Morality of Cheating; a Hypothetic

[jaswa]

Suppose a girl and a boy are in a committed relationship. If the girl leaves a facebook comment to her boyfriend saying something along the lines of "I'm through with you" etc. proceeds with xyz acts with another boy then comes back to her boyfriend and says "will you go out with me?" and he of course responds with the likes of "err, sure baby" is the girl morally justified in her actions?

(this is something purely hypothetic I was randomly thinking about - it hasn't happened to anyone I know)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah yeah, that's what they all say.

Also, what? I don't see what amoral about it, depending on your morals, but who would take her back? Wouldn't a normal affair simply be more clean and simple?

 

[jaswa]

Yeah yeah, that's what they all say.

err I did bother bother to put in the title and the post it was just a hypothetical scenario...

Also, what? I don't see what amoral about it, depending on your morals, but who would take her back?

I forgot to mention this is all in a small time period - so he would 'take her back' unknowingly that they'd 'broken up' and would make assumptions when he found the FB post later on. Technically she was single at the time and they've reaffirmed their relationship, so was what she did

Wouldn't a normal affair simply be more clean and simple?

So you think having an affair within a committed relationship is permissible? Under what moral grounds?

 

[Zatchiel]

So you think having an affair within a committed relationship is permissible? Under what moral grounds?

He was more so asking a question about the normal terms of such affairs, rather than supporting them. Just thought i'd point that out.

As to the OP: It's clearly an unrighteous act of cheating, and it's morally impure. It says that they're in a committed relationship, but the boy obviously seems like the only "committed" person in the instance.
I'd have to ask the same question as BPC in who would want to take her back? Nobody, i'm sure, but i'm also certain that the affair was occurring aside from the boy's discretion.
The girl is morally corrupt, untrustworthy, dishonest, and uncommitted to not only the boy, but the relationship itself.
She is morally unjustified in the instance of cheating, then returning, impure, to an unknowing partner.

 

[Deleted member]

Did she do this whole thing intentionally? ie: did she know that she was going to go back to her boyfriend?

 

[Zatchiel]

Did she do this whole thing intentionally? ie: did she know that she was going to go back to her boyfriend?

I'll wait for the jaswa's reply, but i think she did. Unless the guy she was with aside from discretion of her partner broke up with her, causing her to going back to her only liable option, stated he was a bit confused by the situation, as directed by his utterance:

"err, sure baby"

I'm assuming the affair didn't last long due to how brief her ex's response was, as opposed to the more normal and/or traditional responses to the situation.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see anything morally wrong with cheating on a significant other.

It's definitely a **** move for breaking your promises, but it's definitely not immoral like violence is.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see anything morally wrong with cheating on a significant other.

It's definitely a **** move for breaking your promises, but it's definitely not immoral like violence is.

Why not?

You need to have reasons to back up your conclusion.

 

[Zatchiel]

I don't see anything morally wrong with cheating on a significant other.

It's definitely a **** move for breaking your promises, but it's definitely not immoral like violence is.

You say you don't see anything wrong with cheating on your partner, but by what you said, it's also breaking promises.

Breaking promises = Morally wrong or unrighteous, am i correct?

True, cheating isn't necessarily as bad as violence, but in most cases, it actually leads to violence.

 

[Dre89]

I have an argument for why love and intimacy should only be between two people (essenitally saying cheating is wrong), but it is very metaphysical and abstract, so I''ll only say it if people want to hear it.

 

[ballin4life]

Why not?

You need to have reasons to back up your conclusion.

You say you don't see anything wrong with cheating on your partner, but by what you said, it's also breaking promises.

Breaking promises = Morally wrong or unrighteous, am i correct?

True, cheating isn't necessarily as bad as violence, but in most cases, it actually leads to violence.

I think it's only morally wrong if there is violence or harm to someone's property. I consider these to be way worse than breaking a promise. Not really sure why I need reasons for that, but I think from a utilitarian standpoint it can be justified fairly well.

It's also pretty easy to come up with situations where "cheating" is ok, like separated couples.

I have an argument for why love and intimacy should only be between two people (essenitally saying cheating is wrong), but it is very metaphysical and abstract, so I''ll only say it if people want to hear it.

I'd like to hear it.

I think that sex != love, and that love is really an overblown term. I would define love as strong friendship, whether it stems from familial relations, sexual desires, or whatever else.

It's never made sense to me that, according to society, you are supposed to "love" one person only, and that that person is your "true love" for life. Also, even if this is the case, why does that person have to be someone you are sexually attracted to? Why can't my "true love" be someone of the same gender as me, even if I am heterosexual?

