Is infidelity wrong?

[DanielBenoit]

I haven't read all the posts, so I haven't followed the African Love's line of argument, but all I can say is that love, being such an immensely powerful and yet fragile thing, to have the one you love, who supposedly loves you back, cheat on you, is not only disrespectful, but immoral in the deepest sense of the word.

And yet, there are cultures in which polygamy is widespread, and since the peoples of that particular culture have accepted it as their moral standard, then there is nothing wrong with it, within that context, due to the fact that in that culture, to both men and women, that is 'The way things are'.

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.

My God do I agree with *Classic*Charm*

[African_Love]

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?

This is more of a side issue but would you say killing someone is wrong in all possible circumstances? I wouldn't, I think euthanasia is an act of compassion and killing in self-defense is also justified.

In my world view, an act is immoral if it directly causes suffering and morally irresponsible if it may lead to suffering. For example, I'm an anti-natalist, I think that bringing children into this world is morally irresponsible because it will indirectly cause suffering (via the global warming that the unborn child's carbon footprint will contribute to or even the fact that the child him/herself will suffer, ecological reasons aside) but it is not immoral in the way that punching someone or stealing from them are immoral. People should have a right to have 20 children if they want since it's their body, they shouldn't have a right to do what they want to with other people's bodies.

Lying is direspectful (unless doing so would prevent suffering) but only immoral if it deprives someone of future benefit or causes suffering. Even just thinking "so and so is an idiot" is disrespectful but you are allowed to think what you do.

[Virgil]

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.

Yes Leviticus 19 but it fits the context:

11 "You will not steal, nor deal deceitfully or fraudulently with your fellow-citizen.
12 You will not swear by my name with intent to deceive and thus profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.
13 You will not exploit or rob your fellow. You will not keep back the labourer's wage until next morning.
14 You will not curse the dumb or put an obstacle in the way of the blind, but will fear your God. I am Yahweh.
15 "You will not be unjust in administering justice. You will neither be partial to the poor nor overawed by the great, but will administer justice to your fellow-citizen justly.
16 You will not go about slandering your own family, nor will you put your neighbour's life in jeopardy. I am Yahweh.
17 You will not harbour hatred for your brother. You will reprove your fellow-countryman firmly and thus avoid burdening yourself with a sin.
18 You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbour as yourself. I am Yahweh.

I guess it is limited to one's race.

[African_Love]

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

I have to confess, when I was younger, I once thought this. It always seems as though women 'tolerate' cheating so well, like they just go through the motions of pretending to be offended by it. I know this is wrong, it's just what it can seem like from a male p.o.v. I've even been told by a few women that men who did not cheat were boring or predictable. Stereotypically, women gravitate towards the kind of man who is likely to cheat. Society is more tolerant of male cheaters though, men are usually a lot harsher on female cheaters than women are on male cheaters.

I've never understood the poing in agreeing to behave monogamously if you will not behave monogamously and lying about it, it's just not my personality

[JBI]

Depends, it's a bit of a loose translation, to the say the least - I would interpret it as more of a tribalism than anything else.

[Dark Muse]

This is more of a side issue but would you say killing someone is wrong in all possible circumstances? I wouldn't, I think euthanasia is an act of compassion and killing in self-defense is also justified.

In my world view, an act is immoral if it directly causes suffering and morally irresponsible if it may lead to suffering. For example, I'm an anti-natalist, I think that bringing children into this world is morally irresponsible because it will indirectly cause suffering (via the global warming that the unborn child's carbon footprint will contribute to or even the fact that the child him/herself will suffer, ecological reasons aside) but it is not immoral in the way that punching someone or stealing from them are immoral. People should have a right to have 20 children if they want since it's their body, they shouldn't have a right to do what they want to with other people's bodies.

Lying is direspectful (unless doing so would prevent suffering) but only immoral if it deprives someone of future benefit or causes suffering. Even just thinking "so and so is an idiot" is disrespectful but you are allowed to think what you do.

