From a moral standpoint no.

I don’t think this would work out as well from an evolutionary standpoint, if you believe that men are driven to have as many children as possible, a woman can only have one man’s child at a time. A man can get multiple women pregnant.

You understand neither morality nor evolution.

I’m not arguing morality I really don’t care what two or more consenting adults do. I think the most “moral” thing we can do as a society is to leave other people the hell alone to live their own life.

That's polyandry, but terminology aside, the same problem vis-a-vis what I've written still exists. There may be sex-specific problems that result from polyandry vs. polygamy, but the same problems mentioned above remain.

> but the same problems mentioned above remain.

Polyandry also objectifies women? how?

> That's polyandry,

polygamy is a superset of polyandry per dictionary. Your original comment was about polygamy.

W.r.t. polyandry, yes, you're right. I was thinking polygyny. My mistake.

In terms of polyandry, I meant the non-sex specific, general defects still hold. Certainly, polyandry specifically inflicts a defective relationship on the males, but given the asymmetrical responsibilities between the sexes, the result would likewise be detrimental to women. (Of course, where the latter point is concerned, it is the same with polygyny vis-a-vis men. It's not as if a man is honoring his nature by being a polygamist. It is to his detriment as well.)