Something seems wrong with the comments to my chet post, but B has explicitly argued hypotheticals where she thinks cheating is okay. For example, your wife is dying of cancer. At least one person in the pro cheating camp said it could be not wrong to cheat in that situation. I cannot conceive of it even being least wrong, but, depending on the circumstances, I might sympathize with the person who did it. 862 said: you might break your obligations. We anti cheaters say: they are still unquestionably obligations, and the least wrong thing is to fulfill them, even if some of the time you will screw up. It may be sexual fidelity where you screw up; it may be elsewhere; it may be lots of places.
(Comment I meant to post on the old thread): Yeah, 923 is right. I've said more than once that what *I'm* having a problem with is the whole "wrong v. not-wrong" thing.
If you have to have sex with other people, the only decent thing (in my non-child, non-wacked hypothetical world) is to talk to your partner. It's not like people don't discuss these things anymore. Hell, it may even come as a relief to them to have it out in the open. But taking a unilateral decision for both parties is something that isn't really justified in normal circumstances, and the odds of someone's spouse being truly too unstable to be able to confront are vanishingly small unless I vastly underestimate the numbers of crazed fragile terminal patients getting married these days.
See, I much prefer this argument to the flatly stated, "no, I'm sorry, it's just wrong" thing, because Winna is showing some nuance here. There is a marked difference between saying "the only decent thing to do" is X and saying "Y is wrong." And that's not because I think people need to be mealy-mouthed; it's because I would like it to be recognized that those of us in the "pro-cheating" camp are really not arguing that cheating is just hunky dory; we're arguing that there's a big gap between simple moral equations and the actual real experiences of lived life.
Another thing: I can't find the specific comment #, but at some point Cala said something like, "the folks saying but what about the kids wouldn't say that if people divorced over money or incompatible expectations." I, for one, would--in a discussion about whether "incompatible expectations" was good grounds for a divorce. (If it were a friend telling me about her divorce, I would offer sympathy.) The "what about the kids" thing wasn't meant to excuse infidelity; it was meant to point out that the simple wrong/not-wrong thing isn't so simple when you add in other variables.
Now, I'm increasingly getting that the wrong/not wrong argument is *not* intended to mean "if the person is wrong, you're justified in kicking them to the curb." So okay, fine. We're really not disagreeing. I'm not comfortable with the blanket statement "X is wrong," but that doesn't mean I'm saying X is neutral or good. It just means that I'm viewing the frame of the arugment differently than, say, Tia is.
(Comment on this thread):
I didn't say it's okay to cheat if your wife is dying of cancer. I said it *might* be something other than flat-out wrong.
I'm also saying that sometimes obligations are mutually incompatible. So saying "the least wrong thing to do is to fulfill your obligations" is an impossible standard, or at least it has the potential to be, if your obligations cancel each other out.
Wait, we can't even read the old comments? I though closing a thread just meant you couldn't comment anymore, not that they vanished. What about my pastries?
Anyway, I'm not sure there's much more that can be said on this topic. Although I disagree with LB that everyone's basically on the same page and just differing over emphasis. I still think there's a clear split, between the moral people and the immoral ones.
There is a marked difference between saying "the only decent thing to do" is X and saying "Y is wrong."
No, there really isn't. If X is the only decent thing to do, then Y is wrong.
Or, you can claim there's a difference, but you won't be using language in the way I understand it. Cala and I fell all over ourselves more than once saying "wrong" means, "you should do otherwise," not anything permanent or enduring about you.
Well, my last comment on that thread said (but bounced): Tia has forsaken my name!
B, I feel strange trying to say this because I'm worried it sounds condescending, but it's so important to distinguish between "X is a bad action done by Y" and "Y is a bad person." This is important because the knowledge one needs to figure out the first is much, much less than the knowledge one would need to figure out the second, if it's indeed even knowable, which I to some degree doubt.
Porco Rosso was great, by the way.
6 should say, "This is important because, among other things, etc."
The thing is, I think we formally agree. The disagreement is that the 'pro-cheaters' compare the situation to a person with a spouse with cancer who says something like "He's in so much pain, and he needs so much, and I'm not giving him the support he needs. I stayed late at the office yesterday, instead of going to visit him in the hospital. I know he needs me there, and needs my support, and I could have gone -- I was sitting in my office surfing the web. " That person is betraying their marital vows.
What I'm arguing about, if anything, is my belief that you might easily, depending on the circumstances, sympathize with the person who avoided and withheld emotional support from their spouse: "You have to take care of yourself, you can only do as much as you can do, you need to rest so that you can stay strong to help him later on." That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to withhold emotional support from your spouse when they need to; the right thing to do, and the thing mandated by your marital vows, is to get off the internet and go hold your sick spouse's hand.
If I am arguing against anything, it is against the belief that sexual betrayal is wronger, or less forgivable, or must always be recognized as just.plain.wrong rather than understood and sympathized with in a manner different from any other kind of betrayal.
I think any kind, depending on the circumstances, is something that I might think of as formally, but not very wrong. I could see a consistent person demanding total fidelity to all facets of the marital vow, and condemning the person who couldn't handle another dreary and horrifying evening in the hospital watching their spouse suffer (Ogged?). I can't see valuing sexual betrayal on a different scale from other betrayals.
(I'm not attributing this position to you, I'm trying to explain claims of 'not wrong' in the earlier thread as 'not always wronger than other things you would forgive or dismiss without thinking about it.')
That's strange. The comments should just be closed to further comments. I don't know why they disappeared. Let me look into it.
I have a question, for the philosopher kings and queens here.
Which is the greater transgression: breaking a promise to a person, or betraying one's own principles?
Let's assume the two scenarios are in the same hierarchal level in their various spheres.
There is a marked difference between saying "the only decent thing to do" is X and saying "Y is wrong."
Not if Y is the opposite of X. I really don't have anything more to say on this, but say 'the only decent thing to do is X' pretty much implies 'if you do Y, you're wrong and it's not decent.'
It sounds nicer, certainly, and I'll admit I haven't been pulling any punches in the other thread. Well, one punch. I almost rewrote 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' to include a line about clown fucking and infidelity.
We're arguing that there's a big gap between simple moral equations and the actual real experiences of lived life.
I'm not going to deny that. I'm just not seeing how it makes cheating not-wrong. Grant me that I've said there are some cases where cheating is wrong, but not unforgivable. Or where it's really hard to think the person is bad.
It's like me saying 'Plagiarism is always wrong' and a student saying 'But it's sooooo harrrrd not to with the Internet, and how can you ever know what my intentions were, and how can you judge because you're not the one here with 25 term papers and parental stress how can you judge' and I'm saying, sure, fine, you're not a moral monster, but you're still wrong to plagiarize even if I don't catch you.
If spheres had hierarchies, that is.
11: Incommensurable. There are very unimportant promises, which shouldn't be broken, but aren't a huge deal. I can't formulate the concept of an unimportant principle that could nevertheless be betrayed.
If you hit the "Link" link at the bottom of that post, it will reveal the link for the archived comments.
10 - Apo - If you close comments, the link disappears. It's this way to get the link to archived comments to show up correctly, IIRC, so please don't go changing the template or anything thinking this is a bug. Just put a big "DON'T COMMENT HERE ANYMORE" message or something with a link to this thread.
Back to not reading anymore...
6 is fine; I think the waters got quite muddied because Mr. Smarty Ogged muddied those waters. So blame his cancerous ass, not me.
4: I just don't agree with this. Maybe my lack of philosophical training makes me stupid, but "decent," it seems to me, is a subjective claim; "wrong" is an objective one.
It's over between us, w/d.
Ok, let's say both are serious, then. Which is worse -- cheating on a spouse, or taking a job working for an employer that you had huge ethical problems with (say, a PETA member working for McDonalds' public relations department).
12: Plagiarism is a great (b/c less fraught) example. We'll all agree, I assume, that plagiarism is wrong. But I bet we'd quickly start arguing if we tried, seriously, to define plagiarism. And I think that's where all the stuff about conscious vow-taking and whether sexual fidelity = the one true measure of fidelity and so forth came in: when we started to try to define "cheating."
Huh. Hard question, says the tobacco lawyer.
Basically, I'm trying to figure out where obligations to deeply felt abstract principles fall in relation to obligations to other persons.
14: I make a principle of never commenting on threads which are posted only to extend old too-long threads. Oops! Damn!
4: I just don't agree with this. Maybe my lack of philosophical training makes me stupid, but "decent," it seems to me, is a subjective claim; "wrong" is an objective one.
I don't have any philosophical training, but they are both subjective, to the extent that morality is subjective. Each expresses a subjective moral judgment.
I am teh winner.
To the hotel, driver, and don't spare the horses.
This question has nothing to do with anything going on in my life, by the way. Just something I've often questioned.
(I strongly suspect that winna intended a subjective moral judgment when she said "the only decent thing to do...". Perhaps she is here, and will clarify.)
To elaborate, I would consider a person who betrayed his or her principles for money to be far more despicable than a person who cheated on a spouse. But I'm not sure if this is fair.
I'm not sure what greater trangression means, but I pretty much think that there is no X such that X is immoral and it is neither expected to nor actually does harm any other sentient agent (please bracket "sentient agent" for the purposes of this discussion, I had originally written human being and then realized it was narrower than what I meant to say). This gets into tricky act/omission problems on questions of whether not perfecting your talents or not using them with maximum efficiency is a harm to others. But I pretty much have no moral objection, to take an extreme case, to someone who correctly believes that no one in the world cares about them being alive killing themself. Also, now that you have given an example, this is non-responsive.
re: 24
I may be wrong but in ordinary language usage isn't the primary use of 'wrong' to qualify acts and 'decent' to describe people?
I can't see valuing sexual betrayal on a different scale from other betrayals.
I can. I think lots of other people can, too. And I think one can think that without being charmingly backwards or shamefully unreflective. This doesn't mean that the person isn't forgiveable or pitiable.
And the point wasn't that this has to be taken as a maxim, but that most people do value sexual fidelity somewhat more than the rest of the marriage vows, and presuming you're in a relationship that works like that, you can't decide by fiat that you'll count cheating as no worse than taking a night out of the vigil to surf the internet.
And I know someone personally who watched his wife die of cancer, and he didn't cheat.
24: Well, maybe I've just been using language incorrectly my entire life, but when I say flatly "X is wrong" I am saying, "X is universally wrong," not just "I think X is wrong, but I recognize you may feel differently." If I meant the latter, I'd say that.
Of course, when I say things like, "not liking cats is wrong" I mean it as a joke.
Sort of.
19: I think they are both bad. I don't think it's possible to quantify which is worse.
I can't decide if this is a great or terrible thread to have read as I'm writing my marriage vows. Generally, I'm a red pill kinda gal. But this one's close.
Actually - this is a great thread to get my partner to read! Whoo, red pill all the way!
"Which is worse -- cheating on a spouse, or taking a job working for an employer that you had huge ethical problems with (say, a PETA member working for McDonalds' public relations department)."
I'm not sure you can answer these questions generically, but in most cases the former, because the reasons for doing the latter are usually much more compelling. People, after all, really do need to eat and pay rent. Sex is a compelling need too, of course, but nobody's forcing you into the solace of a mutually-agreed to committed monogomous relationship. Once you do, you accept certain things that go along with that.
Which is the greater transgression: breaking a promise to a person, or betraying one's own principles?