I do not think that your argument of killing quite compares to your argument here. As you are not trying to make an argument that a person might be justified in having an affair based upon the circumstances of their relationship, but purely based on if they do or do not get caught.

So say a person killed another person, and do so suddenly and instantly, so the person whom was killed did not truly suffer because they never saw it coming and were dead before they could even feel the pain and naturally once they are dead, it is not as if they know the difference. Though their life was taken, they have no awayness of that fact, so ultimately they were not truly harmed. And supposing this person lived completely alone, and had no family, or loved ones, so know one else was harmed by the death either.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.

This sounds a little contradictory to me. You should respect your agreements but you should still be allowed to break them if it involves your body?

Sounds pretty straightforward to me, AL. If you aren't going to be monogamous, don't enter into a monogamous relationship. If you truly believe that it's your body and you should be allowed to do with it what you please, then why would you have someone you care about believe otherwise? Why would you tell a partner that you are monogamous if you are not?

I have to confess, when I was younger, I once thought this. It always seems as though women 'tolerate' cheating so well, like they just go through the motions of pretending to be offended by it. I know this is wrong, it's just what it can seem like from a male p.o.v. I've even been told by a few women that men who did not cheat were boring or predictable. Stereotypically, women gravitate towards the kind of man who is likely to cheat. Society is more tolerant of male cheaters though, men are usually a lot harsher on female cheaters than women are on male cheaters.

This going to sound really harsh and I don't mean to offend anyone (I swear!), but women who tolerate cheating are dumb. As are men who do the same. It's one thing to forgive once (something I couldn't do), but to have it happen multiple times and stick around, NO WAY. I have very serious opinions on women who "like" men who cheat on them, etc.

I've never understood the poing in agreeing to behave monogamously if you will not behave monogamously and lying about it, it's just not my personality

But thats exactly what you're saying is okay! You're saying that it's okay to allow your partner to believe that you are monogamous when you're not!

[African_Love]

I do not think that your argument of killing quite compares to your argument here. As you are not trying to make an argument that a person might be justified in having an affair based upon the circumstances of their relationship, but purely based on if they do or do not get caught.

So say a person killed another person, and do so suddenly and instantly, so the person whom was killed did not truly suffer because they never saw it coming and were dead before they could even feel the pain and naturally once they are dead, it is not as if they know the difference. Though their life was taken, they have no awayness of that fact, so ultimately they were not truly harmed. And supposing this person lived completely alone, and had no family, or loved ones, so know one else was harmed by the death either.

I've addressed this. Killing someone in their sleep or instantaneously in a scenario where they never saw it coming would deprive them of all future pleasure/happiness, since you have to be alive to experience pleasure/happiness. Cheating on someone would not deprive them of pleasure or the monogamous partner that they want, their preference for you to be faithful is being satisfied even if you aren't actually being faithful.

This sounds a little contradictory to me. You should respect your agreements but you should still be allowed to break them if it involves your body?

If you agree not to do something with your body then you should hold that agreement but it is your body. Cheating is not something bad that's done to your partner, it's something you do with other people. It's not as though you've rented your genitalia to them, your spouse does not own you.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me, AL. If you aren't going to be monogamous, don't enter into a monogamous relationship. If you truly believe that it's your body and you should be allowed to do with it what you please, then why would you have someone you care about believe otherwise?

I completely agree that it's disrespectful, I don't see how I could have argued otherwise before. Why you might want to have someone you care about believe otherwise is obvious. You want sexual variety but you also want to maintain your relationship with them. Maybe you don't want them to feel jealousy and break up with you, maybe you don't want them to enjoy the same sexual variety (the latter is beyond arrogant).

Why would you tell a partner that you are monogamous if you are not?

Again, obviously to prevent them from being jealous or angry and breaking up with you. People want to have their cake and eat it too (retarded saying, I know).

But thats exactly what you're saying is okay! You're saying that it's okay to allow your partner to believe that you are monogamous when you're not!

