Cheating and morals

[cheese]

Disclaimer: It's not me in this situation, dammit. This is a theoretical discussion.

Most of us are familiar with the idea that cheating on a partner, with whom you have an exclusive romantic/sexual relationship, is wrong.

The question of the secondary partner's (accomplice, if you will) guilt is much more contentious though.


So the question is basically:

Is it wrong to date someone who is already in an exclusive relationship with another?
Assumption: You are aware of their existing relationship. You are not ignorant.


Feel free to present arguments from several different frameworks, but please also tell me which you identify with most.


Note:
Please don't take the easy way out and provide a reductionist's account of morality, swiped off the back of an evolutionary psychologist, unless you have something constructive to offer (eg a new code to live by). Simply saying 'Morality is an illusion' is useless.
If you wish to go this route, please also provide a new code* and your arguments for it, then relate it back to this specific issue.

*Even if said code is that there should be no code, etc. Again, please back up your thoughts.

Arguments-from-nature will not be tolerated. Cog will turn your kidneys into battery fuel. (Or some other tech thing.) (Tech fail.) (IMMORTALITY FAIL.)



ACTUALLY I DON'T CARE. JUST GIVE ME SOME GODDAMN ANSWERS AND BE QUICK ABOUT IT.

 

[cheese]

I put this in the Lounge because the Human Relationships sub-forum seems to be more of an Aunt Agony niche.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Cog will turn your kidneys into battery fuel.

I like a challenge.

(IMMORTALITY FAIL.)

Say what?

Is it wrong to date someone who is already in an exclusive relationship with another?

Subjectively it's immoral.
Objectively morality means f#ck-all.

My personal opinion is that if you can date someone who's already in a relationship than clearly it's not really a relationship is it? So the moral thing to do would be to ask the one you're dating to either end said relationship or approach the partner being cheated on and make the situation clear yourself. If it comes down to a physical confrontation, do nothing, absolutely nothing; women are the most sadistic creatures on earth and there's nothing they love more than a guy that's willing to take a beating for them.

But if you really don't want to get hurt, then don't keep seeing her.
It's not morality, it's common sense.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

The 'mortal sins' according to my moral code are deception, subversion of another person's free will (which includes rape, manipulation, torture etc.) and the repression of ideas. I could not in good conscience deceive someone or become intimate with someone I knew was involved with someone else.

If it comes down to a physical confrontation, do nothing, absolutely nothing; women are the most sadistic creatures on earth and there's nothing they love more than a guy that's willing to take a beating for them.

........generalizing much?

I've observed this behavior in both sexes, though when females fight over a male it's less likely to be physical though it's equally destructive. In evolutionary terms it makes sense for an organism to 'enjoy' when its potential mates compete. That way it ensures the 'superior genes' pass on.

However this is a very animalistic tendency; anyone with a halfway evolved brain and a sense of ethics doesn't behave in such a way or encourage such behavior.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

........generalizing much?

I see no virtue in shying away from controversy

Anyway if I choose to hold a less than positive view of general society it doesn’t necessitate that I believe there are no exceptions, I would clearly be a fool to think such and surprised to discover anyone else thought of me as such a fool. Also would it not make sense for an admitted misanthropist such as myself to ascribe more value those exceptions in accordance to how uncommon they are?

If it's truly necessary I apologize for my wording (well, lack thereof), but not my belief.

Need I also include a reassurance clause to prevent this post being misinterpreted?

 

[chloé]

But morality is an illusion!!

Ok. Since I can't go that route ...

In my personal life, I wouldn't have a problem being that person because it's not my problem if someone else wants to cheat on their wife. I don't have much interest in the concept of marriage to begin with; life throws too many angles at you, who knows what you'll want in the future.

If I had personal interest in the emotional wellness of the married couple, I would consider my decision carefully based on that. But .. I'm not good friends with many married couples, so that probably won't happen.

You've really deprived me of my resource of intellectual breadth by ruling out the morality-is-just-a-subjective-societal-manipulative-tool option.

