The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

=)ArgumentMy argument is actually quite simple. I will deconstruct the metaphor to isolate the symbolic elements in the parable, and show how the elements of the metaphor can easily apply to polyamory and polygamy. By doing so, I meet burden of proof.1) "People". Yes, people must be gathered in a group around the "table". There's no real symbology here. People are people.2) "Heaven and Hell". Simple enough, "heaven" is "good" and "hell" is "evil".3) "Spoons". This is the first symbolic representation of the parable. The spoons represent limitations placed upon humanity that prevent a person from realizing their own self-interests. For the issue of polyamory, it would be the social stigma against narcissism, and for polygamy, it would be the fact that we are simply not asexual beings.4) "Table with food". This is the second symbolic representation of the parable. How the people interact with this "table" determines whether or not we are in heaven or hell. In heaven, people can fully interact with the table despite their limitations, whereas in hell, people cannot. For polyamory, the table would represent romantic relationships, the idea being that the more we engage in interpersonal romantic relationships, the more we interact with the table. For polygamy, the table would represent sex, the idea being that the more we engage in interpersonal sexual relationships, the more we interact with the table. That's the bare-bones deconstruction of the parable relevant to polyamory and polygamy. Next I will show how both sex and romantic relationships are "good", and upon doing so I will meet burden of proof. Good and EvilPerhaps you have some reservations about whether or not romantic relationships and sex should be seen as the "table with food". Fair enough, we can explore such a concept. 1) For sex, there's obviously the matter of procreation, which unlike the carnal and hedonistic aspects of sex is generally much easier to reach a conclusion of sex being a moral positive. If you consider procreation to be a positive, then "sex is good". If sex is good, then indeed sex is the "table with food". The parable would then preclude masturbation and other forms of asexuality, and would instead advocate for as much interpersonal sex as possible in order to achieve maximal satiation amongst all the people sitting at the table. Thus, according to this conception, mass orgies with the goal of having as many offspring with as many mates as possible would be "heaven". Are there advantages to this? Sure. More mates means more people that can get involved in taking care of children. More children means more chances that your genetic legacy will carry on. More openness about sexuality and the benefits of cooperative child-rearing would justify ritualistic orgies to affirm the interpersonal nature of sex and child-rearing. If everyone does this, then everyone wins. Masturbation and even monogamy would not be seen as moral solutions under such justifications. Is this realistic? Of course not. With too many people, we run into the problem of scarcity, and IMHO this is the main problem with this parable. It assumes the table is plentiful, and that scarcity is not an issue. We can't just think that we can procreate without limitation. Regardless of whether or not the parable is realistic, it's undeniable that this lack of scarcity is the parable's main message (as the table is plentiful), and that moral action predicates that we assume that scarcity does not exist. 2) I included polyamory along with polygamy because I wanted to stress that sex has consequences, and that the best way to deal with the consequences (procreation) is to have relationships that facilitate sharing the responsibilities inherent in child-rearing. In this sense, the logic for why "polygamy is good/evil" is the same logic that would apply for why "polyamory is good/evil". ConclusionIn the end, IMHO the weak link of this parable is the necessary condition that "the table is plentiful". In reality, it simply isn't. We do not reside in heaven, and it's not just a matter of willing it to be so. If the table were plentiful, then we should procreate as much as we possibly can with as many people as possible, build intimate relationships with as many people as possible that would facilitate child-rearing, and thus not only secure our genetic legacy going forward, but also perpetuate humanity ad infinitum. Such is the message of the parable, and by demonstrating a clear parallel with the "table of plenty" and polygamy/polyamory, I meet burden for this debate, regardless of the impracticality of the parable's main message.