I also think that many problems in relationships stem from this sense of ownership over another. It's pretty rare that two platonic friends ever "break up", but it obviously happens all the time with romantic partners.

 

[Thino]

Morals?

be it about cheating , love or even violence , morals are principles and rules that depend a lot on the society you live in or cultural context.

anyone can give you reasons why cheating in that specific case would be moral or not.

but anyone that does , will be doing it by his/her own definition of morality that depends on factors I mentioned before.

not sure if its truly the kind of answers you want to hear.

even violence is only considered bad in a sort of absolute way just because the majority of societies on the planet consider it as such.

 

[Zatchiel]

I think it's only morally wrong if there is violence or harm to someone's property.

And this is also what i see a lot as a result of affairs and such. Not that they should, but it isn't uncommon, really.

I consider these to be way worse than breaking a promise.

They are. But with the slightest of moral righteousness, would you really say that breaking a promise for any reason (unless it was deemed inevitable), would be accounted as justified?

Not really sure why I need reasons for that, but I think from a utilitarian standpoint it can be justified fairly well.

As in breaking a promise? I could see sensible reasons why one would have to break a promise, but other than those, it's purely unjustified; mainly because you made a promise you knew you couldn't keep.

It's also pretty easy to come up with situations where "cheating" is ok, like separated couples.

I don't think it's "cheating" so much as seeing other people, for a while. Letting that carry into sexual relations and such is a dishonest act amidst a trial separation. Unfortunately enough, it isn't unheard of.

 

[ballin4life]

And this is also what i see a lot as a result of affairs and such. Not that they should, but it isn't uncommon, really.


They are. But with the slightest of moral righteousness, would you really say that breaking a promise for any reason (unless it was deemed inevitable), would be accounted as justified?



As in breaking a promise? I could see sensible reasons why one would have to break a promise, but other than those, it's purely unjustified; mainly because you made a promise you knew you couldn't keep.



I don't think it's "cheating" so much as seeing other people, for a while. Letting that carry into sexual relations and such is a dishonest act amidst a trial separation. Unfortunately enough, it isn't unheard of.

Breaking promises is bad, but I don't think it requires interference from others the way that violence does. In general, I certainly would think less of someone who breaks promises, and I think that others would agree. This social ostracizing is punishment enough, in my opinion.

Basically, if I see someone beating his or her spouse, I am inclined to interfere to prevent this action. If I see someone cheating on his or her spouse, I will lower my opinion of that person, but I'm not going to try to prevent it from happening.

 

[Zatchiel]

Basically, if I see someone beating his or her spouse, I am inclined to interfere to prevent this action. If I see someone cheating on his or her spouse, I will lower my opinion of that person, but I'm not going to try to prevent it from happening.

I see what you mean by that. But just because it's a situation that you'd rather stay clear of, you would indeed think lower of this person, a negative response to his or her actions.
Cheating in all is morally unjustified. There's not any good reason that you should cheat on someone that you've made commitment towards. Anything that would seem like a good reason can be proven false by the event of a trial separation, or some method of striving separate ways.
Take note that this is all occurring aside from the boy's discretion, which also adds to dishonesty.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Morals?

be it about cheating , love or even violence , morals are principles and rules that depend a lot on the society you live in or cultural context.

anyone can give you reasons why cheating in that specific case would be moral or not.

but anyone that does , will be doing it by his/her own definition of morality that depends on factors I mentioned before.

not sure if its truly the kind of answers you want to hear.

even violence is only considered bad in a sort of absolute way just because the majority of societies on the planet consider it as such.

Oh look, the post I wanted to make.

The problem with asking if something is amoral is, that nothing is inherently moral or amoral. NOTHING. There is no absolute good, or absolute wrong, on any issue. As such, you can't really give an answer to questions like that very well. Is it amoral according to:
-Our standards
-Your standards
-My personal standards (for which monogamy is definitely a sin... :V)
-etc.

 

[ballin4life]

I'd argue that there are things that are inherently morally good.

Namely people interacting in ways that satisfy each person's individual morals.

 

[Sex Robot]

It's your prerogative if you wanna get dooooooown.

There's nothing else to saaaay.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It's your prerogative if you wanna get dooooooown.

There's nothing else to saaaay.

0_o he's back! And in the PG!

 

[Zatchiel]

I'd argue that there are things that are inherently morally good.

Namely people interacting in ways that satisfy each person's individual morals.

It can satisfy to any extent available, but it doesn't have to be morally justified.
Just take a look in other perspectives, like the boy's. He hasn't the slightest clue of the affair, although the OP doesn't go too in depth, he could've been having an affair of his own.
Does this make it morally correct?

