Right on Karrie, there's an exception to every rule - I guess old Hillary obviously accepted Bill's under the table extra curricular activities. :lol:
Is infidelity immoral?
- Thread starter ansutherland
- Start date
Right on Karrie, there's an exception to every rule - I guess old Hillary obviously accepted Bill's under the table extra curricular activities. :lol:
Ah, accepting it and condoning it aren't the same thing though... lol.
No.... it's pretty black and white in North American society. Unless you're making the argument that the spouse was coerced into the marriage and risks death if they leave the marriage, then you don't have much of a leg to stand on to excuse infidelity.
Yep, there's lies and then there's damned lies. What's best said to a very ill person who is quite upset about their condition? You look like sh*t? or You are looking so much better today?
It's blind faith that's a much bigger problem. If you cannot articulate your beliefs, your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny, or you believe them on blind faith, this is a problem.
Shouldn't we be able to define what is moral and what is not? Why is it necessary to have regional definitions for it?
What I see as the larger problem is that you seem to think the desire to not hurt other people is a matter of 'faith' and only a moral issue due to religion. That you would attempt to excuse infidelity in a marriage based on Iranian women being coerced and threatened into wearing Burkas, or it not being as bad as hitting a woman, or religion happening to agree that hurting people is bad, is beyond ridiculous.
I did define it, very clearly....
Breaking an agreement you made as an equal person, free of coercion, is immoral. You're looking to outside factors... religion, other countries, other people, to try to justify the actions of one person. That doesn't work. What matters is, does the wife expect fidelity? Was fidelity promised at marriage? If the answer to those is yes, then breaching that marriage contract is immoral.
Would anyone agree that the belief that infidelity is immoral is likely a result of jealousy which is evolutionarily connected to our propensity for cheating?
If this moral belief is an evolutionary vestige and serves no modern purpose provided no pregnancy's or STI's are transmitted, then is it truly rational in the modern world?
If this moral belief is an evolutionary vestige and serves no modern purpose provided no pregnancy's or STI's are transmitted, then is it truly rational in the modern world?
That's a completely different discussion. If you and your wife agree with one another that monogamy serves no rational purpose for you, and agree as equals that you do not need to be monogamous, then great. But you're not talking about that in your OP. You're talking about going behind someone's back. That makes the rationale you use to justify your actions pointless.
Yep, I bet he never "fooled around" on her again...........................................with Monica that is.
I'll tell you something, every time I am out in nature, and contemplate the beauty and the complexity of my surroundings, every time I look into the sky at night, every time I consider the earth, the universe, or any of the mysteries of life, or the unexplained phenomena of our existence, I realize I am totally incapable of the massive leap of blind faith necessary to accept it all as a simple accident.
There is no one with more blind faith than an atheist.
As for your second question;
"Shouldn't we be able to define what is moral and what is not? Why is it necessary to have regional definitions for it?"
Therein lies the flaw, that way lies the path to the Gulag, to Auschwitz, to murder, mayhem and corruption, subject only to man's ability to rationalize the "morality" of it all........
Not at all. Morality, to the dismay of the religious, has it's roots in our evolution. That is the reason why morals and moral relativism exist. If it served a strong evolutionary purpose, in all likelihood we have a moral code to describe it. That moral code and the way we try to articulate it is written in our genes. Because of it's genetic causes, it's just assumed to be true, but that does not always make it so.
These morals served as a valuable survival strategy, hence the reason why they spread. There are however exceptions to all of these rules.....we all seem to know what they are, but we can't always explain when they apply. My claim is that despite the rule against infidelity being genetically based, it no longer need apply provided two criteria are applied: No unwanted pregnancies and no STI's. It is after all the former of those two (unwanted pregnancies) that is probably most responsible for the genetic proliferation of this social law. So, if morals are dependent on enhancing the survivability of our species and enhancing the likelihood that you will spread your genes, how is this an issue of morality in a modern world?
Now of course it's assumed that by asking I am therefore trying to justify my own actions, which is not the case. I ask merely for sport. I could have asked the same question about killing another person, yet this would not mean I am a killer. I have a feeling too that no one would suggest I am, but for some reason, this particular question ruffles even more feathers than a discussion about killing another person. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but it sure seems that way. It is this response from others that really helps to solidify my case; that these feelings to some extent are not rational.
You're not ruffling feathers, nor do my answers mean to imply that you're asking for yourself, my reply of "if you and your wife" is merely a way to point out that individual agreements vary.
You are glossing over the fact that such infidelity carries the potential to deeply wound your spouse, no matter the evolutionary reasons for that pain.
You are glossing over the fact that such infidelity carries the potential to deeply wound your spouse, no matter the evolutionary reasons for that pain.
I was about to claim that you are arguing the wrong points, as this is not a religious debate......I have to some extent rethought that. If you think we get our morals from religion, that's fine, but you have a lot of work ahead of you. You first need a proof that your religion is true and that it should in any way be taken seriously.
When you lie and cheat, means that your word has no value. Nobody can rely on you for anything, and in business you will quickly run out of people to work with, as nobody could trust you.
Exactly... inability to honour a contract (or the ability to justify to oneself the reasons for breaking it) means the same thing in all areas of life.
A contract is your word. If your word is no good neither are you. Actually moral people do not need written contracts. Lawyers and politicians oth do.
That would be illegal and against my principals but not necessarily immoral since I don't have any religion. A preacher OTH is in a position of trust and professes to be better than us mere mortals although one would have a hard time believing it since so many of them like boys.
Why is it not called infidality or immoral when a religious man has more than one wife?
But using my evolutionary argument, I would agree that in business, it is immoral.....keep in mind my evolutionary argument. In business, when you break an agreement, the negative implications of your actions can often be quantified....say in the amount of money your breach of contract cost. There are survival implications here. Add to this that fact that you are doing something directly to the other person.....say stealing their money or business. I think it can be rightfully argued that infidelity is a vestigial moral provided your actions don't directly affect the other person.
I suppose in many ways, our inability to agree brings up a more salient issue, that being, what is truth? We evidently see two versions of it. Is one of us right, or are we both to some extent right?
"That would be illegal and against my principals but not necessarily immoral since I don't have any religion". What?? We are talking about the raping of boys by the church right? This is not Necessarily immoral if you don't have a religion, just against your principles and illegal. Wow. Raping little kids is the very essence of immoral.
No, I'm quite sure I'm right on this one.
You are right ONLY if you take emotional pain and the breakup of family units out of the equation. Alas, no matter how often or how hard people try, affairs rarely stay secret, and thus the emotional pain and breakup of family units is very much a part of the equation.