Did you read the analogy I made about promising your best friend you'll scatter his ashes over your garden when he's dead? I never said that cheating was "okay".


I'm actually surprised that as many people agree with me as they do in regards to my stance that cheating is disrespectful but not immoral. I expected most people to agree that cheating is disrespectful but I'm surprised that so many people think it's immoral. It's strange when you think of how many people actually cheat (a good 30-40 something % of the population, according to some surveys and studies I've read of).

[Dark Muse]

I've addressed this. Killing someone in their sleep or instantaneously in a scenario where they never saw it coming would deprive them of all future pleasure/happiness, since you have to be alive to experience pleasure/happiness. Cheating on someone would not deprive them of pleasure or the monogamous partner that they want, their preference for you to be faithful is being satisfied even if you aren't actually being faithful.

But if a person is killed they will never know that their future pleasure or happiness is being deprived. They do not suffer from this, because they are completely unaware of it.

Now if a person cheats on another person, there is the potential that their pleasure or happiness may be denied or harmed if they ever discover the truth.

Though you argue the scenario that the truth is never found, in the very act there is the possibility of the truth being discovered and thus harm being done.

So, if it is wrong to kill a person because you are robbing them of future happiness, than it should be equally wrong to do something that has the potential to rob them of their future happiness.

Because in both cases of the person being killed, and a person being cheated upon are left completely oblivious to the pleasure and happiness which is or could be denied to them.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If you agree not to do something with your body then you should hold that agreement but it is your body. Cheating is not something bad that's done to your partner, it's something you do with other people. It's not as though you've rented your genitalia to them, your spouse does not own you.

The term is "Cheating on your partner", is it not? The action is relative to your partner, not relative to what you do with someone else. Someone else just happens to be involved. Cheating is to gain advantage at cost to someone else. So yes, it is something you do to your partner.

So you don't have to keep the agreement you made with another person if it's no longer what you want. That is what you're saying here. Fine, break it, but the other person has a right to know that the agreement is over.

I completely agree that it's disrespectful, I don't see how I could have argued otherwise before. Why you might want to have someone you care about believe otherwise is obvious. You want sexual variety but you also want to maintain your relationship with them. Maybe you don't want them to feel jealousy and break up with you, maybe you don't want them to enjoy the same sexual variety (the latter is beyond arrogant).

ONLY THE LATTER?! Every single one of those reasons is beyond selfish and arrogant. Letting your partner believe that you are being monogamous when you're not, under ANY circumstances, for ANY reason, is selfish and conceited, and pathetic. It is willfully deceiving another for your own personal gain. That is immoral.

Again, obviously to prevent them from being jealous or angry and breaking up with you. People want to have their cake and eat it too (retarded saying, I know).

Again, WEAK. If you truly care about the person you've "committed" yourself to, then you would give her the option of choosing. Maybe if that's what would make you really happy, she'd be willing to let you do that. Don't let her think you're monogamous when you're not.

Did you read the analogy I made about promising your best friend you'll scatter his ashes over your garden when he's dead? I never said that cheating was "okay".

I'm actually surprised that as many people agree with me as they do in regards to my stance that cheating is disrespectful but not immoral. I expected most people to agree that cheating is disrespectful but I'm surprised that so many people think it's immoral. It's strange when you think of how many people actually cheat (a good 30-40 something % of the population, according to some surveys and studies I've read of).

But you have essentially said that although it is disrespectful, it is not immoral. If it's not immoral, then how can it not be okay? Being disrespectful is either amoral or immoral. Unless you've been raised in a bubble, I think the first case unlikely. If, however, your disrespect is not innocent and accidental, it has been done in full knowledge of the fact that it is meant to offend and insult. If you have deliberately offended and insulted someone, you have acted immorally. Therefore, is cheating is disrespectful, it is also immoral.

[African_Love]

But if a person is killed they will never know that their future pleasure or happiness is being deprived. They do not suffer from this, because they are completely unaware of it.

They don't have to be aware that they are being deprived of benefit to be deprived of benefit.