*sulks*

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I see no virtue in shying away from controversy

Anyway if I choose to hold a less than positive view of general society it doesn’t necessitate that I believe there are no exceptions, I would clearly be a fool to think such and surprised to discover anyone else thought of me as such a fool. Also would it not make sense for an admitted misanthropist such as myself to ascribe more value those exceptions in accordance to how uncommon they are?

When generalizations are accepted they seem detract from the exceptions. I suppose sometimes they hit a little close to home; but without this disparity I'd lose 'faith' in humanity. Exceptions are these beautiful little imperfections that dot an otherwise terrifying and grotesque uniform mass. These exceptions are proof that humanity can change and grow. We're not hopeless; at least not yet. However with every successful, widely accepted generalization; it feels like we lose a bit of that potential. The exceptions Cognisant, they are what I live for.

Sorry if I'm not quite coherent.

If it's truly necessary I apologize for my wording (well, lack thereof), but not my belief.

Gah, anything but that! I beg you! The moment someone else apologizes I feel like a prick.

Need I also include a reassurance clause to prevent this post being misinterpreted?

No, but a qualifier might be nice.

But morality is an illusion!!

The morality beaten into you by society, yes. It's really just behavioral training.

The morality you chose, because there is something in this world of value to you; that is real. However if there is nothing you value, then it follows that you would have no morality, and also no motivation or purpose. I value truth, freedom, and progress. My motivation and my self-derived purpose stem from these ideals.

Certainly you have motivations of some sort, even if it is simply a biological one. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an underlying morality that you've either yet to explore or simply deny. Of course it may be the a type of morality that permits cannibalism. Since morality is simply an inner system of beliefs that guide your behavior. Really the parameters of a morality are quite large and flexible.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

However with every successful, widely accepted generalization; it feels like we lose a bit of that potential.

Noted, interesting.

Gah, anything but that! I beg you! The moment someone else apologizes I feel like a prick.

If it makes you feel any better I'm cognisant of it
(not you specifically, it's a common reaction)

 

[Tyria]

Is it wrong to date someone who is already in an exclusive relationship with another?
Assumption: You are aware of their existing relationship. You are not ignorant.

I think it's wrong. It devalues the existing relationship between two people, exposes the other partner to the possibility of STDs, and is a pretty low thing to do to someone else. You're acting as a catalyst for either conflict, mistrust, and/or a possible breakup.

 

[ziggy]

Is it wrong to date someone who is already in an exclusive relationship with another?
Assumption: You are aware of their existing relationship. You are not ignorant

Aside from the morality issues, it doesn't seem to make much sense to date someone who is already in a relationship. It's quite obvious that they're already cheating on their current partner, so why would you set yourself up to be in the same position? If you're just looking to have a fling, then that's a different story.

 

[cuterebra]

I had a relationship with a married man before I was married. It was me that was cheating, so why would I feel guilty? It isn't my responsibility to keep another person's vows--people make their own decisions.

I would never have a serious relationship with a married person--that would be foolish--but a nice shallow commitment-free fling, as Ziggy noted, is a different story.

 

[EditorOne]

It becomes easier to figure out if it isn't abstract.

If you know and are friends with what we'll call "the deceived partner," you are likely to feel bad about it for years, whether they know they were deceived or not. You can potentially extrapolate the morality of it from the particular to the general if you want.

Be aware that some people do weird things in these circumstances that can make YOU feel used. My wife and I recently picked up a friend who'd been stranded at work by circumstances; she was having a tough time at home with her husband, who could not come to her rescue in this case. She later clawed him pretty good, told him I'd picked her up, leaving the fact that my wife was with me, implying I had a relationship with her. Yikes!

So whatever you're about to get into, dude, Eyes Wide Open. You may not be the object of someone's affection, you may be a tool to an end you don't even know about.

 

[Schneizel]

If I found myself dating a man who already had a partner, I would have no interest in a "relationship", but would have no issue having sex with him "on the side". The feelings of the person he's already with are irrelevant, whether or not he/she finds out.

 

[cheese]

You've really deprived me of my resource of intellectual breadth by ruling out the morality-is-just-a-subjective-societal-manipulative-tool option.

