Of the great variety of opinions concerning ―marriage for money‖, the following three are important with reference to the development of the importance of money. Marriages based exclusively upon economic motives have not only existed in all periods and at all stages of development, but are particularly common among primitive groups and conditions where they do not cause any offence at all. The disparagement of personal dignity that nowadays arises in every marriage that is not based on personal affection – so that a sense of decency requires the concealment of economic motives – does not exist in simpler cultures. The reason for this development is that increasing individualization makes it increasingly contradictory and discreditable to enter into purely individual relationships for other than purely individual reasons. For nowadays the choice of a partner in marriage is no longer determined by social motives (though regard for the offspring may be considered to be such a motive), in so far as society doesnot insist upon the couple‘s equal social status – a condition, however, that provides a great deal of latitude and only rarely leads to conflicts between individual and social interests. In a quite undifferentiated society it may be relatively irrelevant who marries whom, irrelevant not only for the mutual relationship of the couple but also for the offspring. This is because where the constitutions, state of health, temperament, internal and external forms of life and orientations are largely the same within the group, the chance that the children will turn out well depends less upon whether the parents agree and complement each other than it does in highly differentiated society. It therefore seems quite natural and expedient that the choice of the partner should be determined by reasons other than purely individual affection. Yet personal attraction should be decisive in a highly individualized society where a harmonious relationship between two individuals becomes increasingly rare. The declining frequency of marriage which is to be found everywhere in highly civilized cultural circumstances is undoubtedly due, in part, to the fact that highly differentiated people in general have difficulty in finding a completely sympathetic complement to themselves. Yet we do not possess any other criterion and indication for the advisability of marriage except mutual instinctive attraction. But, happiness is a purely personal matter, decided upon entirely by the couple themselves, and there would be no compelling reason for the official insistence on at least pretending love may be misleading – particularly in the higher strata, whose complicated circumstances often retard the growth of the purest instincts – no matter how much other conditions may affect the final results, it remains true that, with reference to procreation, love is decidedly superior to money as a factor selection. In fact, in this respect, it is the only right and proper thing. Marriage for money directly creates a situation of panmixia – the indiscriminate pairing regardless of individual qualities – a condition that biology has demonstrated to be the cause of the most direct and detrimental degeneration of the human species. In the case of marriage for money, the union of a couple is determined by a factor that has absolutely nothing to do with racial appropriateness – just as the regard for money often enough keeps apart a couple who really belong together – and it should be considered as a factor in degeneration to the same extent to which the undoubted differentiation of individuals makes selection by personal attraction more and more important. This case too illustrates once more that the increasing individualization within society renders money increasingly unsuitable as a mediator of purely individual relationships.
Of the great variety of opinions concerning ―marriage for money‖, the following three are important with reference to the development of the importance of money. Marriages based exclusively upon economic motives have not only existed in all periods and at all stages of development, but are particularly common among primitive groups and conditions where they do not cause any offence at all. The disparagement of personal dignity that nowadays arises in every marriage that is not based on personal affection – so that a sense of decency requires the concealment of economic motives – does not exist in simpler cultures. The reason for this development is that increasing individualization makes it increasingly contradictory and discreditable to enter into purely individual relationships for other than purely individual reasons.
For nowadays the choice of a partner in marriage is no longer determined by social motives (though regard for the offspring may be considered to be such a motive), in so far as society doesnot insist upon the couple‘s equal social status – a condition, however, that provides a great deal of latitude and only rarely leads to conflicts between individual and social interests. In a quite undifferentiated society it may be relatively irrelevant who marries whom, irrelevant not only for the mutual relationship of the couple but also for the offspring. This is because where the constitutions, state of health, temperament, internal and external forms of life and orientations are largely the same within the group, the chance that the children will turn out well depends less upon whether the parents agree and complement each other than it does in highly differentiated society. It therefore seems quite natural and expedient that the choice of the partner should be determined by reasons other than purely individual affection. Yet personal attraction should be decisive in a highly individualized society where a harmonious relationship between two individuals becomes increasingly rare.
The declining frequency of marriage which is to be found everywhere in highly civilized cultural circumstances is undoubtedly due, in part, to the fact that highly differentiated people in general have difficulty in finding a completely sympathetic complement to themselves. Yet we do not possess any other criterion and indication for the advisability of marriage except mutual instinctive attraction. But, happiness is a purely personal matter, decided upon entirely by the couple themselves, and there would be no compelling reason for the official insistence on at least pretending love may be misleading – particularly in the higher strata, whose complicated circumstances often retard the growth of the purest instincts – no matter how much other conditions may affect the final results, it remains true that, with reference to procreation, love is decidedly superior to money as a factor selection. In fact, in this respect, it is the only right and proper thing.
Marriage for money directly creates a situation of panmixia – the indiscriminate pairing regardless of individual qualities – a condition that biology has demonstrated to be the cause of the most direct and detrimental degeneration of the human species. In the case of marriage for money, the union of a couple is determined by a factor that has absolutely nothing to do with racial appropriateness – just as the regard for money often enough keeps apart a couple who really belong together – and it should be considered as a factor in degeneration to the same extent to which the undoubted differentiation of individuals makes selection by personal attraction more and more important. This case too illustrates once more that the increasing individualization within society renders money increasingly unsuitable as a mediator of purely individual relationships.
点击查看答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
参考答案
十点题库官方参考答案
（由十点题库聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