Now if a person cheats on another person, there is the potential that their pleasure or happiness may be denied or harmed if they ever discover the truth.

There is the potential which is why I consider it to be morally irresponsible rather than flat out immoral

Though you argue the scenario that the truth is never found, in the very act there is the possibility of the truth being discovered and thus harm being done.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. In my hypothetical scenario, the truth will never be discovered by their partner. In real life, this can never be guaranteed which is why I think it is morally irresponsible.

So, if it is wrong to kill a person because you are robbing them of future happiness, than it should be equally wrong to do something that has the potential to rob them of their future happiness.

No, killing definitely robs someone of all opportunity for future pleasure/happiness, cheating only has the potential to cause suffering. Furthermore, killing someone is doing something to their body, cheating is doing something with your body- your 'property'- that you said you wouldn't do.

The term is "Cheating on your partner", is it not? The action is relative to your partner, not relative to what you do with someone else.

The term (which obviously wasn't coined by people who share my harm/benefit based moral world view) involves your partner but the actual action simply does not.

Someone else just happens to be involved.

Sex between Bob and Betty 'just happens' to involve Betty?

Cheating is to gain advantage at cost to someone else. So yes, it is something you do to your partner.

In my hypothetical circumstance, cheating does not cause suffering and it does not deprive someone of benefit. Our lives, as sentient beings, come down to two things : seeking pleasure and avoiding stress. People agree to behave monogamously (correct me if I'm wrong and you have a different reason) because the thought of 'sharing' their partner makes them jealous. If you do not know what your partner is doing with other people, you cannot experience jealousy as a result. No jealousy, no problem. I admit, this and my autonomy argument is kind of a sidetrack from my basic harm/benefit argument but as cliche as the 'what you don't know won't hurt you' saying is, it's true and being cheated on doesn't deprive you of happiness either. You might say "but I would want to know" but like I pointed out earlier, you would have to know x= y to want to know that x=y or care about it one way or the other so there's no use adopting such existentially impossible, metaphysical points of view.

So you don't have to keep the agreement you made with another person if it's no longer what you want. That is what you're saying here. Fine, break it, but the other person has a right to know that the agreement is over.

'Rights' are a social construct. Personally, I'm more concerned with the right to be happy. I think that you should be honest with your partner but I also think that you should scatter your friends ashes over your garden if you promised him you would.

ONLY THE LATTER?! Every single one of those reasons is beyond selfish and arrogant.

Relationships themselves are, to a great extent, attachment (selfish) based rather than empathy (other) based.

Letting your partner believe that you are being monogamous when you're not, under ANY circumstances, for ANY reason, is selfish and conceited, and pathetic. It is willfully deceiving another for your own personal gain. That is immoral.

This is a stretch but would it be immoral to neglect telling your fiancee that you snore or look like Freddy Krueger in the morning knowing that this info. might change his opinion about you? Romantic relationships are more attachment based than empathy based as it is, which is why we even require that our partners remain exclusive with us when we would never ask our platonic friends to do the same. This isn't the best reasoning for my position, I just believe that ethics is only a matter of pleasure and pain.

Again, WEAK. If you truly care about the person you've "committed" yourself to, then you would give her the option of choosing. Maybe if that's what would make you really happy, she'd be willing to let you do that. Don't let her think you're monogamous when you're not.

I completely agree that cheaters should propose an open relationship rather than being deceptive if they cannot behave monogamously. I'm not gung-ho about cheating, I just can't put it in the same category as theft, murder, rape etc.

But you have essentially said that although it is disrespectful, it is not immoral. If it's not immoral, then how can it not be okay?

Why is it so hard to understand that something can be disrespectful without being immoral? A bunch of high school kids gossiping about their classmate when she isn't there is disrespectful, it isn't unethical if they don't cause her harm (or deprive her of benefit).

Being disrespectful is either amoral or immoral. Unless you've been raised in a bubble, I think the first case unlikely.

Why?