It's your prerogative if you wanna get dooooooown.

There's nothing else to saaaay.

Point understood.

 

[jaswa]

With my OP I was thinking that most people would agree that each of the 3 acts; breaking up, hooking up while single, getting back together - would each sit well with people, but the sum total of events wouldn't be justified because of the intent behind them in conjunction. So another question, should morals be based around us doing right, or us not wronging others?

It's your prerogative if you wanna get dooooooown.

There's nothing else to saaaay.

Bahaha, your attitude certainly fits in very well with your name =]

I'd argue that there are things that are inherently morally good.

Namely people interacting in ways that satisfy each person's individual morals.

What things are "inherently morally good?" How do we know that some actions satisfy this? What do we base it off? Similar to what BPC said:

Is it amoral according to:
-Our standards
-Your standards
-My personal standards
-etc.

Is there inherent moral goodness, or absolute morality? Should we define our morals off mass populace view?

So many questions, hehehe...

 

[ballin4life]

I think that a voluntary interaction between beings, that each considers beneficial to his happiness, is morally good. In other words, when people interact in ways that satisfy all participants, it is morally good (which we can usually tell by the fact that they were willing to go through with the interaction in the first place, although regret is possible). The action leaves everyone happier and no one is worse off.

I'm not sure how you can dispute this claim, although I admit that it might be possible (haven't thought about it enough).

 

[Dre89]

So you don't think consentual murder and cannibalism is wrong?

What if everyone did that?

If everyone consents to wipe civilisation off the planet, is that morally permissable?

 

[jaswa]

I think that a voluntary interaction between beings, that each considers beneficial to his happiness, is morally good. In other words, when people interact in ways that satisfy all participants, it is morally good (which we can usually tell by the fact that they were willing to go through with the interaction in the first place, although regret is possible). The action leaves everyone happier and no one is worse off.

I'm not sure how you can dispute this claim, although I admit that it might be possible (haven't thought about it enough).

How can you know that your actions have satisfied all participants? They could say they do, yet not want to admit their true feelings because it might interfere with social situations and like you said what if they think at the time they are satisfied, but later when having the time to weigh up all outcomes that they regret their former decision. What about a third party whom you have dissatisfied - yet are unaware of?

So it seems to me you think the 'our standards' reasoning? Can you truly know others' standards and what happens if they conflict with yours?

So you don't think consentual murder and cannibalism is wrong?

What if everyone did that?

If everyone consents to wipe civilisation off the planet, is that morally permissable?

Permissible:

-adjective
that can be permitted; allowable

Going by that, if a literal 100% of mankind allows something, we may go forth and do it - unless there is a higher being (or causation as you like to say) who needs to permit the action

 

[ballin4life]

How can you know that your actions have satisfied all participants? They could say they do, yet not want to admit their true feelings because it might interfere with social situations and like you said what if they think at the time they are satisfied, but later when having the time to weigh up all outcomes that they regret their former decision. What about a third party whom you have dissatisfied - yet are unaware of?

So it seems to me you think the 'our standards' reasoning? Can you truly know others' standards and what happens if they conflict with yours?


Permissible:


Going by that, if a literal 100% of mankind allows something, we may go forth and do it - unless there is a higher being (or causation as you like to say) who needs to permit the action

I didn't say that I personally had any knowledge of the situation. I am assuming that such a situation exists, and then declaring it to be morally good.

I do think that voluntary transactions between people in general satisfy these requirements. Regret and third parties being dissatisfied are the exceptions, but in general a voluntary transaction between two people usually doesn't meaningfully involve a third, and the majority of the time people do not regret their decisions.

As for the example of people not wanting to admit their so called "true feelings" - this is just another example of the manifestation of people's preferences. For example, I might not want to eat vegetables myself, but I eat them because my parents want me to. In this case, if I eat the vegetables, I actually am satisfied because I clearly value my parents' opinion more than my dislike of vegetables (otherwise I wouldn't have done it).

Actions reveal preferences, as each decision we make is what we think, at that moment, will increase our happiness the most.

So you don't think consentual murder and cannibalism is wrong?

What if everyone did that?

If everyone consents to wipe civilisation off the planet, is that morally permissable?

I don't have a problem with that if everyone agrees with it.

You clearly don't though, and neither do I, so I do have a problem with it

I don't think consensual murder is wrong, but I do think it is an area where we should be careful as regret is likely to manifest.

 

[Ballistics]

I never understood why they called it cheating, what game were you playing in the first place?

The girl is obviously morally wrong for breaking up with her boyfriend in a comment, what a wimp! Technically there isn't anything wrong about having sex with the other guy though.

