Bell Curve

544 Living Together A Place for Everyone 545tion. In the society at large (and translated onto the television andmovie screens), it is commonly argued that robbery, for example, is notalways wrong if it is in a good cause (stealing medicine to save a dyingwife) or if it is in response to some external condition (exploitation,racism, etc.). At every level, it becomes fashionable to point out thecomplexities of moral decisions, and all the ways in which things thatmight seem "wrong" at first glance are really "right" when properly analyzed.The two worlds we have described are not far removed from the contrastbetween the criminal justice system in the United States as recentlyas the 1950s and that system as of the 1990s. We are arguing thata person with comparatively low intelligence, whose time horizon isshort and ability to balance many competing and complex incentives islow, has much more difficulty following a moral compass in the 1990sthan he would have in the 1950s. Put aside your feelings about whetherthese changes in the criminal justice system represent progress. Simplyconsider them as a magnetic storm-as a set of changes that make theneedle pointing to right and wrong waver erratically if you happen tobe looking at the criminal justice system from the perspective of a personwho is not especially bright. People of limited intelligence can leadmoral lives in a society that is run on the basis of "Thou shalt not steal."They find it much harder to lead moral lives in a society that is run onthe basis of "Thou shalt not steal unless there is a really good reasonto. 1,1271The policy prescription is that the criminal justice system should bemade simpler. The meaning of criminal offenses used to be clear and ohjective,and so were the consequences. It is worth trying to make themso again.MARRIAGE. It has become much more difficult for a person of low cognitiveability to figure out why marriage is a good thing, and, once in amarriage, more difficult to figure out why one should stick with itthrough bad times. The magnetic storm has swept through from manydirections.The sexual revolution is the most obvious culprit. The old bargainfrom the man's point of view-get married, because that's the only wayyou're going to be able to sleep with the lady-was the kind of incentivethat did not require a lot of intellect to process and had an all-powerful effect on behavior. Restoring it is not feasible by any (reasonable)policy we can think ofBut the state has interfered as well to make it more difficult for peoplewith little intelligence to do that thing-find a compatible partnerand get married-that constitutes the most accessible and richest of allvalued places. Marriage fills a vital role in people's lives to the extentthat it is hallowed as an institution and as a relationship unlike anyother. Marriage is satisfying to the extent that society validates thesepropositions: "Yes, you may have a baby outside marriage if you choose;but it isn't the same." "Yes, you may live with someone without many.ing, but it isn't the same." "Yes, you may say that you are committed tosomeone without marrying, but it isn't the same."Once sex was no longer playing as important a role in the decision tomarry, it was essential that these other unique attributes of marriage behighlighted and reinforced. But the opposite has happened. Repeatedly,the prerogatives and responsibilities that used to be limited to marriagehave spilled over into nonmarital relationships, whether it is the rightsand responsibilities of an unmarried father, medical coverage for same.sex partners, or palimony cases. Once the law says, "Well, in a legal sense,living together is the same," what is the point of getting married?For most people, there are still answers to that question. Even giventhe diminished legal stature of marriage, marriage continues to haveunique value. But to see those values takes forethought about the longtermdifferences between living together and being married, sensitivityto many intangibles, and an appreciation of second-hand and thirdhandconsequences. As Chapter 8's evidence about marriage rates implies,people low on the intelligence distribution are less likely to thinkthrough those issues than others.Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage to itsformerly unique legal status. If you are married, you take on obligations.If you are not married, you don't. In particular, we urge that marriageonce again become the sole legal institution through which rights andresponsibilities regarding children are exercised. If you are an unmarriedmother, you have no legal basis for demanding that the father ofthe child provide support. If you are an unmarried father, you have nolegal standing regarding the child-not even a right to see the child, letalone any basis honored by society for claiming he or she is "yours" orthat you are a "father."