*sulks*

No no, I was against people attempting to close off the discussion by hanging the deadweight of subjectivity on it.

If you think it's just a tool, go ahead and use that as your base from which to explore what kind of rules there should be in society, if any, and how this particular situation 'should' play out.

Adaire also put it quite nicely.

 

[cheese]

What about the argument that the only contract of trust that's being broken is between the cheater (C) and the cheated-on (CO)? The accomplice (A) has not broken any explicit contract. (This is similar to cuterebra's view.)

and is a pretty low thing to do to someone else. You're acting as a catalyst for either conflict, mistrust, and/or a possible breakup.

The mechanisms for the above are already at work if C is willing to cheat. All the hurt involved is brought on by C, not by A. (I'm assuming A is not a friend.) Therefore A is irrelevant. It could be anyone - the hurt will still be caused as long as C decides to cheat with someone. A is not directly responsible for anything, and is just a tool.
The seeds for hurt are already sown - C is willing to cheat. That is where the source of CO's potential hurt lies.

Argument against the above:

Agency - free will, the ability to choose - shits on that. It could be anyone, but it doesn't have to be YOU. You can choose not to aid in hurting someone.

Argument against the counter-argument:

If it makes no tangible difference, why is it wrong?

Argument against ^:

If a murderer had a million people from which to choose an accomplice and he chose you and you (for whatever reason) wanted to, is there any point refusing? Assume no negative consequences on your part for refusing, and that at least one other person in the crowd is willing. It's either you or someone else - if you're tempted, why not?

Potential counter-argument:
Ground this in reality. You have no way of knowing for sure if someone else is willing to cheat with C. There is no situation in life where we would possess all the necessary information. The analogy is meaningless.



The real issue is: Is culpability limited by effect? ie if there is no real effect - eg if CO never finds out, and therefore never gets hurt, and if neither A nor C has a guilty conscience - should they still adhere to an abstract anti-hurt/deception/whatever principle?

Absolute vs. situational ethics.

I would guess that, to approximate ordered, harmonious lives as far as possible, the absolute is necessary, because of uncertainty. Since no one ever has all the relevant information, it's best for each individual to stick to a standard. The full benefits of this can only be reaped if every individual follows though. It's the recycling principle - everyone has to act as if individually, they make a difference, even if they don't. Because the I'm-too-small-to-have-an-effect mindset is pretty disruptive on a large scale, and the only way to keep the Whole running is to marshall the parts. So if you, one person, do XYZ, you can hope that everyone else is also doing XYZ, and that the combined efforts will result in pleasant benefits for everyone involved.


More responses please. Create arguments and knock them down.

 

[echoplex]

Interesting topic.

What about the argument that the only contract of trust that's being broken is between the cheater (C) and the cheated-on (CO)? The accomplice (A) has not broken any explicit contract. (This is similar to cuterebra's view.)

The mechanisms for the above are already at work if C is willing to cheat. All the hurt involved is brought on by C, not by A. (I'm assuming A is not a friend.) Therefore A is irrelevant. It could be anyone - the hurt will still be caused as long as C decides to cheat with someone. A is not directly responsible for anything, and is just a tool.
The seeds for hurt are already sown - C is willing to cheat. That is where the source of CO's potential hurt lies.

(Nice abbreviations. I'm going to steal them without asking.)

True, C does decide to cheat, but that decision may have been made much more tempting by A. In fact, we could easily refer to A as T (Temptation) instead. If you're A, you can't assume that C was going to cheat on someone anyway. What if every person C attempts to cheat with rejects C? What if C only wants to cheat with you because you're special (or more available) to them in some way? In that scenario, you hold the key to infidelity -- well, half of the key.

Of course, you raise a good point about willingness. But one might argue that almost anyone would be willing to cheat given the right set of variables. This willingness can only really be proven by action, although I've heard of marriages being ruined because a spouse talks in their sleep about their wishes to cheat. One might also argue that a key function of a loving relationship is the ability to forgive the other's less-than-desirable desires. Thus, knowing your partner is willing to cheat might call for more love, not less.