Usually breaking a promise is a moral failing, while it's not clear that betraying one's own principles as such is a moral failing.
For example, I might, on principle, refuse to apologize to people under emotional duress. Suppose I cave under pressure and make an apology under the relevant circumstances. It seems to me I haven't done something morally wrong simply by failing to live up to one of my commitments. (This is in the nature of the sort of commitment this is, I think.)
On the other hand, whether I make it a matter of principle to follow the moral law or not, violating the moral law is wrong.
That is to say, if I'm acting wrongly by performing an action that is against my principles, I would also be acting wrongly if I performed the same action without having that principle.
there is no X such that X is immoral and it is neither expected to nor actually does harm any other sentient agent I think that's kind of the argument for lying about cheating: if one doesn't expect the partner to find out, is it wrong?
that most people do value sexual fidelity somewhat more than the rest of the marriage vows, and presuming you're in a relationship that works like that, you can't decide by fiat that you'll count cheating as no worse than taking a night out of the vigil to surf the internet.
Yeah, but the discussion (this is a slightly different argument, I realize, that the simple wrong/not wrong thing) is that sure, people value sexual fidelity more than other things; but that in practice it isn't as important as those other things, really; that our valuing sexual fidelity more than other things is an unexamined prejudice.
Your friend's not cheating on his cancerous wife is neither here nor there, I shouldn't think, in terms of the larger argument. No one is arguing that cheating should be compulsory.
I would consider a person who betrayed his or her principles for money to be far more despicable than a person who cheated on a spouse. But I'm not sure if this is fair.
You're wrong. You don't know enough about life to be sure your principles are correct. Neither do I.
I've never played the 'I'm a philosopher, so I'm smarter than you' card, except when you were talking about wanting to read Spinoza, but that was just triage and the only decent thing to do.
I do think in this case -- and winna can clarify -- that 'decent' is meant to mean something like 'minimally right' and to stand in opposition to 'wrong.' I also think this is not a crazy usage.
22: I'm honestly not sure how to rank them, but I have a hard time imagining a principle I'd hold as strongly as a promise.
I'm sure there's a whole background conversation about whether there is objective morality, but to be clear, I don't think so. I think people can reason each other into consensus, and given fundamental starting values, can make cases that certain rules maximize the good, etc., but since I don't believe in God, nothing's objective to me. So when I say something is wrong, or not decent, I do mean, you should not do it, and nor should I. I recognize that you may think differently; that's when, under some circumstances, I try to use my powers of persuasion; under others, I just ignore you; under still others, I advocate for laws to put you in jail.
I would be surprised if winna didn't mean "the only decent thing to do" as instructive to other people.
36: Okay, Labs, can you explain something to me, then?
Why is the sexual fidelity promise something other than a principle? (And one that's not really all that thought out, to boot.) I get that, as promise, it's a promise; but is there no reasonable way to interrogate the *basis* of the promise? I.e., to argue that yes, breaking a promise is wrong, but that if a promise is based on unsound principles, then it shouldn't or doesn't count?
I can. I think lots of other people can, too. And I think one can think that without being charmingly backwards or shamefully unreflective.
Okay. This is a real point of disagreement. But recognize that the 'pro-cheating' camp aren't saying that you are charmingly backwards or shamefully unreflective for thinking so. I, at least, am saying, and I think that at least B. and Ideal, maybe apo agree with me, that the belief that they are on absolutely different scales is one that is widely held in an unexamined way, and that there is a strong taboo on discussing whether they should be. (Picture two premarital conversations: (A) "Sweetheart, I hope I'm always there for you. But if down the road I'm putting too much effort and energy into work, so that you feel lonely and isolated at home, and it makes you terribly unhappy, I hope that's something that we can get through. I worry about this, because I know I'm like that, and there's a real danger I might hurt you that way." (B) Sweetheart, I hope I'm always there for you. But if down the road I screw around some and it makes you terribly unhappy, I hope that's something that we can get through. I worry about this, because I know I'm a horndog, and there's a real danger I might hurt you that way." Person A probably isn't in trouble for talking about it; Person B probably is.)
I was in the anti-cheating camp yesterday. Today I'll say that for practical reason, sometimes people stay in a marriage with someone they no longer love, or even hate -- for the sake of the children, for shared-property reasons, because one spouse is able to prevent divorce in some way, or because all alternative options are worse. (In the old USSR, and maybe Paris, SF, and NYC, having a nice apartment in a good neighborhood might be enough to keep a couple together),
In cases like that cheating wouldn't exactly be deception. It would just be one bad aspect of a bad relationship. If only one spouse was able to cheat (for whatever reason) it would be pretty cruel, too, but we're talking about an already-bad situation.
I just don't get the "shit happens" sort of attitude toward cheating though. I guess that if spontaneity and sexual freedom are at the very top of the things you live for, you'd take this attitude, but it seems that in this case you're not very good marriage material. No one really has to get married (I've avoided it for the last 31 years, though I understand that my example is attractive to very few).
Open marriage is a whole different thing, because it's open.
Did I ever explain my theory that the primary cause of divorce is the belief that marriages are supposed to be happy?
So when I say something is wrong, or not decent, I do mean, you should not do it, and nor should I.
Haha! Mc/Gr/attan is shacking up with Rm Hare. Enjoy the penthouse suite, sucker.
38 -- yeah, I think I'm probably wrong, too. To be clear, though, I'm not talking about my principles that I'm imposing upon the supposed transgressor. I'm talking about the transgressor's principles.
So what if there was a doomsday bomb that was going to blow up the whole world, killing everybody, and the only way to prevent its going off was for me to sleep with someone other than my wife and then hide it from her? Would I be justified then?
Also: I think "decent" is pretty commonly used to describe courses of action, like "the only decent thing to do is..."
43: I think the "shit happens" attitude is a lot less blase than people are thinking it is.
46: That was an episode of Taxi. Latka was stuck in the snow with an attractive woman who wouldn't huddle with him for warmth unless he had sex with her. He told Simka, and their religion required them to get divorced unless she had a matching affair.
re: 47
If I was being all sophistical, I'd argue that 'decent' in that sense is just short-hand for 'what a decent person would do'.
I don't want to rehash the previous thread, but multiple times throughout that thread people listed ways that they thought a partner would be harmed while still remaining ignorant.
to argue that yes, breaking a promise is wrong, but that if a promise is based on unsound principles, then it shouldn't or doesn't count?
B, isn't the point of a promise to constrain the parties to it in a way which they were not constrained before? If only things required already required by your principles could bind you as promises, why promise? Now, we might want to say that if you promise to do something positively immoral that's a reason for breaking your promise, but then promising to do so in the first place was immoral (unless facts came to light after the initial promise which made you reevaluate the morality of the initial promise. And no one, except Adam Ash, claimed that promising fidelity is positively immoral.
"I didn't say it's okay to cheat if your wife is dying of cancer. I said it *might* be something other than flat-out wrong."
This type of reasoning just has to end. I mean stand by your positions. I say crazy things sometimes, but I don't try to avoid them after the fact through double negatives.
Your friend's not cheating on his cancerous wife is neither here nor there, I shouldn't think, in terms of the larger argument. No one is arguing that cheating should be compulsory.
No, but people have been acting like the anti-cheaters are asking people to leap tall buildings in a single bound. I'm trying to explain why I don't buy the cancer example as compelling in the least.
But recognize that the 'pro-cheating' camp aren't saying that you are charmingly backwards or shamefully unreflective for thinking so.
That did seem to be how the discussion was going against text last night. As to the other problem, I don't know what to say except to say that it's a very strong social taboo that, mind, seems to exist in even lesbian and gay committed relationships. But finding it a hard taboo to talk about wouldn't license the cheating either.
Hell, I think I might agree with Emerson's theory.
B:
Why is the sexual fidelity promise something other than a principle? (And one that's not really all that thought out, to boot.) I get that, as promise, it's a promise; but is there no reasonable way to interrogate the *basis* of the promise? I.e., to argue that yes, breaking a promise is wrong, but that if a promise is based on unsound principles, then it shouldn't or doesn't count?
Feh. I think a lot of this comes from some confusion or ambiguity as to what a 'principle' might be. I think of personal principles as the sort of thing one gets to decide to take or leave rather than things that one is morally required to follow. (If Joe D's question is about lying vs. *other* moral principles, it's less interesting, because it's a question about, as it were, intra-moral conflict rather than the relationship between moral judgment and other sorts of commitments.)
So I would say, just as a terminological preference, that promises are based on (or made for) reasons, which might be good or bad. (I take it you were alluding to this in the other thread when you said that the promise of fidelity is the default due to various social pressures, etc.) If you make a promise as a result of having a principle in the "personal commitment" sense, well, you've still made a promise. There might be morally salient facts about why you have that principle (the patriarchy!) or whatever, but file these in the big folder on when promises are morally binding.
53: See my 9 for a discussion of what 'not flat-out-wrong' might mean. There are all sorts of wrong things that people forgive without thinking about them -- they're still wrong, but that isn't a full statement of what they are.
52: Yeah, a promise is meant to contrain; but I have a problem with the idea of promises that are entered into without thinking through them. I think there's something wrong with expecting that of people, or holding them to that.
53: I call b.s. I'm not trying to avoid the argument I've made; I'm trying to say that my entire argument is that the situation isn't black and white.
gay committed relationships.
This is not from personal experience, not being a gay man, but it's my understanding that sexual fidelity is much more likely to be explicitly negotiated, rather than assumed as a given, in committed relationships between gay men.
No, I'm calling b.s. You have repeatedly disowned your arguments.
46: You'd be morally obligated to, I'm sure - I'm sure your wife would rather be alive.
42: with the workaholic A and the potential cheater B - like the exampes, and doesn't that seem awfully unfair that B comes out of that so badly? Because whilst the working all hours or cheating is going on, it's probably going to make A's partner more unhappy than B's partner (assuming they don't know about the cheating at the time).
There are far worse things you can do to a partner than shag someone else, and that it shouldn't be treated so entirely differently.
As for a clear split, between the moral people and the immoral ones - I hope that wasn't meant completely seriously.
Is it always wrong to beat your spouse?
This is a serious question. What if you've come to decide for whatever reason that you are going to have to start either hitting your spouse (to get out your frustrations) or you are going to have to divorce him/her, because you just can't take things the way they are anymore. And you don't want to get divorced, because you really care about your partner at heart, you're just having a hard time dealing with life's stresses right now. And you suspect that your partner would rather be smacked around a bit than have you divorce him/her (and this is certainly what you'd prefer as well). Also, to be clear, we'll go ahead and say that you've been together a long time, and have kids. (Because those two conditions make everything up for grabs, apparently.)
Is it perhaps okay to start hitting your spouse? Is it the least-bad option?
Betraying a spouse is worse than throwing your own principles overboard for money because hurting someone else is wrong. You can change your mind about the importance of your principles - "betraying principles for money" is another way of saying "My PETA values used to be more important than my want for $$$, but now I care about the $$$ more than the stupid cows."
And I know someone personally who watched his wife die of cancer, and he didn't cheat.
So do I, my father. But if he had, he would not suddenly have stopped being a great father. And if I found out today that I am mistaken and he did, it would not change my admiration for him one bit.
