the business transaction kind. Really contemplating the merits of the latter and if it's just a complete waste of time considering you only have one life.

I think I'd rather be happy.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> Yeah, agreed RLD, I am not going to argue that one with you. Sometimes, tho, it is possible to find someone who actually IS interested in having a good relationship and will work WITH you to keep it alive and good. Someone who will be your friend as well as your lover and confidant.... other times you end up with a howling alley cat she-male in a feminist coating. Unfortunately it is a loaded roll of the dice.
> 
> I actually think the 10 year renegotiation is a great idea... should run it by the wife.... I am suspecting an outbreak of howling alley cat she-male in a feminist coating if I do tho.


And females all too often draw the short straw too. Moreover how would your wife feel if she suggested perhaps you weren't up to par and may want to renegotiate after 10 years?

Either you make the commitment or you don't, I also read a stat that when peoples mindsets were "well we can all ways divorce if things don't work out", guess what usually happens?


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

If both partners are working to make a good and happy life for the other then they will inevitably chose to stay together. Or if neither can find their happiness, the split can be amicable. 

In all honesty though, there are so many other factors that become involved that it really isn't a realistic approach, and if you took me seriously on my last comment then I do apologise, it was meant in jest, if you have read the rest of my replies in this thread you will see that I entered it with a laugh and a joke, so I am continuing that till something needs to be addressed seriously. Given that the OP hasn't come back, that isn't likely.


----------



## luckyman (Apr 14, 2011)

I would suggest that you begin to use language that is more appropriately suited to the topic. A loving relationship is not a business transaction, and using business concepts as a literal, or metaphoric means to try to understand the dynamic of a relationship misses the point to a level of humorous absurdity.

You say:
"Now you two start dating together or get married at a later stage in life so can’t this relationship be seen as a mutually beneficial business transaction between two individuals who both see a win-win. Now with due course of time these two individuals plan to have a family because of the physiological need for copulation or hormonal reactions kicking in and have a child and this is how a family grows."

This is a very sad understanding of relationships, indeed. With the degree of cynicism that you are showing, which is all too apparent by the words you choose to use, I am not sure you will make a healthy partner for anyone.

I suggest you try to access your spiritual and emotional side. Try to forget the intellectual temptation to explain everything and just enjoy the emotion that is love.


----------



## Heinz Doofenshmirtz (Apr 12, 2011)

luckyman said:


> I would suggest that you begin to use language that is more appropriately suited to the topic. A loving relationship is not a business transaction, and using business concepts as a literal, or metaphoric means to try to understand the dynamic of a relationship misses the point to a level of humorous absurdity.


Unfortunate as it may be on an emotional level, this is simply not true. In many aspects a marriage (not necessarily a loving relationship) IS a business transaction. Dozens of evolutionary psychology studies have shown that the preference men have for youth and beauty (read; fecundity and the ability to nurture children), and women's preference for age and income (read; status and the ability to provide for said children) are culturally universal. Look into the work of David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist who did some of the very first and pioneering work on this subject.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that a marriage and a loving relationship are one in the same; they are not. As much as I would like for that to be true, it simply isn't. We now live with a romanticized ideal that they are or at least should be, and that by itself is the source of a great deal of marital conflict. The real challenge any married couple faces is finding a mutually agreeable balance between the two, and by itself, that is no small feat.



luckyman said:


> You say:
> "Now you two start dating together or get married at a later stage in life so can’t this relationship be seen as a mutually beneficial business transaction between two individuals who both see a win-win. Now with due course of time these two individuals plan to have a family because of the physiological need for copulation or hormonal reactions kicking in and have a child and this is how a family grows."
> 
> This is a very sad understanding of relationships, indeed. With the degree of cynicism that you are showing, which is all too apparent by the words you choose to use, I am not sure you will make a healthy partner for anyone.
> ...


It may be 'sad' in your view, but it is also very realistic. While I do think the OP has made some mistaken assumptions, in general he is correct. In fact, one of the things that is seen is what is referred to in evolutionary psychology as "the mixed strategy". Monogamy is a great reproductive strategy most of the time. However, truth is that husbands who are great providers aren't always the best genetic donors for strong, healthy, and smart kids. Conversely, the 'hot stud' who has the body, athleticism, and the looks, isn't usually the best provider, so from a woman's point of view the best strategy for her to maximize the success of her children is to find a good provider and look for someone else with the good genes on the side. She gets the benefit of health and strength and security that way.

