The Relationship Fallacy

In this essay I intend to show that all relationships are entered into for selfish reasons, and thus cannot be justified unless they are re-cast as a trade between willing, rationally self-interested parties.

What is a relationship?

Any relationship - in the sense being discussed here - consist of three components:

Relationship = Friendship + Sex + Commitment

These can exist in varying proportions, but what makes it a relationship rather than anything else is the "commitment" aspect.

A commitment is a kind of verbal contract, an undertaking to adhere to a number of rules - in this case unwritten rules. According to stereotype, the woman knows the rules and the man is obliged to commit to them and then guess what they are, but for the purpose of this diatribe I shall make the unrealistic but charitable assumption that both parties fully understand what is being committed to.

Why enter into a relationship?

Everyone who is in a relationship is in it for one or more of the following reasons:

Biology

This is the primal desire to mate and reproduce, and the need for human company.

Obligation

This includes peer pressure, guilt, a feeling that it's what one should be doing, attempting to keep parents happy, etc. It is about conformity.

Insecurity

This is the feeling of inadequacy caused by loneliness. It is the delusion that there is something wrong with you if no-one 'loves' you.

According to stereotype, most men enter relationships for biological reasons. The commitment is unwanted, but is a price they must pay.
According to stereotype, most women enter relationships for insecurity reasons. The sex is unwanted, but is a price they must pay.
Of course, in truth it's more complex than that. Every relationship will have been entered into for a combination of all three reasons.

My contention is that none of the reasons - individually or in combination - are sufficient for entering a relationship.

The unjust nature of commitment

This unique component of a relationship is the commitment aspect. There may be genuine reasons for wating friendship or sex, but unless there is a genuine reason for the commitment, there is no genuine reason for being in a relationship.

I intend to show that regardless of one's own motives, imposing a commitment on someone else is always unjustifiable.

Biology

Biological justifications only apply to purely biological actions. If an action is only partly biological, then biological explanations can only account for the biological portion. Thus, a biological account of a relationship will only account for the friendship and sex aspects. Commitments - contracts, rules, agreements - are strictly in the domain of people in a society, and thus cannot be justified with reference to biological drives.

To enter into a relationship for biological reasons (i.e. to get laid) is to justify something that cannot be justified that way. It makes no more sense to justify cheating at poker by blaming your genes, and if you do that you open the way for justifying all human actions - including rape and murder - by blaming genetics.

Obligation

Now, no-one should undertake anything simply because they feel they are obliged to. It means they are being forced into it by external forces, not through any choice of their own.

More importantly, to impose a commitment on someone else because of obligations upon you is unjust. It is analogous to forcing someone else to pay your debts for you.

Insecurity

Entering a relationship because you feel insecure without one is unjust. The other person is nothing more than a means to an end. This is most clearly demonstrated by those who say they want a relationship rather than wanting a person.

Relationships as a trade

While imposing a commitment upon someone is unjustified, it is possible they are a willing participant. No matter how apparantly perverse the act, if the people involved are informed and willing, then the act cannot be unjust. So, why would a rational person willing have a relationship commitment imposed upon them?

It has to be because they get something in return. In other words, they too must be entering the relationship for one of the stated three reasons and are willing to pay the price of commitment in order to gain the benefit they seek. i.e. it is a trade.

Refer back to the stereotypical relationships. The man wants sex and will trade commitment for it. The woman wants security and will trade sex for it. They make a deal, and both parties are happy.

The only alternative is someone who simply enjoys making commitments, be they relationship commitments or otherwise. Not only is this implausible but it does not affect my argument, as it is still a trade. One person wants a relationship for whatever reason, the other wants to undertake a commitment (any commitment).

Conclusion

What I have shown is that the imposing of relationship commitments on someone else is always unjustified, unless they are a willing participant. If they are a willing participant, it is because they in turn want to impose relationship commitments. If both parties are willing, then the relationship is a trade, and commitment is the currency.

Therefore, the only relationships that are not unjust are business relationships.