Notwithstanding my textualist leanings, I do not read LizardBreath as arguing that cheating is no worse than breaking any other obligation to your spouse; that it is no big thing. Rather, it is a big thing. But it is very very very far from being the only thing.
LB, I understand what you are saying, and agree with it. That is not what B is saying, or has said.
My point, LB, and I think we're agreeing: it's not like once we get rid of this male-female dynamic that people a) don't value fidelity at all or b) that if a relationship has been negotiated to include fidelity, it must be unreflective (and therefore not worthwhile). The gay guys are a counterexample to the 'if people are valuing fidelity, they must not have thought about it.' claim.
59: Any thoughts on my 9 as a gloss on the sort of thing B. is arguing? I really don't think she's shifting ground and disavowing her arguments -- I think she, at worst, has been unclear.
57.53 continued: or, less offendedly, if I'm being an asshole, I'm not doing it on purpose, really.
The gay guys are a counterexample to the 'if people are valuing fidelity, they must not have thought about it.' claim.
But not a strong counterexample to the "Everyone who values fidelity without having thought about it would value it equally if they did," claim, because (if I'm right about the facts) most gay men in committed relationships do explicitly think about whether fidelity will be a term of their relationship, and many more of them then of straight couples decide that it won't be.
I think B just doesn't want to use the word 'wrong' because it implies that we judge something to be wrong and that implies we have no compassion for the wrongdoer. I can only deny this inference so many times, and can only point out that all I mean by 'wrong' is 'should have done otherwise.' so many times.
And I'm not sure whether B disagrees with me that X example of cheating is wrong, or she agrees with me that this doesn't mean that we can't feel compassion or sympathy for the wrongdoer and doesn't realize that I agree with her on that point.
62: Come on, is there really any need to be a putz? You delurked so nicely.
I think beating your spouse *is* worse than cheating on them, and I do think it's always wrong. There are other ways you can legitimately go and hit someone (take up boxing, whatever), but there aren't legitimate ways that you can go and have sex with someone else.
I think that ties in with what B was saying a while back about hurting the spouse directly or indirectly - there is nothing that *directly* hurts my spouse if I sleep with someone else. If he finds out, that's different, but I could easily imagine a situaion where he doesn't ever find out and we live happily ever after. Beating them is obviously causing harm directly.
your argument in 9, that we should sympathize with someone in that position, I agree with wholeheartedly. But it is worlds away from saying that the behavior isn't wrong. And I just don't see a meaningful distinction between saying that something is ok, and saying that it isn't flat-out wrong. I'm not sure what the difference between wrong and flat-out wrong are either.
Comparing 29 with 36 and 52 with 55 I have come to the conclusion that I am a faster-typing, more-opqaquely expressing my meaning, alternate universe variant of FL. Which isn't to say that FL agrees with 29, but that insofar as 29 answered Joe D's question from 11, it's the same answer given by 36.
72 - (?) Not trying to be a putz. The argument seems the same to me.
difference is.
ok, I've got to work today, and I'm just expressing frustration at this point.
Everyone who values fidelity without having thought about it would value it equally if they did
But that hasn't been the claim! Just that thinking that fidelity might be more important than some other transgressions isn't obviously an unreflective position.
Look, if my dad had been a considerate person and cheated on my mom once, it certainly would have been more forgiveable than what he's subjected her to these past 28 years. But that doesn't mean that I think that fidelity is just as important as saying nice words to your spouse, or that if I think it's more important, I'm saying it's overwhelmingly so.
I would love to betray my principles for money -- if only I had the opportunity!
I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone mentioned the fact that marriage is still thought of somewhat as a property relationship, with mutual ownership of the other's genitals? All the other romantic stuff is unqualifiable -- the sexual ownership thing is cut-and-dried.
73: What I'm saying in 9 is that if we tweak the facts (they've been under incredible emotional strain for years now, there's no end in sight, watching the person they love in pain is torture for them) properly, we can come up with someone who spent an evening surfing the web rather than comforting their dying, racked with pain, spouse, who we'd strongly sympathize with, and with respect to whose action in that regard, we would really want to avoid saying that they had done wrong. The impulse would be to say "Everyone is human, no one is perfect, you can only do as much as you can, beating yourself up about it is insane, you shouldn't feel bad about it." (Well, ogged would be saying "Suffer", but why anyone would listen to a caterpillar-killer I don't know.) Still, surfing the web rather than comforting your dying spouse is wrong. It's just not always, flat-out, wrong. And sometimes, even though it's still wrong, it's okay.
Put me down in the "62 isn't putzy" camp. It does seem like a very similar question to me.
Also, you can't have a real argument with B; she cheats.
I completely agree with that, except for the conclusion. The impulse in all of these situations should be to say "everyone is human, etc.," but that has no bearing on whether the underlying conduct was wrong. Sure we should have tons of sympathy for that person. Far be it from me. I'm an ass most of the time.
But if that person were suddenly to declare "What I did was in no way wrong!" and engage in a long tedious argument over it, I would suddenly have much less sympathy for that person.
72: I don't think that Brock was being a putz.
77: Again, we're down to arguing about emphasis. We agree that infidelity is one transgression against the marital vows, and not necessarily the most important one. I don't mean to say that it is always unreflective to value it very, very highly -- only that its extremely high value is often assumed in an unreflective way.
LB, we can still find reasons, even not genitalia-owning ones, that it's worse to cheat knowingly once than spend the night on the internet. How much premeditation it takes, for one. How much you have to seek out the opportunity, for two. How much it is likely to damage your emotional relationship with your spouse, for three.
And I think we're using 'wrong' differently.
Now, it may be just that we value fidelity too highly, but I think there's a pretty strong connection between sex and emotional attachment, and I don't think that it's all just because we have the patriarchy in our reasons-folder.
A list of things I think are wrong.
Physical abuse
Premeditated infidelity
Emotional abuse
Verbal abuse
Non-premeditated infidelity.
Breaking major promises
Breaking minor promises.
80 - But I would never promise my spouse to give to be a perfectly selfless comforter of her every need. I know I couldn't do that, and she couldn't expect me to. I'm human. I can (and have) promised a spouse to be sexually faithful.
Also, your hypo is again veering awfully close to "did it accidently" territory -- drunken debauchery at a work conference, etc. Something the partner just does, without too much thought -- a human failing. That's a bit different than premeditation, and excusing the behavior up front.
The question in 62 would be putzy if asked by a troll but if you read it with the foreknowledge that Brock is joining in the conversation in earnest, is a totally legitimate thought-experiment. One that is answered and rebuffed by Asilon in 71.
744 on the other thread is a calumny!
84: Is infidelity imaybe the only serious betrayal where the same behaviour* is not a betrayal in some relationships.
*Well, not really the same.
I guess there could be relationships where one partner willingly take all or most responsibilty for the kids.
I'm not sure what the difference between wrong and flat-out wrong are either.
I've been interpreting "flat-out wrong" as "always wrong, for all people in all circumstances." But that's just me.
85: But now we're talking about exactly how bad it is, which is where apo's and my "Every situation is different, you can't tell from the outside of the relationship what the value of a transgression is," comes in. Just saying "It's wrong" doesn't prove that a reasonable reaction wouldn't be "But don't worry about it, it's okay, it doesn't make you a bad person." My guy in 9 did something 'wrong' but something that no reasonable person would condemn him for. I am arguing that instances of infidelity that might fall into the same category are perfectly possible. Still wrong, but not really importantly wrong.
And Brock: I thought you were being a putz because you seemed to me to be deliberately equating incomparable things. If you came into an argument about animal rights, and responded to someone saying "I recognize that it's cruel, but I eat meat anyway" by saying "I suppose you think lynching is cruel. Would you do that anyway?" I'd think you were being a putz. But the form of the arguments are similar.
But I'm just snapping at you, I don't mean there to be any hard feelings.
91--I think we all know who really has the underwater tentacle fantasies around here.
BTW, I'd say fidelity still applies to open marrages as opposed to polyamorous ones, as the terms are most commonly used, though those usages aren't universal. And also certain kinds of polyamorous relationships.
'if people are valuing fidelity, they must not have thought about it.'
I'm not making that argument.
Text, look. If you really have an issue with some perceived self-contradiction, show me. Because I really don't think I'm doing that, but if I am, fair enough; I'll own up to it and clarify.
Maybe someone has already said this -- (That thread was long, ok?) -- but could we say that cheating is wrong to the degree that the cheatee thinks it is? If a relationship has an understanding that fidelity is the intention, but that infidelity isn't a deal-breaker, couldn't we say that the cheater in that relationship is doing something wronger than someone cheating in a relationship where fidelity is non-negotiable?
re: the Brock Landers wife-beating case.
There's a 1970s psychopathology text book, which, and I kid not, advocates lobotomies for some women in violent or abusive relationships.
On sort of vaguely similar and loosely consequentialist grounds.
Also, how have we gotten this far into this conversation without mentining The Cheat?
99: I basically said that. I said as the value that the cheatee places on fidelity went down, so did the wrong.
I've been interpreting "flat-out wrong" as "always wrong, for all people in all circumstances."
But what's changing between "wrong" and "flat-out wrong" isn't the wrongness of the thing (in a binary right/wrong sense). Wrong is wrong, it doesn't suddenly become right because of changed circumstance (just in the infidelity situation, I mean). The difference is in how sympathetically we view the cheater, how strongly we condemn the act (leaving aside the matter of butting into someone else's relationship). The degree of wrongness may change, but it stays pretty permanently on one side of the fence.
94, I think, is i my best answer to 70.
I think there's a pretty strong connection between sex and emotional attachment, and I don't think that it's all just because we have the patriarchy in our reasons-folder.
I think there is a pretty strong connection too. And I, too, don't think it's all just because of patriarchy. However, I think *some* of it is. And I think that the conclusion that "because we connect sex and emotional attachment, marriage must involve sexual exclusivity" is entirely patriarchal (I might change my mind on this, and if I do, text will tell me I'm being an ass). Marriage is an emotional attachment, but it is not an *exclusive* emotional attachment; I am free to love other people. I am just not supposed to be free to have sex with them. I'm saying that that distinction is weird, and that it owes a lot (not everything, but a lot) to the idea that sex is a form of property.
99: Yes, of course. It's not cheating at all if there's no expectation of fidelity--you're not breaking a promise, then. It's entirely dependent on the other person's expectations and reactions. However, if there is some expectation of fidelity, then cheating is wrong. It could be less wrong in certain cases than in others (again, depending on the expectations of the other person), but it certainly isn't right.
95: 869. 5a. 869. 6. I don't think that by saying 'here is a set of moral principles, cheating is wrong in these conditions' that I'm implying omniscience of everyone's situation. I can fully say that a situation that looks bad may indeed turn out to be not bad, and that I should refrain from judging. I may feel a great deal of compassion for someone caught in a horrible situation, and still hold that he shouldn't have cheated.
And I think Brock is making an interesting point, but with a sledge hammer. We've been working with a framework of promises and whether breaking a promise means substituting one's judgment for another. And Brock is taking the example: suppose I promise not to beat my wife, but I realize it's for the greater good, can I decide that I know better.
