mhm407 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 That's a poor analogy, because cheating doesn't include the embezzlement of goods; STDs aside, the damage is strictly emotional. Also, damage only happens if the victim, or his community, is made aware -- unlike in theft, where the victim has lost goods, regardless of whether or not he knows what happened. Also, your sarcasm is inappropriate. Ethical decisions like these can have more than one answer, which can each be rationally justified and defended through their own logical systems. Although only one of them may seem "right" to you, one would be naive to think that there's only one self-evident and objective answer. Very smart people have been devoting their lives to finding coherent, meaningful ways to both define and approach difficult questions like these for centuries. Well said! You put into words what I was thinking. Theft is pretty black-and-white in most cases, whereas this type of issue has a big gray area. As you said, there is no single self-evident correct answer in this case, so I would consider it inappropriate to be disrespectful/hostile towards those who arrive at a different conclusion than I do.
coffeeaddict Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) The purpose of the analogy was in comparing the mental gymnastics involved in justifying to oneself the concealing of an act of betrayal of one close to you. An in-depth comparison of whether losing goods is equivalent to infidelity is a sideshow and a distraction. As far as, "Minds greater than ours have debated such questions for ages and have not come to a conclusion," that's what's commonly referred to as a cop out. Yes, there is a single self evident objective answer. Cheating on your partner and lying about it to you partner is wrong. It's unethical and it's immoral. It's not morally relative to whatever excuses a person fabricates. I reject your statement: "The damage in cheating comes from being informed that you were cheated on," and "There's no injury if you're not told about it." It's equivalent to saying "You can't be emotionally harmed from being disrespected if you're not aware that you've been disrespected." It's a very toxic way of thinking. Edited June 28, 2011 by coffeeaddict
welikeincrowds Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 The purpose of the analogy was in comparing the mental gymnastics involved in justifying to oneself the concealing of an act of betrayal of one close to you. An in-depth comparison of whether losing goods is equivalent to infidelity is a sideshow and a distraction. No, it isn't. Analogy assumes that the concepts are interchangeable. I am arguing that they are not: in theft, harm to the victim absolutely takes place when the event happens, whereas in cheating, harm to the victim takes place relative to when the victim learns about the event. Surely you can see that this is not a simple answer -- nor that it is a simple question? For instance, you've heard the one about the tree falling in the forest? You'll find that this question is similar. It is not a "cop out" to admit that a question is difficult -- it is naive or arrogant to think otherwise. Yes, there is a single self evident objective answer. Cheating on your partner and lying about it to you partner is wrong. It's unethical and it's immoral.These are incredibly loaded statements. If you really want to make a claim like this, you better have at least defined the terms: 1. cheating 2. ethical 3. objective 4. wrong You'll probably consider a pointless exercise, yet more mental gymnastics, mostly because you've decided that you already have an answer. But when you have to explicitly justify your answer with reason, such that another person from another culture can follow your line of thought and come to the same impassioned conclusion -- without relying on a true cop-out like "it's self-evident" -- that's when you will likely discover that the answer is not so easy to grasp. I reject your statement: "The damage in cheating comes from being informed that you were cheated on," and "There's no injury if you're not told about it." It's equivalent to saying "You can't be emotionally harmed from being disrespected if you're not aware that you've been disrespected." It's a very toxic way of thinking.Again, these are very charged claims. Your use of "disrespect" seems to imply a contract theory: "You did not respect the terms of our agreement." That is one way of looking at it (although you might still have to deal with the issue of whether or not both parties of the contract need be aware of the violation for the violation to exist). Or you could be looking at it in a different way: "Lying is categorically wrong." That is a foundational concept behind much of what our culture considers ethical behavior, but it is rare that you come across a true believer. For instance, most people would have little trouble lying to an enemy if they felt it would protect their life, or the life of a friend, or if they felt it was part of their sworn duty. My approach is utilitarian. I am in favor of making a decision based on the known facts that will cause the least/prevent the most harm to others to the best of one's ability. I feel that that admitting to the cheating will cause more harm than it will prevent. Furthermore, I do not think it is a decision that will best help the dysfunctional relationship. In fact I can call it a selfish decision, in that it will do more to alleviate the guilt of the cheater than it will to help the cheated. That is why I do not think she should tell him what happened. You may disagree, but you should know that there are reasons for your viewpoint, and these reasons do not belong to you. They were conceived of centuries ago and were handed down to you by your parents, your culture and your government. It would behoove you to understand and respect the history and origin behind these ideas, because they are not simple, nor are they arbitrary. They govern what you think, how you behave, and ultimately, who you are.
