As promised, I am back with my first review/summary. (Actually, trying to be both, it ends up being neither) :)
The human brain functions through heuristics. Just like a student would first derive a formula and then apply it (as opposed to deriving the formula every time its application is required), the human mind will try to frame all sorts of rules taking into account various factors and then adhere to those rules.
This approach is very advantageous to a human as it saves valuable circuitry in the brain. Along with the advantages it proffers, are certain shortcomings. If the original parameters that went into framing the heuristic are changed, we are often left with a redundant heuristic. Often, completely oblivious to the changed parameters, we continue to apply the same heuristic.
The functioning of a society as a whole cannot be expected to differ significantly from the unit that makes it up. Hence, we have a set of codes, morals and taboos all defined as a society evolved. Ethics pertaining to sexuality are among the most rigid of them all. Bertrand Russell wanted to analyze the prevalent ethics to to analyze their pertinence in today's era (His era actually). Marriage and Morals does just that. It subjects the prevailing ethics to scrutiny from various angles to do a thorough review. One of the reasons , I admired him was that he never advocated the complete relegation of sexuality from the domain of ethical purview. This conclusion would probably have emerged had he viewed the problem purely through the prism of individual pleasure and gratification as is being done by some of our contemporaries.
Instead, a well crafted sexual ethic has to do justice to various considerations like individual satisfaction and happiness, social stability, nurture of progeny among others. The consideration that towers over all others should be the role a sexual ethic should play in the healthy upbringing of a child.I agree with Russell when he says that a marriage's most important function is the upbringing of a child and it should be legally and socially acceptable for married couples without kids to divorce. He also argues that the role of the state in providing for the child is on the ascent and the role of the father is becoming redundant and we may reach a point where the father is not required at all. Keeping in mind the scenario in India, I find myself disagreeing with this view.
With the development of contraceptives, individuals dont have to worry about begetting kids while in a relationship. I will not go into the details of the relationship Russell considers ethical but I will mention that he was not an advocate of sexual relationships devoid of emotional attachment. (See chapter: Trial Marriage)
Besides his progressive views, what makes the book an interesting read is the explanation he offers for how things turned out the way they are. For instance, he attributes male jealousy and female chastity to the problem of determining the paternity of a child. Only when the father is sure of the paternity of the child, would he invest his resources in raising the child (and thus sow his seeds).
He also discusses other topics like Prostitution and Eugenics. Again, I find it better not to have a detailed discussion on all these topics.
The reason why I haven't discussed all these topics in detail is because someone else already has and I dont think I can better him.
Please visit this link to read a summary of each chapter from the book. It will elaborate all the topics I have mentioned. If sufficiently interested, I recommend you get hold of the book.