On the other hand, as men we are highly sensitive to that... we don't want to be supporting kids who aren't ours. This is evidenced by empirical fact; look at the rates of child abuse and homicide and you'll see that a step parent abusing a non-blood offspring are 1,000 times that of a parent doing the same to their own blood offspring. Several demographic and sociological studies have proven this. As men, we also practice what is called 'copulatory vigilance', we don't want our women cheating on us, because again, we don't want to be putting our provisioning efforts into children that aren't ours. 

But, men also invest in the mixed strategy. If you can have a fling on the side and knock her up, you've gotten ahead of the other guy because you've successfully passed on another copy of your genes, but you don't have to invest in their care and feeding, the other chump does.

So call it cynical if you want, but these are the socioeconomic facts of the reproductive strategies of men and women. (And again, are backed up by a very large body of factual scientific evidence.) 

So, rather than saying the OP is the one who won't make a healthy partner for anyone, perhaps you should consider your own viewpoints and make that judgment for yourself. It may be true from your viewpoint, and even more so if you have a partner who shares your values as closely as you do. But are you the one to say that if he finds a partner who also shares his values that he is still not going to be a good partner for them? 

Your sentiment is noble and romantic, but also very naive and narrow minded. There are as many different relationship dynamics as there are couples, and you're being very judgmental. Your contributions here will be much more helpful if you share your experiences and how they have benefitted you and your partner with the hope that others will find them helpful and will actually improve their relationships, rather than passing judgment and being condemning instead.


----------



## typewittyusernamehere (Feb 12, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> Henry V never conquered France. He was knighted at age 12, crowned at 26, won the battle at Agincourt against the french at age 28, conquered most of Normanby, and was named Heir to the french throne at 30 under the Treaty of Troyes, He married Charles's IVth's daughter, Catherine de Valois at 31, and they had a son (the future Henry VI) before he died of dysentery at age 34.
> 
> People, if you wanna argue history, use the facts. the University of Google is open 24/7...


 Lol, this is awesome
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## luckyman (Apr 14, 2011)

Heinz Doofenshmirtz said:


> Unfortunate as it may be on an emotional level, this is simply not true. In many aspects a marriage (not necessarily a loving relationship) IS a business transaction. Dozens of evolutionary psychology studies have shown that the preference men have for youth and beauty (read; fecundity and the ability to nurture children), and women's preference for age and income (read; status and the ability to provide for said children) are culturally universal. Look into the work of David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist who did some of the very first and pioneering work on this subject.
> 
> You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that a marriage and a loving relationship are one in the same; they are not. As much as I would like for that to be true, it simply isn't. We now live with a romanticized ideal that they are or at least should be, and that by itself is the source of a great deal of marital conflict. The real challenge any married couple faces is finding a mutually agreeable balance between the two, and by itself, that is no small feat.
> 
> ...


*Yes, you are correct. I was being narrow minded and judgmental. I am an idealist on many topics, relationships and marriage being two. I am not unaware of the many forms that relationships take. Thank you. I did not like the cynicism of the OP and addressed this in my post.*


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

The problem with ideals is that they involve semantics. I have seen people argue, hell, I have argued my point with someone, who disagreed wholeheartedly, because they saw different meaning in a word that was used. 

If you want to approach your marriage or relationship like a business there is nothing wrong with that, are you going to play Trump, or Branson? You can look at the business being about money, sure, but don't expect much happiness at home. But if you make it your business to invest in doing things to build her love and happiness, then you can fairly much be assured that she will compound your investment and return it in droves.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

> We all agree


No, we don't. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## luckyman (Apr 14, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> The problem with ideals is that they involve semantics. I have seen people argue, hell, I have argued my point with someone, who disagreed wholeheartedly, because they saw different meaning in a word that was used.
> 
> If you want to approach your marriage or relationship like a business there is nothing wrong with that, are you going to play Trump, or Branson? You can look at the business being about money, sure, but don't expect much happiness at home. *But if you make it your business to invest in doing things to build her love and happiness, then you can fairly much be assured that she will compound your investment and return it in droves*.


I like this very much.


----------