Jono85 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 what a crock of sh-t. you can tell who the cheaters are fairly easily.
coffeeaddict Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) No, it isn't. Analogy assumes that the concepts are interchangeable. I am arguing that they are not: in theft, harm to the victim absolutely takes place when the event happens, whereas in cheating, harm to the victim takes place relative to when the victim learns about the event. Well, first of all I disagree that harm only takes place when the person learns about it. In a monogamous relationship, one person's commitment to the other person is fundamentally predicated upon that other person's commitment to them. I wouldn't want to devote my life honoring a commitment someone who had broken their commitment to me. I might forgive cheating under certain circumstances, but I wouldn't want to play the fool. When person A cheats but decides person B doesn't have the right to know, it forces person B to remain in a relationship that is now predicated upon a lie. That denial of choice in and of itself constitutes harm to person B from person A. So yes, not telling someone you cheated on them is "harming" them, it's denying them a choice as a free Human being. Cheating on someone is the part that causes the immense pain, not the "telling them about it" part, that's the "being honest" part. Concealing the fact that you've betrayed someone is not an act of compassion or self-sacrifice, it's an act of deception. The analogy is not about the victim, the analogy is about the victimizer taking the easy way out. The two scenarios are interchangeable, "I'm not going to tell my friend I stole from him because I wouldn't want to destroy his trust," "I'm not going to tell my girlfriend that I cheated because I'm sparing her feelings." If you want to discredit the analogy, then you're going to have to prove that these are more than feeble excuses to avoid making the victimizer look bad, which was the purpose of the analogy. These are incredibly loaded statements. If you really want to make a claim like this, you better have at least defined the terms: 1. cheating 2. ethical 3. objective 4. wrong You'll probably consider a pointless exercise, yet more mental gymnastics, mostly because you've decided that you already have an answer. But when you have to explicitly justify your answer with reason, such that another person from another culture can follow your line of thought and come to the same impassioned conclusion -- without relying on a true cop-out like "it's self-evident" -- that's when you will likely discover that the answer is not so easy to grasp. Self-evident isn't a cop out at all, self-evident means "requiring no proof or explanation," or "obvious." You don't think it's self-evident that the vast majority of men and women don't want their spouse to deceive them? "I've decided I have an answer," lol care to elaborate? You've decided you have an answer, you asserted that it's okay to cheat and not to tell your partner. That's your answer, opinion, assertion. It's okay for you to have an answer, but it's not okay for me to have one? And you accused me of arrogance, pft. You "anticipated" that I would call it mental gymnastics because you knew that asking me to "define cheating" was a complete waste of time before you even asked the question, nonetheless I'll do it your way: eth·i·cal [eth-i-kuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. Ethical refers to "morality," alright here's morality: mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA –noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. "right" and "virtuous" conduct, alright let's bring those up. right [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb –adjective 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. vir·tu·ous [vur-choo-uhs] Show IPA –adjective 1. conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright: Lead a virtuous life. Alright, deciding my girlfriend doesn't have the right to know that I boffed the neighbor lady, right conduct or wrong conduct? Wrong conduct. In my opinion, in most peoples opinion. In your opinion, morally indefinable, because "wrong" does not exist and can't be defined. Now let me anticipate your next question "define wrong." wrong [rawng, rong] Show IPA –adjective 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. I understand your "point," there's no universally accepted definition of "right" and "wrong." Everyone walks around with their own idea as to what constitutes right or wrong, just like I have my idea. Where we differ is I don't believe all ideas are of inherently equal value. And I don't believe people shouldn't try to define right or wrong because we don't agree. I believe that letting someone think you've been faithful to them in a relationship is indeed wrong, at least it is for a monogamous couple. It's not how I would want to be treated, and so I wouldn't treat another person that way. Again, these are very charged claims. Your use of "disrespect" seems to imply a contract theory: "You did not respect the terms of our agreement." My use of disrespect refers to letting the other person believe you've been faithful to them when in fact you have not, and forcing them to continue the relationship on a basis that you know is a lie, but that you refuse to tell them is a lie. That is disrespectful of them as a Human being. I am in favor of making a decision based on the known facts that will cause the least/prevent the most harm to others to the best of one's ability. I feel that that admitting to the cheating will cause more harm than it will prevent. Well, you accused me of arrogance. Isn't that a wee bit arrogant? "I will decide for you what should have the right to know because I believe is best for you. I choose not to tell you, ostensibly in your best interests." As opposed to: "I wasn't faithful to you, and I think you have a right to know that." That's what I asserted was "right" or "righteous", for which you claimed that I'm displaying arrogance, so once again we disagree completely. You may disagree, but you should know that there are reasons for your viewpoint, and these reasons do not belong to you. They were conceived of centuries ago and were handed down to you by your parents, your culture and your government. It would behoove you to understand and respect the history and origin behind these ideas, because they are not simple, nor are they arbitrary. They govern what you think, how you behave, and ultimately, who you are. Well, you say "the reasons do not belong to you" which I take it to mean I'm not making decisions independently but rather from some code I was taught. So if I believe people men and women have a right to know if they've been cheated on, I believe that not because I've come to that conclusion of my own accord but because I was brainwashed by some very old ideas from my parents/culture/government. Of course you don't even know what my culture/government is or what my parents believed. That sounds rather like even more arrogant presumption. You've asserted that I'm brainwashed, have you considered the possibility that you're brainwashed? It's rather fashionable today to preach moral relativism, all ideas are of equal value, there's no such thing as right or wrong. Perhaps you've been taken in with the latest fashion, young people are often quite impressionable. Anyway, I've done these "let's quote each other 10 times back and forth for 30 pages" debates for a long time on a variety of topics. It consumes a lot of time and neither person ever convinces the other, so I'm going to leave it at that, I've said all I have to say about it. Edited June 28, 2011 by coffeeaddict
rafallus Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) If you want to stay with him, better tell him and hope he'll take you back. Blind luck, but you have no choice. I know a couple, when a wife is withholding some quite offending information from her husband (and her whole family too - it's that offending!), he doesn't directly know, but kinda senses, that something's wrong. Of course his response is to stay calm and not to make any unfounded..., oh wait, no, sorry. He beats the crap out of her. Then he grows some sense and begs for forgiveness, and vicious cycle go on again. You say, "but not everyone is a wife-beater"? I say, it's easy to behave, when everything's good, when **** hits the fan people really show their true colors. And don't forget, she didn't tell him. Edited June 28, 2011 by rafallus
Nexus One Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) do him a favour and break up with him. let him know that you just need to be on your own for a while and not be in a relationship with anyone, including him--that you need to figure out what you really want in life. if you were secure in yourself you would have been secure in your relationship and cheating would not have crossed your mind, drunk or not. (i say this assuming that the damage done was full-on hot sex with reckless abandon; OP can always come back and prove me wrong on that) I strongly disagree, in the case she is going to break up with him she needs to tell him too. The only result that your scenario will have is that he'll think that he has done something wrong in the relationship and pushed her away or that he thinks that she fell out of love with him. In your scenario he'll blame himself for f*cking up or not being good enough for her. Edited June 28, 2011 by Nexus One