The thing is, I don't think we promise not to beat each other; I think that's assumed as a general human duty, not a promise. (I think this was Weman's point)
But take another promise. The couple promises to arrange their finances in thus and such a way, perhaps for their kids' education. One of them, however, decides that the finances should be arranged in a different way because of a great desire to go skiing. She realizes, though, that if she does this, her partner will be upset, and his fragile constitution is such that it would be bad for him. Moreover, he would think that spending the money on a lavish ski vacation would be seriously wasteful and it would probably cause a serious argument about their life goals, perhaps leading to divorce. Should she therefore go ahead and decide something contrary to his promise?
Anyway, one problematic thing about LB's net surfing example is that it's actually not wrong to take a night off. To make this a fair analogue to sexual infidelity in a relationship where it is highly valued, the guy would have to have a big net addiction that was consistently interfering with caring for his wife. If someone asked me, should I have sex with someone else without speaking to my wife about the new boundaries of our relationship? I'd say no. If someone said to me, should I allow myself some time alone away from my sick wife? I'd say yes.
I think that a lot of the problem with cheating comes where there's an asymmetry, where one partner cheats but not the other; especially when the cheated party is either genuinely unaware, or feels obligated to pretend they don't know; and above all when the cheated one actually feels more strongly against cheating than the cheater.
It seems that these are a high proportion of the cases, almost a definition, since it excludes open marriage.
I think that marriage and long-term relationships are good for some people and not others, and that the group for which marriage is not good is quite large (i.e., not confined to just me). I think that the more important sexual spontaneity and freedom are for you, the worse marriage is for you and the worse you are for marriage. (Though my own problem is quite a different one.)
(barring a true non rationalized ability to come to a tacit agreement to change the boundaries of the relationship, which I accept may happen. It's renegotiation, but the medium of communication has changed.)
My sister was crushed when she found out that her husband was cheating. I thought it should have bothered her much more when he held the gun to her head, but the cheating was a big deal to her.
105: Text and Ogged will hate me, b/c this is another argument yet again, but is it really okay if there's no expectation of fidelity? There are a lot of people who say that marriage is, by definition a promise of sexual fidelity. Which is one reason why I'm not entirely comfortable with the absolute distinction between "cheating" and "open marriage"--it feels to me too much like being told, "but you're one of the good ones."
I think everyone here would say, and has said, that it's only wrong if it's cheating, and it's only cheating if you've promised sexual fidelity. I want to add to that, it should only be a promise if you've (the couple) actually seriously considered the possibility of *not* promising sexual fidelity.
For what it's worth, though, I'll concede that yes, cheating as folks have been defining it here is wrong. It's hard for me to say that because I cannot get past the feeling that a flat statement "x is wrong" implies a serious lack of sympathy or nuance, and I'm really uncomfortable with disallowing nuance when it comes to complex relationships and complex feelings. I feel much more comfortable saying "it's not good, but it can be okay"; that is, with some kind of list in which "neither a nor b" is a possibility. But if a and b are the only possibilities allowed, then yeah, okay, it's wrong.
103,105: I can get on board with that. Also 106, I think.
Sexual infidelity is often condemnable, occasionally understandable, and almost never commendable.
I'm guessing it's just that middle thing that's the hangup.
is it really okay if there's no expectation of fidelity
If both partners agree, I don't see the problem. I mean, we might want to get into discussions about the reasons that they want an open marriage, and of course it's possible that some people's reasons are fucked up, but that seems more or less unknowable to me.
112- okay now I think everyone perhaps actually is on the same page...
we can still find reasons, even not genitalia-owning ones, that it's worse to cheat knowingly once than spend the night on the internet. How much premeditation it takes, for one. How much you have to seek out the opportunity, for two. How much it is likely to damage your emotional relationship with your spouse, for three.
Yeah, but we can also find reasons to make the opposite argument.
And 111 does a really good job of making part of my point that the focus (socially, not in this thread, since the thread is specifically about cheating) on sexual fidelity as *the* main criteria for a relationship is fucked up.
115: Except that it begs the question in that the promise-breaking action is also objectively frivolous.
woo for nuance! And I feel so bad that I went to Target to get new headphones while people wanted me to clarify 'decent'.
Decent things to do are things that we should attempt to do in order to live in a way that minimally harms the people with whom we have contact. It's decent to ask people before borrowing their things. It's decent to be sensitive to people in emotional distress. It's decent to avoid breaking promises if at all possible.
There are circumstances where the decent thing to do is not the right thing to do, but they're wildly unlikely in normal circumstances. It's decent to ask before borrowing the neighbor's garden hose, but if my barbeque suddenly turns into a tiny bonfire, no one is going to shun me if I steal some of my neighbor's water.
It's hard to for me to come down with universal principles of right and wrong because I don't really believe in them, but if there is a circumstance in which I would think it applies, it's infidelity. Not that I think we should break out the scarlet A team or anything of that sort, but sex isn't a requirement for life. It's possible for things to be wrong actions but still be understandable actions, if that makes any sense.
In reference to something said earlier, I feel that it is the person in the relationship's problem of decency, not so much the person with whom they are cheating. If you aren't in that relationship and didn't make those vows, it's not so much your fault if they don't keep them. It's not something to mark in your book of good deeds, in my opinion, but it's not so much bad as just not actively good. Sadly, almost every action human beings can take falls into that not actively good category, so what can you do?
118- in what way is skiing objectively less important than sex?
112: Yes, I think it would be okay. However, as you say, marriage is linked with the idea of sexual fidelity. This is the norm, and it is generally assumed that sexual fidelity comes along with being married (whether this is good or not is another issue). So an explicit conversation would be required for it to be okay. And even this gets tricky--if one partner feels they will lose the other if they don't agree on that point, but still wants an exclusive relationship, they might say that fidelity isn't expected without really meaning it. Coercion, of a sort.
I feel much more comfortable saying "it's not good, but it can be okay"
I don't think this is valid. "It's not good, but it isn't evil/malicious/etc." works, but 'okay' is just a milder version of good (in my understanding, at least).
JM & Tia: This is still not the underwater sex blog.
Tia said as much, but is it really the main criteria? It depends on culture and subculture, but it seems to me all kinds of types of cruelty and iressponsibility are seen as more compelling reasons to break up with someone for most Americans.
That's not my point. All I'm saying is that if you're arguing that promise-breaking is just innately wrong, regardless of the subject of the promise, taking as your example behavior that people would be likely to perceive as wrong (spending money on a vacation rather than your children's education) even in the absence of a promise begs the question.
106 makes me realize what I'm saying (I think) at the beginning of 112: the wife-beating vs. sexual fidelity argument is unreasonable (but a lot of people have said it's not) because wife-beating is inherently wrong. It is not okay to say, "oh well, if the couple understands marriage to include a rule that the husband may beat the wife, then that's cool" or, alternately, "wife-beating is only wrong if the couple has promised not to beat one another." People do get married in situations where marriage is supposed to include the right to beat your wife; I think those marriages are objectively wrong, and that the woman is *not* wrong if she breaks the promise to allow herself to be beaten. (I think that this is Adam's point w/r/t promises of sexual fidelity being inherently wrong, fwiw.)
Whereas sexual fidelity isn't *inherently* right or wrong; it's rightness or wrongness, we are all saying, depends on the agreement made between the people in question. But I *do* think that we (the collective, rhetorical we) do not, in fact, keep the distinction between objectively wrong and "wrong only if you've promised otherwise" clear when it comes to sexual fidelity. And I think that it's really important to acknowledge that.
125: Ooo, nice. Yes, that's what I was thinking but hadn't pulled together properly.
But otherwise it's not infidelity.
At one point it seemed we were arguing about more than language, but I'm back to saying 297, I think.
But so is 128, so I am not convinced. But I have to do some work now.
This thread has turned into the "Telling jokes in prison" joke.
LB in 124: even in the absence of a promise begs the question.
In the hypothetical Cala posted in 106, here is a promise to set up the finances in a certain way. Spending the money that the couple agreed to put away for education purposes would be breaking that promise.
But the conduct (spending money needed for education on a vacation instead) would be wrong even in the absence of a promise. This makes it a bad example for demonstrating, through the use of our moral intuitions, that promise-breaking is in itself bad -- our intuitions may be responding to the wrongful underlying conduct, rather than to the broken promise.
120 bothers me. Skiing is obviously less important than sex. I have a real problem with the "well, I went without sex for X amount of time, so people can just damn well give it up" argument, whether it's being made to condemn gay people to a life of celibacy, or to condemn women for having abortions, or to condemn people for cheating on their partners. It's just incredibly oversimplified, and I find it really rather offensively inhumane.
For what it's worth, though, I'll concede that yes, cheating as folks have been defining it here is wrong. It's hard for me to say that because I cannot get past the feeling that a flat statement "x is wrong" implies a serious lack of sympathy or nuance, and I'm really uncomfortable with disallowing nuance when it comes to complex relationships and complex feelings. I feel much more comfortable saying "it's not good, but it can be okay"; that is, with some kind of list in which "neither a nor b" is a possibility. But if a and b are the only possibilities allowed, then yeah, okay, it's wrong.
Okay, now we have no argument. (I agree with Matt that "can be okay" is just a slightly watered down version of right, at least in so far as right encompasses the superogatory, the obligatory, and the permissible.) I'd go further and say that I think you should get past your discomfort with saying "Y is wrong." "Y is wrong" allows for a lot of ancillary statements. When I essentially cheated on Graham (not in the sense that I had sex with someone else, but in that I violated our polyamorous terms), some external factors were impairing my judgment. What I did was very forgivable and understandable, and entirely wrong.
But the point is, I think it is actually better for our moral language to understand the perfect compatibility of straightforwardly categorizing something as wrong and simultaneously having compassion and understanding for what would lead someone to do it. Having the confidence of our convictions, and using language that expresses it, does not preclude forgiveness of ourself or others. Feeling like you have to dance away from saying something is wrong is leads to the kind of language that allows rationalization and clouded moral perspective.
136: Arguing with you is pretty damn frustrating.
128: Sure, says you (and me, and all the rest of us). But a *lot* of people say yes, it damn well is. Trust me.
And I think that 125 satisfactorily explains why I'm dissatisfied with the, "breaking a promise is wrong, period" argument.
But the point is, I think it is actually better for our moral language to understand the perfect compatibility of straightforwardly categorizing something as wrong and simultaneously having compassion and understanding for what would lead someone to do it.
So long as this is applied consistently across all categories of wrongdoing, I have no quarrel with this.
Oh... can this please just end? I'm starting to worry that I'm going to need to retract 116, which I really don't want to do...
"Y is wrong" allows for a lot of ancillary statements.
Then those statements should be made, no?
Basically, I agree with you, Tia, as you no doubt know, about the value of clear unambiguous statements. I can't help but find it disingenous to say that an unambiguous, unqualified statement of wrongness (and yeah, I know you've qualified the wrong statement more than once, which is part of how I arrived at 112) doesn't imply judgment of the person as well as the action; I think most of us would take it that way (e.g., statements like "I was wrong" rather than "I did a wrong thing").
Anyway, I think my discomfort with "X is wrong," when it comes to sexual behavior, is basically a good thing; I don't want to get past it.
141: Yeah, we've gotten to agreement, or pretty close, a couple of times before and then had it blow up again. I, for one, am sick of this and would be happy if everyone would agree to drop it, with the exception of anyone who thinks that I have unfairly taken the last word on a sub-argument should take a last shot at whatever I said.
But if you all want to keep arguing, I'm not going to stop you.
Well, yes, it involves judgment of the person. People are defined by their actions. That doesn't mean that judgment is permanent, enduring, or all encompassing. To say that someone is wrong about something is not the same thing as saying they are bad.