Another factor might be the nature of C and CO's relationship. What if CO is abusing C in some way? How does that affect the moral implications of cheating? What if CO is not making sufficient effort for the relationship? One could say that C's actions, irresponsible as they may be, are just an attempt (albeit a bad one) to communicate their displeasure with CO. If CO is abusive in some way, C may feel that acting out is their only way to get their feelings across to CO. This doesn't make C's actions "good", but I think it affects the way I'd view them morally.

So, back to A: If A knows that C's relationship is abusive/unhappy, does that make their actions acceptable? I would still say no, but I think it's a tough call. For one, if A really cares about C, they might show a little "tough love" by forcing C to end things with CO before moving on to A. You could argue that A would be playing to role of enabler by letting C cheat with A while still involved with CO, despite their unhappiness. So, A's "sin", by this logic, wouldn't be hurting CO so much as hurting C by enabling a bad situation. (although I think CO would also benefit from ending things with C, ultimately)

But yeah, it takes two to tango, so A can't just escape culpability. Although C will always appear more guilty, and even CO may be guilty too. Either way, relationships shouldn't end by cheating, they should just, well, end.

 

[Tyria]

I would like to apologize.

I didn't read the topic closely enough before I posted (This is a theoretical discussion). I thus responded in a subjective/personal manner which is not the basis of this topic.

I don't believe that I will be able to add much to the discussion here. I thought that I would post before I left the topic to make my intentions clear.

 

[Felan]

It would utterly immoral. If one of my wives cheated on me it could break the millenia long chain of divinity. I myself would not be bothered by it but the harm and grief it would cause my subjects is immeasurable. By that standard it is better to kill any wife suspected of infelidity.

 

[chloé]

The morality you chose, because there is something in this world of value to you; that is real. However if there is nothing you value, then it follows that you would have no morality, and also no motivation or purpose.

This is a new definition of "morality" to me. I looked at some online definitions, and your idea was certainly among them (morality simply being a certain code of conduct), but the more widespead conception of morality implies that the idea of "right" and "wrong" must exist. So I guess it depends on how you want to look at it.

Yes, I do have personal values, but I don't place them on any scale of right or wrong. E.g. as an individual I would be deeply offended if someone murdered my familiy, but intellectually I know that that act isn't inherently "wrong"; it just bothers me on a human level. That's basically how I think of morality.

No no, I was against people attempting to close off the discussion by hanging the deadweight of subjectivity on it.

If you think it's just a tool, go ahead and use that as your base from which to explore what kind of rules there should be in society, if any, and how this particular situation 'should' play out.

Unfortunately that cancels itself out because if I do in fact believe in no morality, I'm unable to have any opinion of what "should" happen. I sound stubborn here, but I actually frustrate myself to no end, because I always self-defeat like this before even being able to have much of a discussion. (I call it the nihilist's existential crisis.) So I generally try to avoid arguing from this point of view.



I do think this is an interesting topic and I'll add some ideas ...

I would guess that, to approximate ordered, harmonious lives as far as possible, the absolute is necessary, because of uncertainty. Since no one ever has all the relevant information, it's best for each individual to stick to a standard. The full benefits of this can only be reaped if every individual follows though. It's the recycling principle - everyone has to act as if individually, they make a difference, even if they don't. Because the I'm-too-small-to-have-an-effect mindset is pretty disruptive on a large scale, and the only way to keep the Whole running is to marshall the parts. So if you, one person, do XYZ, you can hope that everyone else is also doing XYZ, and that the combined efforts will result in pleasant benefits for everyone involved.

I think this is exactly right. We're all conditioned to think along the "correct" path, promoting a progressive, cooperational society. The beauty of it is in the paradox that while this collective mind occurs in collective subconscious, on the surface we really do believe that we're unique and we're coming up with individual ideas. We're kept happy about the way we think. What really matters is that our thoughts fit into a pre-conceived box of "this is acceptable that you feel this way". There's plenty of wiggle room for small feats of "individuality" within that box. Anything that deviates far enough from social norm to fall outside the box is immediately labeled, disallowing further investigation, and cast out of sight and out of mind.