Dusk1983 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) My approach is utilitarian. I am in favor of making a decision based on the known facts that will cause the least/prevent the most harm to others to the best of one's ability. I feel that that admitting to the cheating will cause more harm than it will prevent. Furthermore, I do not think it is a decision that will best help the dysfunctional relationship. In fact I can call it a selfish decision, in that it will do more to alleviate the guilt of the cheater than it will to help the cheated. That is why I do not think she should tell him what happened. Concealing a serious transgression requires that it is internalised, which isn't a cost or harm free process; far from it. This might sound like self help rhetoric, but by avoiding the punishment for our actions we avoid not only the pain but the moral and ethical growth that comes through it. As George Bernard Shaw continually evinced, personal consistency requires we form our own compass, as subjective and relative as that might be. In the same way as a child's bad behaviour going unpunished fosters bad conduct in later life, avoiding such vital opportunities to 'self-actualise' as adults is only likely to engender more broken promises and, if you'll forgive the loaded colloqualism, broken hearts. And, self-evidently, more broken hearts in the world directly contravenes your purportedly 'utilitarian' approach. Edited June 28, 2011 by Dusk1983
welikeincrowds Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Well, first of all I disagree that harm only takes place when the person learns about it... ... ...Concealing the fact that you've betrayed someone is not an act of compassion or self-sacrifice, it's an act of deception. Yes, this is a good description of a contract theory. Lying by omission denies one party the ability to enforce their end of the contract and is therefore unethical. Yes, this is a fine view, and thus your answer -- "She should tell him" -- makes sense. I know that isn't easy to articulate and I think you've done a good job. The analogy is not about the victim, the analogy is about the victimizer taking the easy way out. The two scenarios are interchangeable, "I'm not going to tell my friend I stole from him because I wouldn't want to destroy his trust," "I'm not going to tell my girlfriend that I cheated because I'm sparing her feelings." If you want to discredit the analogy, then you're going to have to prove that these are more than feeble excuses to avoid making the victimizer look bad, which was the purpose of the analogy. I've already done this. Your analogy works only if you apply certain modes of thought to it -- for example, the approach you described, where the ethical judgment lies in whether or not the action breaches agreement. If you take the same structure, and consider it with a different approach -- for example, the one I used, where an act is judged by its consequences -- the analogy does not hold. "I've decided I have an answer," lol care to elaborate? You've decided you have an answer, you asserted that it's okay to cheat and not to tell your partner. That's your answer, opinion, assertion. It's okay for you to have an answer, but it's not okay for me to have one? And you accused me of arrogance, pft. You've misunderstood me here. First, I never said it was okay to cheat. Second, an answer is only an answer insofar as it has been explained. Since you had not explained it up to that point, and had only rather made the claim that it was self-evident, you did not yet present an answer. I awaited your post in which you actually sought to obtain that answer, by explanation, rather than merely assuming one existed, by intuition. You "anticipated" that I would call it mental gymnastics because you knew that asking me to "define cheating" was a complete waste of time... Well, yes, any one of us can look at a dictionary, but that won't help us when we try to understand your argument. Certain big words, like "ethical", can hold any concept and are all but meaningless, until you explain what you meant by them when you wrote them. Whatever it takes -- sentences, paragraphs, pages, urls -- I only assert that one is as clear as possible when explaining an answer. Which is, incidentally, opposite to: In your opinion, morally indefinable, because "wrong" does not exist and can't be defined. Which it something I would never say. I agree much more with what you've said here: And I don't believe people shouldn't try to define right or wrong because we don't agree. Yes, because we may not agree, especially intuitively, is all the more reason to try and explain yourself. So I have to wonder why you would think it is arbitrary and a waste of time to define your terms? And it is interesting to me that you will say something like this: It's rather fashionable today to preach moral relativism As though to imply that this is not a mode of thinking you support, when in the very same post, you argue this: It's not how I would want to be treated, and so I wouldn't treat another person that way. Which is explicitly relative, perhaps the most fundamentally relative possible definition for ethical behavior. That sounds rather like even more arrogant presumption. You've asserted that I'm brainwashed, have you considered the possibility that you're brainwashed? And I never said this. I think "brainwashing" is a horribly negative way of looking at it. Furthermore, I did not exempt myself from what I wrote. None of these ideas are mine, either -- they were handed down to me from my parents, my