No, Brock! It will never end! Welcome to the bottomless hole! Bwahahahaha!
138: So I'm told. I know this to be true, and I genuinely feel bad about it. I don't set out to frustrate; I have a hard time letting nuances and interesting sidelines go. (Also, I'm trying really hard to avoid moving-related crap, and arguing over marriage is *way* more fun than packing the goddamn Xmas ornaments).
I am with emerson.
I do think sexual fidelity is a pretty big deal in marriage. People can have an open marriage if the want to but outside of that it can be pretty devistating.
I would be really hurt by sexual infidelity. There would be other things my spouse could do to hurt me more, but they generally seem a lot less likely. Like being stabbed in my sleep or something.
146: You are wrong to eat cheeseburgers. (With the possible exception of cheeseburgers made from the parts of well treated cows.)
135: Well, maybe not. What if you say, "if we blow the money now, Junior will qualify for more financial aid?" Or how about, "My spouse wants to send Junior to Fancy Pants Private college, but the public university after a two-year community college is good enough."
If you made a decision to save for an expensive college and then went behind your partner's back to spend money on a ski vacation,you are breaking a promise, and that's wrong. It is not clear to me that it is objectivey wrong not to put money away for the most expensive college imaginable, though it's not in keeping with what I value.
136 really bothers me. If sex is so much more important tha skiing, then aren't you making an argument that is inconsistent with your original argument which I understand to be: Sexual infidelity is not more important than a lot of other types of infidelity. You're putting a really high premium on the importance of sex (one I won't entirely disagree with), and it seems to me that it follows from that that it's reasonable to make a promise of sexual fidelity a reasonable default.
In other words, sex is different. It cuts both ways.
I would be really hurt by sexual infidelity.
It has made me quite hurt and angry in the past. The times I didn't find out, it didn't hurt and I didn't get angry. That is why I'd rather just not know. Shrug.
Back to cheeseburgers, Tia is oppressing me with her limited, bourgeois notions of right and wrong.
cheeseburgers made from the parts of well treated cows
What about cheeseburgers made from well-treated parts of cows? Lovingly tenderized, perfectly seasoned parts.
Also, eating a bacon-cheeseburger can never be wrong. Nothing can be wrong that involves bacon. Infidelity is okay, if it involves bacon.
No one's interested in my 143?
Come to think of it, I could really go for a cheeseburger. There aren't enough non-fast-food burger places around here.
I don't like 144.
151: I don't see the inconsistency. Sex is important to us as living animals, like eating or exercise. That doesn't mean that there's any inherent reason to promise to only ever eat with your partner.
I, also, like cheeseburgers, and feel persecuted by my waistline and by Eric Schlosser.
Infidelity is okay, if it involves bacon.
A complex moral code, but one I could get comfortable with.
I don't like 144.
Now there's a statement I can productively respond to.
152: You are just a Kantian nihilist.
Apo is not wrong to eat cheeseburgers. Although I just ate a Big Mac for lunch yet again, and I think that is wrong. But it's less wrong than not eating or than having to fucking fix myself something, so whatever.
But I am also somewhat annoyed that there is now a certain novelty song racketing around in my head on account of the discussion of cheeseburgers.
Burgers with blue cheese are good. Blue cheese and bacon together. Mhhm.
If the head in question is a parrot-head, I'm right with you.
156: Oh, please.
Don't trivialize my guilt! My white liberal guilt is just as guilty as anyone else's!
I'm trivializing your skinny-ass waistline anxieties, not your liberal guilt. I'm good with liberal guilt.
If the head in question is a parrot-head
Yes. Some parts of one's past can't be indefinitely repressed.
154 -- a really good cheeseburger is available from O'Casey's, on 41st between Madison and 5th. It is however ridiculously expensive. A small-but-nonzero step down in quality with a insufficient step down in price is available at Burger Heaven on Madison a block or two south of there. The best meaty lunch in the neighborhood (so think I) is the steak sandwich avalable at the Mexican place in the basement of Grand Central (Zocalo?) -- it is however cheeseless and still more expensive than I would like to pay for lunch. Awesome, awesome, transcendently good fries come with the last.
Hmm. I like that place, but have never ordered much other than the carnitas.
Now there's a statement I can productively respond to.
Fine. 144 is okay with me. Can we drop it now?
161: I hate you.
Is it antifeminist if I say you're mercurial?
Here is my final thought on this, and then I will cede to 143:
Since my earlier, spouse-abuse hypo was too sledgehammery -- what if you in your weeding vows you and your spouse, both big ballroom dancers, swore to never go ballroom dancing with anyone else again? It's arbitrary, and you both agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with ballroom dancing with other people, but that's a huge part of your relationship with each other, something you enjoy doing several times a week, something that you both regard as very intimate, and enlivening, and something that henceforth you only want to share with one another.
It is now years later, you have kids, your lives are stressful, and you don't get to go out dancing with your spouse nearly as often as when you were younger. Once or twice a month, maybe. Honestly, you love your partner, but you'd really like to do it more. But you don't want to ask your partner about, you know, dancing with anyone else, because you suspect your partner would see that as a major breach of intimacy, and it could throw your reasonably comfortable relationship out of whack and just generally make things worse for everyone.
Is it okay to start lying to your partner and going out and dancing with other people behind his or her back?
I'm going to whine a little now, be warned.
I feel pretty bad thinking about all the time I've spent reading these threads, epecially since I didn't do the work yesterday that I should have. It's funny how you do these things.
"We agree to disagree."
"No!"
Even if Brock beats their spouse, I do think they're right about the bacon.
certain novelty song racketing around in my head on account of the discussion of cheeseburgers
"My Humps"?
A local restaurant serves hamburgers with bacon, egg (sunny-side up), and cheese on top. At which point I find the beef somewhat gratuitous. But I may just be oppressed by my skinny waist-line.
177: Egg and burger don't go. Definitely superfluous beef there.
171: Nah. And that's okay, I don't really hate you.
Columbian and Peruvian and Ecuadorian (and probably Bolivian) restaurants all serve steak topped with a fried egg. I endorse this combination of cholesterol vehicles.
Egg burgers are good. So is steak and eggs. Superfluous beef is even more rare than justifiable infidelity.
172: If you've told your partner you miss dancing and you've tried to arrange babysitters and they "just don't feel like it"? No, it's not wrong. If your partner has broken his/her hip and can never dance again? I think they should give you permission to go dancing on your own.
I think it would be wonderful and charming and admirable if you refused to ever dance again, because dancing was your special thing with your partner. But I wouldn't think it was wrong if you didn't, in part because I think that implield in the "we will never dance with anyone else" promise is "we will dance with each other."
Oh shit, I have to run. I promised my husband that I would do some moving things while he ran to Home Depot, and instead I hung out with you guys.
Not only am I wrong to have done so, but all of you aided and abetted me in my wrongness. Shame.
149: I need to find out a way to get meat I know is from well-treated animals. Here you can buy more expensive milk and eggs in regular stores from free roaming animals. I should also find out how well treated they really are.
If it's impossible, I have to restrict my meat eating to game and seafood. It was you who pushed me to make that resolution in that vegan thread from way back. (I decided arbitrarily to wait until I moved to Stockholm, which will be way longer than I thought.)
185: "to run" s/b "the runs". From the Big Mac, one presumes.
184 - perhaps your partner should give you permission to go dancing on your own. But do you have the moral right to make that decision on your own, without consulting them? That's the hypothetical we've been considering, I think.
Note that whatever the answer, I think this is a far less compelling case than the infidelity scenario, for a variety of reasons. I think the consensus seems to be that those "variety of reasons" boil down to "because I am a prude", but oh well.
People with high cholesterol who buy pills are ensuring my continued salary. So, while it may violate my principles to advocate egg & beef burgers, I need to make money. Eat away.
Now to cheat on my future spouse...
I'll restrict my diet in that fashion when I move to Stockholm, too. Which will be never. So instead, I'm going to treat my wife well, then eat her.
Why was B dropped from the blogroll?
(Hope I'm not opening a skeleton closet or anything. I just noticed she's gone missing, and sometime recently.)
She was actually dropped ages ago, and reinstated recently. I thought it would be funny to reinstate her surreptitiously, but it wasn't particularly funny because no one notices.
The original droppage was related to a spat with ogged over whether one might morally torture one's spouse by drowning them in glue.
Egg and hamburger? Egg and steak? What is wrong with you people!
I knew about the original dropping/reinstatement. I didn't (still don't?) understand why she's gone again.
She's right there under Billmon.
She's not, or at least not when I look at it. Are you looking at the main page? I'm not sure that adding her back on the main page added her back on the archive -- my website skills are minimal.
Well she wasn't, but now she is. Nevermind. I still don't understand but it's cool, I'm a simple man.
LB - I had to close the webpage and re-open it to make her show up. Refreshing didn't work.
I'm pretty sure it's the archive thing (she's on the mainpage blogroll, not on the blogroll that shows up on archive pages), and I have no idea how to fix it. Someone with a clue?
And we really need to get systemic about ubdating the blogroll.
a spat with ogged over whether one might morally torture one's spouse by drowning them in glue.
In the end, it was agreed you could do it morally if your spouse was a blackie.
Egg and hamburger? Egg and steak? What is wrong with you people!
We need a thousand angry comments on this right away.
We're all too busy screwing around.
I've recently read (and annotated) the "New York’s Best Cheap Eats" from the latest issue of New York. But even had I not, I would know (having been going there for two years) that the best place to get a burger in midtown is Burger Joint, hidden in the lobby of the Parker Meridien. That might be too far from your office, not knowing where your office is it's hard to say.
193 -- Talk to the Peruvians.
We're all too busy screwing around.
With clowns. That we will later eat. With eggs.
I know it's all comity all the time now, but I just wanted to note that Brock's abuse case is a *great* hypothetical. The reason it is so illuminating is that it strips away one aspect of the infidelity problem that has been given the pro-cheaters trouble: namely, that deceiving your spouse can in itself (and not in the discovery) be harmful. It seems easier for some to understand a slap in the face as harmful. So, granting that, here are questions we can ask:
1. Are human beings so constructed that they will never get very angry with their partners?
2. Is anger an easy emotion to control?
3. Can we lump all abuse together as equally bad, or does degree matter?
4. Is continual abuse the same as a one-time lapse?
5. Is unprovoked abuse as bad as a lapse in the presence of provocation or excuses?
6. Does performing this harmful action necessarily mean that the abuser is all things considered, an evil or irredeemable person?
7. Is it impossible for a relationship which is characterized by occasional abuse to, all things considered, be a positive for both parties?
8. Is ending a relationship because of a one-time event of abuse necessarily the best choice in all cases?
9. Is it possible for an outsider to fully understand the context in which the abuse occurs, and to see the relationship as those within it do?
10. Is it impossible for us to cook up some bizarre scenario where abuse is the least bad option?
11. Is it impossible that a couple might consent in advance to an abusive relationship, thereby making it seem less like assault and more like an informed choice between consenting adults?
The answers to all these questions, you will note, is “no.” Yet I do not expect anyone to justify abuse on these grounds, even though these are precisely the types of arguments being advanced by the pro-cheaters to defend or minimize the importance of deceiving a person who loves you, and whom you have promised not to deceive.
