Is infidelity wrong?

[Emil Miller]

I think that anyone might feel let down by the infidelity of the partner. I've seen cases where the guy felt let down and insecure by his girlfriend's infidelity
he said that "I, a guy could restrain myself and she a girl could not" so it seems to me that just because the fact that women "know" in their heart that boys will be boys feel a little less hurt by infidelity than men.

well that's just one example, depends on the person, but if we are talking groups, my opinion would be that guys tend to get more hurt when being cheated on.

I agree that some men are so affected by the infidelity of their wives or girlfriends that they will even resort to murder of either the female or male perpetrator of the betrayal. I live in South London and many years ago, a reported case in our local newspaper concerned a young man who discovered that his girlfriend was conducting a seperate affair with another man. He strangled the girl and travelled to Rome where he drowned himself in the Trevi fountain. Yes, it's the stuff of melodrama except that it actually happened. So I agree that the distress caused is not entirely one-way

[Dark Muse]

In this scenario, you are either using a condom and/or the person you are having an affair with can provide you with medical documentation of being std-free.

It seems to me the very fact that you have to come up with all these exceptions, scenarios, hyptheticals, etc. just to try and prove that infidelity is not morally wrong, should in itself tell you something about your claim.

And how it is exactly, that an act can be considered to be to be perfectly legitimate only under certain sets of circumstances.

That is your claim seems to be well infidelity is not immoral seems to only occur under very realistically unlikely guidelines.

Being that the partner never suspects or finds out about it.
Those having the affair both always remember to use proper protection and get a sexual medical history upon each other in advance (as if)
and by now chance should a child be accidentally be conceived (as the child would surely suffer under such circumstances)

And sets you are sitting up such strait ramifications to justify infidelity, you confess that it is wrong under normal circumstances, that being if the act is indeed discovered or some other consequence result.

But it is a legitimate act as long as it is kept under complete and total secrecy.

That is a rather ludicrous argument to make. If an act would be wrong under discovery than it is just as equally wrong when kept in secrecy, and if it has to be kept a secretly to justify doing it, that in itself proves the wrongness of it.

[papayahed]

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.

ahhh the ol' "boys will be boys" chestnut. Please note the saying isn't "men will be men".

Infidelity - not entirely wrong, if it is known to all parties involved.

Cheating implies shadiness and underhandedness

[qimissung]

Excellent argument, DM.

[Virgil]

That isn't the universal code, that's the Christian code. Confucius, for instance, would have it as "don't do unto others as you wouldn't do unto yourself," I tend to think he is closer.

Closer to what? First,that would be a sub set of "do onto others." Doing onto others would include don't doing since don't doing is an act of doing and not the converse. (If that makes sense, and I think it does. )

Second, that is not strictly Christian. I thought you were jewish. Have you not read Liviticus and Deuteronomy? "Love you neighbor as yourself." I believe some variation of that is in both books, and the ten commandments reduce down to two ideas, love God and do onto others. And frankly I believe it's in Islam as well, though I can't tell you where. You mention Confucius, so it's eastern religion, but I'm also pretty sure it's in Buddism and Hinduism as well. I believe it's universal. If you think about it, most laws are built around it.

As it is though, I told you, I don't function on right/wrong or good/bad, more on well-mannered/rude.

Then you don't think it's moral.

[OrphanPip]

Second, that is not strictly Christian. I thought you were jewish. Have you not read Liviticus and Deuteronomy?

Ha that isn't quite my interpretation of Leviticus, it's more like don't wear clothing made of two different fabrics and be sure to stone homosexuals and unvirtuous women.

[Virgil]

Ha that isn't quite my interpretation of Leviticus, it's more like don't wear clothing made of two different fabrics and be sure to stone homosexuals and unvirtuous women.

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

[OrphanPip]

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

Sure it's in there, along with all those admonitions against witches and the other "abominations". It's just not very consistent, it should be "love one's neighbor as oneself, unless your neighbor does magic or is gay."

[Virgil]

Sure it's in there, along with all those admonitions against witches and the other "abominations". It's just not very consistent, it should be "love one's neighbor as oneself, unless your neighbor does magic or is gay."

When you create your own religion, you can have your version. I suspect every culture has a view of homosexuality. But let's not go there.

[JBI]

Well, then you haven't read it. Or read it correctly. What are you saying, the love thy neighbor dictum is not there?