But this is of course necessary in order for the human species to thrive and evolve.

So then - "is culpability labeled by effect?" - no, it can't be allowed to be. Culpability can be argued in so many ways (as is demonstrated in this thread), but all this confusion can be avoided thanks to the conscience. The inner drill sergeant which allows us to completely cast aside rational questioning when it comes to matters of human well-being.

I would like to apologize.

I didn't read the topic closely enough before I posted (This is a theoretical discussion). I thus responded in a subjective/personal manner which is not the basis of this topic.

I think your subjective opinion is still very useful, since this thread means to explore all possibilities and sets of moral values. Individual examples do add to this.

 

[fullerene]

"All the hurt involved is brought on by C, not by A. (I'm assuming A is not a friend.) Therefore A is irrelevant."

This is a pretty steep assumption to be making. Without arguing-from-nature, how do you back up the fact that if someone's not your friend, then they're irrelevant?

 

[Firehazard159]

women are the most sadistic creatures on earth and there's nothing they love more than a guy that's willing to take a beating for them.

...I <3 you for this.

:'(

 

[cheese]

Crim:
Actually, I added the disclaimer after reading several of the responses. No harm done either way anyway.

cryptonia:
I meant friend-betrayal is not a factor in the hurt-stew. The leap from that to strangers being totally irrelevant was definitely not intended - though some do indeed see things that way.
CO would probably experience anger at A, but people are more inclined to forego personal benefit on account of hurt to another party rather than anger (unless the latter has physical repercussions).


Other people:
I'm just going to let the responses play off each other for now. I have read them all though and they're very interesting. Thanks.

 

[Da Blob]

I am sorry, but I just have to laugh at all those who get, hurt, abandoned and betrayed by partners who have a history of cheating in relationships.

Okay so he or she is lying to their current partner when you meet she or he. So from the very beginning One KNOWS that one is dealing with a liar of the worst kind. Somehow one is able to delude one's self into believing that all of the sudden this person has learned to tell the truth?

Good God, what fools! Cheaters are a cheaper source of sex than prostitutes. However, prostitutes are better company...

 

[cuterebra]

I had a friend who preferred married men because she found them less demanding and more suitable for casual dating/sex. For all the stereotypes, most of my female friends and I (admittedly, a fiercely independent lot) have found that men generally want commitment. Sex and other fun recreational activities with attractive young woman on Fridays and the occasional holiday, no strings attached--you'd think guys would love it, but before long they want to spend the night, see you on Wednesdays, take you home to meet their moms, father your children...

 

[ohrtonz]

If someone I was starting to date was already with someone and I knew. And she knew I knew. Then, it's her choice. But at some point she will have to decide if I start getting deeper feelings, connection.

rambling about an experience with a girl already having a boyfriend....

Spoiler

I actually met someone online that was currently out of state on vacation. She was super cute (would act like a puppy on my shoulder), she was also bipolar. But we ended up going out when she got back and she dumped her BF. I actually talked with the guy and met him in person at local band shows. He was not confrontational about it, and was kinda tired of her I guess lol. But anyways. We broke up then a year later after not talking I went to her place and we cuddled. But she had a boyfriend. We both said "what are we gonna do? i dunno" I would like to think that I told her it's up to her but I can't remember. That was pretty much it. Didn't hang out again and slowly stopped talking. Several years later we crossed paths a few times at the store with her husband. I didn't say anything. We didn't pass directly towards each other, it was usually me seeing her down an aisle or something like that.

 

[Firehazard159]

I had a friend who preferred married men because she found them less demanding and more suitable for casual dating/sex. For all the stereotypes, most of my female friends and I (admittedly, a fiercely independent lot) have found that men generally want commitment. Sex and other fun recreational activities with attractive young woman on Fridays and the occasional holiday, no strings attached--you'd think guys would love it, but before long they want to spend the night, see you on Wednesdays, take you home to meet their moms, father your children...