culture, and my government. That's precisely the point. Anyway, I've done these "let's quote each other 10 times back and forth for 30 pages" debates for a long time on a variety of topics. It consumes a lot of time and neither person ever convinces the other, so I'm going to leave it at that, I've said all I have to say about it. Suit yourself, but I think you may have misunderstood me again. I am not out to convince you of anything, nor do I need you to agree with my ethical view. That is the confusing thing about your posts -- you are aggressive with your viewpoint, and you seem to interpret discussion about it as a (personal?) attack. For instance, you were quick to call me arrogant, a number of times and in a number of ways, as thought it were a riposte -- but I never called you that. I only argued that it is dangerous to be narrow-minded in matters of ethics, because there is far more than one way of approaching an ethical problem -- and thus, there is often more than one answer. Whether or not you find those answers acceptable for your own life are for you to decide, and I would never suggest that I attempt to wrestle that choice from you with rhetoric. Similarly, I did not intend to do so with the OP. In my post, I presented one viewpoint, using one ethical approach (my preferred one). What the OP ends up doing remains her choice, but now, hopefully, she has been made aware of yet one more option and one more ethical framework, which informs her decision. This is kind of discussion is the designed purpose of the most classical definition of a forum, and although internet forums are hardly that, I'd like to think that I've helped the discussion along by inserting another view. But if you feel that all this amounts to nothing more than pointless debate, to the point that you'd rather leave -- then so be it.
LittleTiger Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I think it's a sad reflection of today's society that so many people think it's ok to lie to a partner - not to mention that a lie like this is just the thin end of the wedge. The most important thing now, OP, is for you to look inside yourself and find out why you did this. There was a reason. What did you get from this experience that you're not getting from 'the love of your life'? When you have an answer you share it with him. Besides all the moral arguments, whether you agree or disagree, how can you ever hope to make this relationship work in the long term if you don't share with your partner what is wrong and discuss how to put it right? If you don't fix the problem, the same thing is very likely to happen again in the future. Do you want to make a habit of cheating on 'the love of your life'? I have to say that if you've cheated on him then there is a possibility that he isn't actually the love of your life but only you can decide that. Once you have told him, he then has a choice - he is entitled to have that choice. You work together on sorting out whatever it was that caused you to cheat (if that's even possible - since you may decide that monogamy just isn't for you) or you break up. Either way, the decision is his - not yours.
Nexus One Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 i'm shocked at how many ppl are advocating witholding this from her BF. so many cowards in this world it's truly pathetic. Roughly half of all men and women cheat, so when taking those statistics into consideration it's not really surprising. But it still surprises me too though, regardless of the statistics.
OldOnTheInside Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 We're actually debating whether people have a right to know if their partner cheated on them? Yeesh, things are getting worse than I thought. I find it quite comical in a very dark way. Really OP, it's all on you. All about you. You did the deed and now you don't want to lose your bf. More tragic than the greatest of Victorian novels really... But what does your boyfriend want exactly? Does he even get a say in the matter? See, your boyfriend is a grown man, a big boy, he can make his own decisions on what he thinks is right or wrong on this issue. But not while you are lying to him, conveniently enough. Eff the above morality debate. This is between you and him. If you are comfortable with lying to your bf and making his decisions for him, feel free. If not, tell him so he can decide how he lives his life.
youaretheone Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I think the question you need to answer is: Is it still the "love of my life" when I continue lying to him all through my life, feeling bad inside every time he loves me or shows affection to me unconditionally, not knowing what I did? If you can answer this question with a yes, then you can hide real you and have the imaginary perfect relationship of yours until he finds out about it or you can't resist the burden anymore. But the answer will indeed always be no unless he knows the truth and forgives you about it. You can lie to other people but not to yourself.