Let's say you have two options : 1) the option of cheating on your spouse, (s)he believes you are faithful and this belief makes them happy, they will never find out or 2) not cheating on your spouse, (s)he believes you are faithful and this belief makes them happy. The decision you make is completely irrelevant to their state of mind, completely. You won't harm them if you do cheat and you won't benefit them if you don't. What will harm or benefit them is their belief that you are or are not cheating. We have no direct, reliable access to the external world, what exists to us is what we consciously experience.

If, however, your disrespect is not innocent and accidental, it has been done in full knowledge of the fact that it is meant to offend and insult. If you have deliberately offended and insulted someone, you have acted immorally. Therefore, is cheating is disrespectful, it is also immoral.

Bob does not sleep with Betty because he deliberatly and intentionally wants to insult or offend his wife Jasmine. If this were the case, he wouldn't hide it from her. Bob sleeps with Betty because he is attracted to her and he will be regardless of his relationship with his wife. You cannot choose who you are attracted to, monogomy would be easier if you could.

[Dark Muse]

They don't have to be aware that they are being deprived of benefit to be deprived of benefit.

I do not see how that is any different than cheating upon a person, the partner is not aware that they are being betrayed, but that does not change the fact that they are being betrayed.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. In my hypothetical scenario, the truth will never be discovered by their partner. In real life, this can never be guaranteed which is why I think it is morally irresponsible.

That is just it, the idea of the partner never finding out the truth can really only exist hypothetically, so the argument cannot be applied to real life. Hypothetically cheating may not be immoral, but in the real world is not valid as there is no way to guarantee that no harm will be done to the person.

Furthermore, killing someone is doing something to their body, cheating is doing something with your body- your 'property'- that you said you wouldn't do.

But it is not strictly doing something to only your body. It is doing something to another's body as well, as to have an affair there must be another person involved. So here is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The harm that is being done to the 2nd party within the affair. Rarely are those truly happy just being nothing more than objects of sex, most have some expectation that someday said person will leave the one they are with for them. So if a person is having an affair, what of the harm to the one they are having the affair with, they are directly having their own future happiness and pleasure denied for they can never have a meaningful relationship with the person whom they are having the affair with, and however wrong they might be in their part within it, they still are emotionally suffering from the affair because of the position they are in.

[Mathor]

Okay, so you say something is not immoral if the person never finds out. But isn't it immoral not to tell your spouse and keep something like that from them? You can't justify betrayal and lying. Lying to your spouse hurts your spouse.

[Maryd.]

Okay, so you say something is not immoral if the person never finds out. But isn't it immoral not to tell your spouse and keep something like that from them? You can't justify betrayal and lying. Lying to your spouse hurts your spouse.

Go Mathor... Yahoooo!

[Jozanny]

But it is not strictly doing something to only your body. It is doing something to another's body as well, as to have an affair there must be another person involved. So here is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The harm that is being done to the 2nd party within the affair. Rarely are those truly happy just being nothing more than objects of sex, most have some expectation that someday said person will leave the one they are with for them. So if a person is having an affair, what of the harm to the one they are having the affair with, they are directly having their own future happiness and pleasure denied for they can never have a meaningful relationship with the person whom they are having the affair with, and however wrong they might be in their part within it, they still are emotionally suffering from the affair because of the position they are in.

As someone who has had a number of married men, this was both true and not true in my case. On a graded scale, a fling is slightly different than something where a woman becomes a mistress for any length of time; the latter hurts more if either party has feelings--but sometimes the thrill of physical contact is just that, and the sinning spouse may actually not love the betrayed spouse any less. Life is complicated, and I was as often the sympathy ear for men obsessed with perceived emotional slights from their wives. I might have been a talking pc for all they cared.

When you get caught, life becomes more complicated still, so I am not here to give advice. I enjoyed what I had, got hurt on more than one occasion, and at one point burned my correspondence like something out of a Gothic suspense novel and was fearful of divorce attorneys.

I guess I did have a life once upon a time (not to worry ladies, I'm out of commission)...