Here is one thing that I've learnt about girls, it doesn't matter if you are in a relationship or friends with benefits, if you are having sex with them, they don't want you to have sex with anyone else in the time period that they are having sex with you. All labels aside.

Of course I am a polyamorist/swinger so it wouldn't bother me, as long as I get to be involved.

 

[Zatchiel]

I don't really think it's cheating, mainly because she was astray from her old boyfriend by a break-up, before she went with the other guy, then came back to her ex, impure, of course.

At the above post: I agree, if you've received a separation, i don't see what's wrong with finding someone else at an early interval during your search. I just find it a bit unjustified by how she would come back to her ex, asking to go back out with him, with abstinence pledge broken.
For all he knows, she could be carrying an STD.

 

[jaswa]

As for the example of people not wanting to admit their so called "true feelings" - this is just another example of the manifestation of people's preferences. For example, I might not want to eat vegetables myself, but I eat them because my parents want me to. In this case, if I eat the vegetables, I actually am satisfied because I clearly value my parents' opinion more than my dislike of vegetables (otherwise I wouldn't have done it).

I think you bring up a good point here that I hadn't thought of, ie. regarding the pleasing of others action over something personally displeasing.

Interestingly I was just reading this article and my Prime Minister said: "If we accept that, then it seems to me the moral question is not changed by the medium that the image has come through."

including child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

So here's an example of our Government controlling moral view. Should the State define morals? The state that was once heavily linked with the Church. Should the Church define morals? Should we all live by our own personal morals?

 

[ballin4life]

In my opinion (my morals), everyone should live by one's own morals, and people should come together when their morals agree (which is actually much of the time).

 

[Thino]

I'd argue that there are things that are inherently morally good.

Namely people interacting in ways that satisfy each person's individual morals.

so if someone's moral is to kill people , people interacting in a way that satisfy him/her is something you would consider good?

So you don't think consentual murder and cannibalism is wrong?

What if everyone did that?

If everyone consents to wipe civilisation off the planet, is that morally permissable?

according to my morals consentual murder and cannibalism are wrong in general , with some exceptions (euthanasia for someone who can't live with the definition that I have of life , cannibalism , in the case of a survivor of a plane crash lost in cold blizzard mountains)


if everyone did that , I would certainly be thinking the same way as everyone , because it seems that its the only way morals are accepted : if the majority does.

if every consents to wipe civiliszation off the planet that completely morally permissible , thinking otherwise would mean that we give an importance to the existance of civilization in first place , but based on what? There are chances that its based on morals.

In my opinion (my morals), everyone should live by one's own morals, and people should come together when their morals agree (which is actually much of the time).

I kind of disagree with the second part of your statement.

I believe the (current) situation is more like ", and people agree with morals that are agreed upon by most , and thats how they come together , even if their personal morals differ slightly".

it seems like a compromise to me , the goal being to be accepted by the society you live in , because humans are often raised as social beings , therefore fear to be thinking or acting in a way that could mean they would be expelled from that society they live in.

some personal morals are getting interiorized and not satisfied that way so it is a bit different from the way you consider it should be.

So here's an example of our Government controlling moral view. Should the State define morals? The state that was once heavily linked with the Church. Should the Church define morals? Should we all live by our own personal morals?

and which government doesn't do that? laws are made according to morals , the extent they're applied depends on the government

as soon as you say "SHOULD" , we already bathe in subjectivity and my reply will be based on my morals

I think we live in a context where peace between everyone has the most importance , in general , and according to that , living by one's own morals is to scratch already because that happen to be the cause of conflicts.

secondly , State , as well as Church was , stands as authority ( which is arguable ). That "allows" them to control morals along with many other things in the process

 

[ballin4life]

so if someone's moral is to kill people , people interacting in a way that satisfy him/her is something you would consider good?

If the counterparty's moral is to be killed. Otherwise no.

according to my morals consentual murder and cannibalism are wrong in general , with some exceptions (euthanasia for someone who can't live with the definition that I have of life , cannibalism , in the case of a survivor of a plane crash lost in cold blizzard mountains)

Is there a reason behind this or is it an axiom? I don't really see who it is harming if it is consensual (though I do think that people should be careful because of the regret factor). What exactly allows for the exception case where euthanasia is suddenly ok?

if everyone did that , I would certainly be thinking the same way as everyone , because it seems that its the only way morals are accepted : if the majority does.

if every consents to wipe civiliszation off the planet that completely morally permissible , thinking otherwise would mean that we give an importance to the existance of civilization in first place , but based on what? There are chances that its based on morals.