Our perception of abuse is, of course, colored by what we know about context. We know abuse doesn’t typically consist of a one-time lapse in judgment. We know abusers aren’t usually acting out of excusable motives. We know abuse is rarely reciprocal in a relationship, and indeed typically consists of men victimizing women. We know the type of person likely to ‘snap’ and hit his wife is likely a louse in all sorts of ways. And these are all factors that prevent us, I would hope, from minimizing the importance of abuse, or for telling people who care about abuse that they are naïve, or should get over their hang-ups. I wonder if there’s any other type of behavior we know similar things about.
Speaking of eggs, this is clever but depressing.
It reads a little bit like baa, but far too little pith.
207: The problem is that abuse is something you're doing directly to your spouse (who will know it the instant you do it), while cheating is something you're doing directly to somebody other than your spouse (who might never know it). I really don't think it's an apt analogy.
211 -- what if you could put your spouse into a hypnotic state prior to beating him/her such that s/he would have no memory of the beating after awakening?
And that, as B. said, abuse is wrong even in the presence of an agreement that permits it, and extramarital sex isn't.
But I don't want to talk with anonymous bomb-throwers. I'm guessing this is the same ALLCAPS person from the last thread I confused with Tia. Unless it shows up with an identity (needn't be real, just consistent) I'd prefer not to engage with it.
211: We anti cheaters are generally not granting that the harm is only in the discovery.
213- as I said upon first delurking, Mr. ALLCAPS was me.
(207 was not me.)
213: I just looked it up; I'm relatively certain said bomb thrower just accidentally left his/her name off.
I never looked up the all-caps person, but I'll bet I know who that was, and it wasn't this person.
But I don't want to talk with anonymous bomb-throwers. I'm guessing this is the same ALLCAPS person from the last thread I confused with Tia. Unless it shows up with an identity (needn't be real, just consistent) I'd prefer not to engage with it.
I'll disagree with that. I'm pretty sure Brock owned up to ALLCAPS.
The all caps person has since gone with a name.
If LB is wrong about such a simple matter as the identity of ALLCAPS, can we really trust her moral intuitions on something like fidelity?
In fact, it seems silly to even preserve the secrecy, since I'm sure 207 wouldn't mind 207's name being shared.
215 - Missed that.
In any case, I may be feeling strongly about this because I'd like the argument to end, rather than being endlessly rehashed, but I'm REALLY unhappy about having it reopened by someone who isn't going to engage as an identifiable person.
Oh, hadn't seen 216 yet. Who is it?
It's baa. baa, I hope you will forgive the unveiling.
208. I'd already read about that, but still: depressing. Surely there must be diminishing returns for that sort of bullshit? Surely at some point consumers refuse to reward advertising blitzes?
Given that it's baa, I'm sure the anonymity was unintentional.
Hmm, after complaining about the egg, I did remember an open sandwich I ate a few times in Lisbon, which was toast, then a thin steak, then a slice of ham, then a fried agg. I liked that.
On a related note, my partner and I decided last night to try to only eat meat from animals raised in good conditions. So if I have a Whopper (obviously with cheese and bacon), am I harming him?
As to 214: I don't think there is necessarily harm caused if the cheatee never finds out.
214/227: Although I'm not firm on this, I'm not sure I think there is harm if the cheatee never finds out. What there is instead is great risk of harm (and risk of great harm): physical harm (STD risk), emotional harm (if he or she finds out), etc. Knowingly putting someone in danger of that kind of harm, without good countervailing reason, and without their consent, is wrong. And I don't think any of the reasons that have been offered in this voluminous thread constitute "good" reasons, given the options available.
Maybe there is intrinsic harm in the very act; I'm not really sure. What I'm saying is I don't think that's necessary to conclude that it's wrong.
Also, I hesitated to say this, but I think 889 is just silly. You are saying it may not be wrong for your husband to cheat if he has previously decided that it's either cheat on you or divorce you? (You say that his making that initial decision was wrong, but the cheating itself is not, since it's less bad than the divorce option.)
Sorry to drag out the sledgehammer once more, but I fail to see how this is any different than saying it might not be wrong for my husband to beat me if he earlier decided to either beat me or to slit my throat in my sleep. That it would have been wrong for him to make that initial decision, but having done so, beating you is less bad than slitting your throat, so in that case it's not wrong to for him to beat you.
To which I say, "huh?"
With the greatest of respect for 143, I'm going to chime in just a little bit because I got kind of testy late last night and you all have had a bunch of time to attain comity while I was sleeping and showering and stuff and I now I want to sign on for the group hug.
I agree with everything LB has said, including especially the comity-inducing bits. I also still agree with everything B has said, which I take not to disagree in any material way with what LB has said.
I do think it's really an argument about emphasis and about harms. I engage with it in the way that I do because I really think we over-emphasize the significance of sex-as-where-the-naughty-bits-have-been in an unexamined and often silly way. That doesn't at all mean that I think everybody should be screwing everybody else; the fact that a social convention is partly arbitrary and silly doesn't mean that people in whom that social convention is deeply ingrained can expect to just throw it away without doing a lot of damage (I take this to be a big chunk of what the '70s were about). But it does mean that I think it's worth spending some time on why we care so much about where our partners' naughty bits have been, and I think that leaping directly to "it's the lies, not the sex" is often a copout.
But it very often is the lies nonetheless. In the world we live in, I don't doubt that the vast majority of people who screw around on their partners are being assholes. To the extent (large, I think) that the anti-cheating camp is saying that the anti-cheating norm is important because most violations of it constitute mistreatment of one's partner, they're absolutely right. And to the extent that they're out to reinforce the norm on utilitarian grounds, OK.
But reinforcing the norm works in a couple of ways: it tells people not to cheat, but it also tells people whose partners cheat that they should view the cheating as an extremely big deal. I think that cheating-as-where-the-naughty-bits-have-been isn't a big deal per se, but is very often associated with other kinds of mistreatment of one's partner that are a big deal. I think that it's important to disentangle those threads in figuring out how to respond to cheating. The social narrative that Sex With Other People = Major Betrayal gets in the way of that, and to that extent I think it's harmful (although I have a friend who's a little like Emerson's sister in that her husband's cheating finally prompted her to get out of a very shitty marriage after way too many years, resulting in one of the most amazing transformations I've ever seen). I think most people are mixtures of good and bad and that a whole lot of people end up breaking up and then applying the lessons learned to a later relationship when all concerned might be better off if they could manage to work past jealousy and hurt pride and such and apply the lessons of the first relationship to making it work. But that requires good faith and hard work on both sides, and those qualities don't seem to be as common in relationships (or in people) as one would hope.
I don't know what kind of world we'd end up in if people thought about this stuff the way I do. I suspect that we'd end up with a bit more discreet screwing around, a bit more honesty, and fewer breakups, but I don't think it would change a whole lot. But I don't know. Prediction is difficult, especially when it concerns the future.
Prediction is difficult, especially when it concerns the future.
I'd like to order this on a coffee mug.
(I'm not sure if that worked. I designed it for you, but that may not be captured in the link. Oh well. I thought I had accomplished something, but now my whole day is probably for naught.)
The specific mug didn't come through, but the site is cool.
232: Is this the start of the Unfogged product line? What next, T-shirts? Eggs?
I need to find out a way to get meat I know is from well-treated animals.
I only eat hamburgers from cows that were played Mozart while in the womb.
I think people should have more opportunities to kill their food. It would be awesome to have a restaurant where, say, you could pay to get turned loose in a pen with an ostrich and sword. There can be only one!
I'll sleep with you, DaveL. But you know, only if it's okay with your wife.
Oh, who am I kidding. I don't give a shit what she thinks.
Have you seen an ostrich lately? Most people up against an ostrich at close range, I don't care how they're armed, are going to lose badly.
If I have to kill my own food, I'm sticking to rabbit and similar.
Yeah sorry, that was me. Thanks Tia. And while I'm glad to have a rep for pith, I am equally chagrined to see that I'm just three letters away from being a bomb-throwing all-caps user.
I have to say, no offense, that 211 and 213 are utterly non-responsive. The point of Brock's hypothetical is that *if* you take something where harm is uncontroversial, then all these subsidiary arguments that have been made in limited defense of cheating are non-sequitors. No one would say "if I found out my dad punched my mom every so often, that wouldn't change how I feel about him at all." Nor, I presume, would people be nattering on about how you have to be in the relationship to judge. Or how never hitting your wife is just one part of the many responsibilities of marriage, and we are bound to funk some of them.
The force of 211 and 213 is that yes, we should discard those bogus rationalizations because decieving your partner isn't harmful/bad in itself. That's all you need to say. Full stop. So rather than "cheating is bad, but..." the statement should be "cheat all you want if you won't get caught."
[[Note: cheating is not the same as "having an open relationship." What is at issue here is deception and lying.]]
So I think it all comes down to the "not a harm" claim. Two points about that. One: it is hard for me to express how odd I find the view that deceiving your spouse is only bad if s/he finds out. This makes me want to go back in a time machine and strangle Bentham in his cradle. Two: ok, grant this absurd assumption that aceeptible to deceive your if no one finds out. Practically, this still makes chating wrong most of the time. As lots of people have pointed out, the assumption that one can conceal affairs is extremely dubious. Are you a master of self-concealment and misdirection? Is your spouse strikingly unobservant? Are you sure the van from Cheaters isn't following you around? It seems to me not the anti-cheaters who are in this distancing themselves from life as it is actually lived.
Is there really comity? It doesn't seem so...
One: it is hard for me to express how odd I find the view that deceiving your spouse is only bad if s/he finds out.
baa, I don't what the best way to tell you this is, but your wife doesn't feel the same way.
Have you seen an ostrich lately? Most people up against an ostrich at close range, I don't care how they're armed, are going to lose badly.
Totally. That's why the other diners are seated arena style around the combat area. I bet it's mighty entertaining to see someone get stomped by an ostrich.
If I have to kill my own food, I'm sticking to rabbit and similar.
By the time I was two or three I was watching my dad slaughter rabbits for food. It made me the sensitive and gentle person I am today.
242: My husband Buck, at 8, moved to a more rural town than the one he'd lived in previously. His first day in the new house he wandered next door with a neighbor boy the same age. The neighbor's grandfather handed Buck a .22 and said, "Shoot this pig."
I didn't say it was only bad if the cheatee found out, just that I wasn't convinced it caused them harm if they didn't. I think there's a difference? Even if it's only in my mind.
You know, Baa, it was comity until you showed up just to make trouble. Are you trying to make Ogged get stomach cancer again?
It is comity if people are just being deceived and thinking they agree? I guess yes!
234: The official Unfogged t-shirt, modelled by Glenn Reynolds.
238: I am really, really liking this comity stuff.
240: Oops, there it went. It is hard for me to express how odd I find the view that hitting your spouse is in any way analogous to sleeping with someone else and not telling her about it. Hitting is something you do directly to your spouse for the purpose of hurting her. Sleeping with someone else is something you do with someone else because it's pleasurable and that affects your spouse indirectly, by way of norms about what that act means.
I do not believe that deceiving your partner is harmful/bad in itself, full stop. I think it happens all the effing time. Sometimes the best way to communicate is to shut up, and sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. If I was supposed to do something yesterday and I actually didn't do it until today but no harm was done, I'm often not going to get around to mentioning that, and I don't think you're going to condemn me.