Or perhaps you haven't - the love your neighbor as you would love yourself, in the form in which you state it, comes from the great sage Rabbi Akiva, rather than from scripture, unless you pair it against Leviticus 19:18, but that is a stretch, given the emphasis of the sentence put upon countrymen.


Even so, the Confucian principle makes more sense - I shouldn't be nice to others because I would be nice to myself - I should act in accordance with how I would not act, the rest is up to me to decide - there shouldn't be a commandment telling me I should act nice to people as that is how I would want to be treated, rather, a principle stating to not act meanly to people is far better.

In the sense that I mention Confucius, I was implying that that is far closer to a universal rule of morality, in that it anticipates the difference of values, and ignores them, in favor of having a rule which takes into account diversity, while, at the same time, the fact that every person, to some level, or almost every person at any rate, has the same feelings about mistreatment.

And don't get me wrong, I'm no Confucian, and have great trouble with his philosophy, but ultimately, I think him here more right than Akiba, so I would side with him.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Ahh I've been trying SO hard to stay out of this!

Should a person be comfortable with the idea that a stalker or a peeping-tom might be watching them, without any fear of capture? What would it be like to meet such a voyeur, and learn of their "hobby?" Is it right to say that the person is behaving morally, as long as they go undiscovered?

Well said.

In general terms I think that women are more likely to feel let down by infidelity on the part of their husband or boyfriend but in their heart of hearts they know that boys will usually be boys.

This is the single biggest piece of crap I've heard in a long time.

I'd love to hear the justification for that one, Brian.

[rimbaud]

This is the single biggest piece of crap I've heard in a long time.

Agreed!

[Maryd.]

Agreed!

So do I...

[African_Love]

It seems to me the very fact that you have to come up with all these exceptions, scenarios, hyptheticals, etc. just to try and prove that infidelity is not morally wrong, should in itself tell you something about your claim.

And how it is exactly, that an act can be considered to be to be perfectly legitimate only under certain sets of circumstances.

That is your claim seems to be well infidelity is not immoral seems to only occur under very realistically unlikely guidelines.

Being that the partner never suspects or finds out about it.
Those having the affair both always remember to use proper protection and get a sexual medical history upon each other in advance (as if)
and by now chance should a child be accidentally be conceived (as the child would surely suffer under such circumstances)

And sets you are sitting up such strait ramifications to justify infidelity, you confess that it is wrong under normal circumstances, that being if the act is indeed discovered or some other consequence result.

But it is a legitimate act as long as it is kept under complete and total secrecy.

That is a rather ludicrous argument to make. If an act would be wrong under discovery than it is just as equally wrong when kept in secrecy, and if it has to be kept a secretly to justify doing it, that in itself proves the wrongness of it.

I never said that cheating was "legitimate", only that it wasn't immoral. Cheating is as "legitimate" as urinating on your mother's grave is (assuming you don't come from a culture where this is an expression of great respect). I think we have different criteria for determining whether or not an act is morally wrong, mine is harm (distress) and benefit (pleasure). I do think that cheating is morally irresponsible on the basis that it would harm your partner if they found out. Although you should respect agreements that you voluntarily enter and hold yourself to the same expectations you hold others, it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want to do with your body.

[Dark Muse]

I never said that cheating was "legitimate", only that it wasn't immoral. Cheating is as "legitimate" as urinating on your mother's grave is (assuming you don't come from a culture where this is an expression of great respect). I think we have different criteria for determining whether or not an act is morally wrong, mine is harm (distress) and benefit (pleasure). I do think that cheating is morally irresponsible on the basis that it would harm your partner if they found out. Although you should respect agreements that you voluntarily enter and hold yourself to the same expectations you hold others, it is your body and you should be allowed to do what you want to do with your body.

I may respond to some of the other posts when I get around to reading them.

But the very fact that in order to justify it as not being immoral is under the criteria that it remains unknown should itself prove the faulty of that argument.

If an act is not immoral, it should be so under any circumstances, not just as along as it is not found out about.

It seems as if you have two different standards for infidelity.

As obviously if it is discovered than the person will be hurt, so by your own criteria, it would be immoral upon discovery.

But as long as the person gets away with it, than it is not immoral.

For me, an act is either immoral or not immoral.

And I presume than that you must view lying of any kind not to be immoral as long as the person never gets caught in their lie?