Oh the irony in this statement -_-

Funny how you just totally reinforced Blobs statement, too. XD

Makes me really dislike women even more from a relationship perspective. No offense.

 

[Jennywocky]

women are the most sadistic creatures on earth and there's nothing they love more than a guy that's willing to take a beating for them.

...I <3 you for this.

Wow, *smooches* to all -- now I feel understood and loved.

Actually, serious for a moment, in my relationship with guys, for someone to stand up for me like that or look out for me means a lot ... not in the sense I have power, but in the sense I know this person will love me and take care of me at risk to him, so he's more likely to be trustworthy with my heart if I give it to him and emotionally open myself up to him. I can depend on him, and I know he's not a coward.

At the same time, I'm not much into watching guys physically fight, often it seems unnecessary; and I'd feel terrible for someone who got hurt defending me, and maybe even a little annoyed if he's usually pushing for physical confrontation without looking at other options first. In general, all I need to know that, if the chips are down and there's no way around, he'll be there for me.

I am sorry, but I just have to laugh at all those who get, hurt, abandoned and betrayed by partners who have a history of cheating in relationships.

Okay so he or she is lying to their current partner when you meet she or he. So from the very beginning One KNOWS that one is dealing with a liar of the worst kind. Somehow one is able to delude one's self into believing that all of the sudden this person has learned to tell the truth?

Good God, what fools! Cheaters are a cheaper source of sex than prostitutes. However, prostitutes are better company...

Yay, something we totally agree on!

Don't date a cheater and expect you to somehow receive special treatment.
If they can cheat on their current partner, what makes you think they'll do any different with you? That just seems, frankly, stupid to me.

I guess if you're just into various thrills and no commitment, go for it if you have to, but don't be foolish enough to think you're special.

I had a friend who preferred married men because she found them less demanding and more suitable for casual dating/sex.

Well, the gist is usually the guy who can maintain a wife (for security, taking care of kids, maintaining house, being there for social events, etc.) as well as screw someone else freely on the side is in an ideal position, at least from the realm of self-gratification. I always laughed at women who thought he'd leave his wife; he has no incentive to do that! What, disrupt his entire stable plane of existence and try to rebuild with this new woman who he doesn't quite know well enough yet? (and then there is alimony and child support).

For all the stereotypes, most of my female friends and I (admittedly, a fiercely independent lot) have found that men generally want commitment. Sex and other fun recreational activities with attractive young woman on Fridays and the occasional holiday, no strings attached--you'd think guys would love it, but before long they want to spend the night, see you on Wednesdays, take you home to meet their moms, father your children...

If they're single.

I'm not sure it's exactly the same sort of attachment a woman feels, though... same basic gist, just filtered differently. Guys seem to still demand a much larger chain and freedom to roam with their time, while wanting to have the commitment in place.

* * * * *

Oh yeah, to answer the OP directly:

I'm not going to argue this from a "theoretical POV."
I don't have to do it that way, I've had lots of real-life experience.

1. It is stupid to be consciously involved in a relationship with a cheater, especially if you're looking for something "real." You're just a fling to them. They will probably cheat on you later; don't worry, you'll get your turn.

2. You are allowing someone else to be tricked and cheated upon; their trust is being tarnished, mocked, taken advantage of. You are an enabler.

3. If there are kids involved, you are participating (indirectly) with emotional damage being inflicted on them; insecurities, anger, and depression caused by parents divorcing over an adultery is a heavy load to carry, do you really want that? A friend of mine's dad (a pastor, nonetheless) cheated on his mom, then dumped her and married the gf. It's been 10-15 years and he never got over it, and it ruins his objectivity when dealing with counseling people nowadays. What a load of baggage dumped on other human beings, because you had to get involved knowingly with a married person.

4. You are investing resources in someone who is enmeshed. You'd do better building fresh, it's a bad investment.

I tend not to approach things from purely moral standpoints, my moral standpoints are generally derived from seeing how human dynamics work out. It might mirror conventional morality that has not been thought through, but in cases like these, conventional wisdom/morality bears listening to.