So we're back to where sex with other people fits on the spectrum of between tardiness in taking out the trash and strangling your partner in her sleep, and on that, alas, we do not appear to have attained comity.
baa,
AFAICT, you've only really made one argument above--you're going to get caught, so there is a harm. That's gong to vary a lot with the individual marriage--I've known a few very good liars who I believe could pull it off. At worst, even if we buy your underlying premise, we're left with "Cheating is bad unless you're very good at it."
Sometimes you can do it discreetly; other times you think it's discreet and you get caught. The idea that you can cheat without any consequences is oh so simple. There's all kinds of gray areas here that people are missing: it's not just black and white. Cheating relationships are complex.
All this "comity!" no not quite yet, "oh my god here it comes! comity!" wait hold on lets think about this, "yes! yes! comity!" nope not quite yet please wait, "COMITY!! COMITY!" hold on we'll get there later?
It's giving me blue balls.
Kinda makes it tempting to sneak around and get a little bloggy harmony on the side, don't it?
Cheating relationships are complex.
So are faithful ones.
I'm going to assume you know that I am aware of that.
Also, attrition should not be mistaken for comity. Later.
Hasn't anyone yet reminded everyone that comity is not pretty?
It's not pretty at all, I love arguing. I'm tempted to go out and commit adultery just for the ensuing domestic.
If it breaks, slol, it's tragedy. If it bends, it's comity.
Also, attrition should not be mistaken for comity. Later.
Well sure, it's faking it, but sometimes you just want to get it over with so you can go to sleep, you know?
No, no, no.
Also, tragedy is when I get a hangnail. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die. (As Mel Brooks observed.)
you've only really made one argument above--you're going to get caught, so there is a harm.
Noooooo! That was just the last part of the argument. Let me respond with another numbered list, because it did a good job not clarifying last time.
Five points I was trying to make:
1. Most of the arguments being made seem irrelevant or off topic unless cheating qua cheating is bad *and* you aren't going to be found out (which I guess everyone thinks is bad)
2. It is so bad in itself. Or at least, it is highly plausible that it is bad in itself, and that the badness must be reducible to # of face slaps caused. You don't get to assume utilitarianism up frontm you have to try to substantiate it. Here's one (among other) methods. You can ask people which state of affairs they prefer: slapped in the face and a faithful spouse, or no face slap and a seemingly faithful spouse who lies and cheats. Any guesses how that turns out?
3. Even stipulating arguendo that the badness must be reducible to # of face slaps or emotional misery caused, we have an excellent reason to believe it will be reducible to emotional misery.
4. If it's not harm unless you are caught, why *aren't* all the pro-cheater actually more pro-cheating. Most of them (except Ash, I think) seem to say "cheating is bad... but X, Y, Z" not "cheating is absolutely great unless you get caught, if you are 100% sure you won't get caught, go to it." Puzzling.
5. Because it illuminates these points, Brock's hypo is superb.
The pro-cheaters should, in my opinion, have bitten the bullet and said: actually, all the things we say about cheating also apply to abuse -- it's just one part of your responsibilties in a relationship, one can still be occassionally abusive and not be a bad person, etc. It's just that abuse, as an emprical fact, is usually a lot worse in terms of the harms it does to people and relationships, so we treat it differently.
There is no comity, but I'm too damn tired to argue any more. I was not begging the question with the skiing example, mostly because you don't override a promise by doing more than promised, but less, but BG covered that. If you thought the point of the example was to indicate that I thought sex was unimportant, please read it again.
And if you acknowledge that sex is an important part of life, unlike skiing, then you've got strong motivation for the presumption that *if* you've made a promise for fidelity, then it is important to keep it.
baa, you're still wrong about the hitting example, because we have a generalized duty not to hit others that has nothing to do with promise-keeping. I don't think we make promises not to be abusive assholes. I think we assume that. Sometimes this is a really bad assumption.
Agree cala, that it's not directly analogous. I still think it's a very useful hypo for the reasons given (namely, that it clarifies the case for people who aren't recognizing a generalized duty not to be deceptive/break promises. I also think that it's basically true that all the exculpating things said about cheating (one lapse doesn't make you a bad person, you can't judge a marriage from the outside) apply to physical and emotional abuse. It's just the magnitude of the harm that's in question.
As it happens, I do think that the generalized responsibility to avoid force and the generalized responsibility to avoid fraud aren't so terribly different. But that's a discussion for another time. Also a discussion for another time is whether the generalized prohibitions against force/fraud can be thought of as an implicit assumption that no one would consent to it. There are situations in which physical roughness/violence is made OK by consent. If I consent to get socked in the mouth (boxing?), no moral foul, right?
I don't know if you can agree to be lied to. You can agree to be hit. This is called sports. (everybody! zidane y va marquer....)
I don't know if you can agree to be lied to.
That's what marriage is.
That's what marriage is.
I asked in old thread 866, in between some snarky comment, whether that was what was going on.
The pro-cheaters should, in my opinion, have bitten the bullet and said: actually, all the things we say about cheating also apply to abuse
One more reason you and I will never get married, baa. But if you're ever in NC, I'll buy you a cheeseburger.
The pro-cheaters should, in my opinion, have bitten the bullet and said: actually, all the things we say about cheating also apply to abuse
The reason we didn't say that is because it's absolute nonsense.
And I'm getting kind of uncomfortable with "pro-cheating" and "anti-cheating," although it's been a useful shorthand at times in this discussion. "Pro-cheating" is really more pro-nuance and pro-thinking-about-why-we-care-about-sexual-exclusivity.
I'm watching a TV debate about vivisection atm, and thought that might be a nice tpoic next time someone fancies sparking a 1000+ comment thread.
272 - let's use "pro-cheating" and "pro-slavery" then, okay? Your phrase it too cumbersome.
Or we could just label the two sides "Good" and "Evil". That would be more descriptively accurate, though I suppose someone would likely get their feelings hurt.
I'm watching a TV debate about vivisection atm
There's vivisection at the Mineshaft now?! This place is becoming more immoral by the minute. I wouldn't have thought Tia would put up with that.
272: you're right that pro-cheating and anti-cheating aren't entirely accurate terms. Your substitution makes this argument not worth continuing.
not worth continuing.
More comity!
278: I agree that the argument isn't worth continuing, but I don't think there's anything new or bizarre about 272. I think that's the condensed version of why there seemed to be a fair bit of comity earlier today.
I thought we were going to fight about vivisection now?
I was going to come out in favor, but the Unfogged Happy Fun Cat just looked at me with such sad eyes that now I'm unsure. Maybe I'm against it, I guess. Maybe if B looked at me with eyes like that I'd change my mind about infidelity too.
Or possibly you'd be moved to test cosmetics on her.
Like the employees at Macy's when you walk through the cosmetics department? I don't know if she'd like that.
Or possibly you'd be moved to test cosmetics on her.
IYKWIM.
Geez, now everybody is getting all sissified about the occassional smack from a rolling pin. Let me tell you son, when you've been married as long as I have...
Seriously, is everybody who abuses their spouse physically a bad person? What if they did it once? What if they were drunk? Where's your nuance now?
Where's your nuance now?
Dunno, but it was last seen testing cosmetics on B's cat at Macy's.
No cosmetics, it's way too hot.
And Brock, you're a married man. How dare you.
Also, my cat may have cancer. So that's just not very funny, is it, Dave?
What? I said cheating was wrong, I never said I was a good guy.
Where's your nuance now?
It's waiting for an argument worth responding to. You aren't making it.
Arguably, hitting someone once isn't "abuse." Abuse, I'm pretty sure, means "a pattern." Hitting someone once would be called "assault."
I mean, if you're going to make silly arguments, Baa, you might as well get your terms right.
Also, Baa, should infidelity be illegal? If not, why not? Abuse is. Or maybe abuse should be legal?
290: You convinced me, it's wrong. Now stop trying to hit on me, or I'll tell your wife.
280: No reason to continue. Many reasons to walk away, continuing to disagree with the chracterization of the anti arguments implied by the substitution in 272. Those reasons will not be enumerated.
I'm going to go Farberesque by saying that I'm having trouble seeing the difference between punching and cheating, at least on baa's antiBethamite assumption that cheating constitutes a harm directly. More accurately, I'm having trouble seeing the differences relevant to this particular discussion.
Cala, can't I consent to be lied to? I can't in a particular instance but I can tell you that it's ok to lie to me at some future point, etc. Or is this some Kantian thing I won't quite get?
296: "assumption" s/b "question-begging"
For the record, in 292 and 293 I'm just being obnoxiously silly, rather than genuinely obnoxious.
289: So is ogged your cat, or is your cat ogged? I always have such a hard time figuring out the subtexts around here.
295: Works for me.
No, actually, my cat might have cancer. But your joke was funny anyway. I was just making a pathetic plea for sympathy.
Now I feel worried that by having said "my cat might have cancer," I'll have made it true. Fuck.
Maybe when I'm married I'll understand how to use nuance. I think it's a type of French sex toy, right? Question begging is something you do once you're married and the bloom is off the rose?
FL, I'm not an ethicist or a Kantian or even a Kantian nihilist; but I think there is a Kantian thing about lying in particular being a self-defeating maxim. Willing away your own autonomy, that sort of thing.
I hope your cat doesn't have cancer. Cancer sucks.
Thank you. I love my cat, I too hope she doesn't have cancer.
I too sincerely hope your cat doesn't have cancer. Although, if it did, and it had to have a kidney removed, and you posted a post-op picture, and we all spent an entire day trying to figure out whether the picture showed the front or the back of your cat, that would be pretty trippy.
301-- right, it'd have to be that sort of thing, but, what a surprise, we can construct examples that seem to put Kant on the rocks. (Even gettier: an example where my consenting to some future lie will be causally responsible for my continued rational agency.)
304: yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one. Was it from the side?
Poor kitty.
It ends up being a pretty jerryrigged example, but who cares if you get to use gettier as an adjective. I am the gettiest!
She doesn't *seem* like a poor kitty. She's like 14 and she's still active and seems perfectly healthy to me. The vet found a li'l lump under one foreleg last week, and he's going to do a needle aspiration on Monday while cleaning her teeth. We'll see what it says, and if we need to biopsy, I guess we'll do that. It's weird, though. The cat doesn't seem sick at all.
Anyway, thanks for the kitty wishes and I'm going to stop making a fuss about it because I'm preferring to think that it's just some weird thing and means nothing.
104: Marriage is an emotional attachment, but it is not an *exclusive* emotional attachment; I am free to love other people. I am just not supposed to be free to have sex with them. I'm saying that that distinction is weird, and that it owes a lot (not everything, but a lot) to the idea that sex is a form of property.
I am sure that it is a mistake to delurk in a thread like this but I have always been intrigued by statements like this one of B’s, but the temptation of the Mineshaft is too great. With my biologist hat on (one of those cheap foam ones you get at the fair) the human animal basically is a monogamist (or serial monogamist) with a little bit of adultery splashed in for taste. It is the only model that makes sense biologically because of the incredible resource drain imposed by children. It is also the model used by other animals with similarly demanding kids.
What I wonder about is where the idea that no strings attached sex is the “original” state of humanity and that we are forced into monogamy through the coercion of the patriarchy comes form? And don’t tell me it is the bonobos, they aren't the ideal the polyamorists think they are.