I kind of disagree with the second part of your statement.

I believe the (current) situation is more like ", and people agree with morals that are agreed upon by most , and thats how they come together , even if their personal morals differ slightly".

it seems like a compromise to me , the goal being to be accepted by the society you live in , because humans are often raised as social beings , therefore fear to be thinking or acting in a way that could mean they would be expelled from that society they live in.

some personal morals are getting interiorized and not satisfied that way so it is a bit different from the way you consider it should be.

I agree that plenty of things are compromises. This is exactly what I was talking about. People come together over the morals that they do agree with.

Can you give an example of personal morals "getting interiorized?"

and which government doesn't do that? laws are made according to morals , the extent they're applied depends on the government

as soon as you say "SHOULD" , we already bathe in subjectivity and my reply will be based on my morals

I think we live in a context where peace between everyone has the most importance , in general , and according to that , living by one's own morals is to scratch already because that happen to be the cause of conflicts.

secondly , State , as well as Church was , stands as authority ( which is arguable ). That "allows" them to control morals along with many other things in the process

Peace between everyone is important, and that is exactly what I advocate. People should interact using morals that they agree on (peace and nonviolence are usually included in people's moral systems).

I mean, each (non-hypocritical) person already does live by his/her own morals. Where those are compatible with others, they should interact.

 

[Thino]

If the counterparty's moral is to be killed. Otherwise no.

fine . it fits your morals.

Is there a reason behind this or is it an axiom? I don't really see who it is harming if it is consensual (though I do think that people should be careful because of the regret factor). What exactly allows for the exception case where euthanasia is suddenly ok?

no morals can be considered as axiom , mine as well as anyone else's.

the reason I believe consensual murder is "bad" , except for the regret factor , is that , when the reason are not extreme physical dependance on machines , I cannot think of any reasons why someone can agree to someone else's death except selfish reasons.

and I dislike selfishness in general , explaining why would be disgressing.

I agree that plenty of things are compromises. This is exactly what I was talking about. People come together over the morals that they do agree with.

I agree with you then.

Can you give an example of personal morals "getting interiorized?"

Incest for example , or scatophilia , or necrophilia

Peace between everyone is important, and that is exactly what I advocate. People should interact using morals that they agree on (peace and nonviolence are usually included in people's moral systems).

I mean, each (non-hypocritical) person already does live by his/her own morals. Where those are compatible with others, they should interact.

what is important still depends on your morals though.

the fact you consider peace as important is because of your morals.

there's no such thing as a reason or an axiom as you mentioned as to why peace is important.

 

[ballin4life]

What I meant by axiom vs reason was whether there was a higher principle at work. For example, my morals say that murder is wrong, but it comes from the higher principle that violent aggression is wrong.

I was also saying that most people think peace is important, so they tend to come together on peace. Those that don't (like murderers etc) are not treated peacefully (thrown in jail etc).

On consensual murder, how is killing someone selfish if they want to be killed? You are satisfying the other's wishes.

I'm also still a bit confused about what this meant: "some personal morals are getting interiorized and not satisfied that way so it is a bit different from the way you consider it should be."

 

[Jim Morrison]

Yup, because it's the boy not having any standards and being so desperate that he'll take her back after clearly breaking up with her.
The girl can do what she wants, she'll have her own consequences.

Not to say, it's still a ****-move.

 

[Thino]

What I meant by axiom vs reason was whether there was a higher principle at work. For example, my morals say that murder is wrong, but it comes from the higher principle that violent aggression is wrong.

then by that definition , my opinion doesn't come from an axiom

I was also saying that most people think peace is important, so they tend to come together on peace. Those that don't (like murderers etc) are not treated peacefully (thrown in jail etc).

granted.

On consensual murder, how is killing someone selfish if they want to be killed? You are satisfying the other's wishes.

I dont believe in humans accepting to kill someone dear and close to them without interest , and simply because the person wants it.

I'm also still a bit confused about what this meant: "some personal morals are getting interiorized and not satisfied that way so it is a bit different from the way you consider it should be."

because everyone enjoys following and applying his/her own morals , if somehow one's moral (let's take for example , thinking killing is good and benefitial in some way) conflicts the generally accepted one (killing is bad ) then that person , by fear of not being accepted or punishment (jail) , has to interiorize and never do it because its not generally accepted.

 

[ballin4life]

Oh, well in that case, there isn't really a conflict because they clearly value preserving the general morals more than they do following this other moral.

Now the reason that they value preserving the general morals may be selfish (as in, I don't kill people because I don't want to be thrown in jail), but I don't see what the issue is.