While I still do not prefer it, I tend to place less strictures on situations where either both spouses know (and are "okay" with it), or the marriage is basically ending, will end shortly, etc., and it's obvious you have no real influence over the situation... but even then it's sort of a headache and a morass and it still seems better to stay away.

 

[cuterebra]

Oh the irony in this statement -_-

Funny how you just totally reinforced Blobs statement, too. XD

Makes me really dislike women even more from a relationship perspective. No offense.

If a woman is honest with you from the beginning about what she wants from the relationship, then what's the problem?

My point is that, at least in the U.S., there seem to be a lot of people who buy the "every woman is looking to bag a husband" mentality when it simply isn't true. Women whose priorities lie elsewhere (higher education, a career, exploring the world, etc.) quite reasonably feel that settling down early puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of their goals. Most people in their 20s or even 30s are figuring out what the want to do or how they want to do it, and the ability to jump at opportunities when they arise is crucial for the career-oriented at this time in their lives. Serious relationships compromise mobility, so it makes sense to hold off on them until mobility isn't as important.

But we're human. Sex, companionship, these things even INTP and ENTJ women crave. Do you expect us to act like nuns until we're finally ready to settle down?

Let me be clear. I am not talking about women who lie or deceive their partners in any way. I believe honesty and communication are extremely important in all relationships (including those that are strictly platonic). But somehow, no matter what statements and disclaimers are made at the beginning, guys always seem to think we'll change our minds.

Maybe this has nothing to do with stereotypes or even gender--maybe it's just a human thing, or a personality type thing. Maybe NT women attract men who are hardwired for commitment. Whatever the case, it's no reason to "dislike women from a relationship perspective." If we tell you what we are willing to give and what we want in return, suck it up and bow out if you find the terms unacceptable. If these things haven't been made clear, then ask.

 

[cheese]

Here's a very clear and succint reformulation of my main argument against blame, courtesy of RobertJ:

Well, the woman is violating a statute that the man is not, assuming the man has no partner on whom to cheat. They are both willing partners in the act, but there is an extra dimension to the woman's side of the equation.
He is enabling the woman's deception, but the deception is the will of the woman. If I am to blame the man on equal terms, I am undermining the woman's ability to freely exercise her will. Which very well may be the case, but why should the man (enabler) be blamed for this?
Her will to deceive has manifested regardless of the man's enabling. The actual consummation of it is an irrelevant technicality in my eyes.

My question is: how do we assign blame? It has implications for the legal system. Obviously at the moment, accomplices are held in pretty low esteem, but why? Is it because of choice? Agency allows moral blame, although not necessarily full functional blame.

The problem is that I cannot see a way to determine cause satisfactorily. As mentioned earlier, A is not the only possible option. He's a sufficient (when coupled with C), not necessary cause. The only necessary cause for all the destruction mentioned is the cheater, C.

When viewed as moral individuals of course then A becomes an enabler. But if seen merely as a tool, a means to an end determined by C - what difference does it make? But I suppose the moral lens is the whole point - and it has rational grounding in that the taboo (hopefully) lowers the frequency of community-disruption.

The situation is much more complex in real life, as well. echoplex showed several ways A(+C) could be more than a mere sufficient cause. I think seeing people as individuals helps clarify this - the tendency to reduce all to formulae is a failure to recognise the number of variables involved (and hence the inaccuracy of whatever equations derived). There are numerous reasons one would cheat, and I don't think blame can be attributed solely to C.

I think the dynamics in any form of interaction are very complex. The input and output of information is entwined to a degree that makes determining specific points of influence very difficult. The greater the complexity, the more the illusion of chance, and therefore freedom/choice. I think this is how the mind is formed from the brain.



chloe:
I don't think it cancels out. I was suggesting you provide an account of how you think current morality (in whatever culture you're from; I assume the west) has taken shape, and how it's beneficial or harmful, according to whatever purpose/goals/desires you have. From there, construct a system with the greatest benefit (in whatever framework of desired attainment you choose) and respond accordingly. Naturally this will be founded on your own personal inclinations - as with everyone else.

Alternatively, you could just address the issue from the perspective of cause.