Since I delurked, I guess I need a blogwarming gift, how about Penis-Fencing Flatworms?
I suspect it has something to do with the Noble Savage and evolutionary concepts of the development of society. But I'm not an intellectual historian.
What I wonder about is where the idea that no strings attached sex is the “original” state of humanity and that we are forced into monogamy through the coercion of the patriarchy comes form?
Did anybody say that? To the extent that there's a "yay screwing other people" pov being expressed, I'd put it a lot closer to monogamy with a little bit of adultery splashed in for taste, with patriarchy responsible for screwing up our instincts about the dash of adultery part.
Um, I don't believe in some "original state of humanity," or in the Noble Savage thing. And even if the "natural" state of human animals is serial monogamy, that doesn't mean that marriage is a natural state. It's a social institution.
Being evolutionarily fruitful doesn't imply morally correct. On the other hand, it is true that an evolutionarily fruitful state might constrain what social institutions are possible or likely.
Bonobos, who live in a perfect society we can only dream of, fuck each other indiscriminately all the time in every position -- boys with girls, girls with girls, boys with boys, sons with fathers, mothers with sons, daughters with fathers, sister with brothers, etc.
I'd like to reframe the pro-cheating/anti-cheating binary as pro-bonobo and anti-bonobo.
Then the anti-bonobo are sitting with their dicks/vaginas in their hands and no valid argument on their side.
Aren't the bonobos the ones that rape the weaker when stressed? Good luck with your naturalistic fallacy.
I just tried to explain this thread to my wife. Her responses were, no lie:
First: are you sure these people are serious? I think they're baiting you.
Second: infidelity is not bad? it seems like number two right after abuse.
Third: seriously, they think it's ok to lie if you don't get caught? doesn't that everything I learned in kindergarden guy talk about that right after cookies and milk are good at 3:00?
-----
Sorry Apo, Bphd, that you guys are weirdly squeamish about abuse -- or assault -- and not about deception. Seriously, it's all on a continuum of harm.
-----
On the agree to be deceived point, I think this is one of these cases where Kant goes too far. But, to come to Kant's defence, in the metaphysics of morals, he considers the case Frederick the Great carrying a poision vial with him so he can kill himself if captured (and not harm his country thereby by the forced ransom). Likewise, the case of a person bitten by a rapid dog who wants to kill himself before the rabies sets in. This suggests that he is going to be more open to the temporal conundrum cases than one might imagine (damaging or destroying one's capabilities as a rational agent in order to preserve future goals that you, as a rational agent, believe are required by morality). One could imagine, e.g., Frederick the Great asking his advisors to periodically deceive him about some random important fact so that if he is captured, and reveals "the truth" under torture, his advisors will have the potential to realize security has been compromised.
Hope your cat's ok. I've never had one as long as 14 years, that's a lot of memories.
Baa, the fact that you married someone whose ideas about marriage are roughly the same as your own doesn't prove that those ideas are right.
318: Thanks. The last one lived 'til 18. Really, this one still acts like a very young cat. People are shocked when we say how old she is.
We had our cat for 14 years until she died last summer.
obviously. i just thought it was funny. (particualrly that her first thought was that you all were baiting me.
The thing about living in the wrong hemisphere is that just when I'm working up argumentative steam, everyone's saying, "Goodnight all." Then when I get up in the morning and read the thread again another whole day's worth of conversation has gone by.
I read the thread and someone makes an argument I don't agree with, and I think, "but X!", and then a few comments down LB or B says X. Next argument and I think, "but Y!", and a few comments down apo or DaveL says Y. Repeat until the end of the thread where I can only say: LB is right about everything, and I need that on a coffee mug.
All bonobos are ready to fuck any other bonobo all the time, so it's impossible for a bonobo to be raped.
Humanity, I believe, is slowly evolving to being more and more bonobo-like. The arc of moral justice is long, but it gets there in the end.
When it gets there in the end, do we get bananas like the bonobos?
But we have to get w-lfs-n to show us how to eat them upsidedown, reclaiming our true primate heritage.
Fool. Bonobos don't peel their bananae.
The bananae aren't for eating, folks.
Our dolphin zoo-keeper overlords! It's going to suck peeling the bananas if they don't grow some opposable thumbs, though.
They stick their bananae up their orifices and eat each other out, nourishing themselves in the act of cunnilingus.
This means the serious conversation is officially over, doesn't it?
Shall we revive it? I would hate for Labs to be disappointed.
I won't be disappointed if it doesn't come back; I just wanted to note the very special quality of 331.
When it gets there in the end
At the Mineshaft.
But wait, we haven't discussed why Linda Hirshman supports cheating, and does so in such a strident tone.
I bet Larry Summers could tell us why biology explains cheating.
And why the tenure rate of bonobos in the sciences is so low.
Actually, Cala, that's by choice: they simply choose to have sex more often, and that gets in the way of publishing. To be sure, the social costs of having constant sex are lower for bonobos because our society has a double standard....
317: I think you're baiting me now. Those aren't arguments I've made (I'll leave it up to others to say what they do or don't believe).
infidelity is not bad?
I didn't say that (though others did). I said it happens. Lots. There isn't any honest argument to made against that. The issue is how is it handled.
they think it's ok to lie if you don't get caught?
I didn't say that either. I said sometimes lying is less harmful than telling the truth. This also is so obvious that I don't know why I'm bothering to state it again.
Seriously, it's all on a continuum of harm.
Wife: How do you like this poem I wrote?
Husband (lying): I like it. Nice job.
Wife: What did you get me for our anniversary?
Husband (lying): Just something little, nothing extravagant.
You tell me. Where's the harm inherent in those lies?
What bonobos do is pretty much beside the point, given that we aren't bonobos.
I mean, bonobos sure as hell wouldn't be making serious arguments at this point on the thread.
You hear?
Sorry, ears full of dicks. What did you say?
I thought the serious discussion was done here, Apostropher!
Briefly, lots of things happen in relationships. There are obviously white lies, like your anniversary case. No harm there, I think. There is equally obviously a category I'd dub "dark deception." Dark deception (sleeping with your wife's best friend behind her back, marrying someone you don't love for money) is bad. It is bad even if the person does not find it out. Then there is actual abuse (emotional, physical). Dark deception is bad (sez me), abuse is bad (sez me), and there's a lot of range of badness in each category. A really bad dark deception might well be worse than less severe emotional or physical abuse. All these ills (dark deception, emotional abuse, physical abuse) are all too often inflicted by people in relationships on their partners. Inflicitng any one is a ceteris paribus indicator of bad character. It's also true that all of them are common failings, often understandable given human frailty, and somethimes (depending on the case and context) forgivable and remediable. But when someone says a dark deception is unlike abuse because abuse is a harm and deception isn't (which I thought you and LB both said, but maybe I was wrong), that seems to me incorrect as a position in moral theory, and even more misleading as practical guidance.
Comity?
You know, this whole banana/bonobo joke is really kind of racist, if you think about it.
I just got spam from one Sarcophagus O. Crackpot. How awesome is that?
I'm going to name my next child that.
All the spam I've gotten lately is Japanese.
I finally write you under my real name, standpipe, and this is how you treat me! That's the last time I try to share my surefire stock tips with you.
Comity?
Hmm. Maybe. I'll have to hit you with my cock to be sure, though.
Apo, are you Jeff Goldstein's sock puppet?
It's only racist if the bonobos ride Arabian horses.
baa, you and I should start a blog, we'd manage to piss off the entire blogosphere in about a day.
But... it would be so artistically done.
---
My spam is confused. Either the subject lines are porn, and the content stock tips, or the subject lines stock tips, and the content porn, and either way, the university filter has obviously taken the summer off and is bopping about Germany or something.
What if the horses ride the bonobos?
That's the last time I try to share my surefire stock tips with you.
Sorry, baa. I've been promised too many tips, only to get the shaft.
And what, dear god, if the horses break their legs?!?
Damn, I started a serious comment, took the dog a walk before I was done and now the thread has gone to the bonobos.
Ah well, the Princess Bride is on T.V. so all is right with the world.
359: Then it's porn. Duh.
INCONCEIVABLE!
if the horses break their legs?!?
Look out, Kotsko. The Hamburglar's on his way.
If cheaters wore socks, horses would ride—a bonobo.
Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out.
Okay, cheating is totally defensible, but wearing socks during sex is just wrong.
Even though I have done it myself, when it was really cold.
Me too, but it does feel weird!
I showed my 5 year old the videos of w-lfs-n eating those bananas. The next day he wanted a banana and asked if he could eat it "like the crazy man".
Dear Brock Landers -- I have been wondering since you showed up here, is your handle an intermixture of Pynchon arch-villain Brock Vond and all-American advice columnist Ann Landers? Because I would be way interested in the thinking going into such a combination.
ooh...
Brock Vond ... booo! hissssss!
However, I assume he's named after the character in the movie within a movie in 'Boogie Nights'.
Ah -- I was unaware of that character. Too bad in a way, an advice-for-the-lovelorn column written by Brock Vond would be an interesting 'nomenon.
I've thought about 'Vineland' a few times recently. In the context of current political events it looks quite prescient in places.
There are actual, real-life people named Brock, you know.
And actual real-life badgers. ("Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!" Zoo of the Sierra Madre.)
Did no one else Googlestalk the noob? It seems to be a Boogie Nights reference.
Completely pwned. My eyes just skated over 371.
But is this the Brock Landers who blogs in Icelandic? Because that would be cool, I think.
Fuck that, I'm going with it.
Dear Brock,
My boyfriend promised me I will be safe with him if I just give up my identity and swear allegiance to the war machine. Should I trust him?
Signed,
Vexed in Vineland
In order to justify the quite remarkable amount of history erasure I've just done, I really would appreciate a quick email confirming that I've done it for the reason I think I have. Pseudonymous is fine -- no RL details necessary. My email is my 'name' at the site's domain.
Erm, apologies for any (now-deleted) indiscretion errors on my part.
Allow me to congratulate you on your good taste in picking an erasure cutoff point.
Thanks, whoever did the editing.
Since I have a serious aversion in principle to the deletion of comments, smacking as it does of revising history and all that, I figure we owe it to posterity to at least explain what happened. So, for those of you who missed all the excitement, and are wondering what's the story on the run-up and subsequent-diminution in the comments on this thread: Apo posted some pictures of my cock that he found on his wife's camera, and I got a bit upset about it, because I don't want my cock floating all about the internet for people to ogle. There were some arguments that ensued, with several of the females noting that my cock was the most beautiful work of art they'd ever seen, and that it would be simply wrong not to share its glory with the world at large. Others (including me) were on the side of fundamental privacy rights. We finally compromised: the pictures/comments came down, but the women are free to view my cock in person whenever they wish.
Again, I hate the idea in principle, but thanks to whoever did the deleting.
And sorry for flying off the handle -- I just get cranky about that sort of thing and overreacted.
Anyone I 'know' who wants an explanation of what they missed can email me; anyone else, it wasn't terribly interesting.
LB, I'm not going to email you. You would unfortunately see that my email address ends in whitehouse.gov, which would reveal that I am actually the President, and then the Secret Service would have to come kill you. I really don't want that to happen.
President Diggler. Hail to the beef.
Every time I read the words sexual infidelity, I reach for my bonobo and lash it with a sock puppet.
Your cock is a work of art? As in, it's not the one you were born with? Ew.