Ginger Beer Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 i'm shocked at how many ppl are advocating witholding this from her BF. so many cowards in this world it's truly pathetic. Yeah, I agree.
BetheButterfly Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Ok..so I cheated on the love of my life..I'm soooo ashamed and it's killing me. I know if I tell my BF he will leave me(obviously justified), but I really don't want to loose him. I am so stupid, I don't even know why I did it!!It meant nothing, and I'm willing to sepnd my life making it up to him..What should i do? I think you should tell him. The reason is because truth is very important. If you do not tell him, there are many ways he can find out: 1. someone else telling him 2. seeing something that makes him aware of what you did 3. your own guilt eating up at you can alert him. Not telling him is like politicians who lie about what they do, and that just hurts their loved ones even more, especially when the lie is exposed. That's a double whammy. When I was young, my Mom always told me to tell the truth, no matter what I did. She would say, when you do something wrong, yes I'm disappointed. But, if you lie after doing something wrong, that hurts me more than what you are lying about. Relationships do not exist very well without trust. Lying or not telling him just adds one more blow to the relationship on top of the cheating. Lying/not telling adds 100 lbs to the weight of the cheating, figuratively speaking. So, I think you should tell him and make sure to tell him you are sorry for what you did and are not going to cheat on him ever again. I very much hope he forgives you and that both of you will work toward having a wonderful relationship based on trust and faithfulness to each other. If that doesn't happen, at least you know you've done what you can do. You can't force him to forgive you, but you can definitely apologize and make sure not to do that again if he wants to continue to be with you. PLEASE DON'T FEEL YOU HAVE TO GROVEL THOUGH OR WORK TO MAKE HIM HAPPY. That is so important. His forgiveness is his decision to give or not give, and you shouldn't try to work to earn his forgiveness. Forgiveness needs to be a gift, or it's not truly forgiveness.
whichwayisup Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Ok..so I cheated on the love of my life..I'm soooo ashamed and it's killing me. I know if I tell my BF he will leave me(obviously justified), but I really don't want to loose him. I am so stupid, I don't even know why I did it!!It meant nothing, and I'm willing to sepnd my life making it up to him..What should i do? If you don't tell, and he finds out on his own, chances are higher he'll end it with you. If you don't tell, I think your guilt will eat you alive and you'll ruin your relationship either way. By telling, you're choosing to own your selfish choice in cheating. By telling, you're allowing him to have a say in what happens next. By telling, you can show your remorse and get counselling, prove yourself to him that you are worthy of another chance to make things right. Do counselling to understand WHY you cheated on the love of your life. Own it, don't blame him or the other guy for your choices.. I think you should tell and see how it goes. Maybe you could be lucky and have a man who has a huge heart and is special enough and loves you enough to want to give you a chance.
Jono85 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 i'm shocked at how many ppl are advocating witholding this from her BF. so many cowards in this world it's truly pathetic. hey u copy and pasted my post word for word
ascendotum Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 There's pros & cons for spilling your guts, which of course will be different for who's shoes you put yourself in. In his shoes I'd want to know, and given you want to stay with him, I think you should confess, and let hime decide. There are different circumstances on whether I would stay with a wife or gf for cheating on me (dont think I'd ever forgive though). One thing I do know is if you confessed to me and said 'I don't even know why I did it!!It meant nothing', that would make me furious. Maybe its just me, but I would not see the cheating as a once off event. I couldn't trust you not to impulsively 'I dont know what came over me' spread your legs again for some guy who means nothing at some later time, let alone someone special.
Recommended Posts